Dispute on the defense of E.E. Golubinsky in 1880, doctoral dissertation “History of the Russian Church”: source study aspects

The significance of the scientific activity of academician, professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Evgeny Evstigneevich (Evsigneevich) Golubinsky (1834–1912) is generally recognized. He is the author of a number of fundamental studies on the history of the establishment of Orthodoxy in ancient and medieval Russian society, Russian-Byzantine religious ties, and the church administration of Kievan and northeastern Rus' in the 10th and 10th centuries. and the Russian state of the end of the 15th - first half of the 16th centuries. E.E. Golubinsky as a scientist was distinguished by the clarity of his plans and formulation of scientific problems, the depth of his analysis, and his independence of thought. According to his student S.A. Belokurov, E.E. Golubinsky, “being a straightforward person, ... loved to call everything by its proper name, without looking for any soft expressions” (Orthodox community. 1991. N 5. P. 33). Born into the family of a Kologrivsky priest. Kostroma province, he grew up “among the peasant poor on parish offerings and was brought up under need in theological schools,” hard work in them and brilliant abilities opened the way for him to the Moscow Theological Academy, where E.E. Golubinsky in 1859 defended his master’s thesis “On the mode of action of the Orthodox Greco-Roman sovereigns in 1U, U, U1st century in favor of the church, against heretics and schismatics” (published at the same time in the collection: Additions to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. M. 1859). Since 1860, the young master of theology began to lecture at his alma mater - the Moscow Theological Academy. By the beginning of the 80s. E.E. Golubinsky is already a well-known and recognized scientist in the scientific field: he participates as a full member in the work of the Society of Ancient Russian Art at the Moscow Public Museum, the Society of Russian History and Antiquities at Moscow University, and the Society of St. Nestor the Chronicler in Kyiv. For more than 50 years of his scientific activity (1859–1912), E.E. Golubinsky became the author of many extensive studies, including the monographs “A Brief Essay on the History of the Orthodox Churches of the Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian, or Moldova-Wallash” (M., 1871), “Essay on the History of Enlightenment among the Greeks from the Time of the Capture of Constantinople by the Turks to the Present Century” (M., 1872), “Christianity in Russia before St. Vladimir” (M., 1876), “The History of the Canonization of Saints in the Russian Church” (Sergiev Posad, 1894), “On Our Polemic with the Old Believers” (M., 1896. For more details, see: Polunov A.Yu., Soloviev I.V. Life and Works of an Academician E.E. Golubinsky M., 1998). His main work is the fundamental “History of the Russian Church” (Vol. 1-P.M. 1880–1900), which brought E.E. Golubinsky the fame of an outstanding church historian during his lifetime. At the end of 1880, at the Moscow Theological Academy, E.E. Golubinsky, then its extraordinary professor, defended the just published first part of the first volume of “History of the Russian Church” as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Theology. E.E. Golubinsky recalled his doctoral disputation as follows: “My doctoral disputation took place on December 16, 1880. I will not say at all that I passed it brilliantly. Being not entirely healthy physically and feeling for some reason morally oppressed, I debated with my opponents not with the vivacity and vivacity that was expected of me. However, he came out of the competition with them with honor" (Memoirs of E.E. Golubinsky. Recorded from his words by his student and successor in the department at the Moscow Theological Academy, Prof. S.I. Smirnov, except for the first part written by E.E. Golubinsky himself. Kostroma, 1923. p. 53). The debate attracted a large audience: “a lot of people came, so there weren’t enough usual seats in the assembly hall.” (Orthodox Review. M. 1881. T.1. N 1 (January). P.149). In addition to professors, teachers and students of the academy, there were “scientists and lovers of science who do not belong to the academy” in the hall - the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Leonid, Count M.V. Tolstoy, historians A.E. Viktorov, E.V. Barsov, editors of spiritual magazines - “Orthodox Review” P.A. Preobrazhensky, “Soulful Reading” V.P. Nechaev, and “in addition, many other secular and spiritual persons arrived (Orthodox Review... P. 149). The debate lasted “with great animation for three and a half hours...”, during all this time a large audience followed what was happening with intense attention and interrupted the silence only with repeated statements of their sympathy for the disputant.” The audience greeted the appearance of E.E. Golubinsky at the department with “sincere, long-lasting