“Fractional values” of church history: on the question of V.V.’s methodology Bolotova

Clarifying the nature of historical knowledge, Professor V.V. Bolotov proceeds, in particular, from the distinction between “knowledge” (γιγν ώ σκω) and “knowledge” (οἴδα) established in ancient languages. Man, as a rational being, wants to know, but even more wants to “lead.” Knowledge is scientific knowledge, and knowledge is knowledge in which a strong aesthetic or volitional element is mixed; leading is the impulse of human life. A person wants to be at the event itself in order to see everything with his own eyes 1 . The Greek ιστορ ί α, to a large extent, corresponds to this desire to “be at the event,” to observe it directly and perceive it personally. The experience of a “historian” is burdened with subjectivity and is often not transparent enough for meaning, for any generally valid understanding, but it is existentially full-fledged and, so to speak, congenial to the event. “So, in the concept of history there is given the desire for knowledge obtained through direct contemplation. But historical knowledge, notes V.V. Bolotov, “is, as it were, the direct opposite of such a concept of history” 2. After all, seeking direct evidence and relying on it, “historical knowledge” is carried out as an “objectification” of an increasingly holistic, if possible, experience of a known event - as certification of its completeness, the semantic horizon of which does not coincide with the boundaries of direct evidence. V.V. Bolotov, at the same time, is well aware that the very movement from “knowledge” to “knowledge” in historical knowledge is complicated by the subjectivity of the bearer of the cognitive process, by its very individual and natural-historical originality. In this regard, while maintaining the desire for universally valid scientific reliability of its results, history perceives a moral principle in the very essence of its activity. “The greatest love of truth should be a necessary quality of a historian” 3. Thus, the critical edge of historical thought should be directed “both” - both at the sources of known (in one way or another “notified”) information, and at the way it is perceived by the researcher himself. Confessionalism, in this case, and with it the greater sobriety of Christian self-awareness only increases the strength and importance of honesty and impartiality necessary for a historian. However, the personal principle (always at risk of deviating into subjectivism) cannot and should not be eliminated in historical knowledge. After all, when the question is raised about “whether a well-known event could have happened or could not, the truth here has to be understood,” notes V.V. Bolotov, – as the agreement of an event with the totality of our own ideas” 4. In this regard, one of the primary conditions for the reliability of historical research is, paradoxically, the rejection of the illusion of “scientificness”, with the dominance in it of the principle of total evidence and universal validity. After all, “usually,” says Vasily Vasilyevich, “depending on how the historian and his era are preset, the volume of what is considered reliable in history is reduced. Therefore, “historical criticism” should be looked at not so much as a science, but as an art, where the skill and instinct of the historian, his experience, which cannot be precisely defined in his actions, gives the measure for the application of the scientific provisions of historical criticism. A mind without a sense of proportion, uncritical or hypercritical, can only pollute the scientific perspective with its objections and introduce skeptical uncertainty into the realm of the certain.”5 Thus, “the predisposition of the historian and his era” must be taken into account and verified, first of all, ethically, but, of course, also professionally and even with a certain everyday sobriety or “ordinary everyday tact,” as V.V. believes. Bolotov, - in order to “accept both what is doubtful and what is reliable at first glance, in view of this or that relationship to the entire mass of facts” 6. About this irreducible “predisposition” or, a kind of “bias” of the historian, largely echoing V.V. Bolotov, writes about. Georgy Florovsky, already involved in new discoveries in the field of research into the nature of humanitarian knowledge. “In fact,” he believes, “every study of history, by its very definition, as a true study, is from the very beginning “biased” - biased because it is directed. Otherwise there would be no research and objects would remain mute. Sources speak only in the context of directed research; only in this context do “objects” become “sources” when they are, as it were, cleared by the inquisitive mind of the historian. Even in experimental science, facts never speak on their own, but only in the process and context of controlled research; and no scientific experiment can be imagined without a preliminary “mental experiment” carried out by the researcher. The observation itself is impossible without a known interpretation, i.e. understanding" 7. This art of understanding, the subtle craft of interpretation, is taught by V.V. Bolotov in harsh conditions almost entirely did rough preparatory work. “History,” from the point of view of V.V. Bolotov, - does not pretend to be the metropolis of philosophy, although he is its first stage, - does