In memory of the late professor Alexey Petrovich Lebedev

(Under the first impression of bereavement) The glory of the glorious is never destroyed with death, virtues do not end with the dead... In the distance of the Caucasus, where I was hiding in obscurity from those closest to me, late in the evening of July 16, I was caught by a telegram sent at random from Moscow: “On the night of the fifteenth, Alexei Petrovich Lebedev died.” Terrible in its tragic laconicism, this news seemed so incredible that thought refused to accept it even when numerous printed messages irrefutably testified that the deceased died in Moscow on Monday, July 14, at 11 o’clock at night, and after the funeral service on the 17th (Thursday) in the Church of St. Spiridon, on Spiridonovka, by a host of clergy led by the Right Reverend Anastasius (Gribanovsky) was buried in the cemetery of the Spaso-Andronievsky Monastery. The sad fact turned out to be indisputable, but did not cease to be especially sad in its unexpectedness. The man is not quite old even for a Russian intellectual professor, 1 Al. P. Lebedev, apparently, had satisfactory health and, in any case, never complained about it, although in relations with others he warned the latter with touching care that they should give themselves a rest from scientific and pedagogical labors and take timely measures to preserve their physical well-being, diligently sending them “to spend the summer somewhere under a fig tree with the greatest benefit.” 2 The deceased always expressed his convinced intention to serve “in the famous hotbed of science,” the oldest Moscow University, also for 25 years, just as he had previously devoted a quarter of a century to Almae Matri - the Moscow Theological Academy, 3 and his vigorous literary and professorial activity inspired good hope that this sacred covenant would be fulfilled. After all, even so recently, the deceased, in a special letter (dated May 13, 1908), asked us about one microscopic scientific detail - and this told us that he felt within himself the strength to embrace the whole and penetrate into the smallest details. All the sadder and more painful is the irreparable loss of this tireless and great ascetic of church theological science, who left us beyond all our aspirations and calculations. 4 Our feelings and reason are still stubbornly fighting against the fatal evidence, for it is difficult to come to terms with this unrewarded loss, which leaves behind such a painful emptiness. You have to make a great effort on yourself to recognize what has happened in all its irrevocability, and then you again experience extreme depression from the enormity of this loss. Under such a depressing impression, one simply “doesn’t have the courage” to calmly and comprehensively evaluate the scientific personality of the deceased. To do this, it is necessary to move away from it and look at it from a historical perspective, but it is so dear and close to us that our will positively does not want to renounce it and describe it with cold objectivity. This mental struggle is difficult, which I am sure all of Al’s close students and admirers are experiencing. P. Lebedev with the sad news of his death. Time will pass when the image of the deceased in some distance will be outlined in all its grandeur. In the meantime, one thing we immediately and involuntarily feel with aching irresistibility is that this great historian and theologian was himself a major element of our history, in which he left a big mark on the path of its progressive movement towards knowledge and possession of the truth. Throughout his life he contributed to this noble progress and attracted others to this with his own leadership and infectious example. The direct specialty of pedagogical-professorial and literary-theological ministry is Al. P. Lebedev was “general church history.” 5 In terms of space and time, this is a huge, almost immense sphere, and in essence it is all the more difficult for objective analysis and accurate reproduction because it touches on the most delicate and mysterious engine of historical development, which is considered and assessed here only from one Christian-religious side. What is required here is extraordinary vigilance in order to highlight this factor everywhere in its true significance for a given historical moment, in order to maintain the proper balance in depicting the combined influence of all active forces and by exaggerating the most important, without obscuring or distorting secondary elements or with these latter not weakening the predominant principle. Both seem equally tempting and difficult to eliminate. By its very nature, this religious factor in Christianity is not an abstract principle of a theoretical worldview, but a creatively creative element that completely captures a person and evokes either reverence for inviolability or denial of hostility. Given the serious depth of the scientific attitude to the issue, nothing third is possible here and, therefore, there is a danger of being carried away into any of the noted extremes. It is clear that in an Orthodox professor-theologian, as long as he is consciously aware of his confession, denial and opposition are impossible. But the reverse tilt is especially tempting, since a learned historian sees how Christianity penetrated everywhere, everywhere it transformed the unnatural and even hostile, truly renewing the face of the earth and reviving everyone living on it. The greatest self-control is required in order, under the undoubted supremacy of the divine and absolute, to maintain its place and rightful role for everything human and relative. Otherwise, the first will absorb everything and, in the end, abolish all history. It goes without saying that for this, the broadest erudition is required in order to know exactly all the sides and find out the true proportionality between them from a religious-Christian point of view, and this is unattainable in complete perfection even with the most extreme effort of all human energy. We now see how enormous the task of “common church history” is across all space, in all places and in all manifestations. It seems unusually difficult even if the object of study and depiction were accessible to direct observation. But the great difficulty is that only an insignificant piece of fast-flowing and barely perceptible modernity serves as such, for the main mass belongs to the past, which has long sunk into the darkness of centuries. Only reflections of this past history have survived to us in various kinds of monuments, which is why, first of all, a complete selection and the most rigorous assessment of significant sources for each period are necessary. Only after this painful rough work does creative re-creation begin, in which the distant acquires the flesh and blood of a living historical phenomenon, not in its bare reality, when it is reflected with punctual photographic lack of ideas and simply burdens the statistics of facts, but as it is outlined on the transparent horizon of history in all its significance for the present in comparison with the past and in anticipation of the future. But each moment taken is not a self-sufficient whole. Historical life is rightly called a stream of events, and in it individual waves are understandable only as moments in the movement of the entire “river of times,” where the particular is understood in its actual connection with the whole, and this latter becomes concrete and loses its vagueness. Let entire epochs stand out in the “general church history”: they, ub specie aeternitatis, will always be rather changing points of what is happening, which in fact persist and are historically comprehended solely in relation to complete being, accessible to observation throughout the entire period up to the moment closest to us. Without observing this condition and even with insufficient attention to it, the entire historical perspective is inevitably lost or excessively reduced, where every phenomenon taken is commented on by the voice of history itself, illuminated by its light and revealed by its reason. This ensures breadth of outlook, objectivity of reproduction and accuracy of assessment. Otherwise, one-sidedness of narrow specialization inevitably results, and the best masters fell into exaggeration of the image and tedious scrupulousness of microscopic analysis, in which not only the forest, but also the trees disappeared behind the needles and twigs. To eliminate this danger, it is necessary to take history throughout the entire space of the past and from all sides. And when you look from this dizzying height, a picture of a raging sea with all the properties of spontaneous disorder is drawn before your eyes. Everything moves, boils, worries - and in this whirlpool at first one does not see any reasonable orderliness or constructive progression. As if all this is vanity and the will of the spirit. It is necessary to penetrate everywhere beyond the external tactility so that it serves only as a fulcrum for the disclosure of the guiding historical principles that provide the foundation for the entire process, spiritualize it at all individual stages and connect all stages into cohesive links in the development of a consistently implemented idea. Principle, gained by immersion in the depths of history, is the soul of a truly scientific historical construction, so that