In memory of Professor Nikolai Fomich Krasnoseltsev

On September 11th of this year, Nikolai Fomich Krasnoseltsev, professor of Church History at Novorossiysk University, died. Death overtook him at the first station of his foreign scientific journey (which turned out to be his last) - in Constantinople, where he expected to stay for about two months. The deceased was the son of a priest in the village of Emashevki, Ufa province and district, born in 1845, received his initial education at local theological educational institutions, and his higher education at the Kazan Theological Academy. Soon after completing the course at the academy in 1870, N. F. was appointed teacher of Holy Scripture at the Samara Theological Seminary, but the following year, 1871, he was taken by the academy to teach liturgics and church archeology. The academy's choice of Mr. Krasnoseltsev as a teacher turned out to be as successful as possible. In the person of Mr. Krasnoseltsev, the Academy acquired a teacher with remarkable talents, rare zeal for work, an excellent understanding of scientific requirements, with remarkable scientific taste, with enviable clarity and harmony of thought, acquired a serious scientist who enriched theological science by developing primary sources for the history of Orthodox worship. Thanks to such talents, Mr. Krasnoseltsev perfectly organized the teaching of the sciences inherited to him, which until that time occupied some kind of ambiguous position in the academic course of sciences. Since the time of Mr. Krasnoseltsev, church archeology began to be taught at the Kazan Academy as a special science, having its own specific subject, separate from liturgics. And the teaching of liturgics lost its former abstract exegetical character, but was placed on the solid ground of studying liturgical monuments in order to clarify the history of the gradual development of existing liturgical rites in the Greek and Russian churches. Thanks to Mr. Krasnoseltsev’s talented teaching and tireless hard work, church archeology and liturgics have gained unprecedented popularity in academic courses. Students not only willingly listened to these sciences, but during breaks they tried to fit in for a special lesson on these sciences under the guidance of a professor, and often the number of such specialists who chose questions from church archeology and liturgics as the topic for a course essay reached a dozen. From among such specialists came two professors of higher educational institutions, who honorably occupy their departments and enrich theological science with very solid works based on the development of primary sources, namely: Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy in the Department of Church Archeology and Liturgics A. A. Dmitrievsky, who wrote his master’s thesis under the guidance of Krasnoseltsev: “Divine services in the Russian Church in XVI century”, and professor of Church law at Novorossiysk University A. Iv Almazov, who, when he was a professorial fellow, worked under the guidance of N.F. on the essay: History of the rites of baptism and confirmation. N. F. Krasnoseltsev quickly got used to his sciences and soon began to publish his scientific works in the academic organ, for example. About ancient Christian architecture, About Christian churches, etc. Since 1875, he joined the commission for the description of the Solovetsky Library and became one of its active workers. He compiled a Description of manuscripts of liturgical and canonical content, placed in the first, second and third volumes of this Description, in the amount of 30 printed sheets. This scientifically very valuable work and other scientific works of N.F. drew the attention of the Academy Council to him, and in 1884 the Council promoted him to the rank of extraordinary professor. N.F. closely followed the successes of Russian archeology and took an active part in archaeological congresses. So eg. he was a deputy from the academy at the archaeological congress in Kazan in 1876, in Kyiv in 1874, in Yaroslavl in 1887. Thanks to his scientific works and active participation in archaeological congresses, N. F. soon gained fame among archaeological specialists. In 1887 he was elected a corresponding member of the Moscow Archaeological Society, and in 1889 he became a full member. From that time on, he was elected an honorary member of the Rostov Museum of Church Antiquities. From September 20, 1886, he was enrolled as a full member of the Kazan Society of Archeology and Ethnography, from October 30, 1888, a member of the Kyiv Society of the chronicler Nestor, from 1889, a full member of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities and the Historical and Philological Society at the University of Novorossiysk, from 1891, a corresponding member of the Constantinople Historical and Philological Society (Sylloga) and a member of the Constantinople Archaeological Institute. The closer N. F. became acquainted with the literature of Church archeology and its written sources, the more he became convinced of the absolute necessity of visual and personal acquaintance with the material monuments of Christian antiquity at their location. In view of this, in 1881 he presented a proposal to the Church-Practical Department and the Academy Council to request him to go on a year-long business trip abroad for the specified academic purpose. His petition was respected by both the academy and the highest spiritual and educational authorities. From the two semi-annual reports submitted by N.F. to the Academy Council, it is clear that first of all he took up the survey of the Roman catacombs and surveyed them in as much detail as possible. At the same time, he tried to get acquainted with the most ancient Roman churches, the foundation of which dates back to the time of Constantine and his immediate successors. Then he examined the most important monuments of Christian antiquities in the vicinity of Rome, as well as in other Italian cities - Naples, Nola, Florence, Ravenna, Venice, Milan and Monza (Protocols of Sov. 1882. 