not have didactic aspirations. Modest in its original definition, it remains so to this day” 8. Deduction should be left beyond the threshold of historical research, “for,” asks V.V. Bolotov, “to consider historical facts from the point of view of any idea—doesn’t it mean preparing a Procrustean bed for the majority of them, on which they will be trimmed according to a predetermined standard” 9 . Both as a person and as a scientist, Professor V.V. Bolotov was characterized by a sober abstinence from any “general ideas”, while the 19th century was so different from attempts to be guided by one or another of them and from which the humanitarian consciousness is rarely free 10. “How much can the philosophy of history understand? It lies on the knees of the gods,” notes Vasily Vasilyevich, and in one of the letters to I.S. Palmov 11 admits: “You oppose me under the armor of “general ideas,” under the standard of “general issues.” But you know that I am not at all the knightly type; I am only the archivist of the highways of the Patrology of Min, recording what others probably do not know, and what we should know. I don’t experience any depths of the spirit (neither national nor universal), I don’t solve any general questions, I have little faith in general ideas, and I’m only looking for ultraconcretissima [highly concrete – lat.]” 12. Insisting in this letter to his Slavophile friend on the advantages of Western science, V.V. Bolotov, however, clearly distinguishes his pragmatic preference for it from any possibility of ideologizing this preference. “You drag in “the interests of the Romano-Germanic people” - and completely in vain. What do I care about them? - “But you bow to the Leipzig Vaal?” “Yes, I bow, again juxta modum [in moderation, to a certain extent - lat.] ‹…› and I give Schmitzdorf a tithe 13 of everything, as much as I can get - and still I say: what do I care about your “German-Roman people”?” 14 So, figuratively concludes V.V. Bolotov, “I go to the Germans: I eat their ready-made Brod [bread - German], but I turn away from their Warst [sausage - German]: my soul does not accept it, and no doctor obliges me to eat it. Liquet [the question is clear – lat.]. Am I a Westerner after this?” 15 Twelve years later, in a letter to the then young historian D.A. Lebedev 16, essentially a correspondence student of V.V. Bolotov, he writes: “I am a historian by free election ‹…› after several years of work, I have become convinced that to be a businesslike historian means to master the art of making inquiries” 17 . As for the “general ideas,” here the bearers of most of them are given, in view of the immediate and often the only achievable tasks of historical research, an extremely harsh assessment. “For great minds, which all Russian writers almost necessarily consider themselves to be,” notes V.V. Bolotov, - chronology is a trifle, unimportant details, tedious details. Ideas (or stolen, because the compiler ex professo is the same thief, or written on water with a pitchfork) - that’s all we need. And through the cracks of such a majestic epanca - look - there is a fear of “unproductive” work and a complete inability to understand chronological dates” 18. The historian, being deprived of reliance on ready-made premises of “general ideas” and the deductive methodology of abstract thinking, must, firstly, have the courage to come to terms with the radical “fragmentation” of his sources and often not go beyond the details, and secondly, be able to doubt the reliability of what is generally accepted. After all, “in historical details,” believes V.V. Bolotov, - perhaps those that are considered generally recognized deserve the least trust. Often this last, honorable difference is precisely described only by the fact that for a very long time no one has checked the foundations on which these indisputable provisions are based, or tried to challenge them. This, however, is understandable. Establishing small details is sometimes more difficult than correctly drawing the main, defining lines of fact; it is necessary to compare and weigh a lot of evidence in order to speak affirmatively about some dry detail. And often the labor expended is not rewarded with anything other than the irremovable non liquet [the question is unclear - Latin] ‹…› therefore, in small things they very often rely on the authority of previous scientists, with silent consent they rewrite their positions again and again” 19. However, the scarcity and limitations of the actual historical foundations for reconstructing the factual completeness, and even for the very reliability of the event, force the historian not to philistine indifference, but, on the contrary, to an awareness of the unshakable weight of “trifles and details.” After all, “if the starting point of all historical research should be the conviction that everything that has existed has the right to be known in the best possible way, then work on trifles takes on the character of a morally obligatory task - especially when there are some reasons to suspect that the existing opinion is at least not indisputable” 20. However, hypercriticism is no less far from true impartiality than the “silent agreement” of the researcher with the old authorities. “Precisely because historical science itself knows ‹…› only the conditional sufficiency of its sources,” and at least their minimal reliability