it does not turn into a statistical chronography of coding facts, where the more there are, the uglier the mass of stones piled up in a heap is, because in such a mass they simply crush, but do not teach anything. All these basic requirements were a symbol of Al’s scientific life. P. Lebedev, who professed them not in word or language, but in deed and the truth of his scientific asceticism. Not to mention his lectures - his printed works alone testify to this with amazing clarity. Everywhere and everywhere he began with careful research regarding the sources for the given era and devoted entire books or special sections to this subject. Therefore, all his constructions were distinguished by documentary solidity. True, the works of Al. P. Lebedev was not encumbered and overloaded with “scientific apparatus,” but he always had the latter in all the most important parts, although it was not put forward unnecessarily with all the cumbersomeness. The deceased did not like the story, which was painful in its flow and when reproduced, not to be instructive and captivating, but depressing and repulsive, feeding the taedium vitae in everyone. Highly appreciating similar hard work in others, Al himself. P. Lebedev, with the English restraint of learned composure, preferred to lay out only what was necessary, having a lot in reserve. As a result, solidity did not lose its fundamentality, but retained its attractiveness. Indeed, to prove the strength of a building, it is not at all necessary to count and describe all the supporting piles, when the secret of its stability is explained... It is also true that in the investigation of sources and materials, the late Al. P. Lebedev himself did not go to the last detail every time and in every case, but this was conditioned by the fair application of the principle of division of labor and trust in the work of others who specifically dealt with particular issues and gave reasoned results. And by the very meaning of the matter, such a deepening into all the details is inevitably accompanied by pettiness and, with the best success, is resolved by the inability to create something integral and large, with all the certainty of microscopic novelties. And when the roots and the means of their nutrition are discovered, there is hardly any obligatory need everywhere to again carry out engineering and hydrological searches for where the nourishing moisture flows under the tree... Al. P. Lebedev considered it sufficient to reach the spring and become thoroughly familiar with its properties, as they appeared, perhaps to the extensive observation of competent specialists. From here - along with careful knowledge of the sources - we see in Al. P. Lebedeva, the amazing breadth of familiarization with all the relevant literature. From this side, his erudition is almost unparalleled and understandable only on the condition that he lived entirely in the bookish and learned world, where all discoveries and literary phenomena were good acquaintances for him or welcome and awaited guests. And by the very nature of church-historical tasks, this circle was not closely closed, but nevertheless, long accustomed to the grandiose literary erudition of Al. P. Lebedev, were often at a loss from surprise at how deeply his scientific inquisitiveness extended and from what remote areas he attracted materials for his private and special works. This comprehensiveness of literary study, which imparted breadth and clarity to scientific concepts, saved scientific objectivism from the extremes of critical sophistication. The latter can be amazing in its detailed analysis, but decomposing everything, it becomes thinner to such an extent that it cuts itself, just as any overly sharpened blade inevitably breaks, even if it is made of Damascus steel. The late Al. P. Lebedev did not extend his criticism to the boundaries of systematic skepticism and, without applying absolute measures to the conditional, he found quite a lot of materials everywhere - although relative, they were quite reliable or quite probable historically. He did not have to turn the entire field of ancient history into a desert with shapeless ruins, nor create his own reconstructions in this space, which, even in their spectacularity, are more reminiscent of Fata Morgana than the former reality. As a result, it turned out that his constructions were supported by abundant and solid data and were objectively convincing. In particular application, this should have led to originality in the sense that the inner mind of past church-historical events was successfully captured and accurately revealed. It cannot be denied, of course, that Al. P. Lebedev was not always independent in concept and execution. Being an excellent connoisseur of relevant Western literature, especially German, he eagerly assimilated its valuable acquisitions and never strived for deliberate “originality,” at any cost. On the contrary, many works by Al. P. Lebedev was conceived and written under the direct influence or inspiration of Western models. However, it would be a sin of bias to see simple compilation here. All manuals and precedents served for the late historian rather as a starting point and a reason for his own interpretation, in which the opinions and theories of his predecessors were only materials. The latter were subjected to special processing and, in a new combination, invariably gave something unique in terms of general appearance and fundamental lighting. In general, all major works of Al. P. Lebedev were original and enriched science, not excluding the least polished in appearance and in detail. A reader with the broadest scientific and literary erudition has always drawn solid gains from the works of the deceased and felt enriched, if not with better information and judgments, then with new perspectives. Here the deceased, who knew least of all directly about English literature, best reflected its dominant virtues - in scholarly solidity without heavy ballast, in holistic originality without artificial originality, in scientific popularity without banal popularization. The fundamental nature of the works, based on critically verified and literary examined materials, also guaranteed the correctness of their interpretation, since the latter was resolved into self-testimony of the monuments themselves and the most faithful spokesmen of their time. This was facilitated by the breadth of his horizons, which is as unparalleled as it is undoubted by the very volume of Al. P. Lebedev eras. At first, as an academic professor, he, having deliberate specialists on his academic board, did not see any special motivation to go into a detailed review of the New Testament and the immediate post-apostolic period. It proceeded from the fundamental principles embedded in it, as authoritatively given in the divine-human feat of the Lord the Redeemer, precisely applied by the evangelistic works of the Apostles and assimilated by life in the era of the “apostolic men.” It remained for him to trace the further fate of these Christian principles in the course of world history, throughout its entire length. And it is here that the greatness of the scientific heritage bequeathed to us by Al is most clearly outlined. P. Lebedev. Not afraid of detailed and private investigations, he was an enemy of narrow self-absorption and loved to examine every detail with a broad coverage of the entire historical perspective. The task was too difficult, but the deceased solved it with exceptionally rare and fruitful success. Al. P. Lebedev managed to go through the entire historical path of Christianity from this point to the very last days. And this was not a general overview and was not limited to abstract “views” regarding the essence of the historical process. On the contrary, Al. P. Lebedev specifically stopped at all the most important stages and gave a detailed and strictly scientific report about each such stage. We have from him a whole series of consistent works, which individually thoroughly introduce all the most important periods and events, and with mutual gradualness reveal the progressive course of the historical process from its establishment to our times. The initial moments were still more assumed, but with the receipt of the university department of Al. P. Lebedev directly turned to New Testament times and managed to endow Russian literature with very valuable works, without which it decisively suffered. The deceased filled this gap and explained to us the fundamental premises of his scientific concept. At the same time, university professorship demanded more attention to Russian church history, although earlier analogies to the latter had been taken into account. Now the construction was complete. True, it entirely related only to Orthodoxy and its ramifications in the Eastern churches, but - according to the judgment of Al. P. Lebedeva - here was, in any case, the most historically correct exponent of primordial Christianity, which was illuminated through this from the most essential side. Along with this, the most important Western confessions were not lost sight of. On the contrary, for Christian-Papist Rome and Catholicism, the deceased worked hard to reveal all the features of origin and historical manifestation, and for Protestantism he sufficiently expressed his fundamental views through consideration of relevant scientific