64-87. 269-293). Familiarization with the material monuments of Christian antiquities gave him a huge supply of archaeological material for new scientific works in the field of archaeology. What an important educational influence his scientific travel abroad had on Mr. Krasnoseltsev can be seen from his speech delivered at the solemn annual meeting of the academy on November 8, 1883, under the title: Ancient Christian tombs in Rome and the significance of the discoveries made in them for theological science. N. F.'s business trip abroad gave him the opportunity to purchase scientific aids for the department of church archeology. H. F. filed a petition with the Academy Council for the allocation of a special sum for the acquisition of valuable archaeological publications for the academy’s library, as well as photographs and models from ancient Christian monuments, and his petition was respected. In 1881 and 1888 N.F. was a member of the Academy Council with a request to find funds for the establishment of a Church Archaeological Museum at the Academy and was the main member of the commission appointed to develop this issue. N. F.’s scientific trip abroad gave a strong impetus to his studies on the history of Orthodox worship. The starting point of N. F.’s studies in this area was the idea that the science of Orthodox worship, due to its lack of development, currently needs not so much theoretical generalizations as the development, bringing to light and evaluation of sources, i.e. manuscripts of liturgical content located in libraries. With this view of the matter, N. F., while in Rome, certainly could not miss the favorable opportunity to familiarize himself with the Vatican Library of Manuscripts. The results of his studies in this library were presented by him in a scientific essay, presented to the Academy Council as a full report on his studies abroad, under the title: Information on some manuscripts of the Vatican Library. 1885 Although the manuscripts of the Vatican Library examined by N. F. were not particularly ancient in origin, N. F.’s experienced scholarly eye saw in them a very respectable number of new items important for the history of liturgical rites. And most importantly, handwritten material on the history of liturgical rites, gleaned by the late professor in the Vatican Library, aroused his scientific curiosity and drew his attention to similar material contained in Western editions of liturgical rites of the Orthodox Church, as well as in Greek manuscripts stored in Russian libraries. H. F. compared the liturgical texts he found and published with texts already published, especially in the scholarly editions of Gohar (Εὐχολόγιον. Lutetiae. 1647) and Swainson (The Greek Liturgies. 1884), as well as with texts contained in manuscripts of Russian libraries. The fruit of this work was N. F.’s special appendix to his aforementioned publication, which treats the Greek copies of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom in Western and Russian libraries. By comparing the most ancient Greek lists of the order of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom N. F. formed a clear concept of the original edition of this liturgy and made an attempt to restore this edition in the same appendix - a scientific result of paramount importance. – In addition, the occupation of H.F. in the Vatican Library gave him significant material for the history of interpretations of the liturgy, which he communicated to the public in subsequent editions. Having processed and published scientific material gleaned from the Vatican Library, from 1888 H. F. undertook a series of new trips for scientific purposes - to Constantinople, Greece, Palestine, and Mount Athos. Almost every year he devoted the summer vacation months to scholarly studies in the libraries of the East and again collected a lot of very valuable material related to the history of worship of the Orthodox Church. We can judge this primarily from its publication: Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. Kazan. 1889. The contents of this edition serve as a necessary addition to the data that was collected by N. F. in “Information on the Liturgical Manuscripts of the Vatican Library.” It contains monuments dating back to the period of time when detailed regulations for the liturgy began to be drawn up and when the regulations for the order of the liturgy finally appeared, which became widespread and is used to this day in Greek and Slavic worship. The most important of these monuments is the charter for the celebration of the liturgy, attributed to the Patriarch of Constantinople Philotheus. H. F. issued this charter based on the manuscripts of the Athos monasteries of Vatopedi and Panteleimon, with a parallel text of the Old Slavic translation of it according to the service book of Metropolitan Cyprian, stored in the Moscow Synodal Library No. 344, with the addition of some other charters. In 1890, N. F. Krasnoseltsev discovered Fr. Patmos is a very important monument in the history of the church charter - this is a typical church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, 9th century. He did not publish the newly discovered monument, probably because he gave this honor to his student and then collaborator in scientific research on the history of Orthodox worship, Professor Kyiv Spirit. Academy A. A. Dmitrievsky, who actually made this publication. N. F. Krasnoseltsev limited himself to the fact that in a special monograph (Typik of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, 9th century. Odessa. 