should be fully taken into account. “The attitude, instead of a positive antithesis, of a purely negative non liquet is rarely useful in the field of historical knowledge, because a certain amount of hypercritical despondency is enough to - under purely scientific pretexts - extend this non liquet to the entire sphere of what is historically studied and declare it a complete Sahbra” 21. “Little things and details” are precisely that historical matter, by considering which one can see a phenomenon in the perspective (or retrospective) of growth, formation, transition and, thereby, identify and designate its true meaning and place in history. In a review of the book by V. Kiparisov 22 “On Freedom of Conscience” by V.V. Bolotov writes: “He ‹…› attached little importance to those fractional quantities, of which, however, the limitation of the ideal theory in its practical application is made up, which constitutes a difficult knot in the history of the issue...” 23 . The meaning of “fractional quantities” is equally powerful for prof. V.V. Bolotov’s “historical” in its own element - in the horizon of movement and development. At the same time, however, the close attention, armed with the completeness of scientific instruments, and the seemingly exclusive attention of Prof. V.V. Bolotov's attention to details and particulars - to the "empirical" in history - does not give grounds to reproach him for positivism, just as, for example, the composer's use of musical notation does not oblige us to suspect the lack of creative development of a musical idea. Quite the contrary, the “historical ear” of the famous Church historian is amazing; even his most private research is guided by the intuition of the whole. It is true that, as B.M. notes. Melioransky 24, “he valued detailed, mathematically accurate (i.e., at least with a precise indication of the limits of possible error) development of even a tiny question above brilliant broad concepts, the development of which sometimes takes a scientist’s entire life and which, however, with close criticism of their factual basis often disintegrates into dust. And at the same time,” he continues, “we think that none of those who knew Bolotov will deny Bolotov either familiarity with these concepts, or the ability to appreciate them as the creation of a mind striving for generalization, or, finally, creative ability in this very direction. Thanks to this, he, a passionate lover and master of this “historical micrography” or “cellular history,” never lost sight of the fact that the ideal goal of science is generalization; and therefore “behind each of his phrases one can feel a broad general historical basis,” and he never fell into the study of questions, “on which cheek was Igor’s mole,” that is, questions that are obviously indifferent for the purposes of scientific generalization” 25. An opponent of “general ideas” that arose speculatively, bypassing the concrete historical content of reality, V.V. Bolotov, at the same time, proceeded from the conviction that a true historian is not a passive “recorder” of the dead remains of the past, but a thinker who recreates events in their living dynamics. Regarding the trial lectures by A.A. Bronzov 26, who uncritically used German and French “sources,” Professor Bolotov writes to I.S. Palmov: “This is not a scientist, but only a translator. ‹…› He did not bring the slightest participation into the lecture as a thinker, he tried in every possible way to go round and round all the points where he would have to think” 27 . A “living historical figure” in all possible completeness and the dynamics of her relationships is the ultimate “object” of historical research. In a review of the book by A.A. Spassky 28 about Apollinaris of Laodicea V.V. Bolotov finds it necessary to emphasize: “Above I called Mr. Spassky’s book a literary-critical monograph because it is hardly possible to recognize it as a historical study. Under the author's pen, Apollinaris appears as a supplier of certain works; but as a living historical figure, as a thinker, he, strictly speaking, is absent from the pages of this study. About Apollinarianism as a system, about the possible internal connection of Christology already with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, about the moment that - from this point of view - turned out to be the first cell of Christological errors, about the true relationship of Apollinarianism to Sinusism 29 - about whether the most ancient Sinusists really have any points of contact with the teachings of Apollinaris himself - there is no detailed talk about all this in the author's book (except for individual hints)" 30. However, the deep, “internal connection of events”, in which the entire fullness of historical existence would find its meaning, is inaccessible to the historian, including the historian of the Church. For the latter, a visible and unconditional reason for self-restraint (but in no way a limitation for the reality of the Church itself!) is given in the need to distinguish between the “historical” and the “dogmatic” in the content of church life. “The Church,” writes Vasily Vasilyevich, “appears before us now as a dogma, now as a historical fact, now in its essence, now in its external historical manifestation, now as an infallible keeper of the truth, its “pillar and affirmation,” now as a set of “meager vessels bearing