figures and theories. Under the noted conditions, one cannot but agree that the historical destinies of Christianity were studied by Al. P. Lebedev deeply and comprehensively. This success has become so enormous due to the immensity of the task that you believe it only because of the indisputability of the fact, and for Russian science it is simply amazing. Both before and simultaneously with Al. P. Lebedev included dedicated workers of rare talents, colossal erudition, impeccable thoroughness of critical analysis, but even in the best examples these were only partial constructions that could only be elements of a scientific-historical concept. Not infrequently we were harmed here by some vague confessional timidity, and they did not dare to extend to the beginning and did not dare to finish speaking to the end. Al. P. Lebedev discarded this prejudice that was offensive to Orthodoxy, which was not exactly clear to all of its slaves, and was the only one, and so far the only one, to undertake a holistic depiction of the entire church-historical life. On this side Al. P. Lebedev was actually the first historian of the Orthodox Eastern Church in our time and in dignity, who gave a clear picture of the historical destinies of Christianity. In terms of the breadth of his plan and the success of his execution, it is now difficult to find an equal to him in the entire world of theological science. More suitable in this regard is the Berlin professor Adolf Harnack, as Moscow academic students called the deceased already in the 80s. The fundamental nature of the design and the broadness of the perspective were supposed to eliminate any artificial bias, ensuring fundamental objectivity. Unfortunately, on this part Al. P. Lebedev suffered to his grave from grave misunderstandings and cruel suspicions, which often had for him the bitterness of not simple theoretical opposition, but the very real poison of life... The creeping mug that led to the grave haunted the deceased all his life in the form of slander and slander... He was stubbornly considered and never ceased to be interpreted as a non-Orthodox liberal with a perky and defiant character troublemaker. The doctorate was completed with great difficulty and created an extremely dangerous reputation for the author, even for the very fact that the scientist of the West through the mouth of Hell. Harnack, almost for the first time, praised this Russian church-historical work. The atmosphere thickened to such suffocation that in the mid-80s Al P. Lebedev was forced to leave the Moscow Theological Academy 6 and (in 1885) was already completely appointed to Kazan University. 7 His greatest torment was to part with Alma Mater, to which he was devoted with all his soul, 8 - and only a happy intercession temporarily saved him from exile. Nevertheless, distrust continued to hang over the deceased as a dark cloud, and on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the academic professorship (in September 1895), the nearest authorities did not find it possible to express even a simple greeting to the worthy hero of the day, 9 but took care that - already an elderly man, “having served faithfully and truly for 25 years the dear Moscow spirit. Academy, 10 - Al. P. Lebedev left her to seek shelter at Moscow University, where in advance he could not expect any special cordiality, given the strong likelihood in the opposite direction... It would seem that now there was scope to be liberal “with all his might,” without fear or embarrassment, and the deceased still remained faithful only to the duty of a historian and did not turn one iota to the left for the sake of tendentiousness, but in something else. “corrected” due to attention to the revealed historical data. Of course, the literary opposition, which prepared the emergence of prejudices about Al’s orthodoxy. P. Lebedeva, did not cease to support them, and sometimes went out in an organized systematic campaign of an entire “closed phalanx” against the half-blind old man in order to completely discredit him. In more principled clashes, the deceased knew how to give full-fledged literary criticism to both prominent critics and pygmy critics, but regarding personal attacks he resolutely told us the rule that “you can’t keep up with every poke.” The deceased entrusted his truth not to his own apologetics, but to the objective scientific work of continuous creation. The latter was clearer than any defensive speeches, but it turned out to be weak against prejudice precisely because there were no real grounds in it, why it did not open up an objective point for defeat and subsequent elimination. After all, it is highly characteristic and significant that Al. P. Lebedev was deliberately not involved in the preparatory “pre-conciliar” work regarding our church reforms, and when the matter had to be decided according to the reason and precepts of the universal church, at that time there was no place for our best church historian, where even amateurs and experts, not always firm in theological terminology, were gathered from everywhere. Truly, a prophet is not accepted in his fatherland... I have regrettable personal reasons for thinking that - out of a bad habit - even after that, they retained timid skepticism about the orthodoxy of Al. P. Lebedeva, 11 and some signs suggest the painful thought that even after death he does not find recognition for himself... Things got to the point that two venerable Moscow priests, even at his funeral service in the Church of God, were forced in their funeral speeches to testify that the deceased was a believer, 12 meanwhile the last sounds of the scientific-life evangelism of this professor were the words of faith and hope: “pray for me...” 13 The sacred duty of a grateful student and the scientific duty of an academic-literary theologian force us to come out with a decisive protest in defense of a teacher shackled in deathly silence. I will not touch on beliefs, for this is an area that is as intimate as it is sacred, which is not subject to human judgment; and if annoying slander penetrated even there, then Alexei Petrovich himself considered it inviolable and did not allow “rants about the feelings and piety” of the deceased. 14 For this, only our fervent prayer to God is appropriate, but in everything else, objective reasoning based on indisputable facts is permissible. First of all, the very personality of the late professor is incorrectly outlined as a person who was constantly eager for polemical fervor and liberal opposition. True, in the writing style of Al. P. Lebedev’s notes of defiance were often heard, and his speech, always imbued with a special sense of humor, did not shy away from sharp expressions and piercing hints, but there was a purely external feature that Attic salt was replaced by strong pepper, which flew off with the lightest breath. The deceased was not shy in his reviews and sometimes allowed excessive individual harshness, but this is where his simple-minded frankness was revealed, valuing only opinions, even if for the sake of this he had to painfully touch upon many individuals with sad concerns and for himself. This means that Al’s own words are directly confirmed here. P. Lebedev, that in scientific works “it was not flattery and partiality that moved his language.” 15 In fact, she was a deeply peaceful nature with shades of great inner timidity, by nature inclined towards healthy conservatism, although completely hostile to stagnation and mustiness. In one letter to us, the deceased categorically spoke out for Seneca’s principle that vivere militare est, but he understood this struggle as an organic property of life itself, invariably developing and strengthening through victories and the triumph of the best and most perfect principles. And regarding fundamental views, there is no doubt that the Moscow academic students who proudly equated Al. P. Lebedeva to the Berlin Professor Hell. Harnack only in volume and degree of scientific and literary productivity, but not at all in dogmatic character. If the leading circles always thought differently and for this reason clung to random thoughts and private maxims, then it follows from this nothing more than that in place of the affirming pillars we had canes swayed by the wind, which were only handy to catch the running bad reputation and were unable to raise the good, since it lies and requires its own tension... Here the policy of the ruling spiritual authorities is full of the most inexplicable contrasts. They give Al. P. Lebedev received the degree of Doctor of Theology and, to some extent, was invested with the authority of a teacher, but soon the doctoral dissertation was officially banned and expelled from spiritual and pedagogical circulation along with his other works, which were subject to arrest from seminarians almost on a par with revolutionary books, 16 which is why even the most benevolent censorship did not dare to allow new editions to pass; however, years pass and the same works, without any request or desire of the author, receive official approval and are directly recommended for leadership use... These facts can neither be erased nor reinterpreted, because they undoubtedly existed, despite mutual denial. It is clear from them that the prejudice of such circles cannot be considered obligatory at all, even by virtue of its very persistence, which speaks