applause... At the end of the debate, there was no end to the noisy and heartfelt applause” (Orthodox Review... P. 149). E.E. Golubinsky formulated the main provisions of the dissertation in 17 detailed theses, the content of which boiled down to the statements that “the actual appearance of Christians in Kyiv among the Varangians took place no later than the beginning of the reign of the Great. book Igor." Olga was baptized not in Constantinople, as Konstantin Porphyrogenet writes about this, but in Kyiv or in Russia in general.” “The story of Vladimir’s baptism” and his “testing” of different faiths, as well as “that he was baptized in Korsun, which he conquered,” should be recognized “as a later legend.” “The most probable story of Vladimir’s conversion to Christianity should be presented in such a way that he, disposed towards Christianity by example and (perhaps) by the direct teaching of his grandmother St. Olga and having risen to the understanding of his superiority over paganism with his own mind, was finally convinced of his acceptance by the Kyiv Christian Varangians. Baptized in Russia itself by local priests who were among these latter, he undertook a campaign against Korsun in the third year after baptism, and the purpose of the campaign should be supposedly the desire to force the Greek emperors to marry their sister, and this last desire should be understood in such a way that in kinship with the Greek emperors he saw the most reliable means of entering into the closest possible alliance with the Greeks, which seemed necessary to him for state purposes" (Orthodox Review... P.150). Christianity, the dissertation author believed, “was not accepted willingly by everyone and not everywhere,” “it was introduced using not only measures of meekness, but even measures of severity”; although in ecclesiastical and administrative terms the Russian Orthodox Church was subordinate to the Patriarch of Constantinople as one of his metropolises, “however, there is some reason to assume that initially it received independence with an autocephalous archbishop at its head.” “The first Russian metropolitan was not Michael, but Leon or Lev, who arrived in Rus' with bishops in the third year after the capture of Vladimir Korsun.” E.E. Golubinsky believed that “together with the introduction of Christianity, Vladimir wanted to introduce Greek enlightenment in Russia. But his attempt was not successful, and only literacy was established among us, in which our enlightenment should consist of everyone who wanted and had the opportunity to be well-read in church teaching books translated from Greek.” In the pre-Mongol period, “among the general lack of education, we could then have individual people who were truly educated...” (such as Metropolitan Hilarion and Kirill of Turov). According to the scientist, “the entire Russian church history suffers from the paucity of historical material. In particular, this must be said about its ancient, pre-Mongol period. From that time, only bare and, moreover, incomplete lists of metropolitans and stone churches in the chronicles have reached us, and besides the chronicles we have almost no other written monuments...” Source study problems came to a prominent place in the work of E.E. Golubinsky and had priority importance. The author uses a comparatively historical method and reconstructs church institutions in Rus' by analogy with Byzantine ones, relying on a critical approach. He states: “I subjected everything to critical analysis... Just as... in ordinary life, everything that is said and written is not pure truth, but lies are mixed with the truth, so it was the same before. In ancient times there was even greater freedom for unintentional and intentional lies... Therefore, I set myself the deliberate goal of being critical of the materials. I was reproached for being too critical...” “... History should not be a panegyric, otherwise it will lose its meaning; the historian must depict everything that happened, both good and bad. (Orthodox Review... P. 151–154). The first to oppose the disputant was the ordinary professor in the department of Russian schism, N.I. Subbotin. Noting “the high merits of Professor Golubinsky’s book,” he “as an objector,” in his own words, “should not talk about the merits of the book: volens, nolens, I must look for shortcomings in it.” Pointing out, however, that “my specialty belongs to the later period of Russian history. And the ancient period discussed in your book is not entirely familiar to me,” N.I. Subbotin reproached the author for striving not to create a complete story, but to split it into fragments - “and the critical hammer works more, during the work of which you force the reader to be present.” Thus recognizing the author’s use of the method of “critical” examination of sources, N.I. Subbotin noted his conclusion about their “scarcity and imperfection” in relation to the period of formation and development of the church in Rus' in