1892) he introduced the learned public to the newly discovered monument and indicated its significance in the history of the church typical, as well as for characterizing Orthodox worship in the 9th–10th centuries. at all. Mr. Krasnoseltsev’s monograph on the Sophia Typical attracted attention in the academic world and was met with very sympathetic and respectful reviews from specialists in church archeology and liturgy, Byzantinology and church history (Dmitrievsky. Perplexity about perplexity. Proceedings of the Kyiv Academician. 1892. September, p. 171. - D. Belyaev. Review in Journal. Min. Nar. Ave. 1892. Oct. – A. Lebedev. A gratifying phenomenon. Theologian Vestn. 1893. Jan. pp. 216–218). In 1889, N. F. Krasnoseltsev went to serve at Novorossiysk University as a professor of Church History, completely unexpectedly for his comrades and to the deep regret of the academy. Classes in the new department naturally diverted his attention and energy in another direction and had to interrupt his scientific works for a while. Nevertheless, even in his new position, he found time to publish his works. In part, he continued to publish works previously prepared, which include the above-mentioned monograph On the Typology of the Church of St. Sophia, as well as a monograph on ancient liturgical interpretations. 1894. Odessa. On the other hand, he began to publish monographs related to his studies in the new department, for example. On the significance of archaeological discoveries in the processing of ancient church history. Odessa. 1891. Patriarch Photius and the Byzantine worship of his time. Odessa. 1892. In addition, the title of member of many scientific societies imposed on N.F. the duty of being a reviewer of various scientists composed in his specialty, which he performed with ordinary knowledge of the matter and remarkable solidity. After leaving his service at the academy, N. F. Krasnoseltsev did not break his moral connection with it. He was keenly interested in the life of the academy, the activities of its members, joyful and sad events in it, expressed his readiness to participate in the scientific works of the academy (in the Description of Manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library), if the academy invited him to do so; in a word, he continued to live a spiritually inseparable life with the academy. Sometimes he visited the academy on important occasions in her life, for example. on the day of her 50th anniversary, when the academy saw off its unforgettable Fr. Rector Archpriest A.P. Vladimirsky. And the Academy, for its part, did not forget the activities of its former student and professor and highly valued his scientific works. As a sign of her respect for his scientific works, she petitioned him for the degree of Doctor of Church History and, on the occasion of her anniversary, elevated him to the title of honorary member. The personal qualities of N. F. Krasnoseltsev cannot be passed over in silence. He was a modest man, alien to any pretentiousness and panache both in scientific works and in everyday life, a kind, sociable, good comrade, ready to serve in academics and in other matters, a pleasant conversationalist. As a public figure, he sympathized with everything good and noble, preferred the general benefit to private benefit, and was always ready to fulfill the assignment that fell to his lot. From the academy, from church-archaeological and church-historical science, from the fellowship - eternal memory to him! We attach an (approximately complete) list of scientific works by N. F. Krasnoseltsev: 1) Western missions against pagan Tatars and especially against Muslim Tatars. Kazan. 1872 (master's thesis). 2) Christianity and Christian missions in Persia (Right. Sobes. 1872. III. 142). 3) On ancient Christian architecture (Rules. Sob. 1874. II. 291. III. 103. 277. 1876. I. 26). 4) Christian churches from the time of Constantine V. until the formation of the Byzantine style (Right. Sob. 1878. II. 289. 352. III. 34). 5) Location and decoration of ancient Christian churches (Right. Council. 1879. I. 35. II. 3. 1880. I. 215. 367). 6) Essays on the history of the Christian church. Vol. I. Architecture and internal arrangement of Christian churches before Justinian. Kazan. 1881. (This essay is a reworking of the articles placed above under Nos. 3–5). 7) About the origin of the Christian church. Regarding the newly appeared research (Prav. Sob. 1880. II. 419. III. 48. 293. And a separate brochure. Kazan. 1880). 8) Explanatory service and other works related to the explanation of worship in ancient Rus' until the 18th century. Bibliographic review (Right. Sobes. 1878. II. 3). 9) Essays on ancient Christian art based on the monuments of underground Rome (Right. Sob. 1879. I. 64. 150. II. 193. III. 299. 394). 10) Bas-reliefs of ancient Christian sarcophagi and their liturgical meaning (Right. Sob. 1881. II. 47). 11) Reports on academic studies abroad during the first and second half of the 1881/2 academic year (Separate reprint from the minutes of the Kazan Theological Academy). 12) Ancient Christian tombs in Rome and the significance of the discoveries made in them for theological science (Speech at the Academic Act. Legal Council 1883. III. 231. And a separate brochure). 13) A monument to ancient Russian writing, relating to the history of our worship in the 16th century (Right. Sob. 1884. I. 93. And a separate brochure). 