only of the feelings of the judges and has a purely subjective origin and dignity. They want all existing forms of the church system and life itself to be recognized and proclaimed dogmatically sacred and primordially Christian, but a serious historian, attentive and obedient to the voice of all historical evidence, cannot agree with this, and ideologically for him it then turns out to be completely indisputable that, due to its very divinity, Christianity, true to itself, cannot be exhausted by historically emerging and changing features... On this basis, the most a disastrous collision of church power and theological science, where the former crushed and bullied the latter, and the latter protested or groveled. Still too fresh in our wary memories and sensitive hearts is the recent era when these sentiments dominated the church government, harmful to it and to theological progress not so much by the despotic constraint of science, but by its mercenary subordination to one’s service. The very nature of scientific knowledge was distorted, the fundamental tasks were distorted, the ideal was obscured not from persecution, which rather internally strengthens it and externally attracts it, but precisely from enslavement, which supplanted the original and replaced the obligatory mistress with a sycophantic servant. False history emerged and gained predominance, making up for the lack of organic strength with polemical fervor and reproachful accusatory language. The late Al. P. Lebedev rejected such trends with all his being, and then it was quite natural that he was dangerous and suspicious for those who commanded the winds and currents. Mutual opposition was naturally inevitable here and therefore cannot be eliminated until one or the other side changes. Al. P. Lebedev was least inclined or capable of opportunistic adaptations - and from here arose a gradually growing distrust of his orthodoxy, which then solidified into a traditional prejudice. Based on what has been stated, it is clear that this serves only to characterize only the creators and proponents of such prejudice and objectively forces us to admit quite the opposite. And it is indisputable for an impartial observer that Al. P. Lebedev was alien to confessional bias in both directions and always sought to speak as a scientist who listens to history, and does not tell it. If under this condition there could be no fossilized conservatism, then deliberate liberalism was equally excluded. In the best and most irresistible way, this truth was justified in recent days, when a stormy wave of innovation, reformism and party spirit surged into the church sphere and swirled everyone so much that all the dark figures were suddenly illuminated with the crimson glow of freedom fighters and the former founding members of the union of the Russian people with banners of protest ran as horse guides on the left flank... Uncalled to direct work of collective clarification of our existing churchliness and its demands, - Al. P. Lebedev hastened to respond in print and formulated his theses with usual clarity. Apparently, now an opportune moment has opened up for the “inveterate liberal” to put forward the entire arsenal of crushing opposition to the old and noisy innovation. It didn’t turn out that way at all, and most of Al’s conclusions. P. Lebedev was in favor of conservative formulas. 17 It is also characteristic that our deceased scientist again became a convinced apologist for the memory of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) precisely in the last “reformation” years of our history, when the orthodox granite personality of the Moscow saint could not be attractive unless it could be exploited in party interests... It is equally significant that the late professor was ardent a preacher of the exclusive sacredness of Orthodox shepherding, for which he demanded the complete concentration of all forces and did not allow them to be diverted even in favor of science, although he himself valued the latter above all earthly ministries... Of course, even now the rightists still did not consider Al. P. Lebedev was completely “one of his own,” and some “right-wing righteous” continued to vilify him for his excesses, just as the leftists also distanced themselves, but it directly follows from this that he never and under no circumstances was a man of the party and a slave of doctrinaire. 18 In it there has always lived only a historian, who weighed and illuminated the foundations of the honestly professed faith with the reason of the entire totality of the facts of history. As a result of this, the scientific works of the deceased were deprived of any tendentiousness and imbued with objective principles. These are the main features of the scientific work of Prof. Al. P. Lebedev, who in our current conditions 19 has moved farthest along the path to the ideal of a historian of Christianity. It must also be added that he understood the history of the church broadly and vitally. For him, it was not just a special “scientific discipline”, closed within a narrow framework, or at least limited in its horizons and in the direction of scientific inquisitiveness in a certain direction. The deceased firmly and loudly confessed that “the history of the church is the mother of all theological sciences” and, therefore, embracing them all, serves as the soil and support for them. Fertilizing the latter with the light of historical experience, she herself acquired a breadth of perspective and comprehensiveness of view. Such a relationship was based on the fact that this was actually the case in historical life itself, where scientific specialties were caused by the demands of the time and developed in accordance with historical needs. Consequently, history here is not an abstract template or a dead chronicle, but always retains its vitality, where even the most distant past reveals the genesis and meaning of the present, determining the present value for the latter and predetermining its inherent future. In the varied works of Al. P. Lebedev everywhere in this dignity comments and reflects church history, which becomes a teacher not because of mentoring importunity, but because it reveals the laws of the historical emergence and movement of similar phenomena and institutions. This precious trait was part of the nature of Al’s scientific and historical contemplation. P. Lebedeva and invigorated his scientific work, which for others is so prone to turn into dry archaeology. For him, the past was not considered to have disappeared, but it is a moment of ongoing existence and therefore has an organic right to actively participate in it. That's why Al himself. P. Lebedev, learning more from the days of the ancients, did not get bogged down in memories alone and did not have armchair indifference to the surrounding reality. The latter was a well-known product of the past and itself cried out to it for reinforcement, and it responded either with the delight of crowning, or with a groan of perversion, demanding the restoration of the norm. So the current church modernity naturally turned out to be the direct object of historical observation and critical judgment of Al P. Lebedev. And we see that he was in a hurry to respond to all the most important requests with animation and the heat of the most lively interest, without the archaeological coldness of antique references selected ad hoc. There was no deviation from the historian’s direct calling, but only the direct application of vital scientific acquisitions to living phenomena. Therefore, in many of the works of the deceased there are such rapprochements with the present and analogous indications, the last period was marked by several similar works, written with extraordinary enthusiasm and instructive inspiration of a historian-sage, who over the years only gained experience and did not move away from life, but only entered deeper into it, saw the true paths more clearly and felt abnormalities more painfully... In them the voice of a great and knowledgeable soul sounds everywhere. – grieving, but not at all embittered and deeply benevolent. And we will commit a great sin and bring ourselves great harm if, behind the harsh words of the judge, we do not accept the precepts of the teacher and follow him with obedience, suppressing the bitterness of reproof with the sweetness of renewal... And in this regard, for the influence of Al. P. Lebedev is provided with the widest space. Already the very vital setting of church history necessitated that this discipline in the treatment of the deceased lost its bookish abstraction, when science becomes the property of specialists and arouses only rare curiosity among others. Here, with its vitality, this story - even the most distant one - necessarily aroused keen interest, because, illuminating the past, it was the torch of the present and the light of the future. All the works of the deceased are imprinted with such properties, because the latter flowed from the very nature of history, as Al understood it. P. Lebedeva. Because of this, the attractive interest was not weakened by artificiality or the falseness of tendentiousness and was strengthened with the charm of objective naturalness. Here he denounced and taught, chained and repelled, touched and aroused the very object, since it was exactly that, not according to a scientific interpretation, but according to its inner essence, according to the reason of its being. For these reasons, all works by Al. P. Lebedev, being processing scientists, did not perish in the darkness of learned sanctuaries and their priests, but with their rays burst into all layers, everywhere exciting and riveting the living and intense attention of personal importance for everyone. The modest academic and university audience expanded to include a wide circle of people who value the eternal demands of life in the field of spirit. As for the reception and degree of influence of the works of the deceased in this vast environment, the favorable result was predetermined, in the best sense, by the peculiarities of Al’s writings. P. Lebedeva. Knowing how to grasp the very core of each phenomenon, he immediately introduced to its full depth, why the details became not tedious details, but more distinct, closer individualizing features of already familiar images. At the same time, the deceased usually did not like fractional objects of study and took an entire related group or era, where all particular moments were revealed by their very reciprocity and were assimilated in their true historical sense quite naturally - without the violence of the author and without the violence of the reader. Finally, the literary presentation by Al. P. Lebedev was distinguished by rare virtues. 