the 10th-16th centuries. In fact, E.E. Golubinsky, based on the state of the source base, argued: “in the entire space of pre-Petrine church history, only Patriarch Nikon appears to us as a living person to some extent..., and all the rest are completely impersonal shadows... and just labels in empty places,” “pre-Petrine history is scant in monuments” (Orthodox Review... P. 158–161). Without entering into a debate on the content of even these “meager” sources, the opponent with “respect” pointed out “the main strength of your story, I mean criticism of the material, squeezing out the juice. Feels... pleasure at the sight of the rich scientific apparatus that you owned during this operation” (Orthodox Review... P. 161–162). N.I. Subbotin examined in detail the “methods and techniques ... of criticism” used by E.E. Golubinsky. He singled out its “main technique” - “the decomposition of historical material and legends into the simplest elements.” Addressing the disputant, N.I. Subbotin spoke about this side of his work like this: “You consider only that which is simple and clear to be reliable and suitable for history...” (Orthodox Review... P. 163). The second ordinary professor of the same academy in the department of civil history, V.O. Klyuchevsky, who acted as the official opponent, focused his attention on the dissertation author’s attitude to chronicle sources. First of all, V.O. Klyuchevsky saw a significant drawback of E.E. Golubinsky’s work in that it did not define the position on the problem of the origin, authorship and composition of “The Tale of Bygone Years”. The dissertation author immediately rejected this reproach, saying: “I attribute the beginning of the chronicle to the time of Igor,” to which V.O. Klyuchevsky pointed to the complex composition of the first chronicle, parts of which have their own origin and dating, while “it is obvious that the initial story is something separate. It ends with the time of the appearance of Rurik, and also talks about Askold and Dir. This is clear from the content. And since the death of Rurik, a new author has been writing a chronicle.” (Orthodox Review... P. 166–167). Having agreed that the compiler of the code that has come down to us was Sylvester, the opponent and the disputant touched upon the problem of dating the events described in the chronicle. V.O. Klyuchevsky pointed out to the dissertation author that the chronology of the earliest events cannot be considered reliable and accurate, therefore it is impossible to “base facts” on it, which, according to the opponent, was unreasonably done in the dissertation under discussion. V.O. Klyuchevsky insisted in this regard that “the table of years was compiled by a person of the 16th century, and not by the authors of the chronicle. This means that it was composed artificially; therefore, the indications of the years in it are worth nothing...”, “...one should not quote the years from the chronicles until the end of Igor’s reign...”. As an advantage of E.E. Golubinsky’s work, V.O. Klyuchevsky noted a strictly critical approach to narrative sources: “You are strict with the sources of history, and this is fair.” But at the same time, “...you are embarrassed by their scarcity. This feeling arises for everyone involved in Russian history. But this feeling should lead to looking for sources, at least fragments of them, some hints; when there is scarcity, they are also expensive” (Orthodox Review...P. 167–168). V.O. Klyuchevsky especially emphasized the significance of the “response of Metropolitan Monk John” as a “canonical monument.” This is “a response made to an official request and, moreover, made by a person not private, but in authority. It appears to be an official monument. It uses the expression “we command” twice. This is the language of the law, which means it is a legislative act. For example, about wizards it is said: “those who disobey will be vehemently executed.” Thus, John's personal opinion is not expressed here. In a word, the act is official from all sides.” V.O. Klyuchevsky considered it a failure of the dissertation author to not pay attention to the grouping of the sources used, and it is necessary if only because “there are few monuments, so everything is expensive” (Orthodox Review... P. 169). In this regard, the opponent touched upon the news of the Patriarch of Constantinople Photius about the Russian campaign against Byzantium in 860 and gave them a different interpretation than that made by E.E. Golubinsky. According to the hypothesis of V.O. Klyuchevsky, the attack of the Russians is explained not by their desire to avenge the Slavs killed by the Greeks, who were in their slavery as “threshers or laborers,” as the dissertation author thought, but only by the desire of the Russians to punish the Byzantines for treachery and “guilt before God.” V.O. Klyuchevsky also did not agree with the argumentation of the dissertation author’s doubts about the authenticity of the church charters of