this treasure,” and, therefore, fragile and fallible. The truth is preserved by the entire Catholic Church; But they interpret the truth, draw conclusions from it in relation to individual cases and apply them in practice, empirically, by private individuals, members of the Universal Church, and therefore their conclusions may be erroneous and their practice is not impeccable. The domain of the dogmatic is the domain of principle; the realm of history is the totality of principle and economy.” Moreover, in application to a specific study by V.F. Kiparisova 31, V.V. Bolotov finds it necessary to note that “the history of the Church is not as detached from the Church itself as, apparently, comes out under the pen of the author” 32. In other words, the Church, of course, is “inseparably unmerged” in its “dogmatic-historical”, in its divine-human existence. But in this dual unity, as a whole, “catholically” the Church is, as it were, a “historical icon” (the expression of Fr. G. Florovsky 33) and is understood by faith, comprehended on the paths of piety, in relation to which science turns out to be all the more consistent, the more clearly for it the limits of its capabilities, the more sober it is in its self-limitation. In this case, V.V. believes Bolotov, the historian’s method, “his point of view is diametrically opposed to the method and point of view of the dogmatist. Familiar with the last - therefore, the most accurate - word of dogmatic science, but only in order to appreciate its elements in the past, to be able to dogmatically analyze facts, the historian, looking, however, from the past to the present, from the seed to the branches of historical growth, goes from the relative twilight of the past to the clear light of the present. He evaluates each fact not in comparison with the result of the highest development of dogma, but with phenomena of the past, modern and near future” 34. Giving an assessment of the doctoral dissertation dedicated to Lactantius by A.I. Sadova 35, Professor Bolotov says: “He did not succumb to the temptation to mix quadratura rotundus (squaring the circle - lat.), did not merge into one dogmatic point of view, which should be distinguished by the immutability of the demands it makes and value the thought of Lactantius, regardless of his face, and the historical point of view, which Lactantius takes in connection with his contemporary conditions and his views should be assessed only in comparison with the views of his contemporaries and predecessors" 36. If, therefore, “dogmatics has significance not for time and history, but for eternity” and its language “must be completely categorical, like the language of the first premise in a syllogism,” then the historian cannot help but take into account the fact that “between the first premise and the conclusion there is still a whole abyss. Infallible in itself, a dogmatic judgment can be very erroneous when applied to particular historical facts. These latter in their own element lie outside the realm of dogmatic judgments and, so to speak, beyond its competence. They constitute in themselves raw material, on which a lot of work needs to be done in order to turn it into a manufactured product capable of becoming the object of dogmatic judgment” 37. Thus, dogmas also have their own history: we can see how they take shape, how the fullness of truth and the Church itself as “Fullness” are revealed in the dogmatic self-consciousness of the Church, which, however, according to the Apostle Paul, is “created” (Eph. 4:12–16). Although, of course, the roots of dogmatic testimony are not in space and not on the basis of historical existence; they are in the hidden depths of the Church. And “the concept of the Church in its depth can hardly be exhausted by a brief definition” 38. The Church is originally “Completeness”. But it is full-fledged, not unconditionally determined as an area of ​​religious self-determination of a person and an image of the accomplishment of this “Completeness” in history. Therefore, “for the past,” as Fr. G. Florovsky regarding the historicism of V.V. Bolotov, – there is no longer any need to dully refer to proof of “constancy.” In the life of the Church over the centuries, we observe, in any case, not only “constancy,” but also growth, creativity, and development. The canonical system, theological self-awareness, liturgical order and regulations, life and feat, and much more in the life of the church turns out to be a historical quantity, variable, growing and living, taking shape over time” 39. V.V. Bolotov sees phenomena in their incompleteness, internally open to growth - to history, capable of ambiguous combinations or demarcations in it. “Vasily,” characterizes, for example, Prof. Bolotov, the head of the “Omiusian” trend in post-Nicene history, theoretically only very weakly in touch with Arianism (as a subordinator in the spirit of Origen), historically stood in the same camp with the Eusebians and Arians, and in any case stood within the dialectical blows of his opponent insofar as he did not realize that any theology that does not clearly express that the Holy Trinity is numerically (specifically) one being, and any system that does not go beyond the specific (collective) unity of essence, speak only of one deity, not of one God” 40. In his fundamental study of Origen's triadology, V.V. Bolotov, discovering the