20 Somewhat monotonous in its techniques and drawn out, it was always imbued with an extraordinary plan and orderliness of construction and captured with such transparent clarity of the image that it opened everyone’s eyes to their own contemplation of the taken object. Without any external artificiality, that natural artistry was achieved that delights the eye and enlightens the soul with true understanding. The deceased knew his scientific value and did not hide (in letters to us) his opinion that it was impossible to ignore his works in science, just as they could not be removed from it, but in general he was modest on this score even in the most intimate conversations. But he greatly valued the quality of publicly accessible literature and, with his characteristic simple-minded self-irony, willingly repeated one editor’s thesis about himself that “every ignoramus understands” him... Diligent efforts were made in this direction, and they were crowned with complete success. We ourselves know from many examples how the works of Al. P. Lebedev penetrated to the lowest strata. So, recently we had to select a theological library for a personally unknown, simple monk carrying a great cultural and Christian mission on the most remote outskirts of Russia - and we well remember with what grateful feeling of spiritual satisfaction he spoke specifically about the works of Al. P. Lebedev, having found in him his teacher, close to him even in terms of his most learned authority, since the latter only explained the matter more clearly and deepened his understanding. Based on the above, it is not surprising for the deceased that although he avoided any external techniques to gain popularity, his works had an unusual distribution for theological writings, since they were vital, touched upon diverse interests and were absolutely accessible to everyone. Al. P. Lebedev was an exceptional phenomenon for our special theology, for he was the only one who decided on his own to undertake a complete “collection of his church-historical works,” and for Russian theological science and for Russian religious self-consciousness he serves as a gratifying recommendation if this enterprise was successful, and individual volumes soon required second and even third editions. For a full assessment, we need to take into account our Russian environment. In it, many theological specialists lived under the heavy pressure of despair that they were writing for a non-existent public, not counting on it in the distant future. Even ostentatious pride in this situation testified to how hopeless and murderous the matter was in this regard. This means that it is all the more surprising that at this time the Russian public itself was going to Al. P. Lebedev without any call or artificial bait. What is even higher and more valuable is that the deceased did not at all lower himself to the tastes of the masses, never fell into a vulgar simplification of thought and language, but always raised the influx of the public to himself in the name of the historical truth he proclaimed. In all this, again, we find an analogy only in English classical examples. Of course, the closest application object described by the Al property. P. Lebedev had a professorial audience, where, first of all, his natural talents were used, his multifaceted talents developed and strengthened. Already in his young years, the deceased gained both authority and popularity among the students of the Moscow Theological Academy. Arriving there in August 1884, we found this rare combination crystallized long ago, and the name “Moscow Harnack” was the pride of all the pupils of this Almae Matris, sheltered under the shadow of the Lavra of St. Sergius. The audience of the deceased was loved and attended, despite the fact that there were no external attractions. Rather, there was much to the contrary. The heavy figure of the lecturer, who walked with small, uncertain steps, the frowning, half-blind face, the sharp voice with abrupt inharmonic transitions from piercing highs to dull lows, the manner of reading without fail from a notebook - all this was not particularly attractive, and Al himself. P. Due to his inner shyness, Lebedev was already incapable of deliberate and systematic effects to captivate the audience in his favor. 22 He did not seek or buy cheap applause, although he was not indifferent to it. The presentation of the lectures, alien to artificial rhetorical embellishments and sometimes quite drawn-out, was least of all designed for bargaining with the listeners, which was beneficial for the professor, whom we, unfortunately, are accustomed to acquiring and inflaming precisely by such means... Obviously, with Al. P. Lebedev had a higher and purely objective appeal if students flocked in abundance to his readings. And it, indeed, consisted in the ability to deeply captivate the listeners with the very subject, which was always chosen according to its typical meaning for a whole series of phenomena, illuminated from the most important side and explained according to its inner strength, which captured attention. The audience saw before them, as it were, a genuine living history, and this latter, through the mouth of the professor, revealed the secrets of its existence, impressive and instructive for every thinking soul. In this direction Al. P. Lebedev enjoyed well-deserved fame among his students, who valued him as an inimitable historian-interpreter who knew how to present the mind of events with the soulful clarity of an image. It is not surprising that sometimes the entire Academy was going to listen to him. This was the case, for example, at the beginning of 1885, when he was called upon to temporarily lecture on church archeology after the death († December 16, 1884) of Prof. I. D. Mansvetova. Al. P. Lebedev began his course with a characterization of his late colleague and interested his group so much that a special deputation asked him to repeat this reading in the evening in front of the entire academic student body. 23 And the enthusiastic success that befell the lecturer is all the more significant because one quarter of the students had never seen Mansvetov, and others were not yet among the direct students of the deceased professor-liturgist. Already from this incident it is easy to guess to what high degree Al. P. Lebedev had the ability to “paint” history - in the true and literal sense of the word, artistically and spiritually resurrecting the past. In general, the lecture influence of Al. P. Lebedev's support to the entire academic student body was enormous and beneficial throughout all 25 years of academic service. Here it extended to the entire mass, but in relation to many it manifested itself with special individual energy. This was during the period when students take the final step towards achieving academic maturity by writing a dissertation for the degree of candidate of theology. Workers on this part from Al. P. Lebedev was always enough, and the best forces prevailed between them. It would seem that one should expect the opposite. True, the church-historical area is highly interesting in itself, but it is also so vast that one can be completely lost - with great danger either in the center of attacking an already resolved issue, or on the periphery of hitting into such a wilderness from where only a sepulchral voice can be heard, instilling horror. Along with this, church historical material requires great erudition for proper processing, which requires systematic and hard work. In particular, multilingual philological training is required here, which not all students had, where the majority were looking for topics with “Russian sources.” Finally, according to the academic charter of 1884, Al. P. Lebedev annually gave semester-long essays to an entire academic course (usually the second), and by the time of the candidate’s search, all students knew from experience how carefully this professor studied every exercise, not leaving a single one without his own written comments, how strict he was with all shades of thought and word, not being at all picky, despite the severity of his remarks and reviews. Despite all this, the students were drawn to him, because they confidently recognized him as a faithful teacher, who would show him a reliable and close path, would not let him get lost, and would guide him out of difficulties in a timely, willing and skillful manner. It is impossible to estimate approximately how many troubles and worries fell to the lot of the professor, who equally had to reckon with youthful inexperience and youthful daring, the first being capable of involuntarily exhausting great patience, and the second leading with polemical fervor in altercations and attacks. But if the students went to the deceased with faith, then he responded to them with the most generous self-devotion, alien to arrogant arrogance and lordly arrogance. 