princes Vladimir and Yaroslav. The opponent also challenged the dissertation author’s judgment about church tithes, given by the charter of Prince Vladimir supposedly to only one Kyiv Church of the Mother of God, “while in fact... it was given to all bishops” (Orthodox Review... P. 169). V.O. Klyuchevsky had certain doubts regarding the dissertation author’s judgments about the limits of bishops’ jurisdiction in the field of civil law. The opponent believed that the dissertation should have more subtly compared the norms of the church charter of Prince Vladimir with the articles of Yaroslav’s Truth, in the editions of which dating back to the 12th century. and used by E.E. Golubinsky, as V.O. Klyuchevsky thought, “there is nothing about which it can be proven that it belongs to Yaroslav, but there is a lot that obviously does not belong to him” (Orthodox Review... P. 170). V.O. Klyuchevsky, as a method that should be more widely used to establish the time of origin of written monuments, recommended metrological analysis and, in particular, the study of the ancient Russian monetary system associated with penalties. “...For example,” the opponent pointed out. – five gold hryvnia may seem like a lot of money. But it is unknown what the golden hryvnia meant at that time” (Orthodox Review... P. 171). Such a method would be useful in clarifying the meaning of the church charter of Prince Yaroslav, which E.E. It seemed to Golubinsky “a forged... letter of complaint”, and to his opponent “a code delimiting the area of ​​ecclesiastical court from mixed and civil court”, “there is no positive evidence” of its forgery. As V.O. Klyuchevsky believed, the norms of this charter directly correlate with the content of Russian Pravda in that part that concerned penalties imposed by both church and secular authorities. In comparative historical terms, “in Western Europe there was double punishment or one punishment divided into two, and here too,” argued V.O. Klyuchevsky. He also pointed out to the dissertation author the persistence of such a rule of law, since double punishment is present both in the articles of the Code of Laws of 1497 and in the “labial law” of the 16th century. From this, V.O. Klyuchevsky made the following general conclusion about the sections of the dissertation devoted to the analysis of the statutes of princes Vladimir and Yaroslav: “so, your objections... are not sufficient to call them fraudulent with decisiveness” (Orthodox Review... P. 173). But the disputant insisted on his provisions, saying: “I have other evidence that the church charters of Vladimir and Yaroslav are forged. For example, the charter of Vladimir was unknown in Southern Russia,” and the “charter of the Yaroslavs” was known only “approximately at the turn between the Kyiv and Moscow periods,” that is, at the end of the 13th or early 10th centuries, although “it is impossible to determine exactly” (Orthodox Review... P. 174). The opponent, however, immediately put forward counterarguments, believing that “the time of origin of some editions can be determined with accuracy based on internal features.” So, continued V.O. Klyuchevsky, “when determining the amount of fines, one group of lists differs from the others” - according to the first, some crimes are punished with a fine of 40 hryvnia in favor of the bishops, and for the rest for the same crimes - 100 hryvnia. This difference can only be explained by the fact that “...the amounts of fines changed as the exchange rate fell.” The opponent pointed to a sign of this decline, seeing it in the fact that “the ancient hryvnia was a large ingot of silver, but as trade declined, it became lighter in weight.” For example, “up to half of the HP century. the hryvnia was equal to 1/3 f(unta), at the end of the 18th century. - 1/4 f(unta), and at the beginning of the 13th century. from one pound came 7 1/2 hryvnias... Such a difference in the weight of hryvnias occurred at a distance of only 60 liters. Later, such a depreciation in such a short time has never happened. This decrease in the hryvnia by 2 1/2 times explains the mentioned difference in fines. The first edition of the lists was calculated for a hryvnia weighing 1/2 pounds (ounce), and the other edition of the lists was calculated for such hryvnias, of which 7 1/2 came out of a pound. The first hryvnia is 2 1/2 times more than the second kind of hryvnia, and 100 is more than 40 2 1/2 times, the proportion is the same. So, the first edition of the lists dates back to the first half of the 18th century. Thus, you see that you cannot treat monuments covered with dust superficially, but you need to penetrate deep into them” (Orthodox Review... pp. 174–175). Continuing this thought and highly appreciating the content of the chapter of the author’s book, V.O. Klyuchevsky emphasized that “CP c. was the century of codification of civil and ecclesiastical laws. Signs of this work remain. The Church established both civil and ecclesiastical law. This