14) Explanation of the liturgy, compiled by Theodore, Bishop of Andida. Monument of Byzantine spiritual literature of the 12th century. (Right. Sobes. 1884. I.370. And a separate brochure). 15) Information about some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library with comments on the composition and features of the liturgical rites contained in them, and with appendices. From a report on scientific studies abroad in 1882. Kazan. 1885. 16) Church of St. Clement in Rome and the memories connected with it about the Slavic apostles (Right. Sob. 1885. I. 461. And separately). 17) To the history of the Orthodox Interlocutor. But on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the magazine (Prav. Sob. 1885. III. 459). 18) About some church services and rituals that are no longer used (Rules. Sob. 1887. I. 26. 226. 419. II 75. 1889. 1.95. 370. II 244.404. 568 III. 49. And separately under the title: On the history of Orthodox worship. Regarding some services and rituals now not used. Materials and research on the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, Kazan. 19) Church archeology at Russian archaeological congresses. Regarding the VII archaeological congress in Yaroslavl (Right. Council 1887. III. 59. And a separate brochure). 20) Divine service of the Jerusalem church at the end of the 4th century (Rules. Sob. 1888. III. 350. And separately). 21) Review of the essay by Archpriest Nikolsky: About the services of the Russian Church, which were in previous printed liturgical books. (From Christ. Reading. 1888. No. 11–12). 22) Slavic manuscripts of the patriarchal library in Jerusalem (Right. Sobes. 1889 in the appendix. And separately). 23) Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (Rules. Sob. 1889 in the appendix. And a separate reprint"). 24) On the significance of archaeological discoveries for the processing of ancient church history (Notes of the Novorossiysk University. 1889. And separately). 25) In memory of the late professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Ivan Yakovlevich Porfiryev. Odessa. 1890. 26) On the question of Greek sources “Conversations of the Three Hierarchs”, Odessa, 1890. 27) More on the question of the sources of “Conversations of the Three Hierarchs.” 28) About the cave action. Comments and amendments to the article by M. Savinov (Russian Phil. Bulletin. 1891). 29) Typical of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, 9th century. Odessa. 1892. Also in the Chronicles of Historical and Philological. General at Novor. univ.). 30) Patriarch Photius and Byzantine worship of his time. Odessa. 1892. (Speech delivered at a public meeting of the Historical and Philological Society on February 6, 1891, on the day of the millennium of the death of His Holiness Patriarch Photius). 31) Nikanor, Archbishop of Kherson and Odessa, and his scientific and literary activities. Odessa. 1893 32) I. S. Yastrebov. Obituary. (From volume III of Letop. Ist.-Philol. General. at the New University. 1894). 33) About ancient liturgical interpretations. Odessa. 1894. (From the Let. Historical-Phil. General. at the New University. Vol. IV). 34) To the study of the “Typica of the Great Church” (From the Let. Ist.-Phil. General. at the New. Univ. vol. VI. Byzan. Dept. III). 35) Debate between Panagiota and Azimit on the new Greek lists. Odessa. 1896. (Also Let. Ist.-Phil. General at the New. Univ. vol. VI. Visan. Dept. III. pp. 295–328). 36) Review of the book by A. A. Dmitrievsky: Patmos Essays (Byzantine Time Book. vol. 1. Department of Critics. 723). 37) Review of the book by Mr. Dmitrievsky: Divine services of Passion and Easter Week in Jerusalem in the 9th–10th centuries. (Visant. Temp. vol. II. Dept. Crit. pp. 632–655). 38) Review of Andreev’s book: Patriarchs of Constantinople from the time of the Council of Chalcedon to Photius (Bizan. Temp. vol. IV. issue 1–2. Dep. Crit. 192–208). 39) Review of the book by Mr. Dmitrievsky: Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East, vol. I. Τυπιχα. Part I. Monuments of patriarchal statutes and monastery typikons. Kyiv. 1895. Τυπιχα. Addenda et corrigenda. Dept. reprint from Proceedings of Kievsk. acad. for 1896 (Visant. Times, vol. IV, issue 3–4. Dep. Crit. pp. 587–615). 40) At the end of the list of works by H. F. Krasnoseltsev, we received from the mail a new edition of it: Addenda to the edition of A. Vasilyev: Anecdota graecobysantina. Odessa. 1898. The completion of this work is dated: September 2, which means it was completed four days before N. F.’s departure from Odessa and 9 days before his death. To what has been said, let us add the heartfelt words of one of the deceased’s colleagues at Novorossiysk University, Prof. A. Derevitsky, published in the Odessa Newspaper: "Generously endowed with many qualities of a talented scientist, a conscientious researcher and a professor devoted to his work, N. F. was more than a scientist and a professor; he was a man in the best, noblest sense of the word. Sensitive and sympathetic, alien to any pettiness and vanity, fair and generous, he captivated everyone with his boundless kindness and imperturbable clarity of character. Everyone who knew him closely, became his friends. Did he have enemies, could he have them?... Moving from the desk to the pulpit and diversifying his leisure time with trips to the East to study in monastery libraries, N. F. was the type of armchair scientist and left a noticeable mark on the literature of his subject. Novorossiysk University and local scientific societies, which counted him among their members, lost an honest and diligent worker in him. In his works dedicated to them, an eternal, undying part of his nature remained - these works will be his “miracle monument.”