24 The triumph of the student was his own pride, and to his most successful spiritual “children” Al. P. Lebedev forever maintained constant goodwill and friendly relations, despite any painful complications of personal relationships. A harmonious reciprocity was created between the teacher and students, which served as the basis for the consistent education of entire academic generations in a certain scientific spirit. If this was not a “school” in the technical Western sense, then there is no doubt that there is one consistent church historical direction, which through the mouth of Hell. Western science noted Harnack with especially flattering praise precisely for the development of church history at the Moscow Theological Academy, during the professorship of Al. P. Lebedeva. But the same reciprocity ensured the latter’s possible fruitful scientific influence on young scientists. Hence, actual good results are inevitable. They are indisputable for the multitude of scientific and literary acquisitions required. Al. P. Lebedev, since he conducted a whole mass of candidate works for the master’s degree 25 and some of them interested the Western scientific world. It was clear that he was both an experienced leader and a prudent connoisseur, capable of giving any work scientific sanction. Therefore Al. P. Lebedev - in addition to his direct students - awarded master's and doctorate degrees to many other authors, 26 and in this regard we do not know approximately his equal in the history of our entire spiritual and academic pedagogy. These learned “children” 27 of him are scattered everywhere and some occupy professorial chairs in other Academies and Universities, maintaining the students’ respect for their teacher, as he never ceased to be for them, being keenly interested in fate and invariably helping with experience and knowledge. I testify to this with gratitude on my own behalf, although I did not see Al. P. Lebedev from the beginning of May 1891 and only maintained written relations with him, which were both benevolent and instructive. In general, even here the selfless labors of the deceased were great, yielding abundant fruits and ripening new ones, but with him everything was done simply and naturally. Just as light is naturally ignited by light, so the learned lamp with its rays ignited the lights of its kind. It was an inherent atmosphere that accompanied Al everywhere. P. Lebedeva and everywhere causing scientific insight. An excellent illustration of this is the entire professorship of the deceased at Moscow University. Here “church history” does not have such support for its development either in the training of students or in the solidarity of other faculty disciplines - and, moving here, the deceased felt like a bishop in retirement. 28 However, the appearance of Al. P. Lebedev's work at the university department led to the formation of broad and serious theological inquiries among university students, despite the fact that the lecturer did not indulge him at all with the attractiveness of liberal readings, and sometimes treated him to lectures of a clearly orthodox and protective nature. But young souls forgot about these false current accounts, hearing the scientific truth that attracted them everywhere, and clearly expressed deep interest in the matter itself, 29 and the professor hastened to support and organize these inclinations to give them comprehensive scientific and pedagogical satisfaction. Al. P. Lebedev gathered around him a large army of young scientific forces 30 and, as a learned patriarch, called and adapted them to university teaching. The matter proceeded quietly and modestly, but was strong in action and rich in hope. In the literature and in special meetings there were heated debates about theological university faculties, to the point of seduction, but so far only mutual misunderstandings resulted, accompanied by both theoretical complications and practical disappointments... At this time of unrest still continuing Al. P. Lebedev alone quietly prepared a practical solution to the problem with the irresistible convincingness of a real fact. This latter could only be affirmed by the inviolability of the established scientific authority, which finds a strong foundation for creativity on the most shaky ground. Al. P. Lebedev had the consolation of seeing this for himself, since he was elected an honorary member of all Russian Orthodox Theological Academies and several Universities. But if his power was communicated to others at ease, then c. There it was accumulated and refined through the hard work of a lifetime. The deceased went through the difficult and thorny path of a beggarly poor spiritual schoolboy under extremely sad difficulties. The son of a rural priest of the Moscow diocese, from an early age he went through the crucible of regrettable family troubles and collapses. His father’s career was extremely unfavorable, and he was deprived of his priesthood for drunkenness, demoted to the rank of philistine, and, being a village teacher, died an unnatural death, killed in a fight. In addition to the aggravating everyday details, all these circumstances, in themselves, suppressed the young soul of the child, with the dark and chilling clouds of reality depriving it of light and warmth, without which a living, intelligent creature cannot develop normally. The cares of Al's mother. P. Lebedev ended up in the Pererva Theological School, but was barely able to pull the student's burden, more than once was under the threat of dismissal for inability, and afterward he retained sad memories of these years under his usual name of “unfortunate Pererva” - not with bitterness, but in the sense of an objective description of the former. Even at the Moscow Seminary, which was a “dismal phenomenon,” 31 he did not straighten out suddenly, and if in 1866 he graduated here as the first student in the first department, 32 then “he owed this solely to his own initiative.” 33 Natural abilities were supported by seasoned diligence and developed at the Academy to such an extent that he was elected to replace the famous Fr. A.V. Gorsky, who was the subject of his reverent memory and jealous guard. All further service of the deceased was a continuous feat of tireless and selfless labor. Professorial dignity Al. P. Lebedev not only appreciated, but directly considered it sacred and did not tolerate the slightest damage in relation to him. This is a kind of cult that requires the complete concentration of all forces and thoughts in order to get even somewhat closer to the ideal of learned teaching. Therefore, the deceased spoke decisively to us personally (in a special letter) even against the combination of two homogeneous professorships, when the professor is exchanged for a reader and cannot keep up with the progress of scientific knowledge in all areas of his field. 34 And if this level seemed almost unattainable, then from here for Al. The only thing that emerged from P. Lebedev was that here, for every true and honest adept, complete dedication to this great mission with complete and undivided sacrifice of oneself for it is obligatory. The pulpit is an altar from which eternal truth can be seen, and on it the fragrant incense of pure science should always be smoked with all the soul and with all the thoughts of a learned clergyman. This was the confession of the deceased, carried out in fact. With such a view, the work familiar to him became the sacred vow of a scientific priest, and all together created a scientific ascetic who always works, for the truth invariably remains both distant and precious for earthly human existence. Not having and not finding his own personal life, Al. P. Lebedev completely immersed himself in scientific interests and was in them as if in his native element. Hence his tireless and incessant feat, striking even with the purely external enormity of the results. And for the most superficial observation, one gets the impression that the deceased was only reading and writing all the time, robbing himself of many hours of sleep. 