includes all legal monuments: Russian Truth, the Charter of Vladimir and Yaroslav, Kirik’s questions and much more... This means, up to the editors of the 19th century. monuments of previous centuries have reached.” Concluding his “objections,” V.O. Klyuchevsky expressed to the doctoral student “gratitude for the mental stress and interest that was aroused in him by reading the dissertation” (Orthodox Review... P. 175). The editor of the magazine “Soulful Reading,” Archpriest V.P. Nechaev, acted as an unofficial opponent (“started to object”). In his opinion, the dissertation author allowed “a discrepancy between the title and the content of the book, which is not a pragmatic or chronological history, but a critical history with an admixture of journalism” (Orthodox Review... P. 176). E.E. Golubinsky’s critical approach to chronicle and historical sources was therefore not understood by the editor of the then-famous church publication. The main objections of V.P. Nechaev boiled down to reproaches of the dissertation author for not clarifying the reasons for the appearance of Christians among those who signed the treaty between Prince Igor and the Greeks. The opponent especially attacked the opinion of E.E. Golubinsky about the incompatibility of monastic vows with the duties of bishops in connection with renunciation of the world upon entering the monastic order. V.P. Nechaev believed that “they are actually renouncing their own will, and therefore cannot refuse the metropolitan decision and the prince’s consent to ordain them as bishops. But E.E. Golubinsky did not accept this argument in its entirety and, in support of his position, referred to the canonical rule: “the vows of monastics contain the duty of obedience and discipleship, and not teaching and leadership” (Orthodox Review... P. 177). The speech of V.P. Nechaev concluded the debate on the dissertation of E.E. Golubinsky. The abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Leonid, Count M.V. Tolstoy, and the Privat-Associate Professor of the Theological Academy in the Department of Byzantine History, I.I. Sokolov, who declared at the very beginning of the debate their desire to “object”, “were tired of the lengthy debate... and did not find it convenient to offer their objections to the doctoral student” (Orthodox Review... P. 178). In fact, the debate, which began at 11 o’clock in the morning, dragged on, as I. Korsunsky wrote in another report on the defense, “three hours in the afternoon..., the short winter day was approaching evening, it was time to end the debate, and therefore those who still wanted to object humbly bowed to the need to refrain from debate” (Korsunsky I. Report on the doctoral debate that took place at the Moscow Theological Academy December 16, 1880 / Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. M. 1880. Part Sh. N 12 (December). In comparison with the report quoted above, signed “A.B.” and published in the journal “Orthodox Review”, I. Korsunsky’s report is more laconic, it omitted the most significant remarks of V. O. Klyuchevsky in terms of source studies). E.E. Golubinsky’s defense of his dissertation was recognized by all members of the Academic Council as “quite satisfactory” (Orthodox Review... P. 178). The discussion was continued by A. Pavlov and E. V. Barsov, who published open letters to E. E. Golubinsky (Pavlov A. About the writings attributed to the Russian Metropolitan George. / Orthodox Review. M. 1981. T.1. N 1. P. 344–352; Barsov E. V. Letter to Professor E. E. Golubinsky with objections to his book: History of the Russian Church. T.1. The pre-Mongol period. !880). A. Pavlov challenged the dissertation author’s opinion about the authorship of Metropolitan George (half of the 11th century) in relation to the “Charter, or Nomocanon” and “Contestation with Latin”. Having analyzed their content, the opponent came to the conclusion that “all the hitherto indicated sources of the imaginary “Charter of Metropolitan George” lead us to Bulgaria, the homeland of almost all of our apocrypha.” As for the “Competition with Latin,” A. Pavlov suggested that it “could be attributed to the famous Metropolitan Gregory Tsamblanov, renamed by the scribes ... to George” (Pavlov A. About the works attributed to the Russian Metropolitan George ... P. 350–351). E.V. Barsov did not agree with E.E. Golubinsky’s interpretation of the chronicle “The Tale of the Baptism of St. Vladimir" as fiction. In his opinion, this story reflects the contradictory situation that developed in the late 80s. X century in connection with the intention of the Kyiv prince to declare one of the world religions - Eastern or Western Christianity, Islam, Judaism - the state religion in Kievan Rus. The dissertation author recalls that Byzantium, Rome, the Caliphate, and the Khazar Khaganate competed for influence on Prince Vladimir. E.V. Barsov believed that the story was based on folk legends that reflected real “historical facts” and “historical