impossibility of “indicating such a point of view, and which would (clarify) the logical necessity of each position admitted by Origen,” finds it permissible to speak only about the “unity of the basic idea” (not the concept!) and about the “unity of the tendency in the doctrine of the Son of God, which always remains sublime” 41. An indirect result of deep research by V.V. Bolotov in the field of “Origenism”, brilliantly developed later by some of his students, became the understanding of the impossibility of conceiving the emergence, for example, of the Arian heresy as a simple assimilation of the triadological positions of Origen or any “school” in itself. Since the dogmatically categorical “either-or” in history is often replaced by just a symptomatically colored “both-and”, the historian of dogmas cannot help but see and has no right not to take into account a more flexible gradation of “dogmatic positions” than the one to which the dogmatist rightly limits himself. Bearing in mind the dynamics of growth and formation – the mode of “creation” of the Church – V.V. Bolotov, along with “dogma” and “private theological opinion,” introduces the concept of “theologumena,” explaining it as “the theological opinion of the Holy Fathers of the one undivided Church.” 42 It is necessary not to lose sight of the fact that the need for the proposed V.V. Bolotov’s additional distinctions in the hierarchy of theological formulations, rooted in the “historical” vision of the existence of the Church, were updated by negotiations with Old Catholics on the topic of Filioque, that is, caused, among other things, by the moral and ecclesiological obligation to impartially peer into the image of the theological self-consciousness of another Christian community. As Patriarch (then still Metropolitan) Sergius (Stragorodsky) would say later, referring to such cases: “The Church would not have fulfilled its calling to serve the salvation of all people if possible, if it had neglected even the most insignificant offspring of life. It is from the point of view of “the edification of many” that every spark of life is precious. ‹…› And what is especially important, when bringing this or that fallen society under this or that order, the Church always has in mind the nature or properties of the given society itself” 43 . Just in response to the reproach that the St. Petersburg Commission in negotiations with Old Catholics “does not clearly distinguish dogma from theological opinion” 44, V.V. Bolotov draws attention to the need for a more subtle distinction of the significance (dogmatic dignity) of theological formulations from the point of view of the gradual disclosure (or interpretation) of dogma. It would be equally careless (and in the negotiation process, unacceptable) to ignore the history and nature of the concrete personal efforts of Church members in revealing the truths of Revelation, and to deny the universal validity and indisputability of the known, recognized and enshrined minimum of dogmatic formulations by church reception. V.V. Bolotov emphasizes, firstly, the very fact of the discrepancy between what is generally significant and what is only relatively authoritative, and secondly, he regards this discrepancy in a positive sense as a part and image of a living Tradition that takes place according to the age of Christ. It is remarkable that some of the current opponents of such a distinction between dogma, theologumene and private theological opinion, while denying its validity, find, however, it is necessary to see a dynamic aspect in the very concept of “dogma”, thereby recognizing the history of “the gradual revelation (dogma) in the tradition of the Church”, agree that “the theological opinions of the Holy Fathers ‹…› are, as it were, “crystallized” in “dogma” (although it happens that some of these opinions are rejected)” 45. But to recognize such “crystallization” seriously, not only as a “dialectical leap” 46, but as a real (and quite predictable, as well as not always perceptible in detail) process, means taking into account, if possible, even the entirety of “theological opinions”, and in them – in order not to give an advantage to the very principle of “plurality” – the gradation of authority of the bearers of these “opinions”. In addition, in this particular case - a dialogue with Old Catholics at the end of the 19th century - one had to take into account, as we have already noted, the need to understand and to a certain extent accept (again, explaining historically) the internal logic of the interlocutor, including in order to correct it in the light of the completeness of the Orthodox Tradition. In other words, in such cases it turns out to be justified - precisely for the sake of witnessing the completeness of the Truth - to re-realize and seriously understand certain stages of its historical “crystallization” in the theology of the Church, to actualize it in its interpretations that have moved to the periphery of the tradition. If there remains at least a potential possibility (and even more so the possibility of ever being historically relevant) of the Orthodox interpretation of a certain theological formula - in the absence of its conciliar rejection in specific expressions like “those who say...” (for example, the anathematisms of the First Ecumenical Council) - we do not have the right to exclude this formula from the scope of our theological reasoning. After all, as St. says. Gregory the Theologian, “the same words, if understood well, agree with piety, but if interpreted poorly, they contain wickedness” 47. With this in mind, the well-known discrepancy in the coverage of the issue of Filioque between V.V. Bolotov and V.N. Lossky does not seem as irreconcilable as it might seem - this is a contradiction in the approach, this is a difference in the “angle of view”, and not in the substantive assessments of this or that theological formula. V.N. Lossky rightly notes that “a historian will always talk about the “historical” applicability of a dogma, but it is not for him, the historian, to judge the very quality of the dogma as such. Otherwise, historical theology may turn into a “gray eminence” of the Church, or, rather, into its “secular cardinal,” dreaming of establishing a new canon of Church Tradition using the methods of secularized science” 48 . But V.V. needed a historical retrospective. Bolotov, taking into account, so to speak, the difference in dogmatic age between the two churches, that is, in fact, not in order to “judge the quality of dogma,” but in order, as far as possible, to see it in a quantitative dimension - in formation, in growth, in the process of “crystallization.” With this forced task of church economy, the convention of V.N.’s “angle of vision” Lossky, apparently, does not find it necessary to be considered in this case, and therefore, perhaps unnoticed by himself, he assimilates V.V. himself. Bolotov, for example, “the interpretation of the formula διὰ Y ἱοῦ, characteristic of the Latinizing Greeks” 49. However, in the ninth thesis of V.V. Bolotov unequivocally emphasized that “the Western view differs from the Eastern θεολογούμενον and it is impossible without stretching it either to explain it (Filioque) in the sense of διὰ Y ἱοῦ, or to interpret the views of the Eastern fathers in a sense identical to the Western” 50. V.V. himself is not entirely accurate either. Bolotov, when, pointing out that “the Western view was not (at the time of St. Augustine) protested by the Eastern Church,” too far, as it seems to us, pushes the extreme Christological border of this Eastern “tolerance”, including within its limits the post-Photian era (thesis 25), as if downplaying the harsh polemics of St. Photius with the Latins, and, especially, the unequivocal prohibition Council of Constantinople 879 in any way change the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed 51. But both of them – both V.V. Bolotov, and V.N. Lossky - realize and admit the concretely historically already existing possibility of an “Orthodox interpretation of the ancient term Filioque” 52. Moreover, if Bolotov here means “the most ancient (pre-Augustinian) stage”, when “the expression ex Patre et Filio was initially only an inaccurate rendering of διὰ Y ἱ &#95#959; ῦ "(thesis 10), then V.N. Lossky suggests that it is possible to talk even about the time of the Spanish cathedrals of the 5th-6th centuries. “It can be assumed,” he writes, “that it was precisely the eternal manifestation of the Divine in the Spirit that the first – until the 9th century – filioquist formulas of the councils in Spain and other places tried to express.” Moreover, “probably (and) the teaching of Blessed Augustine can also be interpreted in this very sense,” although such an assumption, according to V.N. Lossky still needs serious theological research” 53 . Assuming the theologumen as the theological opinion of a revered church authority, V.V. Bolotov’s actual assessment of the personality of Blessed Augustine as a “magnitude isolated in history”, and the “Augustinian θεολογούμενον rather as a φιλοσο φούμενον” 54, laid the foundation for the fact that the Filioque would not be considered an “impedimentum” dirigens” [directing obstacle – lat.]. An excellent illustration and practical application of the theological and historical insight of V.V. Bolotov was his attitude to the issue of unification with the Orthodox Church at the end of the 19th century, firstly, the Ethiopian Church, and secondly, the Syro-Chaldeans (Aysor). Formally and historically similar circumstances do not prevent Vasily Vasilyevich from “keeping in mind the nature, properties” and real state of the named Christian societies in this case. As for the Ethiopian Church, here V.V. Bolotov, not afraid to go against government sentiment on the issue of their annexation, opposes attempts to do so. “Is it not possible,” he writes, “to accept the Abyssinians 55 into communion with our Church, without demanding from them dogmatic unity with us, their acceptance of our formula of faith and renunciation of their own? Is it not possible to assume, as has already been assumed, that the common people are Orthodox at heart and are not involved in the heretical opinions held by the upper classes? I allow myself to raise this question only for the sake of completeness of the review. In itself, it cannot be the subject of serious discussion. Semi-conscious members of the church are conscious in the person of its leaders. And that it is not possible to go with these latter to a union out of leniency, this is best proven by the history of Abyssinia itself. No matter how similar Severian views sound to Orthodox dogma, they diverge from it not only in words” 56. Further, pointing out the ritual, moral and general historical discrepancies in the compared traditions, V.V. Bolotov argues that only a “gradual rise in the mental level of the country”, the opportunity for “representatives of Abyssinian science to have access to patristic writing” will make them able to “decide where the universal truth is, on the side of the Council of Chalcedon or on the side of Dioscorus”, will allow them “to seek catholic communion without ulterior motives, according to the testimony of their conscience” 57. V.V.’s assessment is diametrically opposed. Bolotov’s condition and, accordingly, the possibility of joining the “Syro-Chaldean” Church to Orthodoxy. “The ancestors of the Aisors,” he writes, “as Christians outside the Byzantine Empire, did not even have the opportunity in 431 to take part in the Third Ecumenical Council in Ephesus, and during this turbulent time they did not provide Nestorianism with any support, either factual or moral. It was only around 484 that Nestorianism as a dogma was imposed on the Persian Christians; but this was not a movement that arose from the bowels of the Persian church itself... 58 With the support of the government, even through bloody persecution, Bar-Sauma 59 broke the rather stubborn resistance he encountered and in 483 or 484 the council of bishops in Bet-Lapata 60 adopted the Nestorian teaching. The doctrine, put into practice by such means, could not become particularly kind to the people: the Persian Christians accepted a weakened dose of Nestorianism... In any case, Nestorianism, by its very refined dialectical character, could not become a conscious conviction of the masses, and when in the 6th and 7th centuries the Persian martyrs shed their blood, they died not for Nestorian heretical tendencies, but for Christ of the Apostles and the Catholic Church" 61 . Church historical events fully confirmed the words of the famous scientist. After the massacre of 1846, the Syro-Chaldean Nestorians who lived in Kurdistan began to turn their attention to Russia. In 1859 they turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople with a request to join Orthodoxy, but were unsuccessful. In 1861–1863 an appeal was made to the Russian government, but political considerations did not allow rapprochement to take place. In 1873, the attempt was repeated, but only in 1898 was it successful: 9,000 Nestorian Kurds, led by Bishop Mar-Jonah, joined the Orthodox Church 62. Thus, it is the search for “ultraconcretissima” [highly concrete - lat.] that allows Professor V.V. Bolotov to penetrate into the living integrity of historical reality, to see it in the inalienable essence of a concrete event. And if we remember that “Christianity in its essence is a decisive appeal to history, ‹…› and the Christian Creed itself is historical in its essence” 63, then the nature of V.V.’s research. Bolotov reveals himself to us in deep consonance with his Christian piety, in which, predominantly, he acquires the perceptiveness and sobriety of his creative method. Freeing the church-historical consciousness from the obsessive “speculativeness” incorporated into science - either in its most alienated version of modern European rationality from the living Tradition of the Church, or in the form of competing fiction to the Tradition - V.V. Bolotov allows history to a significant extent to feel itself as itself, in all the fullness of its human existence, but also in all the openness, direction, and incompleteness of human existence, which in church history are interpreted religiously. Alexander Vasilievich Markidonov, candidate of theology, associate professor of the St. Petersburg Orthodox Theological Academy Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 1. M., 1994, p. 6. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 8. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 28. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 20. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 21. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 22. Florovsky G., prot. Difficulties of a Christian historian // Florovsky G., prot. Faith and culture. SPb., 2002, p. 677. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 1. M., 1994, p. 8. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 27. In the 19th century, Slavophilism became widespread, resulting from a protest against borrowings from the West and the theory of national identity, formulated, among other things, with the help of the German philosophical systems of Schelling and Hegel. – approx. ed. Palmov I.S. (1856–1920) – Slavist, graduated from St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences and read the history of Slavic churches there. In terms of his worldview, he aligned himself with the “old” Slavophiles. Christian Reading, 2000, No. 19, p. 43, 44. Schmitzdorf is the owner of a German bookstore in St. Petersburg, through which V.V. Bolotov regularly subscribed to the latest scientific publications from Germany. Christian Reading, 2000, No. 19, p. 44, 45. Lebedev D. A. (1871–1923) – church historian, priest. Quote by: Gerd L.A. V.V. Bolotov: review of the manuscript heritage / World of Russian Byzantine Studies. SPb., 2004, p. 268. Quote by: Gerd L.A. Decree. cit., p. 269. Bolotov V.V. Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the Councils of Sirmium. St. Petersburg, 1893, p. 1. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., p. 2. Bolotov V.V. Review of the essay by Prof. Sadova A.I. "Ancient Christian church writer Lactantius." St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 14. Kiparisov V.F. (1849–1899) – spiritual writer, professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in the department of homiletics. Reviews of works awarded by the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod with the Prize of His Eminence Metropolitan Macarius in 1886, p. 33. Melioransky B.M. (1870–1906) – Church historian. Professor of church history in St. Petersburg. university. Melioransky B.M. Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov // Byzantine temporary book, 1900, 7, issue. 3, dept. 3, p. 618. Bronzov A.A. (1858–1919) – spiritual writer, professor at the Department of Moral Theology at St. Petersburg. The world of Russian Byzantine studies. SPb., 2004, p. 284. Spassky A.A. (1866–1916) – professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in the department of church history, since 1898 editor of the Theological Bulletin. Sinusiasts are another name for Apollinarians. In Apollinaris this word appears once. Sinusiasm - repetition of the teachings of Paul of Samosat - approx. ed. Bolotov V.V. Review of A. Spassky’s essay “The Historical Fate of the Works of Apollinaris of Laodicea” // Spassky A.A. The historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea. SPb., 2005, p. 507. Kiparisov V.F. (1849–1899) – spiritual writer, professor of homiletics at the Moscow Academy of Sciences. Bolotov V.V. Review of the essay by V. Kiparisov “On Freedom of Conscience” / Reviews of essays awarded by the Educational Committee of the Holy Synod with the Prize of His Eminence Metropolitan Macarius in 1886, p. 50. Florovsky G., prot. Providence of the Holy Spirit in Revelation / Faith and Culture. SPb., 2002, p. 486. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 4. M., 1994, p. 412. Sadov A.I. (1850–1930) – philologist, professor of St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, editor of “Christian Reading” in 189192. Bolotov V.V. Review of the essay by Prof. Sadova A.I. "Ancient Christian church writer Lactantius." St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 181. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the Ancient Church. T. 4. M., 1994, p. 410–411. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., vol. 1, p. 9. Florovsky G., prot. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1983, p. 376. Bolotov V.V. Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the Councils of Sirmium. St. Petersburg, 1893, p. 98. Bolotov V.V. Origen's teaching on the Holy Trinity / Bolotov V.V. Collection of church historical works. T. 1. M., 1999, p. 338. Bolotov V.V. On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 31. Sergius (Stragorodsky), Metropolitan. The attitude of the Church of Christ to the societies that separated from it // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1931, No. 2, p. 6; No. 4, p. 5. Bolotov V.V. On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 30. Sidorov A.I. V.V. Bolotov – a man and a scientist / Bolotov V.V. Collection of church historical works. T. 1. M., 1999, p. XXXIV. Sidorov A.I. Decree. cit., p. XXXIV. Gregory the Theologian, St. Second Epistle to Kledonius. / Gregory the Theologian, St. Creations. T. 4, M., 1889, p. 17. Lossky V.N. The procession of the Holy Spirit in the Orthodox teaching about the Holy Trinity / Lossky V.N. Theology and God-vision. M., 2000, p. 348. Lossky V.N. Decree. cit., p. 349. Bolotov V.V. On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 70. Meyendorff I., prot. At the origins of the dispute about the Filioque // Orthodox thought. Paris, 1953, issue. 9, p. 130. Lossky V.N. Theology and God-vision. M., 2000, p. 350. Lossky V.N. Theology and God-vision. M., 2000, p. 375. Bolotov V.V. On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 40. Abyssinians is an obsolete name for Ethiopians. – approx. ed. Bolotov V.V. A few pages from the church history of Ethiopia. St. Petersburg, 1888, p. 17. Bolotov V.V. Decree. cit., p. 20. Persian Christians since the Sassanid dynasty (227) experienced severe persecution: the government looked suspiciously at the connections of its subjects with Byzantium. Since 342, persecution has claimed tens of thousands of victims. The condemnation of Willow of Edessa caused a sharp reaction from the Persians; Nestorianism found itself without rivals and was officially proclaimed in 499 at Ctesiphon. – approx. ed. Bar Sauma is a student and associate of Willow of Edessa. Both stood at the head of the Edessa school. After its closure, Bar Sauma fled to Iran, where he organized a school in Nizibin and made it the center of Nestorianism. He took a prominent position at the court of Shah Peroz, which allowed him to make Nestorianism compulsory for Christians in Iran and completely dissociate himself from orthodox Christianity. – approx. ed. Bet Lapat, or Gunde Shapur, is a city in Khuzistan (Southern Iran). – approx. ed. Quote by: Stefan (Sado), priest. Prof. Bolotov V.V. and the question of the rite of reception of the Nestorians’ reunification with the Russian Orthodox Church at the end of the 19th century // Christian Reading, 1997, No. 14, p. 120. Andreev I.D. Nestorians/Christianity. T. II, M., 1995, p. 197. Florovsky G., prot. Faith and culture. SPb., 2002, p. 671.