35 We know well that even during short periods of vacation respite, he was not separated from books and closely followed scientific literature. Just two years ago, having found himself on the Baltic seaside in a very nasty rainy summer, Al. P. Lebedev found this failure almost fortunate for himself, because he could study Zahn’s book “Einleitung in das Neue Testament” better and in more detail, and this huge work in two volumes of a murderous press was tiring to overcome even for the young patience of a sworn specialist, meanwhile the deceased was a half-blind old man who was not directly concerned with the tasks of New Testament bibliology. But sacred service knows no limits and is unthinkable without sacrifice. And the last Al. P. Lebedev endured the scientific martyr and learned confessor with heroism to the point that he completely ruined his vision early on. There were times when he was in danger of blindness, and he was forced to lock himself in special hospitals. Despite these fatal warnings, at the first opportunity the work continued as before, and if his eyes were not enough for it, the deceased hired experienced readers to always be aware of the scientific and literary movement. However, vision decreased with a terrifying progression and remained in fact only in one eye with the incomprehensibility that Al himself. P. Lebedev considered it “a miracle of miracles,” 36 and yet he did not stop writing and always wrote with his own hand in his diligent small handwriting... Truly the deceased “loved church-historical science to the point of oblivion” and “dedicated himself inseparably to it.” This self-testimony 37 has now been sealed by death and is indisputable for everyone, but what kind of power of scientific self-devotion lived and dominated in this learned ascetic, who forgot his mortal misfortune for the sake of scientific duty?! Isn’t this the secret of the mentioned “miracle,” which is always created in the world by the truth, and why is it bestowed upon its faithful adherent by joining it? The great work of the deceased also had great fruit. His literary heritage is very rich and amounts to hundreds of printed sheets. 38 Having left us physically, Al. P. Lebedev, with his writings, will invariably be a living teacher in our science - not just of these or those individual disciplines and special particulars, but of selfless service to the truth, for which he was in many ways a faithful interpreter of the secrets of the past and the omens of the future. 39 We, the direct spectators and closest witnesses of this blessed feat, which fertilized our scientific life at all its stages, are deeply struck by the unexpected death of the great teacher and bring to his sacred grave an unfading wreath of grateful prayers with the ardent faith of the delightful hope that - having died from labors among labors - the selfless seeker of truth is now worthy to contemplate it firsthand... I personally, having now (June 3, 1908) completed the 25th anniversary of my literary activity, gratefully remember how I owe the beginning and the entire direction of my scientific life to the deceased through the dissertation on Blessed Theodoret written under his leadership, why I involuntarily and inextricably link in my mind these dear historical figures and the words of Emperor Marcian about Flavian of Constantinople applied me in 1890 to the famous Bishop of Kirre, 40 I now refer with the spiritual grief of spiritual loneliness to my unforgettable professor Alexei Petrovich Lebedev, since for him it is and will be immutable that “the glory of the glorious is never destroyed with death, virtues do not end with the dead; and the good opinion of the virtuous increases even more with their death, because that all envy of the dead disappears...” Basic biographical data of Al's life. P. Lebedev are like that. He was born in the village of Ochakovo, Russian district, Moscow province, on March 2, 1845; his father, the priest Pyotr Methodievich, died unhappily at a relatively young age (see below, p. 18), and his mother, Alexandra Prokofievna, died in the arms of her son in Sergiev Posad in 1886 as an elderly woman. He studied at the Perervinsky Theological School and the Moscow Seminary, from where in 1866 he moved to the Moscow Theological Academy (in Sergiev Posad), where he graduated in 1870 as part of the 17th year as a second master. Left immediately thereafter as an assistant professor at the department of church history (from September 24), Al. P. Lebedev already in 1874 became an extraordinary professor, and in 1879, after acquiring a doctorate by publicly defending a dissertation on the “ecumenical councils of the 4th and 5th centuries,” he received a residency; On September 1, 1895 - after twenty-five years of service at his native Academy - he (not without external compulsion) became an ordinary professor of church history (in place of the deceased Archpriest A.M. Ivantsov-Platonov) to Moscow University, to which he remained faithful until his death. From a letter from Alexei Petrovich to me dated May 13, 1908. See his brochure (reprint from Nos. 297‒300, 302, 303 of the Moscow Gazette for 1889), “Professor A. M. Ivantsov†, me and the priest N. Dobronravov, the defender of the first,” p. 5 note; “Theological Bulletin” 1907 No. 6 p. 425. How much do we know from random information, Al. P. Lebedev died truly unexpectedly: on July 4th he was going to leave Moscow for a short rest to visit a close relative N.V. Gruzdeva in Reshma (Kostroma province, on the Volga), but on that very day he was forced to suffer from creeping erysipelas, which he received, it seems, in a bathhouse. For some reason, the disease was not captured and stopped by the doctors in a timely manner, and it all ended with an allegedly unsuccessful tracheotomy operation, during which Alexey Petrovich died. All other questions that Al. P. Lebedev sometimes devoted even large printed works, which were incidental and incidental to him, or even accidental (for example, a dogmatic-apologetic master's thesis on the creation of the world, written by the deceased precisely because the best students of the Moscow Academy of his time had to prefer dogmatic topics for their final essay). See about this “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, p. 423. Then (from August 1, 1885) this department was occupied here by the famous Kazan church historian, professor F.A. Kurganov. For his farewell reading on January 13, 1896, before Moscow academic students, Al. P. Lebedev chose the words of St. Gregory the Theologian: “no one and nothing is as sad as for Athenian co-educates to part with Athens and with each other” and directly called the Moscow Academy “his dear mother,” the separation from which he felt deeply (see “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, p. 401. 424. 425). We know this regarding the then Metropolitan of Moscow (August 9, 1893 - February 11, 1898) Sergius (Lyapidevsky) from the lips of the recently deceased (March 26, 1908) Bishop of (Tula) Lavrenty (Nekrasov), who was at that time (1895-1898) rector Moscow Theological Academy. See “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, p. 425. As early as January 7, 1907, he himself wrote to us that his “writing received a lash,” and on March 3 of the same year he reported with heavy sadness that “at the end of his life he turned into a writer whose articles began to seem ill-intentioned.” See “Soulful Reading” 1908, No. 8, pp. 587‒588. 599. See “Soulful Reading” 1908, No. 8, pp. 583, 588; “Theological Bulletin” 1908, No. 7-8, p. 596. This is what Al wrote to us. P. Lebedev dated September 24, 1905 regarding an article for the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. See “Orthodox Review” 1886, No. 4, p. 813. See Al himself. P. Lebedeva in “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 4, p. 720. Lately Al. P. Lebedev was busy with special work on the latest “reformation” movement in our church and diligently collected (partly through our mediation) all the materials that could be obtained. If this work is sufficiently processed, then it is highly desirable to see it in print, and in general, all measures must be taken to ensure that the complete “collection of church-historical works” of the deceased is completed according to the plan he outlined and together with the autobiography, apparently fully processed. Al himself. P. Lebedev wrote on March 3, 1907 that he should not be called “the most authoritative” (as I did in print), but impartial or non-partisan. This principle was applied with possible severity to the deceased and in relation to persons. For example, I reproached Alexei Petrovich for one of his “sympathies” among modern hierarchs, and on December 6, 1907 he wrote to me: “I had no reason to think unfavorably about him, and in general I adhere to the rule that it is better to exaggerate for the good than for the bad, if this is possible about this or that public figure.” Among these conditions we must include the situation of theological science in Russia. Al about this. P. Lebedev wrote to us on December 6, 1907: "I have always been of the opinion that theological science in our Russian Church serves most of all for external decorum. There is a theological science among Catholics and Protestants - therefore, out of imitation and to avoid reproaches, they introduced one among us. But they do not recognize its significance at all, being content with the external fact that, they say, we also have a science. What is mainly demanded of (theological) science is that it not she made a fuss and adhered to the rule: silence is more convenient. I don’t know of a time in our history when anyone was praised and appreciated for their work and success in theological science. Unfortunately, the same view is still held.” I