motives” (E.V. Barsov, Letter to Professor E.E. Golubinsky... P.4). The opponent pointed out to E.E. Golubinsky a number of facts about the spread of Christianity in the 11th-12th centuries that were not included in the text of his dissertation. on the vast expanses of Novgorod land - in the Olonets region, on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, where Orthodox monasteries arose (Murom, Paleostrovsky, Shungsky). E.V. Barsov also did not agree with E.E. Golubinsky’s concept of the lack of enlightenment in ancient Russian society (even if there was literacy in it). Citing as a counter-argument the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign,” which was widely used in Rus', he concluded: “Indeed: if in the 12th century. and before there were many such written literary works as the “Tale of Igor’s Campaign” that has come down to us, it becomes very doubtful that our enlightenment in the pre-Mongol period, at least in the...druzhina-boyar layer, stood at such a low level as the chapter of your church history leads to” (Barsov E.V. Letter to Professor E.E. Golubinsky... P. 14). Unfortunately, we do not know whether E.E. Golubinsky responded to his absentee opponents. Thus, “The History of the Russian Church” by E.E. Golubinsky was the first scientific work on Russian church history, in which, as S.I. Smirnov noted in 1903, the author, “armed with the hammer of criticism,... reviewed and touched the entire edifice of his science and smashed many stones, even those lying in its foundation, with his merciless hammer... The scientist’s criticism turns into skepticism when he concerns the assessment of the sources of his science." At the same time, “critical processing of sources in itself contributes to the clarification of historical truth..., the possibility of solid scientific constructions on the history of the Russian church is obtained” (Smirnov S.I. Golubinsky Evgeniy Evsigneevich. / Theological Encyclopedia. T.1U. St. Petersburg. 1903. P. 505–506). M.D. Priselkov, in an article published immediately after the death of E.E. Golubinsky in 1912, also saw this characteristic feature of his dissertation, speaking with approval of the scientist’s principle formulated in it: “... having the courage to recognize the past as it was, try, in deliberate compensation for it, to become possibly the best in the future” (Priselkov M. In Memory of Evg. Ev. Golubinsky / Izvestia ORYAS IAI. St. Petersburg, 1912. T.HUP. Books 2–9. pp. 149–150). Noting the “exceptional diligence” of E.E. Golubinsky, which contributed to the appearance of “valuable monographs,” M.D. Priselkov saw in them examples “to which historians will turn for a long time, from which they will learn, and many of his conclusions will undoubtedly be assimilated as a lasting scientific legacy of a first-class master” (Priselkov M. In Memory of Evg. Ev. Golubinsky... P. 155). If in the scientific community the dissertation work of E.E. Golubinsky, despite the expressions and comments made by opponents, was immediately recognized as fundamental, then the highest church authorities - the Holy Synod and who shortly before the dissertation defense of the scientist after the resignation of D.A. Tolstoy became Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev - met him very warily. A critical revision of the established concepts of early church history seemed to the spiritual establishment to almost shake the foundations of the Russian Orthodox past. E.E. Golubinsky, in the decline of his life, recalled: “my confirmation as a doctor of the Holy Synod lasted a very long time,” the chairman of the Educational Committee at the Synod, Archpriest Parvov, saw in the dissertation “piquant passages in the sense of being liberal,” and drew the attention of the new Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev to them. Only on June 5, 1881 - almost six months after the defense, which at that time was considered an absolutely extraordinary phenomenon - did the Synod approve E.E. Golubinsky with the rank of Doctor of Theology. In the same year, his research was awarded the Uvarov Prize in the amount of 1,500 rubles (Memoirs of E.E. Golubinsky... P. 53). More than 100 years have passed since the publication of the first volume of “History of the Russian Church” by E.E. Golubinsky. Over this long period of time, its significance not only did not fade, but became even stronger. The author’s critical observations regarding Russian chronicles served as one of the impetuses for the large-scale source study “research” of Academician A.A. Shakhmatov. Even in the 20–70s. of the present century - an era when a vulgarly understood class approach prevailed in science regarding church history, domestic scientists who studied the early past of our country could not ignore the main conclusions and constructions of E.E. Golubinsky. Recently, the concept of an outstanding historian of the Russian Church has become an integral part of the arsenal of modern historical science.