fully share all these judgments of my late teacher. They were noticed with characteristic observation and described with usual specificity by the famous publicist V.V. Rozanov, although he in vain called Al the archpriest, who he correctly understood. P. Lebedeva (see “New Time” No. 11.641 for August 9, 1908), for the latter lived and died as a layman. We know Al. P. Lebedev is exactly like this, although for the initial years of his professorship he (in “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, pp. 401–402) describes himself differently... Therefore, we fully believe the testimony of the direct listener, Fr. V.P. Borisoglebsky (XXIX course 1870–1874) that in 1870, initially, Moscow academic students least liked the introductory lectures, namely Al. P. Lebedeva, along with his two other comrades, who also received academic departments and read at the same time as him; but soon the latter appeared and forever remained the first in the consciousness of the entire student body. This lecture, given on the evening of February 9, 1885, was published in Orthodox Review 1886, No. 4 (April), pp. 789–813. It is also necessary to remember that during my stay (from 1884 to 1890) at the Moscow Theological Academy, the professor from whom a famous student wrote his candidate’s dissertation was usually always called in relation to this latter his “master”... We do not know when and why this shameful terminology became so firmly established in the Moscow academic student body, but, obviously, there were once sufficient reasons for this - just not in Al. P. Lebedev, who, of course, was not inclined towards lordship and completely despised servility. Al himself. P. Lebedev mentioned with understandable scientific self-satisfaction (in the Theological Bulletin, 1907, No. 6, p. 420) that through him “13 young people acquired a master’s degree,” and “the birth of doctors and masters is associated with considerable efforts, and sometimes with significant grief.” These masters of Lebedev initiation are the following: 1) Al. A. Ostroumov (XXXIII academic year), now assistant trustee of the Kazan educational district (Synesius the philosopher, Bishop of Ptolemais, Moscow 1879); 2) A. P. Dobroklonsky (XXXV year), professor at Novorossiysk University (Essay by Fakund, Bishop of Hermian, in defense of three chapters, Moscow 1880); 3) N. D. Izvekov (XXXVIII year), archpriest in Moscow and private associate professor at Moscow University (Hierarchy of the North African Church, Vilna 1884); 4) Art. I. Ostroumov (XL course), archpriest in the village. Tuma of the Ryazan province (Analysis of information from Eusebius of Caesarea and Blessed Jerome of Stridon about Greek apologists of the second century, Moscow 1886); 5) A.V. Martynov (XXXVII year), associate professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, who died (on the night of November 16-17, 1901) in the rank of archpriest, teacher of the law - professor of theology at the Petrovsko-Razumovsky Agricultural Institute near Moscow (Teachings of St. Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa, on the nature of man, Moscow 1886); 6) K. N. Smirnov (XLII year), teacher of the Yaroslavl Seminary (Review of the sources of the history of the first ecumenical council, Yaroslavl 1888); 7) N. N. Glubokovsky (XLIV course), professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology (Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Kirre, 2 volumes, Moscow 1890); 8) P.V. Guryev (XLIV year), head of the office of the School Council at the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg and a member of this Council (Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuetsky, Moscow 1890); 9) N. G. Popov (XLVII year), priest and professor at the Engineering School in Moscow (Emperor Leo VI the Wise and his reign in church-historical terms, Moscow 1892); 10) A.F. Karashev (XLII year), teacher of the Ryazan Seminary (On the newly discovered monument “The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles”, Moscow 1896); 11) A. A. Spassky (XLV course), professor of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Church History (Historical fate of the works of Apollinaris of Laodicea with a brief preliminary sketch of his life, Sergiev Posad 1896); 12) I. D. Andreev (XLVII year), professor at St. Petersburg University (Patriarchs of Constantinople from the time of the Council of Chalcedon to Photius, issue I, Sergiev Posad 1896); 13) D. I. Bryantsev (L year), teacher at the Riga Theological Seminary (John Ital and his theological and philosophical views, condemned by the Byzantine Church, Kharkov 1905). In “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, p. 420 Al. P. Lebedev writes that “I created seven doctors at the (Moscow Theological) Academy - theology, church history and canon law.” These were: 1) † Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky; 2) † Archbishop of Vladimir Sergius (Spassky), who was an inspector (1862–1863) of the Moscow Theological Seminary during the period of Alexei Petrovich’s studies there; 3) † Professor of Moscow University A. M. Ivantsov-Platonov; 4) professor of the Moscow Theological Academy N. F. Kapterev; 5) professor of Kharkov University M. A. Ostroumov; 6) professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. I. Tsvetkov and 7) professor there N. A. Zaozersky. That’s what Al himself called them in print. P. Lebedev (for example, in the brochure: “Professor A. M. Ivantsov †, me and the priest N. Dobronravov,” (page 4 note), and this name is extremely characteristic of himself in the most flattering sense. See “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, p. 422. With extraordinary touching Al himself. P. Lebedev describes in the brochure: “Professor A. M. Ivantsov †, me and priest N. Dobronravov,” (p. 4 b) this revival of church-historical curiosity among Moscow university students as an incomparable idyll that brought so much pure joy to the heart of the professor, and in these words of his we involuntarily hear the voice of the great Theologian and Apostle of love, St. John (3John 1:4)... It was also not easy to arrange this for many reasons, - and Al himself. P. Lebedev, regarding some of my questions about his university assistants, wrote to us on January 7, 1907: “Where will I get them? The university gives private assistant professors in church history from 20 to 25 rubles per six months (per hour). Who will work for nothing?! I can still, having private assistant professors, open an independent church history group (like a faculty)." Al said so himself. P. Lebedev in the “Orthodox Review” of 1886, No. 4, p. 792 - and this characteristic of the Moscow Seminary from the side of “his always respected professor” is confirmed by its special historian N. I. Kedrov (Moscow Theological Seminary: 1814–1889, Moscow 1889, p. 108 note). See N.I. Kedrov on page 110. So Al wrote about this and about the Perervinsky Theological School. P. Lebedev at the very end of June 1908 to the professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy A. A. Bronzov, having received from the latter an interesting brochure of his memoirs, “Belozersky Theological School in 1867–1873.” (SPb. 1908). Of his seminary teachers, the deceased especially singled out N.V. Blagorazumov, whom he always recommended as a truly “prudent” seminary rector, although this highly venerable spiritual teacher and administrator was later directly persecuted, and he died on December 21, 1907 as a Moscow court protopresbyter. We have talked about this more than once, and, for example, on November 12, 1906, Al. P. Lebedev wrote to me the following: "I do not approve of part-time work. If they choose a successor for me, in front of me, I will arm myself against it. You cannot turn such a serious science into a sinecure." Al himself. P. Lebedev testifies in the “Theological Bulletin” of 1907, No. 6, p. 421 that he “was accustomed to devoting fifteen hours to reading and writing” a day... Wed. about this in the “Theological Bulletin” 1907, No. 6, p. 420 seq. 425.1. In the brochure “Professor A. M. Ivantsov † me and priest N. Dobronravov,” p. 5 note. On the occasion of the 25th anniversary † prof. Iv. N Korsunsky published (reprints from “Theological Bulletin” 1895, No. 11, pp. 259–276) a separate brochure entitled: “Twenty-five years of scientific and literary activity of Professor A. P. Lebedev (1870–1895),” Sergiev Posad 1895, which says (p. 19), that even then church historical works alone (with the exception of minor articles and official reviews) could amount to more than 400 printed sheets, or 12 volumes of 600 pages each, but since then many more new works have been published. In general, about the deceased, it was correctly noted in “Moskovskie Vedomosti” No. 165 for July 17, 1908: “we can say with complete confidence that for a long time we have not had a professor who, in 30 years of activity, managed to write and publish such a mass of valuable capital works as A.P. Lebedev.” By the way, as the editor of the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia” I have from the deceased several large and respectable articles that will appear in turn, and - that means - Al. P. Lebedev will again speak in living words to the reading public. See in the first volume of my master's thesis on the blessed. Theodorite (Moscow 1890), on page 304. You might be interested in: