Lectures on patrolology of the 1st-4th centuries

Contents From the publisher Τ. V. Koval. A life dedicated to science Bibliography of works N. I. Sagardy A. G. Dunaev. Lectures by N. I. Sagardy and patrolology of the 20th century The importance of studying patristic works and the need for scientific research of them Christian literature. Church literature Signs of the Father of the Church in contrast to other church writers Teachers of the Church. Church writers History of the study of ancient church writing The dominant view among Protestant church historians on the tasks and formulation of the study of ancient church literature Scientific-church point of view on the subject The composition of ancient church literature, subject to special study in pathological science The task of studying ancient church literature Method of studying ancient church literature Critical study of works of ancient church literature Progress in the development of ancient church literature A detailed and, if possible, complete textbook on patristic literature of the first four centuries - not counting the book of Archbishop, which laid the foundation for Russian pathological literature. Filaret (Gumilevsky) “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church” (1859) is in great demand today, but was still practically unavailable in Russian (a general overview of the currently available manuals is presented below in the section “Lectures by N. I. Sagarda and patrolology of the 20th century”). There is no doubt that eliminating the gap in such an important area of ​​ecclesiastical science is extremely important. This circumstance prompted the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church to decide to publish lectures on patrolology by Prof. N.I. Sagardy. N.I. Sagarda lectured on patrolology at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for 13 years (1905–1918). Published several times in lithographic form, this course was constantly refined by the author. Candidate of Theology, teacher of the Department of Patrology at the Kyiv Theological Academy, Deacon Andrey Glushchenko, did a lot of work preparing two sources for publication. This publication is based on unique copies (stored in private archives in Kyiv) - the author's manuscript and a rare authorized lithograph, which contains a number of chapters that are missing in the lithographic copies available in St. Petersburg, namely: sections on Hegisippus, St. Alexander of Alexandria, Didymus the Blind, St. Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Jerusalem, the most important chapter on the theology of apologists, information about the so-called “lesser apologists.” It is possible that the copies of the manuscript and typescripts prepared for publication were brought by N.I. himself. Sagarda to Ukraine after the revolution as the most valuable and complete versions of the patrol course he taught. A comparison with the St. Petersburg copies of the course also revealed some abbreviations of the text made by N.I. Sagarda in individual chapters, which allowed the author, constrained by a certain number of hours allocated at the Academy for lectures on patrolology, to increase the number of ancient church writers considered in the course. An analysis of the abbreviations showed that they mainly concern the presentation of the general content of the works and some reduction in references to foreign authors, without at all affecting conceptual issues. Therefore, we considered it possible to publish the “Lectures” without restoring the author’s abbreviations, which is possible from other copies. Lectures on representatives of the Antiochian school were given at the Academy by A. I. Sagarda, brother of N. I. Sagarda, and therefore are not included in the published course. The absence of a chapter on St. Gregory the Wonderworker is explained by the presence of a special study (doctoral dissertation) by N. I. Sagarda about this saint. During the publication, the author’s somewhat ponderous style, characteristic of many Russian scientists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, was preserved. and developed under the influence of the syntax of the ancient classical and German languages. Significant stylistic editing would have been acceptable if the notes had been made only by students, but the presence of the author’s manuscript and authorized copies with N.I. Sagarda’s editing forced us to abandon such processing. More details about the sources of the text and the principles of publication are described in the preface “From the Editor”. Particular attention should be paid to the bibliographic apparatus. The presence of a detailed bibliography is one of the main requirements of 20th century patrolology. to similar courses. It is noted below that currently searching for foreign literature does not present any particular difficulties. On the contrary, the domestic reader still does not have a reference book that would take into account - at the modern level - all the available Russian translations of the works of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church and pathological studies in Russian. However, indicating in footnotes all Russian literature and translations of 40 ancient authors would have increased the volume of an already large book too much, and we took a “compromise” path, indicating in the apparatus only those bibliographical indications that are not available in the available books. Therefore, where there are references to the PMA, SDHA (the bibliography from these publications is presented on the website http://www.danuvius.orthodoxy.ru), the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” (in the volumes published to date) and the lists of patristic translations in BV 3 and BV 4, the bibliography (both Russian translations and research) is minimal and takes into account only literature that is not included in specified publications. We also found individual publications available over the past 15 years (for example, A. I. Sidorov’s article on the Alexandrian school in the “Scientific Notes of the RPU”, “Dictionary of Scribes and Books of Ancient Rus'”, etc.). In other cases, when the Russian reader has nowhere to turn for information, the Russian bibliography is given as completely as we were able to collect and clarify it. CPG numbers are indicated in the footnotes for all works analyzed by N.I. Sagarda, TLG - when the corresponding numbers are not in the listed publications. In the work on compiling bibliographic additions, significant assistance was provided by the deputy editor-in-chief of the Publishing Council, E. S. Polishchuk. Information about publications by V.N. Beneshevich were kindly provided by A.G. Bondach, some additions to the bibliography were made by D.S. Biryukov. A significant part of the descriptions has been verified de visu Μ. V. Ivanova. An essay on the life and work of a remarkable scientist, as well as a bibliography of his works, were compiled for this publication by Tatyana Vladimirovna Koval, Ph.D. ist. Sciences, researcher at the National Library of Ukraine named after V. I. Vernadsky - the same library to which N. I. Sagarda devoted many years of his scientific activity after the revolution of 1917. T. V. Koval studied the works of N. I. Sagarda as a bibliographer for several years (most of them were reviewed and analyzed in her dissertation in 1998) and is the author of the report “Theorist and practitioner of librarianship N. I. Sagard”, read at the International Scientific Conference of the NBUV in 2002. It remains to say that a little earlier (almost simultaneously with this publication) lectures by N. I. Sagarda (with the omission of a number of important chapters) were published by M. B. Danilushkin in the publishing house “Resurrection” (St. Petersburg, 2004) 1. In contrast to this publication, this book, published by the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, was prepared in accordance with the level of requirements for modern scientific publications. For the first time, based on archival materials, a detailed sketch of the life of N. I. Sagarda has been written and a complete bibliography of his works is presented. Using the latest scientific editions of ancient Greek and Latin texts, more than 4,000 references to ancient authors have been verified, clarified, or attributed. During the editorial and publishing work on the book, more than 1,100 footnotes were added, clarifying certain parts of the Lectures and reflecting the level of development of modern patrolological science. Numerous typos and inaccuracies have been corrected, all texts in ancient and modern languages ​​have been carefully verified. The book is equipped with the necessary reference apparatus, making it easier to work not only with it, but also with reprints of Russian translations of some patristic works. We hope that the publication will be useful not only to students and teachers, but also to all readers interested in the patristic heritage. A. G. Dunaev, Head of the Book Editorial Office Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church, Ph.D. ist. sciences I. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF SOURCES AND THEIR COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS This publication is based on two sources - “typescript” and “manuscript”, stored in private collections in Kiev. The typescript consists of three separate lithographed courses for different years (the first two lithographs are incomplete), which are combined in one binding and in total cover all the church writers considered by N.I. Sagarda, until the end of the 4th century. At the very beginning of the typescript there are 6 sheets of exam papers for the 1914/15 academic year, which end in St. Hippolyte of Rome (obviously the final page is missing). The first lithograph (course 1913/14) ends on page 928 - in the middle of the chapter “Inauthentic works attributed to Tertullian”, after which the second lithograph immediately follows - a large final fragment (volume 152 pp.) of the course 1914/15, starting from the middle of the chapter “Moral and practical works of Tertullian” and until the end of the entire pre-Nicene period (St. Methodius of Olympia inclusive). As a result of this connection, it turned out that the last few pages of the first lithograph and the initial pages of the second set out the same material; The content of these pages, as comparison shows, is almost identical. Finally, the third part of the typescript is a separate and complete course from 1915/16, examining the fathers of the 4th century. (volume 302 pp.) 2. Texts in Greek were entered into the original typescripts, from which the real lithographs were made, by hand. For most texts in Latin (as well as in Western European ones - in the links), the letters of the Cyrillic alphabet 3 were first printed, graphically coinciding or almost coinciding with the corresponding Latin ones; for the remaining Latin letters that do not have such correspondences, empty spaces were left. Then similar gaps were also filled in by hand (for example, in the word “Adumbrationes” the letters “A”, “b” [= “c”], “a”, “i”, “o”, “e” were typed, and the letters “u”, “m”, “r”, “t”, “η”, “s” were written in ink). All this was done by student publishers, since the handwriting of such inserts in the second and third lithographs exactly matches the signatures of the students on the last pages. The typescript is fully authorized, and the author made corrections to it several times and at different times. In total, four “layers” of corrections can be distinguished, depending on who, when and how they were made. The first layer is the edits made to the original typescripts even before lithography by the students who carried out the publication. For the most part, they relate to correcting obvious typos, inserting missing letters or words, etc. The next layer - the most important - is the edits made by the author himself to the real copy of the typescript (but only to two lithographs - the first and third) in black ink. With the exception of also correcting obvious typos, the nature of a significant part of this type of edits turns out to be quite varied. We will list the main types of these corrections, without claiming completeness or detail in their classification. Firstly, stylistic improvements are relatively common: additions, deletions, replacement of individual words or expressions, rearrangement of words in sentences, etc. Secondly, there are also frequent edits that are close to the previous ones, but affect the idea expressed by the author: expanding with additional phrases, presenting it in a slightly different light, with a different emphasis, softening some statements that are formulated too categorically or in such a way that they can be misunderstood (for example, the phrase “the Phrygian name Papias” is replaced by “the name Papias, quite common in Phrygia” - since it is obvious that this name was not exclusive to the specified region). Corrections of this kind are sometimes conceptual in nature, showing not only a clarification of the information provided, but also a certain evolution of the author’s thoughts. Thirdly, the author supplemented the material with new information (for example, an indication of the publication in 1910 of the “second” Coptic translation of the Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians; reference to "a whole series of fragments" of "The Shepherd" in addition to the three main manuscripts of this work, etc.). Finally, fourthly, the author in many cases replaced Greek and Latin quotations, as well as the titles of works with their Russian translations (crossing out the text). The next two layers of edits, also the author's, are marks in blue and red pencils, respectively. In most cases, blue pencil marks (chronologically, probably earlier) relate to the design of the text: the author, for example, indicates moving individual headings to the first line of the text (that is, “lowering” their level), connecting or dividing paragraphs, etc. The fourth layer is red pencil notes, usually indicating to skip several chapters and move on to the next ones. It is obvious that the latter were introduced with the aim of subsequently reducing the exchange rate. Sometimes the nature of the edits in pencil concerns directly the content of the text and corresponds to the author's edits in ink described above. Finally, it is worth noting a few notes and corrections in pencil, which are also clearly of the author's nature. These marks are also present in the second part of the typescript, which suggests full authorization of this source (albeit to varying degrees in different parts). The manuscript is an autograph, very incomplete in the number of chapters, but more complete in their content (compared to the corresponding typescript chapters). The volume of the manuscript is exactly 300 sheets (excluding blank sheets on both sides). The contents of the manuscript are as follows (we give short titles): 1. Introduction (in some places it differs greatly from the version in the typescript, both in composition and in relation to the absence or presence of certain chapters). 2. “Teaching of the 12 Apostles.” 3. Barnabas. 4. Papias. 5. Works of the apologists of the 2nd century (introduction to the apologists). 6. Kodrat. 7. Aristide. 8. Ariston of Pell. 9. Justin. 10. Tatian. I. Athenagoras. 12. Introduction to the 3rd period. 13. Alexandrians. Panten. 14. Clement of Alexandria (chapter ends in the middle). After the incomplete chapter on Clement comes a new version of the introduction to the entire course (only a few initial chapters). On the back of one of the sheets (introduction to the 3rd period) it is indicated: “Lectures on patrolology, given to third-year students of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academy by Professor N.I. Sagarda in 1910–11 academic years. year." However, a closer look at the manuscript shows that it is composed of autographs from various years and, probably, part of its early chapters should be dated more likely to 1908-1910 (the earliest part presumably contains references to research in 1907). The manuscript is the author's working copy. Obviously, N.I. Sagarda used it for a long time, perhaps several years, to constantly improve his lectures. The manuscript contains not only many hundreds of minor edits of various kinds (most of which are improvements in style, rearrangements, changes and insertions of individual words and expressions; on average there are several of these on each page), but also reworkings of entire sentences, paragraphs and even pages. For example, an entire paragraph or almost an entire page could often be crossed out (in horizontal stripes), and in the spaces between the lines, another version of the presentation of the same issue was written, more successful and usually including the same basic factual information, but presenting it in a slightly different way. Many inserts, about one or two sentences or more in length, are placed in the margins. Sometimes large inserts were written on separate sheets of paper, which were then glued from below to the sheets of the manuscript and folded together with them. The author often edited his text right along the way - this can be seen, for example, from the fact that some begun phrases, without being completed, were immediately crossed out and corrected, as well as from the fact that certain passages were corrected two or three times (corrections within corrections). 3. Brief comparative analysis of sources When comparing the texts of the manuscript and typescript, the following was revealed. a) The vast majority of corrections and additions made in the text of the manuscript, including alterations of entire paragraphs and pages, are taken into account in the typescript (naturally, as its main text, without any traces of previous work). b) In the typescript in the main (typewritten-lithographed) text there are also changes compared to the text of the manuscript that are absent in the latter and obviously go back to the intermediate version (approximately between 1908 and 1913). c) Certain corrections and revisions not only in the manuscript, but also in the typescript (especially in comparison with the manuscript) are conceptual in nature and show a certain evolution of the author’s views - a rejection of some of his previous statements, a more balanced approach in resolving certain issues, etc. 4 d) The typescript is somewhat shorter in presentation than the manuscript (by 10–30 percent, but the last chapters of the manuscript are no different in length from the typewritten ones). The author sought to slightly shorten the typewritten text (probably due to the labor-intensive nature of the lithography set, as well as for the purpose of a more proportional placement of the material: compare, for example, the chapters on the “Epistle of Barnabas” and St. Gregory the Theologian, where the first is almost twice as long as the second). The abbreviations concerned primarily the presentation of the content of those works (primarily the apostolic men and apologists) that are easily accessible to the reader in Russian translation and where N. I. Sagarda gave a simple retelling without analyzing the text. N.I. Sagarda also shortened some of his lengthy and slightly amorphous reasoning of a general nature. e) Often the author changed the composition of the text, rearranging entire sentences, paragraphs and chapters or moving them from one chapter to another, but leaving their text itself almost untouched. (Indications of changes in the composition of the text are also in the manuscript itself.) f) The author sought not only to slightly shorten, but also to somewhat simplify the typewritten text - especially in relation to Greek and Latin quotations. Thus, many Greek quotations, especially the titles of works (for example, almost all the titles of works that are mentioned in the chapter on St. Justin as having come down under his name), are given only in Greek in the manuscript; in the typescript they are also lithographed in Greek, but then crossed out by the author and replaced by a Russian translation. II. BASIC PRINCIPLES OF EDITORIAL WORK Editorial work in preparing sources for publication was carried out in several directions. Based on a comparative analysis of sources, the following conjectural conclusion was made, necessary to determine the principles of their combination: The manuscript and lithographs of the Lectures do not represent different, separate, self-sufficient and independent editions, but a complete (in the manuscript) or somewhat abbreviated (in available lithographs) presentation of one text, which was regularly, consistently and gradually edited, corrected, supplemented or shortened by the author. Corrections in earlier versions were taken into account by the author in later 5. Thus, the following editorial principles were formulated, in accordance with which the sources were combined: a) In the arrangement of both chapters and the material in them, follow the composition of a more successful version (most often a later one). b) Preference between different versions of the same text, starting from the author’s insertions of individual words and ending with the complete reworking of entire paragraphs and pages, should be given as a whole to the later ones (naturally, with the exception of errors or typos in later versions, which certainly occur; in addition, omissions of some words in the typescript for the sake of shortening the text sometimes turn out to be stylistically not entirely successful). c) It is necessary to preserve the main informative part of both texts. If the later text is available only in an abbreviated version, it is advisable to supplement it with missing information from the earlier one, to the extent that the latter does not conceptually contradict the first. A particular difficulty is when the text was initially redone (in an inaccessible intermediate version) and only then shortened. In such cases, it is permissible to add individual meaningful parts of the text from the full early version to the later (abbreviated) one, if they do not contradict the reason for which the text was (obviously) redone. In addition, all Greek and Latin quotations must be preserved, as well as the author's translations if, in a later version, the former were replaced by the latter (in such cases, either the translations or the original texts were placed in parentheses or, less commonly, in footnotes). d) In some cases, when it is impossible to establish exactly why the author redid or shortened the text, the earlier version can be placed in a note or specially highlighted in the text; the latter was done using curly braces - {}. This applies to both discrepancies between the manuscript and the typescript, as well as the author’s deletions of certain parts of the text in the typescript itself, when the assumption that the author excluded this text not for the sake of abbreviation seems more likely, but does not provide complete certainty. When referring or quoting such passages, it is necessary to take into account that they were excluded or altered by the author, probably on conceptual grounds. Sometimes early versions were included in the notes (with special explanation), despite the fact that the author's rejection of them was quite obvious - if they contain useful information that is missing in later versions. 2. Spelling, stylistic and punctuation changes The publication was carried out with the translation of the text of the sources into a new spelling. In addition, a systematic approximation of the author's spelling to modern rules and some “modernization” of it were carried out. For example, the gerunds with “-lice” were replaced (except for quotations from the Holy Scriptures) by their corresponding forms with “-in” (“having received” - “having received”, “having learned” - “having learned”), the prepositions “before” and “through” (also with some exceptions) - “before” and “through”, etc. The spelling of individual words was unified (for example, from the author’s versions “inspired” and “God-inspired” only the first one is used) - in which the author can often find wide discrepancies (in some cases, unification was still not carried out: “Gregory the Cappadocian”, “Gregory the Cappadocian”). The words “wonderful” and “animated” in most cases (“Alexandria was a wonderful place of trade”; “the attitude of the author of the letter to St. Scripture"; “the work is an animated hymn to martyrdom”) were replaced by “remarkable” and “inspired” (taking into account the context). The spelling of words with lowercase or capital was unified (sometimes it does not coincide with the author’s); differentiation was carried out according to common Principles (“Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons”, but: “Irenaeus of Lyons”, “Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons”, etc.). In some places that could obviously be misunderstood by the reader, necessary changes were made, for example, replacing pronouns with implied nouns, rearranging words, etc. Punctuation changes were very significant, and in this respect the text was also as close as possible to modern standards. Deviation from the author's punctuation (in some cases threatening to misunderstand the author's thoughts) often made reading the text much easier. The number of paragraphs has been slightly increased. 3. Standardization of scientific apparatus and scientific editing The scientific editing of the publication turned out to be the most labor-intensive, since the available text of both sources posed a whole range of problems here. Links to modern research were placed by the author in the main text, with significant abbreviations in them. References to ancient authors were not presented uniformly in both sources: if in the manuscript N. I. Sagarda used mainly short Latin titles of works (“Adv. haer.”, “Hist, eccl.”) and the abbreviation “s.” to designate chapters, then in the typescript a significant part of the references were based on Russian names (“Prot. heresy.”, “Church. History”; often the Latin name was crossed out and replaced by Russian) and the abbreviation “chap.” was used. The author gave chapter numbers either in Roman numerals or Arabic numerals. The abbreviations in the titles of the works were not the same. References to the same exegetical works were given by the author in some places according to the commented passage of Holy Scripture, and in others - according to the book number and chapter of the commentary itself. The type of exegetical works (homily or commentary) was not always indicated, which is of significant importance, for example, in the case of Origen. References to some works were given in different places according to different numbering systems (for example, the messages of Basil the Great or Gregory the Theologian; sometimes the author indicated numbers simultaneously according to two systems, sometimes he cited only one or only the other without appropriate clarifications). A unified system of punctuation marks in references was not maintained. Long rows of numbers, in the absence of uniform strict rules of punctuation, in addition to the easy possibility of confusing Roman numerals with Arabic (for example, II and 11 in typescript), did not allow many references to be read with confidence. Finally, in the provided references and quotations of texts from the authors, a huge number of inaccuracies, errors and typos were discovered that arose for a wide variety of reasons. It should be noted, however, that in typewriting many errors, especially omissions of words and entire lines in quotations, certainly belong to student publishers, and not to the author himself. There were also many inaccuracies in the typescript in the Greek and Latin texts (there are practically no such errors in the manuscript); the author, himself a first-class translator, apparently simply did not burden himself with correcting these too obvious and too numerous student flaws. Thus, the main part of the editorial work here was reduced not only to the unification of the scientific apparatus, but, first of all, to the frontal verification of all references to patristic works and all quotations from them (according to rough estimates, the course contains about 4000–5000 references to the works of ancient authors). In the process of editorial work, references to contemporary research by the author were unified (in accordance with modern design rules and using general bibliographic abbreviations adopted in this edition) and placed in footnotes. For most of the works, the output data 6 was checked and refined. In references to the works of ancient authors, short Latin titles were taken as a basis. Where the author used abbreviated Russian names (“Dial.”, “Strom.”), they were replaced by Latin equivalents (“Dial.”, “Strom.”). A complete list of Latin names used in references is included in a separate appendix. The punctuation division of links was unified as follows. Large sections of large works - “books”, “conversations”, etc. - are designated by Roman numerals followed by a comma before the chapter number, the remaining numbers (for chapters and sections) are Arabic: Hist. eccl. V, 22 (fifth book, twenty-second chapter). The section number is separated from the chapter number by a dot without a space: Hist. eccl. V, 22.4 (fifth book, twenty-second chapter, fourth section). An en dash is used to indicate a range within one unit of measurement (chapter-chapter; section-section): Hist. eccl. V, 22–24 (chapters 22 to 24); Hist. eccl. V, 22.4–6 (sections 4 to 6). A comma is also used to indicate an intermittent range of sections within one chapter: Hist. eccl. V, 22.4, 6–8, 10 (chapter 22, sections 4, 6–8 and 10). Chapter numbers (with or without specified sections) are separated from each other by a semicolon: Hist. eccl. V, 22.4; 34; 35.1,15–17 (chapter 22, section 4; chapter 34; chapter 35, sections 1 and 15–17). To indicate a range between units of different sizes (for example, section number and chapter number), an em dash with spaces is placed: Hist, eccl. V, 22.4 – 35.1; VI, 14.3 – 16. In references to exegetical works, the indication of the commented passage of Scripture is marked with the preposition “ad”, chapters and verses of Scripture are given in such cases in Arabic numerals separated by a dot, and the indication of books and chapters of the work itself (commentary or homily) is given according to the same system of combining Roman and Arabic numerals as described above. For example: Comment, in Joann. VI, 54.279 ad 1.29 (“Commentaries on the Gospel of John,” sixth book, chapter 54, section 279; commentary on verse John 1: 29); Homil. in Jerem. IX, 4 (only the homily number and its chapter are indicated); Comment, in Tit. ad 3.9 (only the commented passage of Scripture is indicated - Tit. 3: 9). During the editing process, with extremely rare isolated exceptions 7, almost all of the author’s references to ancient texts and quotations from them were checked. a) Clarification of links. As already mentioned, in the texts of the Lectures (especially in the typescript) a large number of inaccuracies, typos and errors in references to ancient texts were identified. In case of obvious errors in those references in which a direct quotation or an almost verbatim retelling of the text was given, the reference was replaced (after identifying the relevant place) with the correct one without any editorial notes or designations 8 . If the passage quoted, paraphrased or referred to was in fact somewhat broader than the reference indicated for it, then the latter was either simply corrected or supplemented with the necessary clarification in square brackets (example for the latter version: “Paedag. II, 10.83[–84]”). If, on the contrary, the quoted text was smaller, then the reference was either corrected or supplemented by indicating (also in square brackets) the strictly quoted part (for example: “cap. 2–3 [cited: 3.3]”). In the case of a clearly incorrect reference that was not accompanied by a quotation or paraphrase of the text, all options related to the likelihood of an error in one or two numbers (in the number of a book, chapter, section, etc.) or in the title of the work were first considered. If none of the options gave the desired result, and there were several places to which N.I. Sagarda could refer, the entire reference (or part of it) was replaced in square brackets with the most suitable one for the given statement or even with several similar ones. In several isolated cases, places that could have been meant by N.I. Sagarda, with clearly incorrect references, could not be established even approximately; such links have been removed. For many quotations, the numbers of sections 9 (and in some cases, chapters) were specified in square brackets. In references that were not accompanied by quotations or an exact retelling of the text, section numbers were usually not specified, since it was not always possible to determine strict boundaries for the passages that the author referred to in support of the general idea. Differences in the numbering of sections, chapters, etc. in different editions were, if necessary, noted using a slash (fraction). Finally, a large number of references were added (in square brackets) that were not indicated by the author in some quotations or in the mention of strictly defined places in the works of ancient authors. b) Clarification of quotes. One had to deal with inaccuracies in quoting ancient texts in the Lectures no less often than with inaccurate references. The author quoted most of the texts from Russian translations existing at that time, often making various changes 10, clarifications, sometimes making them more literal, even correcting obvious translator errors or typos in editions 11. In some cases, N.I. Sagarda gave his own translations. However, he often cited the same quotation in different ways in different places in the Lectures, although within the limits of acceptable translation options. Intentional omissions in quotations were often not marked with ellipses. A significant number of omissions due to oversight were also identified (both individual words or expressions and entire lines), which often distorted the meaning of the quoted passage 12 . Inaccuracies and errors in the author's translations were also discovered; in lithographs, errors and typos in quotations in ancient languages ​​were especially common. Finally, sometimes the author did not put a strict quotation in quotation marks, but rather a free paraphrase of the text. In the process of editorial work, the following principles were applied to quotations from ancient authors. The same texts cited by N.I. Sagarda in different translation versions were not harmonized in cases where the variants were more or less acceptable. Otherwise, changes were made where necessary to the inaccurate quotation in accordance with the correct version used by the author elsewhere in the Lectures. Absolutely obvious errors and typos in those quotations that were given verbatim (except for the erroneous place) according to existing Russian translations were corrected according to these translations without any editorial notation 13 . In other cases (if the translation was the author's or if the author's revision of an existing Russian translation was likely), the correction was either placed in square brackets instead of the incorrect version (with an appropriate note) or indicated in a footnote. Obvious errors in quotations in ancient languages ​​were also unconditionally corrected. In other cases (for example, in case of discrepancies supported by one or another publication), only significant differences between the text used by N.I. Sagarda and modern critical editions were noted 14. Those omissions in quotations that were undoubtedly or most likely intentional (for shortening) were marked in the text with ellipses (without square brackets). Omissions due to oversight (both obvious and those that were such rather than deliberate abbreviations of the author), especially those that distorted the meaning of the text, were restored in square brackets (significant ones were also accompanied by the note “omitted”). If the author also placed in quotation marks a part of the text that was not given verbatim or even in a free paraphrase, the quotation marks were moved so as to leave only the strictly quoted part in them, or were removed altogether. On the contrary, some exact quotations not noted by the author have been placed in quotation marks (with the exception of paraphrases of content, which are usually based on the author's sequential citation of the work). Several unidentified quotes were also left in quotation marks. All parts of the main text placed in square brackets (clarifications, insertions of missing words, translations, etc. 15), and notes marked “Ed.”, belong to Deacon Andrei Glushchenko; notes marked “Ed.” – to A. G. Dunaev 16. Kiev Theological Academy, January 25, 2003 – August 11, 2004 Today, the names of many scientists, theologians, writers, philosophers, and historians are returning from oblivion. Their scientific, literary and epistolary heritage is carefully examined, works that still have theoretical and practical significance are introduced into scientific circulation. Nikolai Ivanovich Sagarda belongs to the galaxy of such outstanding scientists - a man with encyclopedic knowledge, a theologian, philosopher, teacher, bibliographer. Nikolai Ivanovich Sagarda was born on December 1, 1870 in Ukraine in the city of Zolotonosha, Poltava province, into the family of a priest 17. After the revolution of 1917, entering the service in Soviet institutions and anticipating a negative attitude towards people from families of clergy, Nikolai Ivanovich in his personal data slightly changed the information about his place of birth and social origin. In his autobiography, dated 1927, he indicated that he was born in the village. Shabelniki of Zolotonosha district in the Poltava region in the family of a clerk 18. He spent his childhood in the city of Zolotonosha, where he attended elementary school and showed brilliant abilities. In 1881, continuing the family tradition, he entered the Pereyaslav Theological School, after which he continued his education at the Poltava Theological Seminary. Throughout his studies at the seminary, Nikolai Ivanovich always completed the next course of study in the first category. At the beginning of 1889, his father, the priest of the Church of the Nativity of the Mother of God in the village of Krasionovka, Zolotonosha district, died, leaving a large family without a livelihood. The eighteen-year-old boy had to work part-time without interrupting his studies to support his mother and his sisters and brothers. For many years, Nikolai Ivanovich became a reliable support for the family. His sisters received a good education, which allowed them to later engage in teaching 19. After graduating from the seminary in 1892, N.I. Sagarda was sent to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, which he graduated with honors in 1896. Upon completion of his studies, the Academy Council awarded him the degree of candidate of theology with the right to receive a master's degree without exams. In August of the same year, on the basis of § 54 of the charter of Orthodox theological academies, by decision of the Council of Professors of the Academy, N. I. Sagarda was enrolled for one year in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament as a professorial fellow. He chose a private introduction to the sacred books of the New Testament as the subject of scientific research. Professor Η had a great influence on this choice. N. Glubokovsky, who for many years became not only Sagarda’s scientific supervisor, but also his closest mentor. A year later, Nikolai Ivanovich returned to the Poltava region and, by order of the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, was appointed a teacher of Latin at the Poltava Theological School, and from October 15, 1899, a teacher of church and biblical history at the Poltava Theological Seminary. In addition, from 1899 to 1905. he held the position of clerk of the Poltava Diocesan School Council. At the same time, changes occurred in his personal life. N.I. Sagarda married Lydia Nikolaevna Uralova (b. 1880), a native of Velikiye Budishchi, Zenkovsky district, Poltava province, daughter of the archpriest of Poltava, who for a long time (1887–1912) headed the official part of the Poltava Diocesan Gazette magazine. The couple had four children: Vasily (b. 1900), Nina (b. 1902), Mikhail (b. 1905), Nikolai (b. 1913). Along with his teaching work, he is actively engaged in scientific activities. It should be noted that, while still a student at the Poltava Theological Seminary, N.I. Sagarda published articles on the pages of the Poltava Diocesan Gazette. After returning to Poltava from St. Petersburg, Nikolai Ivanovich continued his active cooperation with this publication. Throughout the 90s of the 19th century, in addition to the scientific developments of his main work, “The First Council Epistle of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian” (candidate’s and then master’s thesis), he published a number of works on various theological topics. To understand the depth and comprehensive mastery of various subjects, we will give just a few names: “St. Apostle and Evangelist Theologian” (1896), “The order of events in the early childhood of Christ the Savior” (1898), “The meaning and meaning of the words: “and from the blood and water”” (1898), “On the life of St. Ephraim of Pechersk, Bishop of Pereyaslavl” (1895), “Russian Orthodox mission in China” (1900). Such diligence is all the more striking since Nikolai Ivanovich was in conditions unfavorable for scientific activity. The political and philosophical worldview of N. I. Sagarda was fully manifested in the report “Slavophilism and its Ideals,” read in the assembly hall of the Poltava Theological Seminary in 1902 on the day of remembrance of Saints Cyril and Methodius. This speech in a certain way influenced the future fate of Nikolai Ivanovich, as it assigned him the label, in the opinion of communist ideologists, of a Ukrainian Slavophile. As a true son of his fatherland, Nikolai Ivanovich did not forget about the history of his native land. In 1897, he published a historical essay about the city of his childhood, Zolotonosha, and its holy churches. He was one of the founders of the Poltava Scientific Archival Commission, founded on October 26, 1903, which included such prominent scientists as I. F. Pavlovsky, L. V. Padalka, V. Vasilenko and others, who studied the history and culture of the Poltava region. In May 1898, N.I. Sagarda addressed a letter to Professor N. N. Glubokovsky, who was a member of the Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. The letter expressed a request for the presentation of the scientific work “The First Council Epistle of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Isagogical-exegetical research" for the student award of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Macarius. After consideration by the Academy Council of the above research, N. I. Sagarda was awarded the Makaryev Prize. On April 26, 1904, at a meeting of the Academy Council, the scientific research of the teacher of the Poltava Theological Seminary was recognized as quite sufficient for obtaining a Master of Theology degree and accepted for defense. The discussion of the dissertation was timed to coincide with the day of church memory of St. Apostle John the Theologian (May 8). In the work of N.I. Sagarda, not only was “the first task of the exegete – to restore the text of the commented scripture” superbly fulfilled, but also “the most important terms and cardinal ideas of apostolic theology” were carefully and deeply explained 20 . It was Professor N. N. Glubokovsky gave a review of this work, especially pointing out the extraordinary abundance of sources not only of a special theological nature, but also historical, philological, ethnographic, archaeological, and geographical literature. He and the extraordinary professor Fr. Timofey Nalimov were appointed official opponents in defending his dissertation. Analyzing the scientific work of Nikolai Ivanovich, Professor Glubokovsky pointed out that the author not only fulfilled the requirements necessary for a master’s thesis, but also certainly surpassed them, approaching the standards of the next theological degree. By the Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, N. I. Sagarda was awarded the degree of Master of Theology and on July 28, 1904, he was confirmed in it by decree of the Holy Synod. During his working life in Poltava, Nikolai Ivanovich repeatedly tried to change both his place of residence and his place of work. The motive for this was the desire to devote himself fully to science. In a letter to N. He writes to N. Glubokovsky: “... with all my soul I am eager to leave Poltava to where I could devote myself to scientific work, and I am not afraid of work. Having lost, with the completion of my dissertation, the corner in which I could rest my soul from everyday squabbles, I still can’t stop at anything, and I’m restless and tormented...” 21 . Glubokovsky tried to help Sagarda as much as possible, and under his patronage Nikolai Ivanovich was offered the department of civil history, but he refused to take it “in view of the material situation in which I would have to find myself” 22. He is trying to get a job at the Moscow Seminary or at any other institution subordinate to the Holy Synod in Moscow or St. Petersburg. However, the scientist’s real dream was the desire to get a place in an academic department, which would open the way to both material independence and large-scale scientific work, which in the long term would mean “... to achieve the highest theological degree” 23. Soon he was elected associate professor of the department of patrolology of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and from December 10, 1905, a supernumerary extraordinary professor of the same department. In November 1907, celebrations were held at the Academy to mark the 1500th anniversary of the death of the great Saint John Chrysostom. At the solemn meeting of the Academy, where members of the Holy Synod, representatives of the capital's clergy, honorary members of the Academy, etc. were invited, Nikolai Ivanovich made a speech “The Teaching of St. John Chrysostom about the Church” dedicated to this significant date. In 1908, for his length of service, N.I. Sagarda was promoted to state councilor by decree of the Governing Senate in the Department of Heraldry. On September 1, 1909, by decision of the Academy Council, he was approved with the rank of full-time extraordinary professor. In 1910, Nikolai Ivanovich was included in the commission established by the Holy Synod under the Synodal Educational Committee to revise the programs for teaching church history in theological seminaries and schools. During his teaching career at the first Department of Patrology, he lectured on the apostolic men, apologists, anti-Gnostic writers of the 2nd century (Igisippus, St. Irenaeus of Lyons), church writers of the 3rd century (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, St. Cyprian, Hippolytus, Dionysius of Alexandria, Methodius of Olympus, etc.) and IV. (St. Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian, etc.) centuries. On behalf of the Academy Council, N.I. Sagarda wrote reviews of coursework and master's theses of students of the Theological Academy. At the same time, he was the secretary of the St. Petersburg Spiritual Censorship Committee, and at the end of 1911 he was appointed editor of the academic journal Christian Reading. Under his leadership, the magazine was published until the Bolshevik revolution. All this time, N.I. Sagarda did not stop doing scientific work. His works come out one after another: “The newly discovered work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” (1907), “Ancient Church theological science in the Greek East in its heyday (IV-V centuries). Its main directions and characteristic features” (1910). Fluent in Greek, Latin, German, French, English, he is working on translating the works of Gregory the Wonderworker into Russian, Gospels into Ukrainian. In the same years, N.I. Sagarda began writing a fundamental pathological study “St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. His Life, Creations and Theology,” which was published in 1916. On May 6, 1917, for this work he was awarded the degree of Doctor of History, and in July 1918 he was confirmed as a full-time full professor at the Academy. During his teaching career at the Poltava Theological Seminary, and then at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, N. I. Sagarda was awarded the Order of St. Stanislaus 3rd degree (1904), St. Anna 3rd degree (1907), St. Stanislaus 2nd degree (1910), St. Anna 2nd degree (1913), St. Vladimir 4th degree (1916). After the closure of the theological academy in 1918, N.I. Sagarda returned with his family to Poltava. However, he did not stay in Poltava for long. In October 1918, he went to Kyiv with his eldest son Vasily, who entered the Polytechnic Institute in the electromechanical department. Until January, N.I. Sagarda could not find permanent housing in Kyiv. Knowing his plight, the family of famous musicologists Revutsky offered him their shelter 24. And only before the arrival of the Bolsheviks, when many citizens left Kyiv together with the Central Rada and the government, Nikolai Ivanovich settled in one of the empty apartments at 34 Andreevsky Spusk. Thanks to the assistance of the Revutskys, Nikolai Ivanovich begins to actively collaborate with the Knigar magazine, in which he publishes a number of articles devoted to the translation of the Gospel into Ukrainian. These articles were a response to the work of a team of scholars, which included Sagarda, on the translation of the Holy Scriptures. Back in 1905, with the permission of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Academy of Sciences handed over to the Holy Synod a translation of the Gospel into Ukrainian, made by F. S. Morachevsky. For the final correction and editing of the publication under the guidance of Rev. Partheny (Levitsky) created a group of highly qualified specialists who not only knew the Ukrainian language perfectly, but also interpreted the Holy Scriptures taking into account modern biblical studies. In Kamenets-Podolsk, the editing was carried out by Archpriests E. Sitsinsky and K. Starinkevich, Master of Theology A. Z. Niselovsky, M. P. Sovkevich, N. I. Bychkovsky, in Kyiv - P. I. Zhitetsky and O. I. Levitsky, in St. Petersburg - N. I. Sagarda, in Moscow - V. I. Komarnitsky. In 1918, the question of publishing religious literature in Ukrainian arose again. This was dictated by the need to revive the national, cultural and religious consciousness of the Ukrainian people. In the period from May to December 1918, the Scientific Committee operated in the Ministry of Religious Affairs. Under him there was a legislative and religious-educational publishing commission. At a commission meeting on December 11, 1918, in which N.I. Sagarda participated, a decision was made to publish in Ukrainian the works of the Fathers of the Church: the sermons of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. In February 1919, Nikolai Ivanovich was elected private associate professor of the Department of Church History at the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv. It was a difficult time. Frequent changes of power in Kyiv also affected the work of the university. To maintain a four-year period of study at the Faculty of History and Philology of the university, it was necessary not only to expand the range of specializations, but also to deepen them. That is why at the Slavic-Russian department of the faculty a distinction was introduced between Slavic and Russian literatures. Students of Russian literature were offered three specialties: new Russian literature, ancient Russian literature and folk literature. For students studying ancient Russian literature, a new subject was introduced - the history of Byzantine literature with a special course on ancient Christian literature. It was Nikolai Ivanovich who developed this course. In a letter to N. N. He writes to Glubokovsky: “... involuntary contact with the university forces us to apply teaching methods and methods of revealing established positions to a large extent, and for me personally, this arose the need to combine my later specialty with my earlier one and practically implement the point of view with which you once justified your invitation to me to the Department of Patrology” 25. In his memorandum to the university management, he outlined the main directions of the material both in lectures and during practical classes. Firstly, this is the study of ancient Christian literature from its origins to the transition to Byzantine church literature; secondly, a comprehensive analysis of Christian apologists, Gnostics and anti-Gnostics, which reflected the attitude of Christianity to ancient culture; thirdly, the study of the canonical and apocryphal gospels. Despite the unfavorable conditions associated with the civil war, Sagarda continues to do the work to which he devoted most of his life. He takes books for work, using the subscription of F.I. Mishchenko 26, from the library of the Kyiv Theological Academy, since “... it is necessary to compile at least notes for lectures at the University on the New Testament - there they show an interest that surprised me in both the canonical writings and the apocrypha. I would like to satisfy him and lay the foundation for the history of Christian literature at the University, regardless of whether I will carry it out or someone else” 27 . In 1920, the Soviet government of Ukraine, which once again came to power, issued a number of decrees regarding the University of St. Vladimir. Thus, by Decree No. 77 of April 26, 1920, a number of university faculties, including history and philology, were abolished. The resolution contained a recommendation to replace the abolished faculties with the Higher Institute of Public Education. However, in June of the same year, during the short-term Polish occupation, the activities of the Faculty of History and Philology were resumed. Teachers P. Ya. Svetlov and D. M. Koygen - in the department of philosophy, M. N. Skaballanovich - at the Department of Classical Philology, N. JI. Tunitsky - at the department of Slavic philology, N. M. Bogolyubov and N. I. Sagarda - in the Department of Church History, N. I. Sokolov and V. F. Ivanitsky - in the Department of General History were restored to the rights of privat-docents. Over time, N.I. Sagarda was approved as a professor in the department of classical literature in the same specialization at the Ukrainian State University. Back in October 1918, at a meeting of the Provisional Committee (VC) for the establishment of the Library of Ukraine, V. I. Vernadsky raised the question of the need to create a “Desiderata” catalogue, according to which the library’s collections were to be systematically replenished. That is why, when in February 1919 N.I. Sagarda turned to the leadership of the National Library of Ukraine (VBU) with a request for a position in the library, he was offered to take part in the creation of a catalog of books “The New Testament and the Universal Church before 1054.” as a composite catalog "Desiderata". Nikolai Ivanovich was interested in this work, and he readily began to carry it out. Already at the beginning of May, for conscientious work on the creation of the catalogue, the VK paid him an advance in the amount of 1000 rubles, and on May 20, 1919, he was added to the library staff as a cataloguer. From this period begins a new stage in the life of Nikolai Ivanovich Sagarda - already as a librarian and bibliographer. On July 25, 1919, a regular meeting of the VC was held, at which the issue of enrolling three senior librarians for permanent work was considered. The following candidates were proposed: M. M. Lyatoshinsky, M. V. Minitsky, I. M. Balinsky, V. I. Shcherbina, I. P. Zhitetsky, Yu. F. Melenevsky, M. N. Markovsky, N. JL Tunitsky, N. I. Sagarda, JI. Yu. Bykovsky, M. S. Safroniev. After voting, the following received the largest number of votes: N. I. Sagarda - 6, I. P. Zhitetsky - 5, I. M. Balinsky - 4. It was they who were enrolled in the positions of senior librarians, and over time, by decision of the VK, they became full members of the committee for the entire duration of its existence. In September 1920, after structural changes in the organization of the library, when the position of senior librarian corresponded to the position of head of the department, N.I. Sagarda was appointed head of the “Ukrainics” department by the decision of the Library’s VK. Together with E. O. Kivlitsky, I. P. Zhitetsky, M. N. Markovsky and JL Yu. Bykovsky, he was engaged in the search and acquisition of manuscript materials, collection funds, as well as inventory and cataloging of library property. In 1919, the Committee for the Protection of Historical and Art Monuments was created in Kyiv. As a representative from the library in the Committee for the Protection of Monuments of Antiquity and Art, Nikolai Ivanovich carried out the selection and evaluation of book collections that came to the Committee, as well as their subsequent transfer to the library’s funds. He paid special attention to church library collections, since after the Soviet government decree on the liquidation of theological schools, the libraries of former theological seminaries, schools and other educational institutions were subject to transfer to various organizations. In July 1920, the VC decided to send N.I. Sagarda to Poltava as a library commissioner to select and transfer VBU books from the collections of various organizations. On July 17, Nikolai Ivanovich went to Poltava, where at that time his family lived in distress, which, due to the difficult situation in Kyiv, he could not transport to his home. Difficult family circumstances did not allow him to continue working. In September 1920, he went on vacation, from which he did not return to work in the library, which was the reason for his dismissal on December 1, 1920. In the following years, N.I. Sagarda headed the Poltava Central Scientific Library, founded on the initiative of the provincial Committee for the Protection of Monuments of Art, Antiquity and Nature. The library was based on saved book collections, which numbered up to 125,000 volumes. Over the years of his leadership, it collected about 50,000 titles (more than 100,000 books). In 1921, this also included the library of the theological seminary, which numbered more than 40,000 volumes. According to Nikolai Ivanovich, some interesting manuscripts and early printed books were also preserved in the library. With a report on Ukrainian early printed publications of the 16th–18th centuries. he spoke at a gala meeting of the Poltava Scientific Society at the VUAS, dedicated to the 350th anniversary of the publication of the first printed book on the territory of Ukraine. N.I. Sagard did not leave teaching work either. On October 8, 1920, he was appointed to the position of professor at the Poltava Ukrainian Institute of Public Education in the department of history of world literature, where he first taught the history of Byzantine culture, and then the history of culture of the Middle Ages. In 1921, pastoral courses were opened in Poltava, where Sagarda also taught church history. Nevertheless, Nikolai Ivanovich’s dream as a true scientist, unrealizable at that time, remained the desire to engage in purely scientific work. In a letter to A.E. Krymsky 28 he wrote: “... time passes, but it is completely impossible to work scientifically, and I dream of Kyiv with its libraries and favorable conditions for cultural work. I don’t know when and how I will have to fulfill this sincere desire...” 29. In May 1924, he writes a letter to Stepan Filippovich Posternak, director of the VBU, asking him to give him a job. This dream came true only at the end of 1924, when the scientist and his family moved to Kyiv again. On October 1, he was hired to work at the National Library of Ukraine as head of the periodicals department. Having familiarized himself with the work of the department, N.I. Sagarda raised the question of its reorganization with the library management, namely, an organization that would give the department external and internal well-being, clarity of distribution of periodicals in it. He developed a long-term work plan for the department, which was discussed at a meeting of the Research Institute of Library Science at VBU on February 8, 1926. Under his direct leadership, external and internal redistribution of the structure of the “Periodicals” department began. In December 1925, the First Conference of Scientific Libraries of the Ukrainian SSR was held in Kyiv. N. I. Sagarda took an active part in the preparation and work of the conference. It was decided that one of the main tasks of bibliographic work in Ukraine is to create a Ukrainian bibliographic repertoire (UBR). The Research Institute of Library Science at VBU, founded in 1925, studied the conference resolutions and identified the library’s priority tasks, assigning relevant areas of work to employees. In particular, it was envisaged to immediately begin preparatory work on the compilation of a Ukrainian studies bibliographic repertoire, for which purpose the heads of the departments “Ukrainics”, “Periodicals” and “Old Printed Books” should be instructed to familiarize themselves with the scientific formulation of the issue of compiling bibliographic repertoires and with the achievements in this area in Western Europe, America, the RSFSR and Ukraine, to draw up a draft Ukrainian studies bibliographic repertoire. N.I. Sagarda prepared a number of reports on this topic, which were heard at meetings of the plenums of the Research Institute of Library Science (NIIB): 1) International bibliography - its state and prospects; 2) National bibliography in Germany; 3) National bibliography in other Western European countries; 4) National Bibliography of North America. Having analyzed the scientific developments of Germany, Russia, the USA and other countries in the field of bibliography, N. I. Sagarda determined the place of the Ukrainian bibliographic repertoire among other bibliographic works and proposed an ethnographic-territorial principle for creating a UBR. He drew up a plan and developed the methodological foundations for a union catalog of periodicals, identified the main tasks in working with Ukrainian periodicals: compiling a repertoire of Ukrainian periodicals, systematically completing the Ukrainian studies section “Periodicals” during the years of the revolution and filling in the gaps in the periodicals of post-revolutionary times, compiling a union catalog of Ukrainian periodicals, bibliographic descriptions of periodicals, compiling indexes, research periodicals in general with disclosure of their internal content. Subsequently, this work was actively carried out by department employees. Under his direct supervision, lists of journals missing from the collections were compiled. Work was carried out to find periodicals and complete the collection. At the same time, the managers and leading specialists of the library discussed, and in November 1928 they considered, a project for reorganizing the VBU to accommodate departments in new premises. N.I. Sagarda was asked to investigate the presence of periodicals in all departments of the library and develop principles for staffing the department. A new structure of the main departments of the library was approved, and in March 1929, at a meeting of the Library Council, the creation of an acquisition department was approved, the head of which N.I. Sagarda was appointed. Nikolai Ivanovich also continued to head the periodicals department until the merger of VBU periodicals. During his short time leading the acquisition department, Sagarda did a lot of work. It should be noted that he developed the structure of the functional divisions of the department, defining their tasks and organizational relationships. Based on the experience of the department in the first year and the entire library as a whole in previous years, he drew up a long-term activity plan, focusing on the fullest possible provision of the VBU with current and retrospective literature, both domestic and foreign. Nikolai Ivanovich was well aware that without multilateral scientific information, the full development of science is impossible. From his own experience, he knew what the lack of necessary scientific literature was like when, while working at the Poltava Theological Seminary, he wrote his master's thesis. At that time, his scientific supervisor, Professor N., came to his aid. N. Glubokovsky, who not only informed Sagarda in his letters about new literature needed for work, but often sent the publications themselves. Thanks to Nikolai Ivanovich, the funds remaining from the publishing house “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” were sorted out and organized; under his leadership, a corresponding card index for 91,000 book units was compiled. The practical activities of N.I. Sagarda were closely intertwined with his work in the Scientific Research Commission of Library Science and Bibliography (NIKB), which then concentrated mainly all the research, library-pedagogical and publishing activities of the library. He was a member of the Presidium of the NIKB, and in 1927 he was elected chairman of the bibliographic section. N.I. Sagarda supervised the work of graduate students in the field of theory and methodology of bibliography and the history of foreign bibliography. As an experienced and skillful organizer, with extensive experience in publishing, the scientist was directly involved in the organization of the new journal and for several years was a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Library Science and Bibliography, founded in 1927. N.I. Sagarda’s work at the NIKB began from the first days of its foundation in 1925, then still the Research Institute of Library Science at VBU. At the First Conference of Scientific Libraries of the Ukrainian SSR, the work of which is associated with the beginning of the active work of the commission, Nikolai Ivanovich made a report, which he devoted to the problems of bibliography. Subsequently, almost all of Sagarda’s scientific developments were devoted to one or another aspect of bibliographic work and the study of periodicals. He was especially interested in working on the Ukrainian bibliographic repertoire. As mentioned above, the resolution of the First Scientific Conference of Scientific Libraries of the Ukrainian SSR pointed out the need to consider the compilation of the Ukrainian bibliographic repertoire as the main task of bibliographic work in Ukraine. To implement this idea, the Bibliographic Commission was created in November 1926. The first plenum of the commission, which took place on April 11–14, 1927, gave a new impetus to work on the UBR. It was at this conference that Nikolai Ivanovich delivered his report “The Main Problems of the Ukrainian Bibliographic Repertoire,” which caused a lively discussion. At this plenum, N.I. Sagarda was elected scientific secretary of the Bibliographic Commission. Subsequently, as a secretary, he constantly covered the work of the Bibliographic Commission on the pages of the periodical press, conducted active correspondence with libraries, institutes, book chambers and other research organizations conducting bibliographic work, and supervised their activities. An equally significant area of ​​scientific activity of N.I. Sagarda is the study of periodicals. Practical developments over several years of work with periodicals were reflected in his scientific works. When a postgraduate course for training scientific personnel was organized at VBU, the library staff developed a project “Regulations on postgraduate studies in the field of library and book science” and drew up a basic plan for the training of graduate students, which was discussed at meetings of the Scientific Research Library and was approved by the Council of VBU. The work of graduate students was to be led by a Board of Directors, which included highly qualified workers with experience in scientific and library activities: D. A. Balyka, V. F. Ivanitsky, V. A. Kozlovsky, S. I. Maslov, S. F. Posternak, N. I. Sagarda, M. I. Yasinsky. Each of the leaders developed a program for a specific specialty, indicating mandatory and additional literature for detailed study, as well as a series of lectures and seminars. N.I. Sagarda was entrusted with teaching the theory and methodology of bibliography and European bibliography. In addition to his main activities, N.I. Sagarda took an active part in the work of various public organizations. For example, he was a member of the Library Commission of the House of Scientists and the Ukrainian Bibliological Society. It is especially necessary to highlight the activities of Nikolai Ivanovich in the “Commission for the Study of Byzantine Writing and Its Influence on Ukraine,” the creation of which he was the initiator. In March 1926, in a letter to Academician A.E. Krymsky, he writes: “... I want to get in closer contact with the UAS through actual work, and to become a real research assistant. In this regard, my possible exclusion from the list of regular employees (about which there are conversations and rumors being spread) would be doubly offensive for me. And I sincerely ask - preventing the above possibility - to really consolidate my scientific cooperation in the 1st Department of the UAS. Is it possible at the first meeting of the 1st department (which will take place, it seems, on the first of April) to issue a resolution on the creation of a commission for Byzantine studies within the department, instructing F. I. Mishchenko to immediately organize it, and somehow include my name in this resolution? This would legalize me as an employee of a certain specialty and with certain responsibilities” 30. On April 1, 1926, at a meeting of the Historical and Philological Department of the VUAN, a Commission was established for the study of Byzantine writing and its influence on Ukraine, or, in short, the Byzantine Commission, chaired by Academician F. I. Mishchenko. The first meeting of the established commission took place on April 9. At this meeting, two freelance members of the commission were unanimously elected: N.I. Sagarda for the position of deputy chairman, and A.I. Polulyakh for the position of secretary. On April 26, at a joint meeting of the VUAN, a resolution of the historical and philological department was approved on the creation of the Byzantine Commission and its staff was approved. The Byzantine Commission included a group of Byzantine specialists, which consisted of 15 permanent members who worked closely with the Association of Orientalists. The main task of the commission was to research and study Byzantine culture, especially those areas that influenced Ukrainian culture. N.I. Sagarda was tasked with researching the system of Byzantine higher education and library science, as well as the influence of Byzantium on Old Ukrainian writing. At the suggestion of N.I. Sagarda, Yu. JI. Diyakovsky and A.I. Polulyakh, work began on compiling a consolidated catalog of Byzantine literature. The first stage of work involved the creation of an index of books on this topic located in Kyiv libraries. Nikolai Ivanovich had to look through the collections of the libraries of the Vydubitsky Monastery, the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and the library of Metropolitan Flavian. On October 25, 1926, at a meeting of the Byzantine Commission, Sagarda’s report “From the history of Byzantine sources of the Slavic-Russian “Bee”” was heard. I. A General Survey of the Origin and Development of Greco-Byzantine Anthologies.” N.I. Sagarda paid no less attention to the funds of monastery libraries. In 921, the library collections of some monasteries were transferred under the administrative control of the Academy of Sciences. In the second half of the 20s. The process of centralizing old library collections in large book depositories began. Therefore, in 1925, according to the decision of the VUAN, the libraries of the Vydubitsky, Nikolsky, St. Michael's monasteries, St. Sophia Cathedral, Kiev Pechersk Lavra and Flavianovskaya were transferred to the direct disposal of the VBU. N.I. Sagarda was appointed as a representative from the library in the transfer of monastic libraries to the VBU, and until 1927 he served as head of the collections, which were located on the territory of the Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Began in the country in the second half of the 20s. the large-scale strengthening of Soviet-party power in all spheres of social, scientific, and cultural life had a negative impact on the work of the VUAN, which found itself at the center of political processes. Since 1928, a number of inspections of the activities of the Academy of Sciences have been carried out by special commissions of the People's Commissariat of Education (NKO), which brought accusations of “bourgeois nationalism” against its leadership. The pressure on VUAN reached its peak on March 9, 1928. An extended meeting of the board of the People's Commissariat for Education of the Ukrainian SSR was held in Kharkov following the results of an inspection by the NGO commission of the activities of VUAN. One of the items on the agenda was the issue of approval of VUAN academicians. It was at this meeting that F. I. Mishchenko was expelled from the academic staff as a former professor at the Theological Academy. On January 31, 1929, F. I. Mishchenko wrote a letter of resignation from the Academy of Sciences. The Historical and Philological Department of the VUAS temporarily appointed Academician A. E. Krymsky to the position of Chairman of the Byzantine Commission. February 5, 1929 At the next meeting of the commission, the issue of electing a new chairman was discussed. Two candidates were considered: N.I. Sagardy and P.P. Kudryavtsev. As a result of the voting, Kudryavtsev was elected. The commission held several meetings under a new chairman, but in 1930 it was reorganized into the Oriental Studies Commission. Political trials and persecution did not spare Nikolai Ivanovich either. The purges at the Academy also had disastrous consequences for the wetlands. At the end of 1928; To check the activities of the VBU, an NGO commission was formed, the findings of which led to personnel dismissals, transfers and harassment of leading library specialists. It was proposed to release a number of library employees from scientific and managerial work, among whom was N.I. Sagarda. The basis for his dismissal was his origin from the family of a “minister of religious cult” and a doctorate in church history. As stated in the protocol of the commission to examine the activities of the library, “Professor of the Theological Academy N.I. Sagarda is an ideologically alien element and cannot occupy leadership positions in a scientific institution. He has nothing to do with his education in the work he is currently doing and cannot use his knowledge at the wetland” 31 . This was written about a man who devoted nine years of his life to library science, a specialist who published a number of scientifically significant works during his stay at VBU! According to the resolution of the NGO commission, Nikolai Ivanovich Sagarda was relieved of his post as head of the department and suspended from managerial and scientific-pedagogical work at the Research Institute of Literature. Until the issue of checking the work of the wetland was resolved, he was temporarily transferred to the position of a specialist librarian in the processing department. On August 6, 1930, the final meeting of the commission for cleaning the VUAN apparatus was held, at which the affairs of the Academy employees were considered. Among them was the case of N.I. Sagarda. After its consideration, Nikolai Ivanovich was removed from work at VUAN, prohibited from holding scientific and responsible positions in all structures of the Soviet, cooperative and public apparatus. However, despite the unfair accusations, the scientist continues to do his work conscientiously. Together with the staff of the periodicals department, he is still implementing a project to consolidate and put in order the collection of periodicals, and is taking part in the preparation for printing of a union catalog of foreign periodicals in Kiev libraries. Knowing foreign languages, N.I. Sagarda carries out the final verification and proofreading of the prepared material, and also prepares indexes for it: alphabetical and publishing. He compiled the “Catalogue of publications of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences for 1930”, “Systematic catalog of publications of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences for 1931”, “Catalog of antiquarian books”. In the early 30s. The question of the administrative subordination of monastic libraries again arose. On March 25, 1931, an order was issued by the Science Sector of the NPO on the transfer of the Lavra and Flavian libraries to the All-Ukrainian Museum City. Nikolai Ivanovich, who knew these funds very well, is again sent as a representative of the library. Having familiarized himself with the state of affairs, he writes a memorandum to the management of the wetlands, in which he sets out his point of view on the transfer process. Having determined what exactly belongs to the Flavian Library and carefully reviewed its catalog, he compiles a list of books that need to be returned to the VBU. These were mainly publications that were not in the collections of the VBU, and also had value for the research work of readers and library staff. Unfortunately, during the war the Flavian Library was taken away from Kyiv by the Germans. In 1931, there was a new wave of accusations of idealism, nationalism, and eclecticism against library staff. The impetus for the senseless accusations of real scientists and the founders of librarianship in Ukraine was the critical speech of K. A. Dovgan in June of the same year at a bibliographic meeting, in which he proposed a class-methodological scheme for studying the social function of books from the position of Marxism-Leninism. Nikolai Ivanovich was amazed by this performance. He did not consider the speaker's polemical statements, bordering on distortion of historical facts, to be scientifically based criticism. Throughout 1932, “self-critical” speeches by leading library specialists were heard at special open plenums of the NIKB. On February 4, 1932, at a plenum meeting in the presence of 35 library employees with a report “Past work of the VBU on the problem of the Ukrainian bibliographic repertoire. Critical and self-critical analysis" was presented by N. I. Sagarda. He structured his report not according to the generally accepted template, in which he would decisively condemn all his previous “mistakes,” but as a scientific polemic with K. A. Dovgan. The scientist did not want to give up his principles, nor did he want to shift “his own guilt” onto others. In the debate, he resolutely defended his views, remaining in the positions of the “old school”, considering the “Efremov Academy of Sciences” to be the coordinating body of bibliographic work in Ukraine, using the term “national library” in relation to the VBU and calling for the resumption of work on the UBR. Many library employees took part in the discussion of N.I. Sagarda’s report. All of them recognized Nikolai Ivanovich’s report not only as “wrong,” “narrowed,” “one-sided,” but also harmful. Nevertheless, even after sharp criticism of his work, Nikolai Ivanovich did not want to admit the unfair accusations against him. This was the only voluntary dismissal. An outstanding theorist of library science, who confirmed the correctness of his theories through practical activities, a leading specialist in the field of national bibliography and periodicals, was forced to leave his favorite work forever. However, this did not end the work of N.I. Sagarda. He continues to work at the Academy of Sciences, but now as a proofreader for an academic publishing house. With his direct participation, catalogs of scientific publications of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine are published. N.I. Sagarda died in Kyiv during the German occupation. Unfortunately, the exact date of Nikolai Ivanovich’s death is unknown. The most authoritative sources give two different dates: “Encyclopedia of Decoration Studies” indicates 1943 32, and P. P. Rotach – March 16, 1942 33 The personality of N.I. Sagarda is so bright and unconventional, creatively rich and diverse that it will arouse interest among researchers for a long time. Understanding Nikolai Ivanovich’s contribution to science, everyone will evaluate his creative legacy in their own way. For some, the scientist’s ideas will fade into the background, for others they will reveal themselves with renewed vigor. But one thing is certain: the image of a hardworking, honest, modest and dedicated man, a true Christian scientist, will remain in our memory. Bibliography of works N. I. Sagardy 34 1. To the life of St. Ephraim of Pechersk, Bishop of Pereyaslavl // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1895. No. 20. pp. 693–729. 2. * Presbyter in the first centuries of Christianity: Church-historical essay // Guide for rural pastors. 1895. No. 4. P. 85–100; No. 6. pp. 165–178; No. 7. pp. 205–210. 35 3. Holy Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1896. No. 27/28. pp. 815–822; No. 29. pp. 859–870. 4. The city of Zolotonosha and its St. churches: A brief historical sketch // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1897. No. 28. P. 1076–1092; No. 29. pp. 1120–1128; No. 30. pp. 1154–1166; No. 33. pp. 1253–1260; No. 34. pp. 1315–1322. 5. The meaning and meaning of the words: “and abiye went forth blood and water” (John XIX, 34) // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1898. No. 10. pp. 365–377. 6. *3 the meaning of the rituals observed by the Orthodox Church during the Holy sacraments of baptism and confirmation // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1898. No. 28. P. 997–1009; No. 30. P. 1093–1102; No. 31. pp. 1127–1135; No. 34. pp. 1192–1201. 7. The order of events in the early childhood of Christ the Savior // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1898. No. 35. P. 1255–1264; No. 36. pp. 1315–1328. 8. Report by N. Sagarda on classes on the subject of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament // ZhS for 1896/97, pp. 374–403. (KhCh. 1898. August.). 9 . *Bibliographic note above the Gospel. “Sunday Night” // SINGER. The part is unofficial. 1899. No. 12. pp. 448–458. 10. Holy Prophet, Forerunner and Baptist of the Lord John // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1899. No. 16. P. 635–651; No. 19. P. 750–769; No. 21. pp. 834–846; No. 22. pp. 770–887. 11. The Gospel read at the liturgy on the first day of St. Easter // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1900. No. 11. pp. 462–469. 12. The significance of the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church of Christ // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1900. No. 16. P. 662–669; No. 17. pp. 712–718. 13. Anointing from the saint (explanation of the First Epistle of John the Theologian, Chapter II, v. 22–27) // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1900. No. 20. pp. 857–868. 14. Russian Orthodox mission in China // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1900. No. 26/27. pp. 1071–1079; No. 28. pp. 1103–1111. (Departmental reprint: Poltava, 1900.). 15. Life under the law. Features of the religious and moral life of Jews during the time of Christ the Savior // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1900. No. 32. P. 2088–2094; No. 33. pp. 2134–2140; No. 34. pp. 2179–2187; No. 35. pp. 2244–2249. (Departmental reprint: Poltava, 1900.). 16. Transfiguration of the Lord // Singing. The part is unofficial. 1901. No. 22. P. 1001–1014. 17. Holy Apostle and Evangelist Matthew // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1901. No. 32. P. 1988–1995. 18. Slavophilism and its ideals // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1902. No. 19. P. 865–876; No. 20/21. pp. 896–909; No. 22. pp. 957–971. [Transl. science see No. 122.]. 19. Blessed Elder Seraphim, hieromonk of the Sarov Desert // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1902. No. 32. P. 1341–1350; No. 33/34. pp. 1411–1420; No. 35/36. pp. 1482–1492. 20. The meaning and significance of the genealogies of Jesus Christ set forth by St. Evangelists Matthew and Luke // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1903. No. 1. P. 21–25; No. 2. P. 77–94; No. 3. pp. 149–166. 21. The first conciliar letter of St. Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian. Isagogical-exegetical research. Poltava, 1903. XXII 640 p. [Master's thesis.] 22. St. Mitrophan, Bishop of Voronezh // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1904. No. 2. P. 51–59; No. 3. pp. 113–123; No. 5. pp. 215–221. 23. Characteristic features in the disclosure and presentation of St. Apostle John the Theologian of Christian teaching // Kh. 1904. June. pp. 848–856. [Speech before the defense of the master's thesis, cf. No. 21.] 24. Orthodoxy and the Orthodox mission in Japan // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1904. No. 22/23. pp. 843–852; No. 24. pp. 902–910; No. 25. P. 937–942; No. 26. pp. 990–1000. 25. The parable of the unrighteous steward (Luke XVI, 1–13) // Pev. The part is unofficial. 1905. No. 1. P. 12–19; No. 2. P. 67–70; No. 3. pp. 114–119; No. 4. pp. 155–159; No. 5. 191–195. 26. Excursion of pupils of the Poltava School for the Blind to Sarov // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1905. No. 9. pp. 293–298. 27. Denial of the Apostle Peter //Chant. The part is unofficial. 1905. No. 11. pp. 382–393. 28. Regarding the journals of the XIII Diocesan Congress of the Clergy // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1905. No. 26. P. 947–962; No. 27. pp. 1014–1033. 29. Unsuccessful rehabilitation of the activities of the past (XIII) Diocesan Congress of the Poltava Diocese // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1906. No. 3. P. 164–177; No. 4. pp. 224–236. 30. Articles on the issue of organizing the upcoming local council and on the reform of the structure of church government // Kh. 1906. October. pp. 584–605; November. pp. 744–768. 31. *Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. T. VIII: Biblical-Hebrew and Jewish calendar - Karmanov D.I. / Compiled under the editorship of. N. N. Tlu-bokovsky [Review] // TsV. 1907. No. 1. P. 18–19. 32. * Drozdov I. Essays on general history. Vol. III: Christian literature of the first three centuries (apostolic men and apologists). Irkutsk, 1907 [Review] // TsV. 1907. No. 15/16. pp. 470–473. 33. The newly discovered work of St. Irenaeus of Lyon “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching” // Kh. 1907. April. pp. 476–491; May. pp. 664–691; June. pp. 853–881. (Departmental reprint: St. Petersburg, 1907.) [Enter, article; translation from it. translation from Armenian; afterword. Reprint (from separate print) see No. 119; for reprint see No. 124.] 34. Articles of theological content in academic journals for January-April 1907 // Kh. 1907. July. pp. 115–131; August. pp. 246–258. 35. *Glubokovsky N. Η. On issues of theological school (secondary and higher) and the Educational Committee at the Holy Synod [Review] // TsV. 1907. No. 31. pp. 1001–1005. 36. * Mishchenko F. To the Speeches of the Holy Apostle Peter in the book of the Acts of the Apostles [Review] // TsV. 1907. No. 35. pp. 1130–1132. 37. *Saint John Chrysostom (On the 1500th anniversary of the blessed death of the saint) // TsV. 1907. No. 37. pp. 1177–1855. 38. *Malein A.I. Latin church language [Review] // TsV. 1907. No. 44. pp. 1419–1420. 39. The Teaching of St. John Chrysostom about the Church // TsV. 1907. No. 46. P. 1474–1482; No. 47. pp. 1502–1510. (Separate reprint: St. Petersburg, 1907.) [For reprint, see No. 124.] 40. Articles of theological content in the “Theological Bulletin”, “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” and “Orthodox Interlocutor” for May–August 1907 // Kh. 1907. December. pp. 818–844. 41. On the question of the method of patrolological science and its place (group) in the ranks of academic theological sciences // Appendix to the ZhS for 1905/6, pp. 107–109. (KhCh. 1907. April.) 42. Conybeare F. S. The newly recovered Treatise of Irenaeus (“Expositor”, 1907, July, p. 35–44) [Review] // Kh. 1908. April. pp. 638–643. [Conybeare's amendments to it. translation of “Proofs of the Apostolic Preaching”; Wed No. 33. Reprint. see No. 119.] 43. The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. Translation from Greek LN. Tolstoy [Review] // PEV. The part is unofficial. 1909. No. 1. P. 8–14; No. 2. P. 53–61; No. 3. P. 95–101; No. 4. pp. 131–142; No. 5. pp. 177–186. 44. Works of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on the translation of the works of the holy fathers of the Church and ancient church writers // TsV. 1909. No. 50/51. pp. 1596–1600. 45. Ancient church theological science in the Greek east during its heyday (IV–V bb.), its main directions and characteristic features // Kh. 1910. April. pp. 443–507. (Separate reprint: St. Petersburg, 1910.) [For reprints, see No. 123 and No. 124.] 46. Dmitriev L. St. Methodius of Olympia and his theology [Review] // ZhS for 1909/10, pp. 107–109. (KhCh. 1911. July-August.) 47. Kolesnikov I. The essence of Christianity according to patristic teaching [Review] // ZhS for 1909/10, pp. 483–485. (KhCh. 1911. September.) 48. Muretov K. Missionary and polemical anti-schismatic activity in the second half of the 18th century [Review] // ZhS for 1909/10, pp. 543–545. (KhCh. 1911. October.) 49. Novodensky A. The teaching of St. Gregory the Theologian on pastoral ministry [Review] // ZhS for 1909/10, pp. 559–561. (KhCh. 1911. December.) 50. Orlov M. Second-grade and church-teacher schools over the last twenty-five years in Russia [Review] // ZhS for 1909/10, pp. 570–572. (HH. 51. Syriac Life of St. Gregory the Wonderworker // Kh. 1912. October. pp. 1139–1157. [Translation from German. translation from the Sir. For reprint see No. 78.] 52. St. Gregory the Wonderworker “Gratitude speech to Origen” // Kh. 1912. November. pp. 1177–1198; December. pp. 1321–1336. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 53. Letter of Origen to St. Gregory the Wonderworker // Kh. 1912. December. pp. 1337–1341. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 54. Prokhorov G.V. The moral teaching of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan [Review] // ZhSza 1911/12, pp. 178–192. (KhCh. 1912. July-August.) 55. St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, “Canonical Epistle” // Kh. 1913. March. pp. 410–421. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 56. St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, “Arrangement of Ecclesiastes” // Kh. 1913. April. pp. 552–561; May. pp. 687–695. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 57. Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, “To Theopompus the possibility and impossibility of suffering for God” // Kh. 1913. June. pp. 833–846; July-August. pp. 993–1003. [Translation from Lat. translation from the Sir. For reprint see No. 78.] 58. St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea: a) To Philagrios about the One-Bearing One. b) A short word about the soul to Tatian // Kh. 1913. December. pp. 1490–1508. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 59. Sinev X. Christian teaching on marriage [Review] // ZhS for 1911/12, pp. 358–359. (KhCh. 1913. February.) 60. Tsvetinov P. Participation of heterodox propaganda, Roman Catholic and Protestant, in the initial history, further course and development of the Greek-Bulgarian church feud [Review] // ZhS for 1911/12, pp. 390–391. (KhCh. 1913. February.) 61. Fedchenkov S. A. Saint Irenaeus of Lyons - his life and literary activity [Review] // ZhS for 1911/12, pp. 401–404. (KhCh. 1913. February.) 62. Prokhorov G. V. The moral teaching of St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan: for the Makaryev Prize [Review] // ZhS for 1912/13, pp. 170–174. (KhCh. 1913. September.) 63. Two works falsely inscribed with the name of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea: a) Twelve chapters on faith, b) Detailed statement of faith // Kh. 1914. January. pp. 102–124. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 64. Lobovikov Ivan Ivanovich, bachelor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy in the department of Patristics (September 4, 1841 - May 19, 1848) // Kh. 1914. February. pp. 246–273. 65. Homiletical works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea // Kh. 1914. September. pp. 1035–1066; October. pp. 1197–1216; november. pp. 1381–1397. 36 [Translation from Greek, from Latin. translation from Armenian, from English. translation from Armenian For reprint see No. 78.] 66. Kurenkov A. The doctrine of morality according to the works of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk [Review] // ZhS for 1912/13, pp. 360–361. (KhCh. 1914. April.) 67. Spassky I. O. John of Kronstadt, as a theologian [Review] // ZhS for 1912/13, p. 454. (Ch. 1914. June.) 68. Titov A. The relationship between church and state in Russia at the end of the 17th century (1589–1652) [Review] // ZhS for 1912/13, pp. 470–471. (KhCh. 1914. July-August.) 69. Fedorovich P. The religious and moral state of Russian society during the reign of Emperor Alexander I [Review] // ZhS for 1912/13, pp. 502–503. (KhCh. 1914. July-August.) 70. Review of the classes of professorial fellow S. A. Fedchenkov // ZhS for 1913/14, pp. 60–62! (KhCh. 1914. October.) 71. Fragments of the works of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea, and incantatory prayers inscribed in his name // Kh. 1915. May–June. pp. 559–576; December. pp. 1321–1336. [Translation from Greek. For reprint see No. 78.] 72. Christian faith and life according to the teachings of the holy fathers and teachers of the church. Vol. I: On the knowledge of God. Pg., 1915. IX 150 p. [For reprint see No. 121.] 73. Christian faith and life according to the teachings of the holy fathers and teachers of the church. Vol. II: On Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Pg., 1915. 167 p. [For reprint see No. 121.] 74. Christian faith and life according to the teachings of the holy fathers and teachers of the church. Vol. III: About the Triune God. Pg., 1915. 160 p. [For reprint see No. 121.] 75. Varfolomeev N. Legal status of the church in Finland [Review] // ZhS for 1913/14, pp. 419–420. (KhCh. 1915. October-November.) 76. Christian faith and life according to the teachings of the holy fathers and teachers of the church. Vol. IV: About God the Creator and Provider of the world. Pg., 1916. 152 p. [For reprint see No. 121.] 77. Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. His life, works and theology. Pathological research. Pg., 1916. 643 p. [Doctoral dissertation.] 78. Works of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. Pg., 1916. V 211 p. [Enter, article, translation from Greek. etc. Reprint Nos. 51–53, 55–58, 63, 65, 71 in one volume. Reprint see No. 120.] 79. *St. Irenaeus, bishop Lyonsky // Parish Reading. 1916. No. 27. P. 1049–1056; No. 28. pp. 1082–1089; No. 30/31. pp. 1141–1146; No. 32/34. pp. 1174–1179. 37 80. Kurnevich M. Psychological views of Ribot and their critical doctrine of the soul [Review] // ZhS for 1913/14, pp. 493–494. (KhCh. 1916. January.) 81. Svetlov V. Count D. A. Tolstoy in the role of Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod [Review] // ZhS for 1913/14, pp. 549–550. (KhCh. 1916. Mapf.) 82. Tabinsky P. Emperor Constantine the Great and his religious policy (before 323) [Review] // ZhS for 1913/14, pp. 569–570. (KhCh. 1916. March.) 83. A look at the reader in the ancient church // Addition to the Church Gazette. 1918. No. 15/16. pp. 510–515. 84. Grushevsky M. Vsesvggnya yutor1Ya v korotyum oblyad1 [Review] // Book. 1918. No. 16. pp. 959–963. 85. Translate the Holy Letters into Ukrainian language in the 16th and 17th centuries. // Book. 1919. No. 20. pp. 1246–1258. 86. Translate the Holy Letters into Ukrainian language in the 19th and 20th centuries. // Book. 1919. No. 21. pp. 1337–1350. 87. Poetic translation by P. O. Kuliyom of the Holy Letters // Book. 1919. No. 23/24. pp. 1543–1554. 88. B1bluegraf1chna robot in nakovih b1blutek // B1bluetechny zb1rnik: Sling nepnioi conference of naukovih b1blutekUSRR. Part 1. K., 1926. P. 42–54. 89. First conference of science and technology of the Ukrainian SSR // Life and revolution. 1926. No. 1. P. 103–105. [For another edition see No. 92.] 90. Nationwide B1bluteka Decorate // Life and revolution. 1926. No. 6. P. 98–102. 91. Postshsh course of b1blueteknavstva at the All-National B1blutesch Decorate // Life and revolution. 1926. No. 11. pp. 99–102. 92. First conference of scientific b1blutek USRR // Way of osvggi. 1926. No. 2. P. 124–128. [Cm. also No. 89.] 93. Organ1zats1ya b1blyugrafi na Ukrash Zasnuvannya B1blyugraf1chno1 komyui Ukrashsko! Academy of Sciences // Journal of b1bluetoscience and b1bluegraphy. 1927. No. 1. P. 1–13. (Separate edition: K., 1927. 15 p.) 94. B1bluegraf1ya on the service1 of the defensive-European 1per1al1zmu: sample of the organization of international sshvrobggnitstva in b1bluegraf1chnsh cnpaBi at the start1 //Journal of b1blueteknavstvatab1blyugrafy. 1927. No. 1. P. 131–135. 95. Naukovo-doslschch1 department All people!' B1bluteki Decorate // B1bl10techny zb1rnik. 1927. Part 2. pp. 26–53. 96. Ochobhi problems of the Ukrainian b1bluegraphic repertoire // B1blutech-ny Zb1rnik. 1927. Part 3. pp. 43–59. (Separate edition: K., 1927. 19 p.) 97. Decoration in Russian magazines for 1926 // Decoration. 1927. Book. 6. pp. 155–160. 98. Obsyag understanding of “peryudika” (Before the main nutrition of the catalog of peryudichnyh vidan u b1bl10tekakh Ukrashi) // Journal of b1blutekonavstva and b1blyugrafi. 1928. No. 2. P. 15–34. (Separate edition: K., 1928. 22 p.) 99. Zavdannya b1blyugrafy ukrashsko*1 perudiki // Ukrashska b1bl10graf1ya: Methodological zb1rnik. VIP. 1. K., 1928. P. 87–106. 100. Ukrshtka in Russian magazines // Ukrasha. 1928. Book. 6. pp. 134–138. 101. Ochobhi nutrition zvedenogo catalog hour drinking in b1bluetek Decorate // Journal of b1blutekonavstva and b1bluegraphy. 1929. No. 3. P. 43–54. 102. Systematic protection of N1meccini with foreign magazine L1tera- ture // Journal of b1bluetoscience and b1bluegraph. 1929. No. 3. P. 120–122. 103. USRR Press. X.: Ukr. Book Chamber, 1928. IV 63 e.; USRR Press. Do-datok No. 1. X., 1928. 8 e.; Addendum No. 2. X., 1928. 15 p. [Review] // Journal of bluetooth science and bluegraphy. 1929. No. 3. P. 131–133. 104. Hour painting Podshlya. 1historical-b1blyugraf1chny zb1rnik z nagod1 150-lgtya nepniói newspaper on Ukrshsh (1776–1926) that 10-L1tty yunuvannya of the Ukrainian SSR [Review] //Ukrasha. 1930. No. 1/2. pp. 202–210. 105. P'yata All-Union Narada of Book Chambers // Journal of b1bluetoscience and b1bluegraphy. 1930. No. 4. pp. 88–90. 106. B1bluegraf1chna komu1YA at VUAN // Journal of b1blutekognavstva and b1bl10g-rafi. 1930. No. 4. pp. 89–92. 107. Dshkens Ch. A tale of two cities. X.; K.: Knigospshka, 1930. 248 p. [Translation from English] 108. Hugo V. Lyudina, why are you laughing? X.; K.: Knigospshka, 1930. 434 p. [Translation from φρ.] Bibliography of works N. J. Sagardy 109. Catalog of Vidan VUAN for 1930 rubles. K., 1931. 76 p. 110. Systematic catalog of VUAN for 1931: Addendum II. K., 1932.40 p. 111. Catalog of antiquarian books. K., 1932. 31 p. 112. Systematic catalog of VUAN for 1932: Addendum III. K., 1933. 52 p. 113. Stendhal F. Chench1. X.; K.: Lggerature i mistezgvo, 1934. 244 p. [Transl. with φρ.] 114. Catalog of publications of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences for the very beginning of 1935. K., 1935. 52 p. 115. Catalog of publications of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences for Lipen-Breast, 1935 r. K., 1935. 60 p. 116. Catalog of the Vidan Academy of Sciences of the URSR: No. 1. K., 1936. 163 p. 117. Catalog of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian Socialist Republic for 1936. K., 1937. 109 p. 118. The Teaching of the Holy Trinity of St. Basil the Great // ZhMP. 1979. No. 1. P. 71–77. [Chapter from Lectures on Patrolology.] 119. Irenaeus of Lyons, St. Creations. M.: Pilgrim, 1996 (B-ka of fathers and teachers of the Church, 2). 622 [18] p. N.I. Sagarda: Newly discovered work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” pp. 549–622 [reprint no. 33]; Conybeare F. S. The newly recovered Treatise of Irenaeus (“Expositor”, 1907, July, p. 35–44) [Review]. P. [623–628] [reprint No. 42 without pagination]. 120. Creations of Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea // Gregory the Wonderworker, St., Methodius of Patara [sic!], St. Creations. M.: Pilgrim, 1996 (B-ka of fathers and teachers of the Church, 4). V, 221 p. [Introduction, article, translation. Reprint No. 78 with pagination preserved; for the works of St. Methodius (translated by E. Lovyagin and Bishop Mikhail Chub) separate pagination.] 121. Christian faith and life according to the teachings of the holy fathers and teachers of the Church. Vol. I-IV. M., 1996. IX, 630 p. [Reprint Nos. 72–74, 76 in one volume.] 122. Slov'yanofshstvo i yogo shcheali / Translation by V.V. Sagardi 38 . Uzhgorod, 2000. 44 p. [Translation in Ukrainian No. 18.] 123. Ancient church theological science in the Greek east during its heyday (IV–V centuries), its main directions and characteristic features // Works of the Blessed. Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus. M., 2003 (Block of Fathers and Teachers of the Church, 12). pp. 640–716. [Reprint No. 45.] 124. Sagarda N. I., Sagarda A. I. Complete body of lectures on patrolology. St. Petersburg: Resurrection, 2004. 1216 p. R K Sagardy: Lectures on patrolology. pp. 17–796; The newly discovered work of St. Irenaeus of Lyons, “Proof of the Apostolic Preaching.” pp. 797–852 [reprint no. 33]; Ancient church theological science in the Greek east during its heyday (IV–V centuries), its main directions and characteristic features. pp. 853–904 [reprint no. 45]; The teaching of St. John Chrysostom about [sic!] the Church. pp. 1067–1082 [reprint no. 39]. Unpublished works 39 125. Before nutrition about the organizational structure of the Ukrainian woman // Archives of the IR NBUV, f. 52, units hr. 130. 126. Before the plan, the edification of the wetlands. Vtsshsh peryudika // Archive of IR NBUV, f. 52, units hr. 76. 127. B1bluegraf1chna komu1ya UAN. First plenum of the Comuy // Archive of IR NBUV, φ. X, units hr. 31515. 128. The VBU's work on the problem of the Ukrainian b1bluegraf1chnogo repertoire passed. Critical and self-critical anal13 // Archive of IR NBUV, f. 33, units hr. 2861. 129. Systematic catalog of publications of the All-Ukrainian Academy of Sciences for 1933. // Archive of IR NBUV, φ. X, units hr. 31607. Letters (published and unpublished) 130. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., August 28, 1898 // Chosen Vessel: Collection of documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg: Borey, 1994. [Next: The Chosen Vessel.] P. 59. 131. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N:, December 8, 1899 // The chosen vessel. pp. 60–61. 132. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., September 15, 1904 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 64–65. 133. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., May 4, 1905 // The chosen vessel. P. 76. 134. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., and September 1905 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 78–79. 135. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., December 11, 1911 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 115–116. 136. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., March 1, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 260–262. 137. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., April 7, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. P. 264. 138. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., April 15, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 264–265. 139. Sagarda N.I. - To the Council of the Faculty of History and Philology of the Kyiv University of St. Vladimir, May 5, 1919 // State Archive of Kyiv, f. 16, op. 469, units hr. 259. P. 26. 140. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., July 1, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 272–273., 141. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., July 12, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 273–274. 142. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., July 17, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 274–276. 143. Sagarda N.I. – Kivlitsky E., October 29, 1919 // Archive of the IR NBUV, f. 71, storage units 935. 144. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., July 27, 1920 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 284–285. 145. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., August 21, 1920 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 288–289. 146. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., December 29, 1920 // Chosen Vessel. P. 296. 147. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., March 16, 1921 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 298–299. 148. Sagarda N.I. – Glubokovsky N. N., May 27, 1921 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 300–302. 149. Sagarda N.I. - Maslov S.I., April 19, 1923 // Archive of the IR NBUV, f. 33, units hr. 6386. 150. Sagarda N.I. – Krymsky A.E., [1924] // Archive of IR NBUV, φ. III, units file 61348. 151. Sagarda N.I. - Posternak S. Φ., May 1, 1924 // Archive of the IR NBUV, f. 52, units hr. 423. 152. Sagarda N.I. – Krymsky A.E., March 31, 1926 // Archive of IR NBUV, φ. I, units hr. 24153. 153. Autobiography, 7 fierce 1927 r. // Central State Archive of Supreme Government Bodies of Ukraine, f. 166, op. 12, units hr. 6765.40 Published in full for the first time (not counting the author’s minor abbreviations), N.I. Sagarda’s lectures occupy a special place in the history of Russian patrolology. In order to fully appreciate their role, it is necessary to briefly review the textbooks written in Russian before and after N.I. Sagarda’s course 41 . The first Russian patrol course was an essay by Archbishop. Philaret (Gumilevsky) “Historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church” 42. Its author widely used the developments of Western scientists that were available at that time, not limiting the review to the 8th century AD, but bringing it to the 12th century, including among the considered writers and Slavic enlighteners Cyril and Methodius, Russian saints Hilarion of Kyiv and Cyril of Turov. This book was used in one way or another by all subsequent Russian patrolologists. Archbishop's work Filareta is now of mainly archaeographic interest thanks to references to old publications and sporadic references to archives. At the Kyiv Theological Academy, a course on the Fathers of the Church was taught by K. I. Skvortsov, using mainly Western literature (most often his articles were translations from Freppel). He also published a separate book on apologists 43 . At the Kazan Theological Academy, D.V. Gusev as a teacher was already somewhat more independent, but dependence on foreign sources continued to take its toll. He managed to develop a course, the second and subsequent editions of which, on apostolic men and apologists 44, were published posthumously. With the advent of O. Bardenhewer's book 45, a revised multi-volume edition of which was subsequently the first course that met the requirements of science of the 20th century, 46 and the works of A. Harnack (primarily GachL), the work on compiling similar manuals in Russia received impetus. A manual was published in Irkutsk, based on the book by O. Bardenhevere 47 . In academies, direct dependence on foreign developments was gradually overcome. In Moscow I.V. Popov, in St. Petersburg N.I. Sagarda, and in Kyiv S.L. Epifanovich worked on courses of lectures on patrolology. All three were the authors of significant works about the Fathers of the Church: I.V. Popov - about the blessed one. Augustine 48, N.I. Sagarda - about St. Gregory the Wonderworker 49, S. L. Epifanovich - about St. Maximus the Confessor 50. Having a solid education and experience in scientific work behind them, they have already taken a more creative approach to compiling patrol courses. We cannot yet judge the work of S. L. Epifanovich as unpublished 51. Patrology I.V. Popova 52 is too short, although ease of visibility has certain advantages when it is necessary to quickly become acquainted with the patristic heritage. Lectures by N.I. Sagarda, recorded by students and constantly republished while the scientist was teaching a course on patristic literature, in their volume for the first four centuries exceed all patrolologies in Russian published up to the present time. An analysis of surviving lithographs shows that N.I. Sagarda was aware of the latest discoveries and constantly made amendments to his lectures. In addition, he increased the number of authors considered. In later versions, he reduces the material on the apostolic men (mainly due to a more concise summary of the content of the works) and supplements it with an analysis of the life and works of the “lesser” apologists, as well as Sts. Gregory the Theologian, Gregory of Nyssa and Cyril of Jerusalem and other Church Fathers. In addition, he improves the, so to speak, “horizontal” connections of the course, introducing generalizations for entire periods, related more likely to “patristics” than to “patrology”: the most valuable here is the section on the theology of apologists. The somewhat archaic and ponderous language for modern perception does not interfere with following the clear thoughts of the author. There is no doubt that the author, who has carefully read and thought through a lot of primary sources and scientific literature, is able to perfectly summarize and clearly present the accumulated knowledge to the audience. For all its volume, the lectures do not give the impression of a conglomeration of various information collected together in a compilation. The author traces the development of church literature, gives characteristics not only to individual authors, but also to entire movements. The composition of the course is sometimes curious. Thus, the author places chapters on Dionysius of Alexandria and Methodius of Olympus one after another, based not on the “school affiliation” of the Church Fathers, but taking as a basis their relationship to Origen, smoothly emphasizing the prelude to those that arose at the end of the 4th century. “Originist disputes”, which subsequently had several “phases”. After the revolution of 1917, before the start of the so-called “perestroika,” all Russian patrols were created in exile. L.P. Karsavin's book is too short and, in fact, covers (selectively) only the initial period 53. Of particular note is the presence of special chapters on Gnosticism included in such a condensed book, perhaps not without the influence of the author’s personal interests. The two-volume work of Fr. G. V. Florovsky 54. This book was the first patrolological “test of the pen” of the author, who had previously been engaged in philosophy, but who later became one of the most prominent Russian patrolologists. Unfortunately, lectures on the first centuries have not survived (with two exceptions 55 ), and the main course covers the 4th–8th centuries. Despite the fact that the author did not yet have much “patrological baggage” and gave excessively brief information about the life and works of the Fathers of the Church, Florovsky’s remarkable ability to generalize and penetrate into the essence of the subject, and sobriety of judgments add undeniable value to the course, which remains to this day for the general reader the best introduction to the patristic theological thought of the indicated period. Actually, the pathological and bibliographic apparatus of these two books, which also exist in the English version, were initially intended to be minimal and are now completely outdated. Patrological courses by Archimandrite are also known. Cyprian (Kern) and prot. John Meyendorff. Lectures by Archim. Cyprian, as far as we know, have been preserved in Paris in a relatively complete form, but have so far been published only partially, with the omission of materials on the 3rd (except for Minucius Felix, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria) and the 5th–8th centuries. 56 Although the ancient authors are considered by archim. Cyprian in less detail than N.I. Sagarda, what gives the course special value is its integrity and coverage of large material. Compared to the lectures of N.I. Sagarda, the course of archim. Cypriana has the advantage of taking into account more modern literature; there is a special chapter on apocryphal literature, although sections on Gnosticism and early hagiographical literature are missing. With a shorter course, the author sometimes reports a lot of valuable information, but the positions of the archimandrite. Cyprian's ideas are not always balanced, and the analysis is sometimes superficial. Like N.I. Sagarda, in some cases the author cannot abandon the usual attributions. For example, recognizing, in contrast to N.I. Sagarda, the Epistle of Barnabas as fraudulent, the author, nevertheless, stubbornly defends the ownership of the “Makarievsky Corps” by the Egyptian ascetic. True, the authors should not be reproached for such, perhaps excessive, caution, because such “conservatism” forces one to accept the results of the research of foreign scientists only after repeated “double-checking”, without hesitating, like a weather vane, at the slightest new scientific trend. Lectures by Rev. John 57, recorded by students and translated from English, is perhaps the only one, besides the course of the Rev. Philaret, cover all material from the 1st to the 14th centuries. However, with a small volume and large coverage of material, the excessive brevity of the book has a negative impact, despite some interesting observations and comments. Although the book is preceded by the author's preface, there are serious doubts that the author carefully read the translation from English and checked the authenticity of the recordings of the lectures, because the book sometimes contains statements that are completely untrue 58 . It is natural to be surprised by the recent reissues of this course without any editorial work. Recently, the first part of lectures on patrolology by A. I. Sidorov 59 was published. The book is dedicated to the apostolic men and apologists, excluding Latin authors. Then a general article by the same author about Panten and Clement of Alexandria 60 appeared, the beginning of a section on Origen 61 was published, as well as a short course of lectures on the development of ascetic writing, in the form of a separate monograph 62. However, it remains unclear whether the author will systematically fill in the existing gaps on the way to creating a complete pathological course covering at least several centuries of patristic writing, or will deal only with the personalities of interest to him. In both cases, one cannot but agree with the consideration of A. A. Stolyarov that this course may suffer the fate of “those pre-revolutionary patrols that were excellently started, but were never completed” 63. Although A.I. Sidorov actively uses N.I.’s “Lectures” Sagarda in the lithographed edition and modern literature 64, in terms of the degree of thoughtfulness and quality of presentation of the material, his initial course, partly compilative and sometimes overly critical of Western scientists 65, loses, in our opinion, to the “Lectures” of N. I. Sagarda, more systematic and more taking into account the achievements of contemporary Western science. A.I. Sidorov could also deepen the material of his lectures, providing them with sections on apocryphal, gnostic and hagiographic literature that are sufficiently developed in modern patrolologies, especially since the author began his patrolological research with a number of articles on Gnosticism 66. Thus, summing up a brief review of patrol courses in Russian, we can admit that some are irrevocably outdated, others are due to incompleteness of the material, and others, due to excessive brevity, cannot be used as full-fledged teaching aids. Apparently, only two courses can be considered to have stood the test of time: these are “Lectures” by N. I. Sagarda, still used by students of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary and Academy, for the 1st–4th centuries, and two books by Archpriest. G. V. Florovsky for the fathers of the 4th–8th centuries. These old works, in the absence of a modern course, will for a long time serve as a guide for many Russian readers for their first acquaintance with patristic thought. It is impossible not to mention, at least in a few words, the Russian translations of patristic texts, the preparation of which is one of the applied goals of patrolology and inevitably reflects the level of its development not only in world science, but also in a given country. The quality of Russian translations of the 19th century was uneven. Considering the almost complete absence of reference and scientific apparatus in these old publications (primarily discrepancies and commentaries) and the progress of textual criticism in the 20th century, we have to admit that only translations that appeared in Russia after 1900 can be used with at least relative reliability, when the quality of translations and scientific and editorial preparation of publications moved to a different level. At the present time, when almost all pre-revolutionary translations have already been republished (in most cases without any editorial work, which often leads to misinformation of readers about the authorship and degree of reliability of the texts), there is especially a need for a whole contingent of qualified patrolologists and translators who could purposefully prepare new translations, primarily of texts that have never been translated, and accompany publications with special research and commentary. Unfortunately, this prospect still seems rather distant, because today there is not even a complete scientific list of available translations and studies on ancient authors, 67 and the teaching of ancient languages ​​in institutes and academies is only beginning to gain the necessary momentum. Let us now consider the “Lectures” of N.I. Sagarda against the background of international patrolology of the 20th century. O. Bardenhevere's course, in its revised form, marked a new level of patrol courses. Later, the “standard” patrolologies of I. Quasten 68, B. Altaner - A. Stueiber 69, P. Christou 70, S. Papadopoulos 71 and others appeared. From now on, an even more extensive bibliography in all languages ​​was added to the usual scheme: life - creations - teaching. Sections on apocryphal literature and Gnosticism appeared or expanded, and the repertoire of analyzed hagiographic texts increased. Multi-volume studies have become common, although single-volume versions continue to be in demand 72 . There has been a desire to have as many authors considered as possible. As a result, I. Kvasten’s patrolology became an international project, to which the greatest contribution was made by Italian scientists (the last, fifth volume was published many years after the classic three-volume set and the additional fourth volume). During the 20th century, many texts were discovered that were previously unknown to N.I. Sagarda. The discovery of the Qumran manuscripts at the Dead Sea revolutionized not only biblical studies, but fundamentally changed our ideas about the history of Jewish literature and early Christianity; manuscripts were discovered in Nag Hammadi, which provided material and impetus for the study of Gnosticism; The Tours papyri made available many of the texts of Origen and Didymus the Blind, which were thought to be lost. The works of St. have been found or largely reconstructed. Meliton of Sardis. And yet the main progress of patrolology of the 20th century. associated with the emergence of new critical editions, taking into account the maximum number of manuscripts and prepared according to the new strict requirements of modern science, and also with the gradual introduction into scientific circulation of translations of patristic works into oriental languages. It is the latter factor that often turns out to be decisive for restoring the originals of patristic works that have disappeared in the original languages, as well as clarifying the authenticity of a particular work. The increased number of studies and publications of texts made it necessary to have a complete set (“cataloging”) of existing works of ancient church literature indicating the available (if possible best) editions, about which N. I. Sagarda wrote in the following words: “It is extremely difficult to navigate the mass of emerging works scattered in various collections and periodicals, and therefore at present they consider it essential to have a complete bibliography of publications of ancient Christian literature and works devoted to its study, starting from XV century and until now..." 73 . The first to realize this need were the Bollandists (scientific Jesuit hagiologists), who published the first such repertory in 1898 and completed their work in 1957. 74 They also inspired scientists to compile similar “keys” to Latin and Greek literature (up to the 8th century), Old Testament and New Testament apocrypha. As a result of many years of ascetic work, the famous “Key of the Greek Fathers” by M. Gerard appeared, the publication of which largely reduced the value of standard patrols. Now it only makes sense to turn to the “keys” for information on any work, including translations into ancient languages. Scientists have long appreciated the benefits and necessity of constant reference to this reference book, one line of which often eliminates long (and sometimes fruitless) searches. The main drawback of the “keys” remains the lack of an exhaustive bibliography on a particular author and work, and conventional patrols, equipped with a bibliography for the period from the late 19th to the 20th centuries, remain a useful summary of such material. However, this value of standard patrol courses has been largely reduced by the advent of computer technology. The expansion of information databases and the emergence of computer versions of specialized bibliographies are gradually reducing the role of patrols in this area, although the convenience of a single summary in patrols remains beyond doubt. Speaking about new technologies, one cannot fail to mention the creation of electronic libraries of Greek and Latin authors and works. Work on TLG has been going on for several decades, and the result was not slow to affect the formation of a fundamentally new level of work with texts. Although the use of the “Treasury” does not eliminate the need to turn to critical publications, the very presence at hand of a huge corpus of texts, otherwise often inaccessible, and the ability to quickly search according to various criteria have opened new horizons for scientists and students. The electronic version of J.-P. Migne’s “Latin Patrolology” (PLD) and its Greek counterpart expected in the future (in addition to TLG), the electronic collection of modern critical editions of Latin texts (CLCLT 4) also contribute (or will still contribute) to this process. The presence of “keys” and specified electronic collections greatly simplifies not only citation and references, but also the need for detailed bibliographic descriptions of cited publications. Thus, the rapid obsolescence of the reference apparatus of “standard patrolologies” after the creation of “keys” and electronic libraries forces us to recognize the main value of patrolological courses on the period of the 1st–8th centuries. namely narrative material that retains its meaning much longer than information data. The quality of presentation, the degree of thoughtfulness and the organization of presentation of material - requirements that N. I. Sagarda's course fully meets - come to the fore, although it is becoming more and more difficult for one author to cover such extensive material (and it is hardly possible now), as a result of which the proportion of collective monographs is gradually increasing. From this point of view, it must be recognized that the almost complete absence of foreign bibliography in the “Lectures” of N.I. Sagarda, primarily explained, apparently, by pragmatic considerations (mainly the classroom orientation of the “Lectures”), is, rather, their advantage. Although the author provided the text with references to foreign literature, he did not overload the Lectures with them, and in later lithographs he removed a significant number of references, and therefore the book contains less outdated material than one might expect. Turning to modern foreign courses, “keys” or the Internet can easily compensate for this gap. However, one cannot help but regret the absence of Russian bibliography in the Lectures. If foreign literature is taken into account without any problems, then Russian studies, as a rule, are very poorly known to Western scientists, and often to ourselves. Whenever possible, we tried to fill this gap (more details are given in the preface “From the Publisher”). The situation is similar with Old Church Slavonic and Old Russian translations of paternal texts, which are, perhaps, least introduced into scientific circulation and are almost never used in modern critical publications. Returning to the tasks of modern patrolology, it should be recognized that the main problem remains the creation of similar courses and reference books on Byzantine literature after the 8th century. Since in the West the period of the Church Fathers, especially the Eastern ones, traditionally ends with the 8th century. 75, and the authors starting from St. Photius is usually perceived through the prism of religious differences, then the active development of Byzantine literature in the 9th–15th centuries. began in the West only in recent decades, and Greek scientists were actively involved in solving this problem and achieved a lot. From this point of view, the inclusion of Pre-St. Philaret and Protopres. John Meyendorff in the pathological course of the authors and after the 8th century. The traditional opinion of Orthodox scholars about the unity of the patristic tradition (at least until the fall of Byzantium) comes to the fore today. A new standard and level has now been set by the new two-volume book “Byzantine Theology and Its Tradition” 76. For the first time, it fully takes into account the needs of modern science. Extensive introductions about life and work are combined with an exhaustive bibliography and a complete list, like a “key,” of all the works of a given author. Thus, standard patrols are combined with the convenience of “keys”, and the latter are deprived of their excessive brevity and are provided with an exhaustive bibliography and detailed introductions. The significant inconveniences of Prosopographisches Lexikon der Palaiologenzeit 77 (which until recently was a kind of “surrogate” “key” for authors of the late Byzantine period) have also been overcome here. It should be recognized, however, that the appearance of a real complete “key” for Greek authors of the 9th–15th centuries. will take a lot of time. The outdated textbook by H. - G. Beck 78 was originally written on the model of German “handbooks” - something between an educational literature review and an “inventory” of authors and works, but there is still no analogue to this book. Until the appearance of a new reference book, one can hardly count on the creation in world science of at least one “standard patrolology” for this period. After all, started at the end of the 20th century. the critical publication of the apocrypha would be very difficult without a preliminary inventory of the available material, which CANT served. So, what is the meaning of the first complete publication of N.I. Sagarda’s lectures almost a century after their creation? The subject of research in pathological science consists of patristic works or, more precisely, works of ancient church literature. The need for a special study of ancient church literature has its deepest basis in the Orthodox understanding of the Church, its ways of preserving and disseminating Christian doctrine and moral teaching, revealing and clarifying the internal church life. At its very foundation, the Church accepted the word of God in all the completeness necessary for all humanity; it does not receive new revelations, and its task is not to invent new teachings, but to preserve and transmit Christ’s Revelation unchanged from generation to generation, gradually reveal its inexhaustible content, bring it into the consciousness and life of people, assimilating to everyone the salvation accomplished by Christ in the form that corresponds to the personal character and development of each. Loyalty to the basic principles of its historical existence, to the doctrine underlying it, and adherence to the essential forms of the established order are absolutely obligatory for it, since otherwise it would cease to be the Church of Christ and would turn out to be a purely human institution. It is obliged to take into account the constantly changing forms and conditions of life of mankind and individual peoples, but always remaining faithful to the essential content of its teaching and the basic principles of its system. That is why, at all moments of the historical existence of the Church, we see an invariable appeal to the past, mainly the original history of the Church in order to comprehend the spirit of ancient church life, invariably preserved in it from the Divine Founder and the Apostles, for a correct assessment of the current church reality and determination of the normal structure of church life under modern conditions, consistent with the spirit and tasks of the true Church. Where can we look for indications of this spirit of the ancient Church? Where can I find a clear and direct reflection of her life in all its manifestations, illuminating its inner foundations? Quite rightly, its literature is recognized as a mirror of the life of a particular people in various periods of its existence. Therefore, with regard to ancient church life in its various manifestations, its most complete and directly tangible reflection must be sought in the written monuments that have reached us, in the works of ancient church writers, especially those whom the Church itself recognizes as the primary witnesses and exponents of its teaching, calling it “the fathers of the Church.” They were the first successors of the apostles, continuers of their work, imitators of their zeal, builders of the universal Church in the first centuries of its historical life. The truth for which they struggled and suffered was not a mere abstraction for them: it was for them a light that enlightened their minds, a life from which they drew extraordinary energy in the service of the Church. They loved this life-giving truth, fed their souls with it, sought to pass it on to their brothers in faith and lead strangers to it. As required by the circumstances of their time, they revealed and illuminated almost all the essential issues of church teaching and life. From here it is revealed that careful attention to the monuments of ancient church writing is essential, constantly obligatory for anyone who wants to understand the teachings of the Church and penetrate into its inner life: the history of the Church and its teachings cannot be comprehended and correctly assessed without knowledge of their present bearers and exponents - ancient church writers and their creations. In close connection with this requirement imposed on any educated and conscientious researcher of the spirit and character of church life, there is a special requirement that the theologian must satisfy: if in any science it is necessary to turn to the sources and original bearers of it, then the theologian striving for a thorough theological education must study the sources of theological knowledge, among which, after the Holy Scriptures, the works of ancient church writers - the “classics of the Church” - are of primary importance. The literary treasures of the ancient Church contain continuous evidence of the existence of the Church itself and the culture it affirmed and disseminated, true evidence of its teaching and the assimilation of it by believers, cult, structure of life and governance, an inexhaustible source of its protection. This determines their essential significance for theological sciences, and without studying the sources from which the material is drawn, different branches of theological science are deprived of their own foundation, and on the contrary, direct acquaintance with them helps to deepen their content and expand their scope. But these historical and, so to speak, theoretical needs do not exhaust the importance and necessity of studying the works of ancient church literature: they always produced an irresistible and beneficial influence with their vital and practical side, accessible not only to educated, but also to ordinary readers, due to which they were valued and revered primarily not as historical monuments of past church life, but as a constant guide in spiritual life, as the best instruction for correct understanding, assimilation and implementation the truly Christian meaning of life, indicating the means and ways to achieve its goal. In the life of Christianity at the dawn of faith, in the pure and fresh youth of Christianity, they were always looking for encouraging examples, teaching for personal salvation and for solving general modern religious and moral problems, instructions on where, in what and how one should find and implement the eternal truth and righteousness of God. This veneration of the patristic works, this search for guiding teaching in them has its deepest basis in the fact that the ways and means of religious aspirations and experiences in Christianity remain in their innermost essence similar, not to say identical, according to the unchangeable principles and highest goals of the religious process, understood and experienced in a Christian way; The external forms of detection and the historical coloring change, but the psychology of the spiritual process itself, its foundations, the inner spiritual life remain the same 80. This vital and practical side of the study of the patristic works is sometimes even brought to the fore, both due to its accessibility, since it does not require focusing attention and time on the voluminous and complex scientific apparatus of modern patrolology, and the importance of the instructive goal in comparison with the scientific one, how a whole life, organized in the Christian spirit, according to the models of the righteous and saints of God and according to the covenant of the church, is more valuable than one of the most precious means of the proper organization of life - knowledge. The fruitfulness and beneficence of this study is illustrated by the example of our homeland, whose socio-religious consciousness “was only original and harmonious until it drew the foundations of its moral and spiritual structure to a large extent from the deep and healthy source of church-fatherly wisdom” 81, which was intended, and even now applies, not to just selected minds, but to all souls of believers, thirsty for the spiritual, “smart” doing. Undoubtedly, such reading and study of the patristic works should form the basis of our study of them: not to mention its importance in the sense that it will give an acquaintance with the content of these creations and the wealth of deep thoughts and spiritual experiences contained in them - it will introduce one into the spirit of the patristic creations, make one akin to them, will blow the breath of the thoughts and feelings of their authors, which alone will create the possibility of correct perception and assimilation of that deep wisdom with which the patristic works are full creations. But the theologian preparing for the special service of the Church in the ranks of the foremost champions of her interests cannot stop at such reading and study: his knowledge in this area must be solid and well-founded so that he can give an answer to all perplexities and prejudices. His appeal to ancient church writing should not be expressed in arbitrarily extracting from it passages desirable for one reason or another; ancient church writers should not be credited with works that do not actually belong to them, or teachings that they did not expound. Therefore, for him, in addition to attentive and thoughtful reading of ancient church works, a serious scientific-critical study of them is necessary, which would determine the actual volume of genuine ancient church literature, clarify the historical situation of its origin, its gradual development and the organic connection and continuity of the ideological content of its main creations. Such a study of the monuments of ancient church writing is the task of the theological science called “patrology”. When we move into the field of scientific research into the works of ancient church literature, then, according to the modern scientific state of affairs, it is necessary to decide whether there are grounds to single out this literature as an independent subject of study. As is known, literary works are not random products of individual authors, but always stand in a more or less definite historical connection; they are the literature of certain historical circles, of a certain spiritual and cultural society. But the strongest carrier of a particular culture is the closely interconnected language and nation. Hence, each separate literature presupposes a special language; in turn, language is the expression of the spirit of a certain special nation. Therefore, it would seem that we can talk about special literature only if we mean the monuments of the language and writing of a certain, separate people. Indeed, before the advent of Christian writing, only national literatures existed. Even Jewish writing, despite its universal purpose as the literature of the people of Revelation, was essentially national. And this is completely understandable, since before Christianity nothing had such an impact on the human spirit and on literature, which represents one of the main forms of manifestation of this spirit, as nationality. Pagan religions were also determined and conditioned by nothing other than national character, themselves being only a moment and one of the forms of discovery of the national spirit. With the advent of Christianity, religion received an all-determining and decisive influence on the world: those who accepted Christianity, no matter who they were by origin, no matter what nation they belonged to, felt themselves first of all Christians - they extended their hands to each other across the boundaries of nationality, recognized themselves as related, because they drew knowledge of the truth from the same source and because the foundations that now essentially determined their lives were the same. The Christian religion connected cultures that were separated by language and nation. Hence it is clear that Christian literary works of antiquity, belonging to different peoples and languages, reveal more spiritual kinship with each other than with non-Christian written monuments of the corresponding nation and language. For example, letters to St. Cyprian and St. Athanasius, despite the difference in the characters of both authors and the peculiarities of their activities, despite the difference in the national spirit, have much more similarities with each other than the letters of Cyprian with the letters of Seneca or another pagan Roman writer and than the letters of St. Athanasius with letters from some pagan who wrote in Greek. The Christian spirit produced a higher and closer unity than national unity. Thus, in the very essence of Christianity, the basis was given for the fact that Christians not only existed in separate states, but also formed themselves into a single Church, which destroyed national barriers; hence the historical necessity was the emergence of a special Christian literature, which is not embraced by the narrow framework of nationality and is an expression not of the spirit of this or that people, but of the spirit of one way or another understood Christian religion - it should include everything that represents an independent work of a Christian writer, since it has Christian content and is imbued with Christian interests. If we go further and take a closer look at this latter - Christian writing, then among its works the core of this literature will clearly stand out, the most extensive in volume and deep in content, which consists of works of a very specific direction, expressing a certain religious consciousness, namely Christian-church. Just as the literature of a well-known nation, since spiritual life in it has reached a certain degree of development, can and should be considered as a reflection of the entire life of the nation in its various aspects and at different stages of its historical development, so the same should be said in relation to church literature. “Every literary figure, whether he is a secular or a church figure, certainly expresses in his works a certain side of contemporary life; a secular literary figure serves as an exponent of purely secular, family or social ideals and aspirations of his time, a church literary figure serves as an exponent of purely ecclesiastical, moral and religious ideals and aspirations of his era” 82. Therefore, the most important and essential interests by which the Church lived, the church’s moral and religious ideals and aspirations of each era found their expression in its writing. Therefore, we can rightfully assert that the history of Christian church literature more or less clearly (depending on the number and quality of its surviving monuments) shows the manifestation of the peculiarities of the life of the Church in its many different relationships characteristic of each period. It reflected and left traces of all the directions and currents that were revealed during the historical implementation by the Church of its vital tasks. This character and significance of the ancient church literature in particular will become quite understandable if we remember how highly literary activity was valued in the early Church. It was assumed as self-evident that anyone who acted as a writer on Christian issues recognized himself as being prompted to this by the Spirit of God and, accordingly, spoke “from the Spirit.” Therefore, his works were quite naturally placed next to the Holy Scriptures (although they were not revered to the same degree), for he wrote guided by the same Spirit to whom the books of the Holy Scriptures owe their origin. {This high standard that the Church applied to written works remained in it for a long time: the Latin Church until the 4th and even 5th centuries. maintained the point of view that everything that is truly worthy of reading should be considered next to the books of Holy Scripture 83.} Therefore, the writers in the ancient Church were those in whom the church spirit of the times, church consciousness reached the highest completeness and clarity; church writers were the best exponents of the main trends in church life, theologians of the Church. In this way, a special literature is distinguished - church literature, that is, the works of those Christian writers who belonged to the Church and stood on the basis of church teaching. This literature contains an unusually rich treasure of outstanding works in various fields of Christian knowledge. The vital, youthfully impetuous Christian spirit received powerful stimulation in the great spiritual movements of the time and showed itself to be extremely fruitful in all areas of Christian teaching. Already some direct disciples of the apostles followed in their footsteps and expressed their teaching ministry in letters to Christian communities. Soon, the confessors of Christ, furious attacks and outrageous accusations in their moral illegibility from Jews and pagans, were forced to self-defense and at the same time to fight against both. This long and difficult struggle owes its origin to a brilliant and extremely important apologetic literature. Then came heresies and great theological disputes that deeply captured the life of the Church, which continued throughout the patristic period, captivated outstanding Christian minds and gave rise to a whole series of dogmatic and polemical works about the fundamental truths of Christianity. During this struggle, the tireless pastoral care of the hierarchs and the zeal of other enlightened men took every opportunity to proclaim to the world in sermons and entire treatises the main provisions of Christian doctrine and moral teaching, especially to glorify individual virtues, to depict individual vices in all their criminality and destruction, to give instructions to the clergy for the expedient fulfillment of their duties, to the laity - guidance to a truly Christian life, hermits and monks - the rules of true Christian asceticism. This branch of moralizing works among patristic literature also bore abundant fruit. Soon they also began to depict the fate of the Church in its history and present the heroes of faith and confession - martyrs, as well as other saints - as models of perfection to follow. But from the very beginning they turned to the explanation of the Holy Scriptures with special love. It was revered by Christians as the “word of God,” as the “sayings of the Holy Spirit,” as the “book of books,” which many read, studied, and over which they indulged in constant reflection almost day and night. From this study a variety of works grew. Most often and with the greatest love, the sacred books were explained in conversations in which entire books or individual texts, sometimes biblical personalities, were examined; but there was also no lack of commentary in the proper sense of the word or continuous scientific explanation of the text. Finally, the numerous letters of the fathers, partly to entire Churches, partly to individuals, should be mentioned as a particularly rich in content and instructive type of patristic works; they contain an enormous wealth of the most beautiful Christian teachings and important observations about various ecclesiastical, personal and even political relations and events of the time. Such an abundance and variety of ancient church literature represents a vast field for research, and due to the unity of the soil from which it grew, and the unity of the church spirit permeating it, its processing should therefore receive a completely independent significance in a special scientific discipline. Thus, on purely historical grounds, the first question about a special group of monuments of ancient Christian literature, which is the subject of development in a special science, is resolved. The main, most outstanding in content and extensive in volume part of ancient church literature consists of the works of those men who hold the honorary title of “fathers of the Church” (πατέρες της έκκλησίας, patres eccle-siastici). For a correct understanding of the 84 tasks and nature of science, it is necessary to first find out who should be understood by the “fathers of the Church”, by what characteristics they differ from other writers, what authority their creations have and what is the strength and significance of their testimonies. It goes without saying that the name “father” in the expression “fathers of the Church” is used in an improper, figurative sense. To convey life, in the spiritual sense of the word, means to convey truth and virtue. He who teaches pure doctrine, who by his example encourages love and the practical implementation of goodness, already fulfills to a certain extent the duties of a parent. Therefore, even in ancient times, the name father was given to mentors and teachers of truth, and by this they wanted to express more than simple respect. According to the fair remark of the Reverend. Philareta, Archbishop. Chernigovsky, “they expressed that, just as an ordinary son is lent to an ordinary father by physical life, a worthy student is lent to a worthy teacher by birth for a life worthy of man, by the formation of the highest powers of the soul; this together expressed the image of the mutual relationship between teacher and student: the teacher called the student son - this was the voice of a sincere and loving soul; the student called the teacher “father” and thereby expressed his humble trust in the teacher, that power of attorney under the condition of which the student’s very education is carried out” 85 . It is known, for example, that Alexander the Great loved his teacher Aristotle, as he himself said, no less than his father, because to the latter he owed his life, and to the former a good life (Plutarchus, Alexander 8). This ancient custom of comparing the relationship between teacher and student with the relationship between father and son is reflected in the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, where the name “father” is used not only to designate a parent in the flesh, but also an educator and leader in life: Elisha calls the prophet Elijah his father (2 Kings 2:12); The disciples of the prophets are called “sons” (2 Kings 2:3–5). But the name “father” receives especially wide use in this meaning in the New Testament. Here this name primarily denotes the teacher to whom someone owes his conversion to Christianity. The Apostle Paul calls the Corinthians his beloved children: “I do not write this to shame you, but I admonish you as my beloved children. For although you have thousands of teachers in Christ, you have not many fathers; I have begotten you in Christ Jesus through the gospel” (1 Cor. 4:14–15). Further (in Art. 17) Timothy, who was sent to the Corinthians to teach them the way of life, he calls his beloved son. In the Epistle to the Galatians, the same apostle writes: “My children, whom I am begetting again, until Christ is formed in you” (4:19; cf. 1 Tim. 1:1–2; 2 Tim. 1:1–2; Titus 1:4; Phil. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13). This method of expression became common in subsequent times. St. Justin calls the venerable old man “father” who in Ephesus showed him the path to Christianity (Dial. 3). Towards the end of the 2nd century, Irenaeus says: “Whoever is taught by someone is called the son of the teacher, and he is called his father” (Adv. haer. IV, 41.2). A little later, Clement of Alexandria writes: “We directly call those who taught “fathers”” (αύτίκα πατέρας τους κατηχήσαντάς φαμβ/); “Everyone is a son who learns with obedience to the teacher” (υΙός δέ πας παιδυόμβ/ος καθ' ύπακοήν του παιδευοντος) (Strom. I, 1.1; I, 1.2). In Clement (Quis dives salvetur 42.13), the Apostle John calls out to the young man whom he converted and became a robber: “Why are you, child, running away from me, your father?” In his letter to Origen, Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, says this about Panten and Clement, the common teachers of the writer and the addressee: “As fathers (πατέρας), we honor those blessed who preceded us” (Euseb., Hist. eccl. VI, 14.9). Pagans and Jews express their hatred of Polycarp with the following exclamation: “He is the teacher of Asia, the father of Christians!” (about της 'Ασίας διδάσκαλος, about πατήρ των Χριστιανών: Martyr. Polyc. 12.2). Some letters to Cyprian of Carthage bear the inscription: Cypriano parae, Cypriano papati (Cyprian., Epist. 30 86 [, cap. 1]; Epist. 36[, cap. 1]). Dionysius of Alexandria calls his predecessor at the Alexandrian episcopal see of Irak-la “our blessed father” (παρά του μακαρίου πάπα ημών Ήρακλα παρέλαβον: Euseb., Hist. eccl. VII, 7.4). Since the 4th century, especially during heated debates about the true faith, the appeal to the “fathers”, “holy fathers” is made much more often - they are pointed out as the true representatives of Church Tradition in the field of doctrine. “We do not accept any new faith,” says St. Basil the Great, - which was written for us by others, and we ourselves also do not dare to proclaim the results of our reflections, so as not to present human wisdom as tenets of religion, but what the holy fathers taught us (ater παρά τών αγίων πατέρων δδιδάγμθα), then we report we are those who ask us” (Epist. 140 87, cap. 2, PG 32. Col. 588). Gregory the Theologian decisively points out to his opponents that he firmly adheres to the teaching that he himself listened to in God's word, which he learned from the holy fathers (ης ήκουσα παρά. τών θίων λογίων, ην έδιδάχθην παρά τών άγιων πατέρων: Orat. XXXIII, 15, PG 36. Col. 233). Cyril of Alexandria says that in the fight against Nestorianism he always followed the teachings of Sts. fathers, especially the blessed and all-honorable Father Athanasius του μακαρίου και πανυφήμου πατρός ημών 'Αθανασίου: Epist. 39, ad Joann., PG 77. Col. On the other hand, the semi-Pelagians of southern Gaul found in the teachings of the blj. Augustine on grace, in the words of Prosper of Aquitaine, is a contradiction with the views of the fathers and church creed (contrarium putant patrum opinioni et ecclesiastico sensui: Prosper Aquitanus, Epist. ad Augustinum, inter Epist. August., 225, cap. 2). The councils referred with particular affection to the authority of the fathers. The First Ecumenical Council defined the relationship of God the Son to the Father with the term ομοούσιος, based on the testimony of the fathers (Athanas., Epist. ad Afros episcopos). The Second Council directly required the heretics to openly declare whether or not they wished to adhere to the judgment of the fathers who flourished before the rise of modern heresies (Socrates [Hist. eccl. V, 10] and Sozomen [Hist. eccl. VII, 12]). The Council of Alexandria in 430, in its letter to Nestorius, follows, in its own words, the confession of the holy fathers and thus wishes to follow, as it were, the royal path (έπόμενοι bh πανταχήι ταις τών άγιων πατέρων όμολογίαις… καΐ βασιλιΚην ώσπερ έρχόμνοι τρίβον: SS. coll. At the first meeting of the Third Ecumenical Council (431), testimonies from the writings of the most holy and most God-fearing fathers and bishops and martyrs were read πατέρων έπισκόπων και διαφόρων μαρτύρων: Mansi. SS. IV, 1184 89) to confirm correctly and solemnly the confession of the ancient doctrine. (Vincentius Lirin., Commonitorium 29). Members of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), insisting on reading the letter of Leo the Great to Flavian of Constantinople, exclaimed: “This is the faith of the fathers (πατέρων), this is the faith of the apostles!” (Concil. Chalced. Act. II: Mansi, 1. p. VI, 972 90); they decided the question of the true faith, “following the holy fathers” (έπόμνοι τοις άγίοις πατράσιν: Act. V, Mansi, 1. p. VII, 116 91), and condemned those who perverted the teaching of the fathers (τών πατέρων παραχαράττι την 'έννοιαν: Alloc, ad Marcian. imperat., Mansi, 1. pp. VII, 465 92). The Fathers of the Fifth Council confessed that they hold and preach “the faith which was first given by our great God and Savior Jesus Christ to the holy apostles and by them [was] preached throughout the whole world, which the holy fathers confessed [and] expounded and transmitted to the holy Churches... we follow them in everything and accept them” (Acts III) 93. The Sixth Ecumenical Council professes the right faith, unswervingly following the right path of St. fathers and assigning in accordance with them (Acts XIII) 94, and makes it a rule that the Holy Scriptures should be interpreted no differently than the luminaries and teachers of the Church explained it in their writings 95. The Seventh Ecumenical Council bases its definition on the teaching of the holy and divine fathers and the Tradition of the universal Church, which has its source in the Holy Spirit dwelling in the Church (Acts V and VII) 96. Thus, πατέρας is a more or less enclosed whole, and the “fathers” are recognized as the most reliable representatives of Church Tradition in dogma, witnesses and judges of the true faith. They form a definite and firmly limited group of teachers of the faith preceding one or another council, and the name πατέρες indicates not so much antiquity as the ecclesiastical significance of its bearers. In speeches about the fathers, we always mean those predecessors who must testify and represent the faith of the Church, and be the legitimate bearers of church teaching. They can be taken from the very recent past, for example, in the first meeting of the Ephesian Ecumenical Council (June 22, 431), the testimonies of Theophilus of Alexandria (d. 412) and Atticus of Constantinople (d. 425) were read; in the collection of “paternal testimonies” (paternae auctoritates), which St. Leo, Bishop of Rome, appended to his letter to Flavian of Constantinople (dated June 13, 449), there are quotes from the writings of the blessed. Augustine (d. 430) and Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), - thus, recently deceased bishops are called “fathers”. {But only bishops are called fathers. Leo the Great does not cite the testimony of a single writer who was not a bishop; in the same way, at the first meeting of the Ephesian Ecumenical Council, excerpts were read exclusively from the works of bishops.} From the use of the title "father" in the first centuries it cannot be definitely inferred that this title applied exclusively to bishops; but there is no doubt that references are made almost exclusively to the official bearers of church magisterium, i.e., bishops, and it is quite natural that bishops were primarily and primarily designated by this honorary name: as the head of a private Church, the bishop, called and obliged to revive to a new life, to be a teacher and leader in Christianity, other members of the Church, is placed in parallel with the head of the family. Blzh. Augustine, in a dispute with the Pelagian Julian, refers to the blessed one as a witness to the church teaching on original sin. Jerome, who was not a bishop (Contra Julianum I, [7.]34; cf. II, [10.]33; [10.]36). But Augustine, apparently, realizes that by doing this he is violating the established and, to a certain extent, certain framework established by his time. Anticipating the expected objection of Julian, he emphasizes with particular insistence that although Jerome was not a bishop, nevertheless, in view of his extraordinary learning and holiness of life, he should be recognized as a reliable interpreter of the faith of the Church. This link is blzh. Augustine on Jerome deserves special attention. It shows, on the one hand, how strong was the general conviction at that time that only bishops could be witnesses of the faith; on the other hand, it certifies that more enlightened minds did not consider this limitation immutable and allowed the possibility of including non-bishops as “fathers of the Church” if there were sufficient grounds for this in the holiness of their lives and in the ecclesiastical direction of their teaching and literary activities. This is confirmed by Vikenty Lirinsky; speaking of the ancestors who, unshakably remaining, whenever and wherever, in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, remained teachers who deserved approval and all together unanimously held, transmitted in writing, communicated with a living voice openly, often, firmly some teaching, he means not only bishops, but in general church writers of the previous time (Commonitorium 3). In general, in ancient times there was no formal and mandatory definition of who should be considered “fathers of the Church.” If the references meant almost exclusively bishops, then this is explained by the fact that the vast majority of enlightened men of antiquity were also hierarchs of the Church. Thus, there is no doubt that at the very time when the authority of the “fathers” stands unshakably in the general consciousness, other church writers who were not bishops are also called and recognized as “fathers of the Church,” and this is because the main point in the concept of “father” lies in the concept of an authoritative witness to the faith of the Church. The task of being judges in matters of faith, which was primarily and primarily performed by bishops, was also carried out by other church writers. The history of the Church testifies that the majority, and indeed the most significant, church writers also occupied episcopal sees; but, on the other hand, if in subsequent times it was possible to refer only to those bishops of antiquity who set forth the teaching of the faith in written works, it is no less obvious that such church writers of the past, who for some reason did not achieve episcopal dignity, can give completely reliable testimony about the faith of the Church of their time; their authority increases in proportion to their antiquity. The more often in disputes about faith they appealed to the ancient or original religious consciousness of the Church, the sooner the scope of the concept “fathers” should have been determined in this sense, to which they resorted more and more often: they thought about the witnesses of the ancient Church, but found them not only among bishops, but also among those church writers of antiquity who did not have the episcopal rank 97. Therefore, the title “Father of the Church” was adopted without any limitation, for example, by St. Ephraim the Syrian, although he was only a deacon, Presbyter John of Damascus, St. Theodore Studitus. This expands the scope of the concept of πατέρας, but at the same time it does not lose its definition. The Church does not give all church writers and not even all saints the honorary title of “father of the Church.” Neither genius, nor education, nor eloquence are sufficient to establish this outstanding significance for a writer: Tertullian, despite the literary and dogmatic-historical significance of his works; Origen, who took upon himself the blows of persecution, shining with that special radiance that was inherent in his sublime and insightful spirit; Lactantius, with his elegant Ciceronian language; the "father of church history" Eusebius of Caesarea, who preserved for the Christian world important documents from its original history; blzh. Jerome; blzh. Augustine and others are not recognized as Church Fathers. Posterity carefully preserves their works; but Tertullian’s passion for Montanism, incorrectness and inaccuracy in the teachings of Origen and Lactantius, the suspicious dogmatic views of Eusebius of Caesarea, the rigidity of Jerome’s character, and incorrectness in Augustine’s teaching on the relationship between grace and the free will of man did not allow the Church to add their names to the list of fathers. On the other hand, fairly short works, even fragments, are sometimes sufficient for famous church writers to acquire this title. Since in the initial history of the Christian Church we do not see traces of deliberate research regarding the criterion by which one or another church writer can be recognized as an authoritative witness in the expression of church religious consciousness, it is obvious that believers in this matter were guided, as it were, by an inner voice, which led to a unanimous recognition of the authority of the church leader and writer as the father of the Church. Only in later times did this question become the subject of special research. Presbyter Vincent of Lirinsky dealt with it especially persistently and in detail, setting out his reasoning in the “Memoirs” he compiled around 434. He constantly repeats the admonition to firmly adhere to the teachings of the “holy fathers” (for example, cap. 3). Referring to Hilary of Pictavia, who said regarding Tertullian (Comment, in Matth. 5.1) that by his later error he deprived the authority of works worthy of approval (sequenti errore detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem), Vincent says that the determining norm of faith and its written presentation can only be considered the consonant testimony of those fathers who, living, teaching and abiding in the faith and in catholic communion, holy, wisely, constantly, were deemed worthy either to rest in faith in Christ, or to die blessedly for Christ (Eorum dumtaxat patrum sententiae conferendae sunt, qui in fide et communione catholica sancte, sapienter, constanter viventes* docentes et permanentes, vel mori in Christo fideliter vel occidi pro Christo feliciter meruerunt: cap. 28). These words clearly indicate the basic principles for determining whether one or another church writer belongs to the Fathers of the Church. Patrological science in the Roman Catholic West, revealing and developing these principles, indicated four signs, the presence of which in a church writer is necessary for him to receive the honorary title of “father of the Church,” namely: 1) doctrina orthodoxa [Orthodox teaching (or: orthodoxy of teaching)], 2) sanctitas vitae [holiness of life], 3) competens antiquitas [proper antiquity] and 4) approbate ecclesiae [recognition by the Church]. In their main features, these signs for determining the Father of the Church are also accepted by Orthodox patrolologists. 1) The Father of the Church, like any teacher in general, must be distinguished by the education necessary for the conditions of his life and work and in the Church of his time enjoy the authority of a teacher in matters of faith, have merit before the Church in the field of teaching, being a constant exponent of Orthodox teaching. Anyone who did not have a clear knowledge of the Revealed teaching of Christ could not give an answer to anyone who asked about faith; whoever, further, deviated from the teachings of the Church, defended error against the truth and did not correct his mistakes, cannot be a reliable witness of Church teaching. On this basis, the Church demanded strict Orthodoxy and refused the title of Father of the Church to all those church writers who sinned against church teaching or, at least, raised fundamental doubts about their constancy in Orthodoxy, despite their scholarship and merits for the Church and theological science; these are, for example: Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodoret of Cyrus, Jerome, Augustine. It goes without saying that the requirement of Christian education is very relative in order for any definite norms to be established. Likewise, fidelity to church teaching cannot be interpreted in the sense of impeccable accuracy. On some points of church teaching, a definite and binding formulation for all has not yet been given. The Fathers of the Church could have made erroneous judgments; for example, St. Iri-neus of Lyon, on the basis of some legend, reveals a clear inclination towards chiliastic teaching. However, if there is no doubt that the church writer who made mistakes always wanted to be faithful to Orthodoxy, then the Church recognizes him as a father. 2) The sign of the holiness of life naturally follows from the fact that between true church learning and the holiness of life there is the closest internal connection: the assimilation of Christian Revealed teaching does not consist in acquiring only a certain amount of knowledge or in the formation of only a theoretical worldview, but embraces the entire personality of a person and necessarily finds expression in appropriate behavior. Therefore, only one who not only through his works, but also through his own example, contributes to the emergence and development of spiritual life can be revered as a spiritual father. The Father of the Church not only shows the path of truth, but also walks along it ahead of his spiritual children. Hence it is clear why in church usage the fathers of the Church are called “holy fathers.” 3) Regarding the third feature - the antiquity of a church writer or his belonging to the first centuries of the Church of Christ - there is significant disagreement among patrolologists, namely, in determining the period until which church writers who meet other requirements can receive the title of “father of the Church.” Some Roman Catholic patrolologists consider Bernard of Clairvaux (d. 1153) ultimus inter patres [last among the fathers], although others (for example, J. Fessler - W. Jungmann) would like to include Bonaventure and Thomas Aquinas and the period of the fathers to end the 13th century. However, some among them (for example, Möhler) do not consider it possible to allow an exact definition of the period of the fathers, since as long as the Church exists, there must and will be men who, in terms of their scientific authority and merits for the Church, can be placed next to the fathers of the Church. Orthodox patrolologists do not share the desire to determine the period of existence of the “Church Fathers.” His Eminence Philaret, Archbishop. Chernigovsky writes: “If any (limit) can be appointed, then only the one that ends the existence of the militant Church of Christ; There was no other limit and there cannot be. The Holy Spirit always dwells in the Church, always enlightens the minds and hearts of believers, always acts in chosen men, depending on the needs of the time.” “Just as the Church of Christ will exist until the end of the world, so until the end of the world the chosen instruments of the Spirit of God will appear in it for the needs of the Church.” “Thus,” concludes the named author, “in all centuries there may be men with the qualities necessary for the Fathers of the Church” 98. Indeed, in the Orthodox Church the title of holy father is attached to illustrious men, regardless of the time of their life. Therefore, from our point of view, if it is possible to raise the question of the patristic period, then only for the immediate purposes of patrolological science in accordance with its specific task, and in any case not based on the concept of “father of the Church.” 4) The most significant sign of a “father of the Church” is his recognition of this dignity by the Church itself. At the Lateran Council of 649, at the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, authoritative witnesses of the faith are called “recognized fathers of the Church” - ol 'έγκριτοι της έκκλησίας πατέρας, proba-biles ecclesiae patres. This recognition is a right that inherently belongs to the Church itself, since only the Church can determine which of the church writers expresses its teachings relatively accurately and realizes in their lives, to the extent possible for a person, the moral ideal of Christianity. Recognition is expressed in various forms: some of St. the fathers are indicated by the Ecumenical Councils as witnesses of the true apostolic faith, basing their definitions of faith on their writings; the works of others were assigned for reading in liturgical assemblies; some are indicated as faithful witnesses of church teaching by other writers, revered by the Church as fathers; The canonization of saints also belongs to the Church. Since the holiness of life, recognized by the Church, is one of the essential signs of the Father of the Church, the liturgical celebration of a church writer is the surest way to determine his belonging to this glorious host. Thus, the “fathers of the Church” are distinguished by the Church itself from a number of other church writers as exponents of the correct understanding of the teachings of Christ, as persons who themselves, with sufficient completeness and clarity for a Christian of a certain time, place and position, assimilated and embodied in their lives the teachings of Christ and possessed the necessary properties for a relatively accurate expression of it in their written works; they actively participated and continue to participate in the structure of the Church and the establishment and disclosure of its teachings; they are, to a certain extent, responsible for the specific organization that the Church received, the formulation of its teachings in which it has come down to our time; therefore they are rightly called the Fathers of the Church. They were teachers not only for their time, but through their written works they became such for all subsequent times. In them they expressed their thoughts and feelings, their faith and imprinted their spiritual life; Through them, the Fathers of the Church speak to later Christian generations of all times, teaching Christian truths, inspiring them to implement them in life, reviving their spiritual children about Christ. Each of us has received a share of their influence in faith and life, therefore they are “our” fathers. Among the Church Fathers, the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes another special group of such church writers, to whom it gives the even more honorable title “doctores ecclesiae par excellence” (per eminentiam); among them, to the four signs of the Father of the Church, a fifth is added - eruditio eminens - outstanding learning and merits for church science, which they showed in their works and in the struggle for church teaching (cf. the bull of Pope Benedict XIV Militantis ecclesiae). This highest honorary title of doctores ecclesiae was originally given to four of the most famous Western church writers: Gregory the Great, Augustine, Ambrose and Jerome (Boniface VIII's declaration of 1298, in which Gregory is noted as pope, Augustine and Ambrose as venerandi antistites [venerable primates], Jerome as sacerdotii praeditus titulo [endowed with the honor of the priesthood], yet together as eximii confessores [outstanding confessors]; later they began to be seen as representatives of the highest hierarchical degrees: bishop - Augustine, archbishop - Ambrose, cardinal - Jerome and pope - Gregory). Then four Eastern fathers were added to the four Western ones: Athanasius the Great, Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom. Over time, the number of doctores ecclesiae increased with the addition of Hilary of Pictavia, Peter Chrysologus, Leo the Great, Isidore of Seville, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria (in 1883), John of Damascus (in 1890). Moreover, in the Roman Catholic Church the title of doctores ecclesiae is applied to those Western representatives of ecclesiastical science who possess all the attributes of a Church father, with the exception of competens antiquitas, that is, to such eminent ecclesiastical writers and scholars who lived and taught after the period of the fathers; such are, for example, Bede, Peter Damiani, Anselm of Canterbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, Thomas Aquinas, Bonaventure, Alphonse of Liguria. In this dignity they must be proclaimed by an official act on the part of the Church (approbatio expressa [explicit recognition]) or clearly quoted with this name in papal bulls; With such recognition or proclamation, the Church notes the outstanding services of the writer for church science, declares him an official witness of the teachings of the Church and gives his writings special dignity. In the Orthodox Church and among Orthodox patrolologists, the title of a teacher of the Church does not have a stable and strictly defined meaning. Sometimes it is attached as a particularly honorable title (“great universal teacher”) to the most famous of the Church Fathers (Basily the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom); for the most part it is used in relation to the most outstanding of the church writers who are not awarded by the Church the honorary title of fathers of the Church, but are known for their high qualities, exceptional education, ascetic life and are respected in the Church, although not among the saints (for example, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret of Cyrus), and in their significance are close to the fathers, standing in close connection with them. However, no definite instructions have been developed in this regard, why in our country the Fathers of the Church are opposed simply by church writers, i.e. such writers who do not have some patristic properties - did not imprint in their lives and writings the absolute purity and integrity of the devoted faith of the Church, did not remain in spiritual communion with the Church until the end of their lives, etc., such as, for example, the already mentioned Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Lactantius, Eusebius of Caesarea, Jerome, Augustine 100 , Theodoret of Cyrus, etc. Some of them were singled out by the Church itself for some reason from a number of fathers (Eusebius of Caesarea at the VII Ecumenical Council), the errors of others were clarified with the precise formulation of church teaching (for example, the opinions of Origen), about others the Church did not express its judgment or did not recognize them as saints and glorified. There is much less clarity and distinctness in determining what authority belongs to the Fathers of the Church, what significance their creations and the teaching set forth in them have. Christian antiquity provides a continuous stream of evidence of the high respect in which men known with the name of the Fathers of the Church were held; This is clearly indicated by the very name of them as fathers, holy fathers, God-bearing, God-speaking, divine. Ancient hymns call them “multi-bright stars”, “church helms”, “unshakable pillars”, “organs of grace” and “harps of the spirit”. Councils and individual church writers speak about the Fathers of the Church in a language that reveals in them the firm conviction that the Fathers of the Church are the most reliable leaders in religious knowledge and life. The “Message” of the Eastern Patriarchs on the Orthodox Faith, resolutely assimilating the infallibility of the universal Church alone, because a person who speaks from himself can sin, at the same time represents the fathers of the Church as instruments of the Holy Spirit: “The Holy Spirit teaches the Church through the holy fathers and teachers of the Catholic Church. For just as all Scripture, by general admission, is the word of the Holy Spirit, not because He directly spoke it, but spoke in it through the apostles and prophets, so the Church learns from the life-giving Spirit only through the mediation of the holy fathers and teachers... why we are not only convinced, but also undoubtedly confess as a solid truth, that the Catholic Church cannot sin or be mistaken and utter lies instead truth, for the Holy Spirit, always acting through the faithful fathers and teachers of the Church, protects it from all error” (Part 12) 102. The respectful attitude towards fathers has invariably been preserved in the Orthodox Church to this day. This special respect for them as authoritative witnesses of Church teaching is based on those very properties of them, due to which the Church honored them with the high title of Fathers of the Church; exactly: Firstly, on their high degree of Christian education. Most of the Church Fathers had all the necessary means for a comprehensive education and were outstanding scholars among the Christians of their time, revered as wonderful teachers and the most authoritative defenders of faithful Church teaching. Many of them can be said in the words of the blessed one. Jerome: “You don’t know what to marvel more in them, whether the deep comprehension of the word of God, or secular learning” 103. Firmness of conviction, outstanding gift of eloquence and excellent presentation of doctrine aroused respect for them even in educated circles that did not belong to the Church. This quality is a reliable guarantee that church teaching was correctly understood by the fathers and presented by them with the accuracy possible under contemporary conditions. Secondly, on the holiness of the life of the holy fathers of the Church, which is a necessary complement to scientific education. In the matter of religious knowledge, this is a quality that can replace the most talented mentors. “Those who are pure in heart will see God” (Matthew 5:8). The mysteries of spiritual life are better understood and can be expressed more clearly and correctly for others by those who have known them through their own experience than by those who talk about them theoretically. The one who conforms his life to the learned truth is more devoted to the truth. The saint regards the teaching of Christ as a heavenly blessing, a Divine gift, which is dearer to him than anything, even his own life - for the truth he is ready to endure the most severe torment. Therefore, holiness of life determines a deeper and clearer comprehension of Christian teaching, purity of the work of the fathers in general and literary work in particular, love for the truth of Christ and conscientiousness in its written presentation. Closely connected with this quality is the belief of the ancients in the supernatural grace-filled gifts of the saints. fathers, the expression of which is the evidence of antiquity that some of the fathers were awarded special grace-filled admonitions and instructions: Gregory the Wonderworker receives the symbol of faith from the Apostle John the Theologian, St. Anthony receives a miraculous solution to his perplexities, Ephraim the Syrian was given the title of “prophet of Syria” by his contemporaries, Proclus sees the ap. Paul, while he was composing his interpretations of Paul’s Epistles, Deacon Pavlin sees fire coming from the mouth of St. Ambrose during his explanation of the 143rd Psalm. Church songwriters called the fathers in the canons “God-speaking”, “God-wise”, “harp of the Holy Spirit” and even “God-inspired”. The same confidence is expressed in the quoted words from the “Message” of the patriarchs. Such judgments, based on the deep faith that, according to the promise of the Savior St. The Spirit constantly guides the Church and guides the believers into all truth; they clearly show the general impression they received from the fathers, namely, that they had the gift of understanding better than others the spirit of the Gospel teaching, as God-enlightened teachers of faith and piety. Thirdly, on the recognition of their writings by the Church. The Church points to the writings of the fathers as those that can and should be believed and followed. This instruction is of utmost importance in view of the fact that the task of the Church is to preserve the purity of Revealed teaching and to ensure that believers follow reliable teachers and leaders. When the Church establishes the fathers as official and reliable witnesses and teachers, its authority in some way passes to them; therefore, their creations receive greater significance for believers than works that are not recognized or recommended by the Church. This basis is the most obvious and significant, and it is precisely from this that it is necessary to start when judging the authority of the fathers. But to what extent should the authority of the fathers be recognized as binding on Christians? To what objects of knowledge does it extend? Christian antiquity did not give a definite answer to these questions, but it did not oblige believers to unconditional obedience to what was written by one or another father. Next to the requirement to follow in the footsteps of the fathers and to recognize their sayings as more undoubted than one’s own opinion (Basil. Caesar., Epist. 52[, cap. 1]), we encounter the judgments of the ancients, which testify to a certain freedom in relation to paternal writing. Cyril of Jerusalem tells his listeners: “Don’t believe me when I tell you simply..., unless you receive evidence for my words from the Divine Scriptures” (Cateches. IV [, 17]). Basil the Great gives the following instruction: “One must verify with the Scriptures what the writers say 104, and accept what is in agreement with the Scriptures, and reject what is inconsistent, and in every possible way reject those who adhere to such a teaching” ([Regulae morales 72.1]) 105. Blzh. Augustine writes to Fortunatus 106: “We can, without violating respect (to the fathers), disapprove and reject something in their writings, if, perhaps, we find that they thought inconsistent with the truth” [(Epist. 148, ad Fortunatianum, cap. 4.15)]; and in the book “On Baptism” he also says that the epistles of bishops, if there is any deviation from the truth in them, can be denounced by a wiser word, by the greater importance of other bishops, by councils [(De baptismo contra Donatistas II, 3, PL 43. Col. 128)]. Patr. Photius, in a letter to the Archbishop of Aquileia, says: “You never know there were difficult situations that aroused many fathers, partly to express themselves inaccurately, partly to speak in relation to circumstances, others when attacked by infidels, and others due to human ignorance, to which they also fell…” 107 . And in another place: “If others spoke inaccurately, or for a reason unknown to us even deviated from the right path, but there was no research about them and no one called them to the knowledge of the truth, we [no less] 108 rank them among the fathers, as if they had not said it, for the celebrity of their lives and the glory of virtue and for the integrity of faith in other respects 109, but those words where they sinned are not we follow" 110. And indeed, the fact of erroneous opinions in the writings of the fathers of different eras is beyond doubt, which undoubtedly excludes the unconditional obligation for believers to follow all, without exception, the opinions of individuals. The writings of the fathers are human works and differ significantly from the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which are inspired by God, compiled under the special influence of the Holy Spirit and therefore should be considered and revered as sacred and divine Scripture. With very rare exceptions, no one mixed the works of the Church Fathers with the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles, and such mixing cannot be allowed without the danger of getting entangled in hopeless contradictions. From here, with constant submission to the always living, always infallible authority of the Church, which is the faithful custodian of the Divine promises and the universal and continuous Tradition, a certain freedom follows for us in the study of the fatherly works and the teaching contained in them; from here, without diminishing the importance of the fathers, we have the opportunity and the right to make the necessary differences in the assessment of their teaching. The main principles of this assessment are as follows. The Fathers of the Church can be considered either separately, or all together; in both cases it is necessary to take into account particular, but very important considerations. Sometimes we see that an individual Father of the Church gives timid, unsure answers to questions posed by his inquisitive and insightful mind. Such decisions, of course, cannot be equated with clear and firm judgments that follow from the entire teaching of the same father. But even in the latter case, when the father’s language represents neither uncertainty nor the variations possible with it, it is necessary to examine the question to which his statement extends, the motives on which this statement is based. If the father expresses what he teaches as the word of the Savior, as the Revealed teaching that has reached him through continuous tradition; if he says: “we believe”, “we confess”, “we are taught”, “the apostles betrayed”, “the Church observes”; if, finally, we have no reasonable evidence to doubt the veracity of this statement, then we must look at him as a witness, and his testimony, even considered in isolation, is of high importance; The strength of this testimony is greater the closer this father stands to the source of the apostolic Tradition, the more definitely he indicates and defends in some position the teaching of Christ and the apostles or the common voice of all believers or all Churches, sometimes in contrast to the innovations of heretics, therefore, on the basis of a special study of the issue. If it turns out that the father is formulating his own opinion, setting out how he himself understands this or that dogma, in a word, revealing his personal theology, then the views of this father are valid insofar as his argumentation is convincing. He is an apologist, a theologian, a thinker, but not a witness. In this regard, great authority undoubtedly belongs to those fathers who at one time stood out from others in holiness and education, were acquainted or corresponded with many Orthodox bishops, traveled to different countries of the Christian world, collected information about teaching and practice in different Churches and, therefore, could know the teaching that was invariably observed in the universal Church as the true apostolic Tradition; finally, they were leaders in the defense of Orthodox teaching against the heretics that appeared, which is why they enjoyed respect and glory among their contemporaries. But how can one look in this case at the recognition of the father by the Church itself? Recognition of the father by the Church states the generally Orthodox character of his works, but does not communicate to each individual position in his teaching the meaning of the actual teaching of the Church. The exception is those individual works that were recognized at the Ecumenical Councils as an accurate expression of Orthodox teaching on one point or another, such as the anathematism of Cyril of Alexandria against Nestorius, his second letter to Nestorius, his letter to John of Antioch, the letter of Pope Leo I to Flavian of Constantinople. The concordant testimony of several fathers gives greater guarantee for the truth of what they testify to, and precisely the greater, the greater their number and authority. But here, too, those points of view that matter in relation to each individual father are fully applicable. Thus, since the Fathers of the Church individually do not assimilate the inspiration of the prophets and apostles, then when judging their authority, a certain amount of subjectivity inevitably takes a completely legitimate place, which can be regulated by such considerations. The judgments of individual Church Fathers are essentially theological opinions, but the opinions of those that mean more than just theologians for every Orthodox Christian; these are the theological opinions (θεολογούμνα) of the holy fathers of the one undivided Church and the opinions of men, among whom are those who are worthily called “teachers of the universe.” The Orthodox theologian places them highly, without, however, exaggerating their significance. Everyone has the right to hold θεολογούμνον (as his own private opinion), if it is expressed even by the only father of the Church - it goes without saying, unless it is proven that a competent church court has recognized this view as sinful (and once this latter has been proven, this view ipso facto ceases to be for me θεολογούμνον). But, on the other hand, no one can demand that another recognize as his private theological opinion such a θεολογούμενον, which, although set forth by several Church Fathers, does not captivate with its sublime theological beauty and does not captivate with the accessible sovereign power of its argumentation. In this case, one thing is clear: if someone himself does not adhere to the mentioned θεολογούμνον, then he still does not have the right to condemn those theologians who follow him; and if someone, due to circumstances, was forced to discuss this θεολογούμνον, then even then he should behave respectfully, with reverence, befitting the authority of the Fathers of the Church. Whether there is only one Father of the Church, or whether many followed this θεολογούμνον, is a question that cannot be of significant importance; every father of the Church had the moral right to speak with St. Paul: “I think that I also have the Spirit of God...” (1 Cor. 7:40), and if a whole host of such bearers of a high religious spirit adhere to a certain θεολογούμνον, then our subjective confidence grows stronger that we are standing on solid ground, that this probable is extremely probable, that it is very close to the true. But, without a doubt, θεολογούμνον, even very widespread, is not a dogma 111. By examining the teachings of the entire body of fathers, we can discover differences of opinion between them on the same issue: sometimes certain statements of the majority are opposed by the judgments of a minority, even if it is insignificant. What should be the attitude towards such a phenomenon in paternal writing? First of all, it is necessary to make sure whether there really are real and as deep disagreements as they seem at first glance. When a careful study leads to the conviction that it is impossible to reach an agreement of opinions, then one must conclude that on this issue paternal writing does not provide an indisputable teaching, and without prejudice look for the reasons for such disagreement, which can have a sufficient explanation in the circumstances of the life of the writers and the state of church affairs of that time, in the passion for polemics for the sake of clarifying the truth and in possible exaggerations, mutual misunderstanding, etc. Finally, on many and even the most significant issues, the Church Fathers demonstrate unanimous agreement; their voices, heard from the most distant places, form a consonant chorus, in which even a distrustful and suspicious ear will not detect even slight dissonance. They certify that what they proclaim they received from their predecessors as the permanent teaching of the Church. Such testimony, since it was established not by an individual capable of making mistakes, but by an institution unconditionally authoritative for all believers, that is, by the Church itself, must stand beyond all suspicion and doubt. In this case, the Fathers of the Church are obviously living organs of churchwide religious consciousness and life, and their consistent teaching has the deepest foundation in the agreement of the teaching Church, in which, according to the promise of Christ, the Holy Spirit will abide until the end of days; why the teaching witnessed by the fathers should be considered as a general and constant church teaching, as church dogma, according to the principle: quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est, hoc est [etenim] vere proprieque catholicum [that which was believed everywhere, always and by everyone; because this is truly and in the proper sense of the word “catholic” (teaching)]. Since ancient times, this principle has had invariable significance in the Church, both among individual fathers and at Ecumenical Councils. Already the most ancient fathers and church writers referred to this principle in their works: St. Irenaeus - against the Gnostics, St. Athanasius - against the Arians, Basil the Great, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria. The scientific basis for this principle is given in the works of St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and especially in the “Memoirs” of Vincent of Lirinsky, to whom the above formulation of the principle in question belongs (cap. 2). He also gives the most detailed explanations regarding the consensus patrum [consent of the fathers]: “What either all of them (the fathers), or the majority of them unanimously accepted, supported, passed on openly, often, unshakably, as if by prior agreement among the teachers, is considered undoubted, faithful and indisputable” [(cap. 28)]. The Ecumenical Councils sanctioned this principle and made it the basis of their dogmatic definitions. This principle is also justified from the other side: truth unites those who honestly and conscientiously strive for it. This criterion for the truth of the testimony of the fathers was clearly set forth by St. Athanasius of Alexandria: “This is the true teaching and this is the sign of true teachers, as the fathers betrayed: to confess the same things in agreement among themselves and not to enter into disputes either with each other or with their fathers... Saints and true preachers of the truth agree with each other and do not differ from each other. [For] although they were at different times, they all mutually strive for the same thing, being prophets of one God and preaching one Word in agreement” (De decretis [4], PG 25. Col. 429). At the same time, it is not only not required, but it is even impossible to demand that all the fathers, without any exception, express a consistent judgment on a certain point of church teaching; it could be that not everyone had a reason to speak out on this issue. It is enough that a significant number of eminent fathers from different countries and different times testify in accordance, firmly and clearly, as the teaching of the Church, and that the rest do not present contrary judgments. An accurate and detailed clarification of the meaning of the universal consent of the fathers as a criterion of true dogma belongs to the field of dogmatic theology; for us, it is necessary to note here the essential feature that the Fathers of the Church in their entirety are not the creators of church doctrine, but witnesses of it: they, in the words of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the faith that was originally given by the Great God and our Savior Jesus Christ to the holy apostles and preached by them throughout the world, they confessed, explained and betrayed to the holy Churches. In the words of the blessed Augustine, they “held what they found in the Church, what they learned and taught, what they received from their fathers they passed on to their sons” (Contra Julianum II, [10.]34); why their agreement is evidenced by the actual catholicity of the teaching, i.e., universality and historical continuity. But this agreement of the fathers, in order to be binding for the consciousness of Christians, must concern such points of teaching that, according to the recognition of the fathers themselves, have the character of Revealed truths. Obviously, if the subject of such consonant testimony is completely alien to Christian dogma, if it is precisely and exclusively scientific, then it cannot claim exclusive rights to our mind. Since the authority and infallibility of the Church extends only to Revealed truths, that is, the totality of dogma and moral teaching, since only in relation to these truths has it received the divine mission to contain them unchanged and without distortion for all times, then the authority of the fathers is limited to these truths (cf. Vincentius Lirin., Commonitorium 28). Therefore, even in theological sciences, the authority of St. fathers cannot be extended indifferently to all aspects of them, but we must certainly pay attention to how much the development of one or another science is determined by the natural abilities of man and is in connection with the general course of development of mankind. Vincent of Lirinsky also said: “It should be noted that we are obliged with the greatest diligence to examine the consonant judgments of the ancient holy fathers and follow them not regarding all any unimportant questions of the Divine law, but mainly only regarding the rule of faith” (ibidem), since, in his opinion, “it is necessary to direct the understanding of heavenly Scripture according to one rule of church understanding in those only mainly questions on which the foundations of everything universal are based.” dogmatic teaching" (cap. 29). In all other matters, the scientific views of the fathers are subject to ordinary scientific evaluation, and all their opinions, arguments and explanations have significance according to their intrinsic scientific merit. The stated considerations regarding the authority of the Church Fathers eliminate the extreme views of both those who are ready to assimilate every patristic word with absolute authority and unconditional infallibility and bindingness for believers, and those who consider them as simple historical witnesses. At the same time, on the basis of these considerations, enough freedom is opened for the scientific study of patristic literature. The beginnings of the historical narrative about the Fathers of the Church and ancient church writers go back to Eusebius. In his "Ecclesiastical History" and "Chronicle" he preserved valuable information about the life, work and literary works of Christian writers, often adding critical remarks and very important extracts from surviving and lost works. True, this was not the history of ancient Christian writing, but Eusebius laid the foundation for it, on which subsequent historians continued to work. The first who attacked the idea of ​​an independent history of Christian literature and tried to implement it was Blessed. Jerome. At the request of his high-ranking patron, the praetorian prefect Dexter, in 392 he compiled a small work in Bethlehem entitled De viris illustribus [On Famous Men], or De scriptoribus ecclesiasticis [On Church Writers] 112. In the preface, Jerome points out that in his work he pursued a twofold goal: he wanted to erect the same monument to Christian teachers and writers that Suetonius and other pagan writers created to the famous men of pagan antiquity, and at the same time to present a clear refutation of the reproaches of Celsus, Porphyry, Julian and their adherents that Christians have neither philosophers, nor speakers, nor scientists. To do this, he decided to give brief information about “church writers” or “about all those who, from the suffering of Christ until the 14th year of Emperor Theodosius, left something written about the sacred books.” The very title of the work: De viris illustribus Jerome borrowed from the Roman history of literature Suetonius Trancavilla (c. 75–160 according to P. X.), which Dexter pointed out to him as a model. The work is divided into 135 chapters; it contains brief information about the life and literary works of 135 writers starting from the ap. Peter in chronological order, which, however, in particular, is not carried out sequentially, but without an internal connection between the individual chapters. At the end, Jerome gives a list of his own works written before 392. In addition to church writers in the proper sense of the word, both heretical and non-Christian writers found a place in the work: Bardesanus, Novatian, Donatus, Photinus, Eunomius, three Jews: Philo, Josephus and Justus of Tiberias, and the pagan Seneca (for the sake of his apocryphal correspondence with the Apostle Paul). The chapters on biblical writers borrow heavily from the New Testament. In information about Greek writers of the first three centuries, the author is, with some exceptions (for example, in the section on Hippolytus), completely dependent on Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” and “Chronicle”; at the same time, due to haste in transferring the source, gross errors were made: various writers of the same name were identified, different works were combined into one, and the same work was divided into two, writers were adopted by other people's works and content alien to them was attributed to the works, in some cases, from the words of Eusebius, a conclusion was drawn about non-existent works and works attested by Eusebius were omitted; finally, he often expands the material borrowed from Eusebius and embellishes the characteristics of writers and their works with such epitheta ornantia for which there is no basis in the sources. Why is it necessary to admit that in this department Jerome introduced significant confusion into the history of ancient Christian literature. The information he provides about Greek writers of the 4th century is more valuable. and on the Latin writers, where he shows a direct acquaintance with the original sources; however, even here fair doubts are raised about the reliability of the data presented in the work. But if its scientific merit is insignificant and its literary qualities are low, then Jerome’s work, even after careful criticism of it, has not lost its significance as a literary and historical source even today. Jerome’s undeniable merit is that he took a completely new path and paved it for others. Jerome's work was translated into Greek with some additions; The time of this translation has not been precisely established in science - the 7th century is considered more likely. Jerome's work remained for more than a thousand years the model and basis of similar works that appeared under the same or similar titles. The successors of Jerome, adjoining him, added subsequent writers and introduced some ancient ones that Jerome had omitted; in the form and nature of the presentation of information, they all imitated Jerome’s De viris illustribus. A very valuable continuation and addition to the work of Jerome was composed in 467–480. Presbyter Gennady of Massilia 113, who gave information about 90 writers of the 5th century in his work De viris illustribus 114. In most manuscripts this work is placed as the second part of Jerome’s work, and this connection fully corresponds to the intentions of the author himself. As a source for the history of ancient church literature, Gennady's work is highly valued: he was a historian of extensive knowledge with critical abilities and was guided almost exclusively by historical and literary interests. His information in the bibliography is more reliable than in the biography, because he speaks about the works of writers mostly on the basis of his own reading, and in reports about the lives of the authors he refers to oral and written tradition. A further successor of this type of writing was Archbishop Isidore of Seville (d. 636); his work De viris illustribus 115 has been preserved in two editions: a short one in 33 chapters and a lengthy one in 12 [additional] chapters; The question of the authenticity of the latest edition has not yet been finally resolved. Isidore's work has value only in reports about Spanish writers. Isidore's student Ildefonso, Archbishop of Toledo (d. 667), wrote a small addition to the work of his teacher, providing information mainly about the archbishops of Toledo and in general about natives of Spain 116: of the 14 writers about whom he writes, seven are Toledan bishops and 12 natives of Spain. At the same time, invaluable work appeared in the East; the learned Patriarch of Constantinople Photius (d. 891): 'Απογραφή [και] συναρίθμησις τών αναγνωσμένων ήμιν βιβλίων κτλ. [List and enumeration of books we have read, etc.], known as Μυριοβίβλιον ή Βιβλιοθήκη (usually cited: Photii Bibliotheca); it provides critical remarks about 280 writers - pagan and Christian historians, theologians, grammarians, naturalists - and provides extracts from their works. But in general, it should be noted that in the Middle Ages, for independent literary and historical research, partly there was a lack of sources and aids, and partly historical interest and understanding. Patristic works were copied, stored in monastic and church libraries, extracts were made from them, and the sayings of the fathers were combined into exegetical catenas or collections of dogmatic-exegetical maxims. But knowledge of patristic material, especially of the Greek fathers, remained limited, and processing was uncritical and unscientific. The actual scientific study of patristic writing became possible only in the 16th century; however, preparations for this were given somewhat earlier - in the reformation movement within the Roman Catholic Church and especially in humanism. Already in the last centuries of the medieval period, a strong need was felt to return from traditional church and scholastic theology to the pure sources of Christian knowledge in the Holy Scriptures and the works of the Church Fathers. But especially the deeper study of church writers was favored by the great cultural successes of the 15th century, the classical studies of humanists, the awakening of general historical and critical interest, the zeal for collecting ancient manuscripts, the knowledge of the Greek language that had spread in the West, and, above all, the invention of printing. The revival of interest in ancient literature and art caused the study of philology and history, and at the same time ancient Christian literature. Patristic works were found and published, first Latin (Lactantius, Cyprian, Augustine, Jerome, Leo, Orosius, etc.), and soon Greek (Eusebius, Athanasius, Origen, John Chrysostom, etc.), first in Latin translation, and then in the original. Learned humanists and theologians, like Erasmus, Icolampadius, educated typographers and booksellers, like Robert and Heinrich Stephen, gained fame in this area. However, serious processing of patristic literature began only since the Reformation, when the sources of Christian antiquity discovered by humanists were first used for the purposes of religious struggle. As for the Roman Catholic theologians, they recognized themselves as forced to seek means for protection against attacks from Protestants in the Christianity of the ancient Church and precisely in the works of Sts. fathers as representatives of original and pure Christianity. But since Protestantism also sought to rely on Christian antiquity and at the same time rejected some of its monuments as inauthentic, this, in connection with the Reformation’s assertion of the gradual and still ongoing perversion of original Christianity in Roman Catholicism, gave new food to the developing interest in ancient Christian writing and an impetus to the emergence of historical criticism, which was tasked with clearing historical reality from legendary layers, to restore, as far as possible, the true image of church leaders of antiquity and determine the true scope of their literary heritage 117. To carry out this great work, the Roman Catholic Church had enormous resources. The libraries of monasteries and chapters with their manuscript treasures provided inexhaustible material, and the orders had outstanding scientific forces; They also had rich funds at their disposal to publish works. At the same time, entire courses on the history of ancient church literature began to appear. True, Cardinal Rob's book. Bellarmina (d. 1621) Liber de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis (Rome, 1613) - from the biblical writers to 1500, supplemented by the Jesuit Phil. Labbe (Paris, 1660), is only a continuation of the works of the ancient nomenclators; but on the other hand, the enormous work of the Sorbonne professor L. El seems completely new in concept. du Pin'a (d. 1719) Nouvelle Bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques (Paris, 1686–1711, in 47 volumes). du Pin's work is the first experience in the history of literature, in which the rules of sound historical criticism were not only established, but also carried out. This work caused lively opposition in strictly church circles (Rieh. Simon and Bossuet) and was banned. In contrast to du Pin'y, the Benedictine Remi Ceillier compiled a similar work, Histoire generale des auteurs sacres et ecclesiastiques (in 23 volumes, Paris, 1721 118 -1763). At the same time, Le Nourry published his work Apparatus ad Bibliothecam maximam veterum patrum [(Paris, 1703–1715)]. The famous work of the Jansenist Louis de Tillemont Memoires pourservir ä l'histoire ecclesiastique des six premiers siecles (16 volumes, Paris, 1693–1712) has not lost its significance to this day due to the richness and thoroughness of its excursions. This was the course of the study of patristic works in the Catholic West until the end of the 18th century. Protestants, despite the negative attitude towards the authority of the fatherly works, especially in the setting that was given to him in the Roman Catholic Church, for their part were not inclined to cede this field to opponents and with no less rage, even before the Roman Catholics, intensively engaged in the historical-critical study of patristic writing; they looked there not only for weapons for the struggle, but also for stones for the new building they were erecting, trying to prove the antiquity and continuous tradition of their teaching in the post-apostolic Church (Luther, Melanchthon, Ikolampadius). Thus, Protestants were also attracted to the historical-critical study of patristic literature not only by the need to defend themselves against the Roman Catholics and refute them, but also by a positive dogmatic interest, which gradually developed alongside the polemical one 119 . Likewise, on Protestant soil, works appear that are similar to the Roman Catholic ones mentioned above, but are far inferior to them in richness and variety of content. It is necessary to make a reservation that although at this time new horizons were opened for the history of ancient church literature, new goals were outlined and new laws of historical research were established, however, the knowledge and assessment of new tasks could only slowly pave the way for itself. Even until the second half of the 18th century. Historians of church literature retained the custom, under the guise of “the doctrine of the fathers,” to present the history of Christian theological literature up to the time of the author himself; and since the writings of the Old and New Testaments were often included in the review, the Fathers of the Church in the usual sense of the word had to be content with a relatively modest place. The titles and contents of the works devoted to the study of ancient church writing that appeared during this time show that in addition to the historical and dogmatic interest that the patristic works aroused in theological circles, in parallel and in close connection with it, a purely historical interest developed, which served as the basis for science, already in the 17th century. called "patrology". Its task was to give accurate evidence about the life and writings of church writers, and especially those to whom the Church referred in support of its dogmatic teaching; but the very fact that in this kind of works attention was paid to those church writers who did not have any particular influence on the disclosure of dogmas indicates that this science was based on motives of a purely theological and historical nature. Already in the 17th century. Not only in essence, but also in name, dogmatic-historical information differed from biographical-literary-historical information, and patrolology as a historical discipline clearly differed from patristics as a systematic discipline. Thus, in 1653 the work of Joh was published. Gerhard under the title Patrologia sive de primitivae ecclesiae Christianae doctomm vita ac lucubrationibus opusculum posthumum [Patrology, or Work on the life and works of teachers of the ancient Christian Church, posthumous edition]. Although not all works of this kind bore the name patrologia, the example given and some others similar to it (Joh. Hülsemann and Casp. Heimisch) prove that patrology was then something completely different from patristics: the latter represented a summary of patristic evidence for individual dogmatic positions, arranged in the sequence that was accepted in dogmatic systems, and patrology, on the contrary, had essentially biographical and bibliographical content. This was the case almost until the end of the 18th century. in relation to both the content of sciences and their names. Since that time, things have changed both among Protestant and Roman Catholic theologians. In Protestant theological literature, patristics (in the indicated meaning 120) ceases to exist and all historical and dogmatic material is transferred to a new discipline, which soon developed into an independent branch of historical theology - the “history of dogmas”, which, according to its original idea, should explore and clearly present the historical course of the disclosure and formulation of the doctrine of faith from the days of the apostles. Regarding the separate and independent existence of patristics, they came to a completely agreed decision that patristic theology in the previous meaning of this name, after it had resolved itself into the history of dogmas, in which, on the other hand, it was buried, should be revered as caput mortu-um [death's head], the resurrection and restoration of which as an independent science would be a return to the childhood age of theology 121. As for the biographical and bibliographic material that made up the content of patrolology, it enjoyed the attention of Protestant theologians for some time in the 19th century, but then patrolology as an independent discipline disappeared from Protestant theological literature, and the question of whether it should completely disappear or come to life in a new form, is now resolved by the theological-historical direction prevailing in Protestantism in the sense that “history” has been put in place of patrolology ancient Christian literature,” the task of which is to study and evaluate the entire writing of Christian antiquity from a purely historical and literary point of view, therefore decisively eliminating the question of the theological and ecclesiastical significance of both individual works and their entirety. And patristics (in the previous meaning of this term) is even considered completely impossible due to the fact that the disagreements among the fathers both in the dogmatic and ethical areas are supposedly much more numerous than the points of agreement, so that it is hardly possible to achieve a harmoniously integral “theology of the fathers” (theologia patrum), or if this is feasible, then only through the use of violent harmonistic arbitrariness and disregard for the rules sound scientific research and presentation. The situation was different in Roman Catholic theology. Here in the second half of the 18th century. a discipline was being developed that combined the components of the previous patristics and patrolology, adding a third element - guidance for the correct use of patristic works and instruction on the purpose of studying them. Combining all this, the science was called patrolology, and in this broad sense the name was retained in the 19th century. It was only in the second half of this century that some Roman Catholic patrolologists began to introduce a double title for courses: “patrology and patristics” (for example, Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik; Rezbänyay, Compendium patrologiae et patristicae), thereby noting the dual task pursued by the authors. On the other hand, the vicissitudes in the fate of patristic science on Protestant soil did not remain without influence on its formulation in Roman Catholic theology. And on the part of Roman Catholic theologians, in very recent times, a completely negative attitude towards “patristics” has been revealed, and it has been rather sharply stated that in order to save the word “patristics” there is no reason to rebaptize patrolology into patristics; and against the experiments of combining patrolology and patristics they say that it is least permissible to justify it if patristics is accepted into the house of patrolling as a poor sister and the department of patrolling, which presents information about the teachings of the fathers, is called patristics. Patrology must rebel against such a sister, because she, for her part, cannot refuse to judge the teaching contained in the writings of the fathers. “This patristics,” says O. Bardenhewer, “without a doubt, the right to exist must be contested, because it lives at the expense of others” 122. Some Roman Catholic authors go further and show a desire to replace the name (patrology) with Protestant altchristliche Literaturgeschichte [history of ancient Christian literature], although the name does not change the essence of the matter, since ancient church literature is usually considered; and in this case, the name does not accurately indicate the subject of science, since it is not the relationship to Christianity in general, but the theological and church content that gives a special imprint to patristic literature and makes it the subject independent theological science. Therefore, Roman Catholic theologians recognize the need to retain the name of the science “patrology,” allowing for the possibility of parallel designation by its name “history of ancient church literature,” since this name contains recognition of the fundamental assumptions of patrolology 123. From the end of the 18th century. Many textbooks and manuals appeared, which gave a concise and more or less substantiated presentation of the results obtained in the field of patristic writing. Among the Catholics one can name the leadership of Joh. Ad. Möhler'a Patrologie oder christliche Literärgeschichte (Regensburg, 1840), embracing the first three centuries; M. Permaneder, Bibliotheca patristica (1841–1844) in two volumes; J. Fessler, Institutiones Patrologiae (1850–1851) in two volumes (new edition [edited by W. Jungmann]: 1890–1896); J. Alzog, Grundriss der Patrologie oder der älteren christlichen Literärgeschichte (Freiburg, 1866, 4th edition: 1888); J. Nirschl, Lehrbuch der Patrologie und Patristik (Mainz, 1881–1885) in three volumes. Among the Protestant manuals of earlier times, N. J. Pestalozzi, Grundlinien der Geschichte der Kirchlichen Literatur der ersten sechs Jahrhunderten zum Gebrauch bei Vorlesungen gezogen (Göttingen, 1811) should be named. At this time, it gradually became more common to make only ancient church writers the subject of literary and historical depiction, with the exception of later ones; at the same time, and regarding the definition of the period of Christian antiquity, some agreement was reached that Greek literature was brought up to John of Damascus (d. c. 754) and Latin literature to Gregory the Great (d. 604). The last decades of the past century and the first years of the new one in Western theological science are marked by the manifestation of outstanding interest in ancient Christian literature, the result of which are numerous and very valuable works on the publication and study of the text and the study of its content, and this lively interest with its important consequences for theological and church-historical science does not weaken at the present time: work on the study of various aspects of ancient Christian literature is expanding and deepening, the circle of researchers and scientific works in this area is gradually increasing. To determine the significance of the church-historical scientific revival we are experiencing, it is enough to briefly characterize its outstanding manifestations. The vital nerve of all these works in the field of ancient Christian literature consists of numerous finds of very important ancient monuments hitherto known only by name or completely unknown. These finds significantly expand our knowledge of ancient writing; They not only bring new material for research, but in their light, old, long-known and, due to a lack of documents, not comprehensively examined, is better known and sometimes corrected. Although science has been working tirelessly for almost four centuries to study handwritten material stored in various libraries of the East and West, and is trying to make publicly available through printing everything that has survived from ancient Christian writing, this work has not yet reached its end: the eye of scientists has not yet penetrated everywhere, and recent decades have brought a significant number of very valuable ancient Christian monuments, the discovery of which has surpassed even the wildest hopes and has significantly expanded the horizons of church history. science. A simple listing of these findings is enough to understand the full force of the scientific movement that was caused in interested circles by their publication. During this time, the following were discovered: “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles”, the full text of both “Epistle of Clement of Rome”, in the Greek original and the Syriac translation, the Latin and Ethiopic translations of the first of them, as well as the Latin translation of the “Didascalia”, fragments of the “Gospel” and the “Apocalypse of Peter”, “Sayings of Jesus”, “Conversations of Jesus with His Disciples”, excerpts of some others apocalypses and apocrypha, the "Acts" of Peter, John, Paul, some very important documents of Gnostic literature, several ancient acts of martyrdom, fragments of Papias and Igisippus, the apology of Aristides, excerpts from the work of Melito, Bishop of Sardia, "On Baptism", "Proof of the Apostolic Sermon" of St. Irenaeus, an Armenian translation of books IV and V of his anti-Gnostic work “Refutation and Refutation of False Knowledge”, Philosophumena and a commentary on the prophet Daniel Hippolytus of Rome, fragments of Clement of Alexandria, the so-called Tractatus Origenis 124, excerpts from the writings of Peter of Alexandria and other Alexandrians, Διατεσσάρων of Tatian, entire works of Methodius of Olympus. These finds from the time of persecution and the earliest period of the Christian Church are joined by others, more or less important, from subsequent centuries: treatises by Priscillian, extracts from the “Ecclesiastical History” of Philip of Sides, writings and fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea (in Palestine), Athanasius, Ephraim, Eusebius of Caesarea (in Cappadocia), 125 Proclus of Cyzicus, Theophilus of Alexandria, Hesychius of Jerusalem, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Hilary of Pictavia, Jerome, Augustine, Eulogius of Alexandria and in general numerous monuments from the history of Byzantine and Eastern literature. Particular diligence has been applied to the study of papyri, which were brought to light in large quantities by recent excavations in Egypt: a lot of valuable data for ancient Christian literature was found in them. Since the listed finds in many cases are due to the study of Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Slavic translations of Greek texts lost in the original, a very wide field for scientific research in the future is outlined in this area. It is also necessary to note that side of fruitful modern scientific works in relation to ancient Christian literature, which has as its subject the most accurate determination of the original text of the monuments of this literature and their wider dissemination through solid scientific and short public editions, as well as translations intended to popularize patristic literature and the dissemination and deepening of the high thoughts of ancient Christian writers in wide public circles of individual countries. Without stopping at the careful publication, research and translation of individual monuments and documents of ancient Christian literature, modern science in the West strives to present the achieved results of individual scientific research in a coherent image that would clearly show the state of scientific knowledge in this area and would outline questions and paths for new scientific research. Modern times are amazingly rich in such works, which cover a more or less significant part of ancient Christian literature. The literature of the first three centuries is especially thoroughly developed. In parallel with these general presentations, which embrace the entire patristic time or individual periods of it, a whole series of extensive studies appear that delve into research into individual branches of ancient Christian literature, individual groups of works, or the literary connection between the ancient classics and Christian theologians; Recently, the Church Fathers have been given a significant place in the history of philosophy. In a word, the study of ancient Christian literature is currently attracting the exclusive attention of many and very respectable scientists. It is extremely difficult to navigate the mass of emerging works scattered in various collections and periodicals, and therefore a complete bibliography of publications of ancient Christian literature and works devoted to its study starting from the 15th century is now considered essential. up to the present time, and such a desire will become even clearer if we pay attention to the following concrete fact. Albert Ehrhard, who undertook a review of publications of ancient Christian literature only for the first three centuries and related studies that appeared from 1884 to 1900, in the preface to his work says that for this he had to read about 2,700 works, treatises and articles, and however, in another place he is forced to declare that with the currently enormous number of all kinds of Zeitschriften, Berichten, etc. p. It is impossible for an individual to review all the newly emerging literature 126, among which there was a sufficient number of hasty and very little valuable experiments, which is why another well-known researcher in this field, G. Krüger, considered himself forced to appeal to lovers of the history of ancient Christian literature with a request not to immediately publish everything that was written 127. Literary historical research is given a significant place in numerous modern publications. Among the numerous newest scientific workers in the field of ancient Christian writing, the first place is undoubtedly occupied by Prof. Hell. Garnak is the leader of a large number of junior scientists working successfully in his chosen field, a tireless researcher of ancient Christian writing, combining with enormous erudition an amazing ability to outline new problems and present known data in new combinations. In addition to his active participation in the publication of Texte und Untersuchungen 128, he owns the major work Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius, the first volume of which he processed together with E. Preuschen᾿om (Leipzig, 1893); in this work, the tradition and composition of ancient Christian literature are presented in such a completeness that until that time not only had not been achieved, but was not even a goal. The second volume of Die Chronologie (the first part - in 1897, the second - in 1904) aims to resolve confusing issues regarding the chronology of ancient Christian writing. Next to it it is necessary to name the names of the Bishop of Durham 129 Jos. Lightfoot, Ad. Hilgenfeld, Th. Zahn, which one constantly encounters when studying ancient Christian literature. To the “History of Ancient Christian Literature” Hell. Harnack is accompanied by G. Krüger's guide Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (Freiburg, 1895, mit Nachträgen [with additions] 1898). The new Herrn course was written in the same direction. Jordan'a Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur (1911). Recently, several courses have appeared among Roman Catholic manuals that strive to keep up with modern scientific requirements. Among such courses, the works of Ot are outstanding. Bardenhewer and Alb. Ehrhard. The first belongs to: Patrologie, Freiburg, 1894 (3 Aufl. 1910) and the begun publication, designed for six volumes, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur (3 volumes were published: 1st - from the end of the apostolic period to the end of the 2nd century, 2nd - from the end of the 2nd century to the beginning of the 4th century and 3rd - 4th century, with the exception of Syrian writers). These guides are distinguished by careful research of sources, careful attention to the latest research, and rich indexes of the literature. Alb. Ehrhard gave a critical overview of recent research on patristic literature: Die altchristliche Literatur und ihre Erforschung seit 1880 (Strassburger theologische Studien. Bd. 1. 4–5 Heft. Freiburg, 1894) and with the same title a more detailed review of the period from 1884 to 1900. (Freiburg, 1900). Prof. Heinr. Kihn. Patrologie. Bd. 1. Paderborn, 1904; Bd. 2. Paderborn, 1908. Prof. [G.] Rauschen. Grundriss der Patrologie, Freiburg, 1900 (3 Aufl.). It is also necessary to note the numerous works in the field of ancient Christian writing by the conscientious researcher, the late Fr. X. Funk. In view of the keen interest that is currently being shown in the literary monuments of the first centuries of Christianity, for science dealing, according to its name, with that part of ancient Christian literature that is called patristic, apparently the broadest prospects and well-founded hopes for further successful development are opening up. However, despite the fact that the literary heritage of the ancient Fathers of the Church and church writers is more and more brought to the forefront of theological scientific work, at present it is necessary to especially emphasize the fact that among Western Protestant scientists, who now primarily own the field of scientific research in the field of ancient Christian literature, a directly negative attitude towards patrolological science is revealed: it is either clearly neglected or completely denied its right to exist. The basis for this attitude at first was numerous and very serious shortcomings in previous patristic courses, shortcomings in the understanding and application of the historical method, neglect of the literary side of the works under consideration, etc. They pointed out the absence in pathological science of not only its own and clearly expressed principle, but even a firmly established concept, which is why they found that it decisively did not achieve its goal. Is it possible to express a sharper verdict on all patristic courses than as done by Franz Overbeck᾿om: “Whoever, in front of a number of tomes of the Fathers of the Church,” he says, “asks himself what kind of literature this is and how it arose, he, in any case, will in vain turn for an answer to the currently commonly used textbooks on patristics” 130. Therefore, almost half a century ago, the task was set to eliminate the ambiguity that shrouds this branch of academic teaching, and the question was addressed whether, from the ruins of the old collapsed patristics and the rich available old and new pathological material, it was possible to restore a new scientific building, standing on its own foundation, or whether all of it could be used as material for a special building, which is already an integral part of other theological disciplines 131. In the West at that time this issue was resolved in a sense favorable to patristic science, although at the same time persistent demands were made for significant reforms in its formulation 132 . Currently, in the West, the question of patristic science from the point of view of judgments about the shortcomings in its formulation and the impossibility for it to achieve its goal under these conditions has been transferred to a principled basis, and representatives of the newest trend in Protestant church-historical science deny patrolology the right to exist because its idea is false, its foundations are meaningless. It is based on the concept of “father of the Church”, borrowed from dogma, and is supposedly so connected with this concept that it can not be history, but only a catalogue, since along with the concept of “father of the Church” it also receives a ready-made list of those works that it should consider and study 133. At the grave of patrolology, the history of ancient Christian literature should blossom, which will illuminate the entire writing of ancient Christianity from a purely literary-historical point of view; there is no room in this history to evaluate the theological and ecclesiastical significance of the writers 134. If the history of ancient Christian literature, constructed in this way, did not necessarily set as its task to take the place of patrolology and flourish on its grave, then both sciences - patrolology and the history of ancient Christian literature, without excluding one another, could mutually complement each other: as it will become clear later, patrolology and the history of ancient Christian literature examine essentially the same material; Therefore, in reporting facts, in determining what really goes back to the most ancient times of the Christian Church, in firmly establishing what this or that writer really wrote, a wide field opens up for general and peaceful work, and illuminating the same material from different points of view would exclude one-sidedness in the study. True, to the replacement of the history of ancient church literature with the history of ancient Christian literature in the 19th century. brought rationalistic provisions; but it does not follow from this that the history of ancient Christian literature, in its concept, must necessarily be based on rationalistic assumptions or that it is incompatible with positive Christian views; therefore, from the side of patrolology, peaceful coexistence with the history of ancient Christian literature is quite possible. On the contrary, rationalism by its very essence is encouraged to deny the history of ancient church literature the right to exist, because by its very name it points to the positive Christian-church principles underlying it. And in fact, the denial of the very idea from which patrol science develops directly and clearly shows that this attitude is based precisely on the views and assumptions of the newest rationalistic Protestantism with its negative attitude towards the very idea of ​​the Church and its historical implementation in the very first days of the existence of Christianity. The Catholic Church, according to this school, was formed only almost at the end of the 2nd century. and appeared as the end result of a heated struggle between completely opposing forces; it goes without saying that it is a purely human institution. But since the idea of ​​the Church is denied, naturally there cannot be any church literature, but only Christian literature in general. This explains the view of the “Church Fathers”: they were bearers and representatives only of personal views, which, depending on changing relationships and circumstances of the time, were also changeable. There was absolutely no definite faith to which they could testify, since church faith, which, despite external development, would constantly be and remain essentially the same, according to this view, is a completely unhistorical fiction. Hence the expressions “church literature” and “patristic literature” cannot be anything more than a name without content. The distinction between “ecclesiastical” and “non-ecclesiastical,” “Orthodox” and “heretical” is supposedly devoid of any internal justification, any factual and historical justification, since what was still considered ecclesiastical today could tomorrow be tainted by the Church as heretical. Naturally, from this point of view, one does not find unity of doctrine in the writings of the fathers 135. With such principles as the basis for the study of ancient Christian literature, which are recognized as the only possible and admissible ones, all ground is taken away from patristic science. Contra negantem principia non est disputandum [one does not argue with those who deny principles]. In the view now presented, we obviously see before us the final result of a deep spiritual rupture in the 16th century. dividing the Western Christian and scientific world in particular into two opposing camps, which, representing two significantly different understandings of Christianity, move further and further away from each other and, based on different basic points of view, strive for different goals. And the basis for the destruction of the old pathological science and its replacement by the history of ancient Christian literature is not based on historical research in the proper sense, but on philosophical and theological assumptions, from the point of view of which light is cast on historical facts. Objections to this kind of fundamental views would lead us too far from our science; why, in contrast to them, we will limit ourselves to a simple indication of the principles we profess and, first of all, to the basic teaching of the positive faith about the Divine origin of the Church and to those generally accepted final conclusions of the research of positive historical science, which convincingly establish that already at the end of the first century this Church appears as an organized whole: it appears at this time with a certain church government and church discipline, with holiday times and fasts, with a liturgy, if not written, then nevertheless defined in its main parts, with a collection of canonical writings; this is in the external manifestation of her life. In her inner life she is distinguished by purity, depth and certainty of the basic Christian teaching, firmness of confession, clarity and confidence in her relationship to the environment. The Church from the beginning possessed a certain amount of saving truths received from the Divine Founder, and preserved them faithfully and without distortion. On the other hand, for an Orthodox theologian there seems nothing reprehensible and unscientific in the fact that the basis of the discipline is the concept of the “father of the Church,” borrowed not so much from dogmatics as from the very life of the ancient Church, especially since Orthodox theological science does not exaggerate the significance of the works of the fathers and is alien to the abuse of their authority. Recognizing and persistently pointing out in the Fathers of the Church the most reliable and authoritative leaders in religious matters, studying their creations, presenting them as proof of the correctness of their teachings, Orthodox theologians from ancient times to the present day did not assert in the Fathers of the Church the infallibility and unconditional obligation for believers to follow their opinions. From this point of view, it is completely possible to apply a strictly scientific method to the study of patristic literature, and for pathological science the danger of turning to a simple catalog from outside the given list of works is decisively excluded. Finally, regarding historical information regarding the lack of unity of doctrine in the works of the Church Fathers and deviations from recognized church teaching and in order to eliminate any misunderstandings in this regard, it is necessary to take into account the indisputable historical fact that already in the first centuries of the existence of church literature there was a certain distance between the objective content of Christianity, as it is given in the consciousness of the Catholic Church, and the subjective understanding of it by individual writers, precisely to the extent that this literature was made scientific, and in various degrees, which varied depending on the personality of the writers. But faith and theology should not be identified. The guardians and authorized exponents of the faith were not individual literary figures, but the Catholic Church itself. This is the outstanding historical significance of the church organization. The emergence and development of anti-church, heretical literature, as it is found next to church literature and is recognized as heretical, is irrefutable proof that there were objective norms that regulated the understanding of Christianity, and there were also boundaries beyond which passion for the dominant philosophy and excessive dependence on it led to a contradiction with true Christianity. This norm was the unconditional recognition of the foundations of church doctrine and the Holy Scripture accepted by the Church. Church writing developed within these norms and the boundaries they defined; but for a correct assessment of it in particular, it is necessary to keep in mind that in church writing itself there were many steps in realizing the ideal of truly Christian church literature, on the one hand, and in approaching false Christian literature, on the other. Therefore, it is always necessary to remember the difference between the experience of grasping the content of Christianity through spiritual work, clarifying and revealing it according to the principles of theological reason by people of different directions and various spiritual gifts, on the one hand, and the authoritative expression of this content by the Church itself through its recognized bodies, on the other. Having thus eliminated the dispute about principles from the field of research, it is necessary, however, against the denial of the right to existence of pathological science, to resolve the question of whether a special science is needed for the independent study of the material that it includes in its area of ​​competence? The fact that the newest researchers have singled out the study of ancient Christian literature as a special science testifies to their own recognition that, next to various national literatures, there is a special type of writing that is not embraced by the narrow framework of nationality and arose on the basis of one way or another understood Christian religion. But, as has already been said, in this latest writing there are clearly distinguished numerous works that reflect, to a greater or lesser extent and accuracy, a certain religious consciousness - Christian-ecclesiastical, and belonging to authors who recognize themselves and are recognized as members of the Catholic Church. These works constitute a special subject of study in patrol science. They stand out from the general body of ancient Christian writing on the basis of their special character, which marks them as works of church writing. Obviously, the point of view that should be the basis for studying them is its own special one, entirely determined by the essence of this writing. The newest Western researchers of ancient Christian literature establish an exclusively historical and literary point of view on the study of it, when they indicate the following formula as a guiding principle: “Literature has its own history in its forms, therefore any real history of literature is the history of forms” 136. This position completely denies the essential difference between the history of ancient Christian literature and what is usually called the history of literature in general. The general history of literature or the history of literature of any nation notes primarily the artistic and aesthetic side. But this point of view is not applicable to church literature, because this literature arose not from literary-aesthetic, purely artistic needs, but from practical-religious, ecclesiastical and theological needs. Its history runs parallel to, or rather is organically connected with, the history of the Church, especially with church doctrine and church science. Works of church literature are not works of fiction and do not strive to be so; Church literature is not fine literature, but a depiction of the life and suffering, faith and hope of the ancient Church. Its authors are not “writers” and “literati,” but churchmen and theologians; they, with rare exceptions, are concerned not with form and style, but with the matters they reveal. Therefore, the historical development of Christian church literature is expressed immediately and mainly not in form, but in content. The aesthetic development of church style, if it really took place, did not determine the general course of development of this literature. True, the sermons of the Church Fathers have a rhetorical side (for example, in John Chrysostom), hymns have a poetic side, liturgies have an aesthetic side; some Church Fathers show a desire for classical forms of expression of thoughts and feelings. However, all this has only a casual significance for the course of development of church writing, and the interest that these works have for us is essentially based on their special content. Thus, as long as they recognize the need to write the history of church literature, borrowing the guiding principles for studying it from the properties of matter itself and the content of this literature, until then it turns out to be absolutely obligatory to give priority to the theological and ecclesiastical point of view over the literary one. Consequently, there is a specific subject for research, there is also a special point of view from which this subject can be studied, and this already contains significant data for an independent scientific discipline. For the reasons stated earlier, for special study, from all ancient Christian literature, all those works that arose on the basis of church teaching and whose authors did not cross the boundaries where the area of ​​heretics begins should be singled out. According to the generally accepted name of the science - “patrology” or “patristics” - the main part of the works of literature to be studied consists primarily of the works of those men who bear the honorary title of “fathers of the Church”. But church writers, who do not have ecclesiastical authority equal to the patristic one, should also be the subject of careful and detailed study in pathological science. And the need for this is based primarily on the fact that the division into the fathers of the Church and simply church writers is possible only in abstraction, when a church writer is assessed as a person, isolated from the general course of church life and especially considered in relation to her personal merits, firmness in faith and unshakable devotion to the teachings of the Church; but such a division cannot be made if one vividly imagines the wide, often stormy course of the life of the ancient Church; here the Fathers of the Church are constantly replaced by Church writers, some influence others, everyone takes an active part in the life of the Church, in its struggle against external and internal enemies of the faith, in the disclosure and substantiation of Christian truth, and it is not possible to accurately calculate what should be attributed to the literary activity of the recognized Fathers of the Church, on the one hand, and Church writers, on the other. It is enough to recall the influence that the church writer Tertullian had on the Father of the Church Cyprian, Origen on the outstanding fathers of the Church of the 4th century, Bl. Augustine - on the theology of the Western Church. Further, church writers - theologians and the most educated men of Christian antiquity had a strong and very important influence on revealing the inner content of Christianity, deepening and formulating church teaching; in confirmation of this, one can point to Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Augustine, Theodoret of Cyrus. Finally, as historical witnesses about the faith and life of the Church of their time, church writers are very important. {As for, so to speak, the legal right to such involvement in the study of the works of church writers who were not proclaimed by the Church as “fathers,” it is sufficiently based on the historical fact that the Orthodox Church has never set out as its deliberate task to determine the ecclesiastical significance of all church writers and the degree of accuracy in their expression of church teaching.} Among the monuments of ancient Christian writing that have come down to us, there are also such works, the authors of which are either unknown, or which essentially cannot have certain authors, since they constitute the common property of the Church, such as, for example: “The Teaching of the 12 Apostles”, the most ancient symbols, “The Epistle to Diognetus”, “Apostolic decrees”, etc. These literary monuments were accepted with honor by the Church and had a significant impact on the development of her teachings, the strengthening of church organization, and at the same time on church writers; why they cannot be excluded from the number of works whose study in pathological science is necessary if it wants to achieve the greatest possible completeness in the study of the available material. Thus, pathological science should not establish in advance a certain choice between the works of ancient church writing and study some and reject others; all surviving monuments of ancient church writing, all literary and historical material left by members of the ancient Church, must be studied with the detail and thoroughness required by its significance as a whole and in individual parts 137. It goes without saying that in this case it should always be preferable to nominate the most significant and influential leaders of theological development, to whom were joined less significant ones, such as epigones, followers and disciples. Currently, there is a desire and even attempts to include in the “history of ancient Christian writing” the writings of the New Testament (Fr. Overbeck, Gust. Krüger, P. Batiffol, N. Jordan) on the basis that the oldest written monuments of Christianity are precisely the New Testament writings. Thus, the newest scientific criticism, rejecting or ignoring the church teaching about the inspiration of the sacred books of the New Testament, obviously proceeds from the assumption that New Testament writing does not differ significantly from later church literature. But no matter how one looks at the composition of the New Testament and the origin of its parts, such a view decisively contradicts the judgment of the entire Church from the very first days of its existence, that the New Testament writings owe their origin to the Divine guidance of the Holy Spirit and inspiration from Him, and therefore it draws such a line between the New Testament and the rest of Christian literature that makes it impossible to put them on a par and begin to present the history of ancient Christian New Testament writing. Just as the history of the Church during the founding of Christianity has not its first period, but its absolute era, so later theological literature relates to New Testament writing as a derivative of the main one: the first has its roots in the second and is nourished by it. A different view also contradicts the consciousness of church writers themselves, who do not consider the apostles their predecessors in literary activity, but themselves claim that they draw the revealed teaching from the source of apostolic writing. It must be recognized as a historical fact that most of the New Testament writings already in the immediate post-apostolic time enjoyed a special authority that belonged to them alone, and other works that arose were not placed on the same line with them. These circumstances are not properly appreciated if the New Testament writings, according to their literary form, are distributed among the various groups of post-apostolic writing 138 . {Even more important for this purely methodological view is the fact that the diversity and difficulty of solving literary-historical questions arising in the study of New Testament writing has long led to the founding and development of its own biblical-historical theological discipline - introduction to the New Testament, which has now reached such a volume that far exceeds the volume of the entire history of ancient Christian literature.} Thus, from a historical point of view, not to mention a dogmatic one, the New Testament should not be included in the field of ancient church literature - the New Testament canonical books should be considered as an assumption and the basis of ancient Christian, patristic writing. On the other hand, the question inevitably arises to what extent does the time of “patristic”, “ancient church”, “ancient Christian writing” extend and can this period be determined more or less accurately? In the latter case, the question arises: why does church writing of a certain period deserve special study in comparison with others? This question is usually posed this way. If we are talking about patristic literature, then the solution to the question posed about its limits requires a preliminary solution to another question: is it possible to assign a limit beyond which the existence of the Church Fathers would not extend? As has already been said, on this basis the question of the patristic period cannot be resolved in any satisfactory manner, since Western patrolologists argue about the limits of this period, and the Orthodox do not recognize it at all. In this case, it is necessary to proceed not from the concept of “father of the Church,” but from the general awareness of the primary significance that a certain period of its history has in the life of the Church, and from here move on to the setting of a certain era for church literature, which has acquired the meaning of patristic. The period of the undivided Church, when religious and national-ecclesiastical oppositions were overcome by the consciousness of the unity of the universal Church, should be recognized as precisely such an essentially important period. Just as all Christian confessions of all times and nations, with the exception of different sects, are based on the dogmatic results of the great and Ecumenical Councils of that time, so Christian theologians of all nations and confessions in the writing of this period, taken as a whole, find a common basis and a common starting point, sometimes even becoming in conflict with their religious and scientific principles. Therefore, in any attempt to unite the divided parts of the Christian world, the soil for this is sought in the indicated period. This is based on the significance that the first marked period, long in time and very important in its significance, has in the life of the Church. In general, the periods of foundation and initial dispensation are not exclusively the first periods, but much more than that: they never have the advantage of primacy only in time, but at the same time they receive, in a certain sense, a defining, normative meaning that is no longer repeated. And in the life of the Church, the first period, which embraces its history before the division of the Churches, has an independent, absolute and in its own way unique meaning: this is the time of the organization of the Church and the gradual initial internal revelation of the content of Christianity, when the basic principles of the life of the Church are established for all subsequent times in a fundamental and determining way in their full richness. This is where the monuments of church writing of this time, especially the oldest of them, derive their outstanding significance. They differ from the works of later times in their originality, purely church-religious content and universal character, without reflecting the spirit and interests of a particular Church or nationality. The writers of these works, before many others, became participants in the fullness of spirit and life that distinguishes Christians of the first centuries, and their works represent the first fruits of the work of human thought under the guidance of revealed truth. They are the most important and in many respects almost the only sources for the history of the initial revelation of a new religious life, witnesses of the Church itself, its teachings and institutions, its life and activities, representing the continuity of church consciousness and showing that the faith of the later Church is no different from that which lived the Church of the first times of Christianity. Therefore, if for the entire Church on all aspects of its life, and for theology in particular, it is essential at each later stage of development to clearly represent and firmly adhere to the historical consciousness of the initial period, then the selection of church literature of this time as an independent subject of study is completely justified, but not for literary, but for purely theological reasons. On the very significant question of what tasks science should pursue in the systematic study of ancient church writing, in the pathological literature there is no consistent and completely accurate answer that would sufficiently illuminate the final point to which it should strive. Some of the existing courses seem to deprive the science of pathology of independent significance and consider it as a prolegomena to other theological disciplines or consider it only an introduction to the study of the patristic writings, without including the study of them in its task 139. On the other hand, they strive to satisfy the latest requirements of the history of ancient Christian literature, as it is understood by representatives of Protestant church historical science, without at the same time abandoning the research techniques generally accepted in patrolology courses 140; however, in this case, patrol science loses a clearly tangible and definite object and its task becomes elusive. Even relatively the best patrol course, which is Patrologie O. Bardenhewer, note 141 that in the internal structure of patrolology as a discipline of historical theology, his work does not represent any movement forward and revolves within the traditional framework of previous Roman Catholic patrolologies. Thus, patrol science currently stands as if at a crossroads: the old definition of its task is rejected and at the same time a completely definite new one has not yet been developed. In our definition of the task of pathological science, the most common and even, one might say, official view is that its special subject is “the study of works of church literature as monuments of the expression by Christians of a certain time and place of the Holy Tradition, and the ultimate goal of this study is to isolate in this literature the eternal, God-given truth from its outer shell, conditioned by historical circumstances and the personal character of the authors.” Thus, pathological science must present the history of the apostolic, ancient Catholic Tradition. This view is attractive in that it indicates a certain discipline that is engaged in the scientific development of one of the two ways in which Divine Revelation is distributed among people and preserved in the true Church, namely, St. Legends; at the same time, pathological science is given a highly respectable task, ensuring its primary significance in the system of theological sciences, next to the science of Holy Scripture, and all other sciences, in comparison with these sciences about the sources of Divine Revelation, receive secondary importance as using the material already developed in them. But is it really possible to set such a task for patrolological science, with the hope of its possible fulfillment, if we bear in mind the content of Holy Tradition and patristic literature? Holy Tradition, according to the correct concept of it, “is living (as opposed to written), in speech and in all human life and activity, able to express the word of God, proclaimed by Christ, accepted in all the completeness necessary for the salvation of all mankind by the Church, headed by Christ and enlivened by the Holy Spirit, and proclaimed by it to a person who wants to assimilate the salvation accomplished by Christ, to the extent that is necessary for him, and in the form that corresponds to his personal character and development." It goes without saying that the Tradition defined in this way can be and is actually proclaimed by the Church in a wide variety of ways: through missionary and church preaching, family and school teaching, sacraments and worship (with rituals associated with them), and in general through the entire structure of church life and activity. It is clear that with such a variety of ways of manifestation and dissemination by the Church of the Holy Tradition and the sources of knowledge of it are also diverse, why it “never could and cannot be presented so completely, so completely, that the monument containing this presentation could be identified with the Holy Tradition itself.” Nor can the entire body of patristic literature be a complete and accurate expression of Holy Tradition: regardless of the loss of many of its important works (which must be taken into account), it is indisputable that this literature in its entirety has never represented the embodiment in the modern life of the Church of everything handed down by the apostles, in all its aspects and in all its details; Thus, there always remained many features of Tradition that did not find their expression in this literature, which is why the study of patristic works in their entirety cannot give the history of the apostolic, ancient Catholic Tradition. In addition to patristic writing, the sources of God-devoted teaching are: the symbols of faith, dogmatic and canonical definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, the entire religious life of the Orthodox Church in general, as it is expressed in its internal structure or organization, in church worship, discipline, in church customs, and finally, material monuments. Therefore, one can only say that “among the most diverse ways in which the Church, both as a whole and in the person of its individual members, spreads it among new and new generations of people, church literature also appears from the very beginning”; one can even argue that this method of disseminating Tradition, since it makes it possible to study the Holy Tradition not only in the modern generation of Christians, but in all - from the very beginning of the Church - and in fact shows its constant preservation in the Church, “very early occupies a prominent place among the ways of expressing Holy Tradition.” But only in a number of other ways, and not as the only and exclusive one. Why can patristic literature only be a rich source for the history of the apostolic, ancient Catholic Tradition, but cannot, on the one hand, provide data for the complete (within the limits of possibility) fulfillment of this task, on the other hand, and itself cannot be exhausted even by the most complete implementation of this task. {Finally, as far as I know, not a single course of pathological science makes even an attempt to isolate the eternal, God-given truth from the outer shell in patristic literature. Isn't this a sure sign that the task set in this way does not correspond to the content of the material to be studied, but is taken from the outside?} Data for determining the task of studying ancient church writing must be sought in it itself, in its content and in the meaning that it has for the present time. If ancient church literature, as has been said, is of particular importance precisely because this literature, as it appeared at the time when church teaching, mainly dogmatic, was initially revealed and formulated, the organization of church life was determined and developed, largely reflects the life of the Church, testifies to what happened in it, then the task of studying it should be to fully extract from it everything that it can give, i.e. based on the study of ancient church literature, to trace and historically present the gradual and continuous development, mutual continuity and internal consistency in the historical disclosure and definition of church consciousness, as far as it was reflected in the works of ancient church literature, or more specifically: the gradual development of church theology, if “theology” is understood not in the narrow technical-scientific sense, but in the broadest sense, when it is presented as a general concept of all church-religious interests that have reached areas of consciousness, or as a form of manifestation of the church spirit that has reached consciousness. Thus, pathological science looks at the ancient church writers as representatives of the theology of their time and witnesses about the teaching, life and institutions of the Church and can be considered as the history of the theological literature of antiquity, standing on the basis of church teaching. The purpose of studying their works is to lead to an understanding and assimilation of the spirit and content of patristic literature, to show its development and significance and to enable the conscious use of the works of the Church Fathers and church writers in the interests of comprehending the spirit of ancient church theological thought and the structure of church life, for a correct assessment of the existing church consciousness and church life and for determining on the basis of this the normal course, consistent with the spirit and tasks of the true Church, of both the own personal life of each individual member and the life of the entire Church in all of its manifestations. It goes without saying that any science, if it wants to meet modern requirements, must, for its part, keep up with the times, as far as this is permissible by its being; Therefore, patrol science must take a definite relation to the enormous scientific material that modern scientific research provides, and in general to modern scientific requirements, examining everything achieved by science, discussing, accepting or rejecting. It must counter the accusations of unscientificness against it with a clear consciousness of the fact that, on the formal side, it is a historical science, which obeys the general laws of historical research, historical-scientific understanding and presentation of its subject. It should give a possible explanation of the origin of ancient church literature and its gradual development and growth; at the same time, it must show and prove the pragmatic connection of literary-historical facts, consider not only the works of individual church writers or their individual works in themselves, but present them as an expression of a certain spiritual movement or theological direction, grouping them from a historically based point of view, without for a moment losing sight of the fact that “all church literature of the era of originality and independence of Christian thought, both in its origin and in its content and character, is fully determined by historical life Christian Church and is in the closest and inextricable connection with the main moments and events of this life" 143. She must follow the actual movement of literature and try to understand and explain its movements. Therefore, pragmatism should not be established from points of view external to the material under consideration, and should not be forcibly imposed on historical development, but should be derived from the latter through genetic development and in its individual moments should be revealed organically. For this, it is certainly necessary to expand the point of view by bringing into consideration not only the works of all famous church writers, but also other monuments of ancient church literature that do not bear the name of certain writers. For the same reasons, pathological science should not refuse its more or less significant attention to anti-Christian and anti-church literature (at least in general reviews), of course, not for its own sake, but for the sake of its close connection with anti-heretical church literature, which in this study will find an important auxiliary means for a deeper and more comprehensive understanding of it. We must not forget that the course of development of ancient church literature was significantly conditioned and caused by the struggle against anti-Christian and especially anti-church or heretical literature, and the vast majority of ancient church writers entered the literary field only prompted by hostile attacks. Such attention to works of anti-Christian and heretical literature is all the more necessary because the genetic development of church literature and the historical chain of church writers is repeatedly interrupted. This study of all available monuments of ecclesiastical and partly extra-church literature of antiquity will make it possible to determine with the accuracy achievable under existing conditions the wide stream of ancient Christian life, on which its main and main course will stand out the more clearly, the more understandable will be the monuments of ancient church literature belonging to those writers who were the predominant bearers of Orthodox church consciousness and leaders of church life. In relation to each individual writer, we must not forget that the main subject of study always remains the monuments of church writing, understanding and assessing their significance in the development of church theology. But the best key to understanding this or that work is the personality of its author, his individual character traits, the course of his education, personal relationships and other properties. Therefore, if the author is known, it is necessary to provide accurate information about him in all these areas. But no writer stands so isolated from his time and surroundings that he is not connected with them by thousands of threads. He thinks, feels and lives in a certain dependence on them. Just as he himself is influenced by the direction of his time, so in turn he influences it, helping its development and deepening or delaying it. Therefore, not a single ecclesiastical writer Hei can be clearly and distinctly understood without a preliminary assessment of the specific relations of his time, the state of the Church to which he belonged, the position he occupied in the Church, those views and concepts among which he lived and acted and which in one way or another influenced him. Consideration of all these circumstances will make it possible to imagine a living image of the writer himself and the life relationships in which he found himself. Then the circumstances of the origin of his literary works, the purpose of the latter and the details of the content will be clear. And this, in turn, will make it possible to determine the writer’s system of views with all the details, to indicate the relationship of his works to previous, contemporary and subsequent written monuments and the state of church theology they express, and on the basis of all this to determine the significance of this writer for the life of the Church and church science. The combination of such treatises on individual writers according to a historically justified connection will result in a clear picture of the gradual revelation of church consciousness in the monuments of church literature, which is the task of science. After all that has been said, it is hardly possible to seriously say that patrol science does not have independent, positive content as an organic whole, that it is scientifically untenable as a system, does not have its own strictly historical method of presentation, etc., and therefore, as completely unnecessary, without prejudice to the completeness of theological education, it can be excluded from the circle of theological sciences as a separate and independent science, distributing its material among other sciences. In any science it is necessary to go back to its sources and original carriers. Just as a modern philosopher must know the most ancient philosophical systems and study the works of Plato and Aristotle if he wants to lay claim to thorough knowledge, so a theologian striving for a thorough education must be familiar with the sources of theological knowledge, among which the works of ancient church writers - the “classics of the Church” - occupy a very important place. It has already been said that the literary treasures of the ancient Church contain continuous evidence of the existence of the Church itself and the culture it spread, reliable evidence of its teaching, cult and its structure, an inexhaustible source of its defense; This determines the essential significance of these works for many theological disciplines: dogmatics, exegesis, church history, morality, archaeology, pastoral theology and church law. Without studying the sources from which material for science is drawn, theological disciplines are deprived of their own foundation, and on the contrary, direct study of them contributes to deepening and expanding the volume; but it is direct study, since no anthologies and collections of extracts from ancient church writing can replace direct acquaintance with it. Apart from the inevitable possibility of misunderstanding and misapplication of ancient evidence when using such collections, the main disadvantage of such acquaintance with second-hand sources is that it loses the spirit in which the Church Fathers and ancient writers lived, thought and wrote. Therefore, one must study the bearers of church teaching and defenders of the faith in close proximity, hear them themselves, unite with them in spirit, warm oneself with their vital breath. One can hope that the “revival” of the study of ancient Christian writing in the West will find a proper response in us (for which there are sufficient grounds in the recent increased demand for translations of patristic literature), and at the same time there will be no need to prove for the Orthodox the right of pathological science to independent existence and importance in the circle of theological sciences and for theological education. According to the current state of affairs, it seems necessary to talk deliberately about the name of science, since in this case the question is not only about the name, but about the very essence of science, its tasks and method of research. The discipline involved in the study of works of ancient church literature already in the 17th century. it was called either patristics or patrolology, and sometimes these names were used as completely identical and interchangeable, but for the most part they differed in essence: patristics was a systematic science, and patrolology was historical; the first gave dogmatic-historical information, the second - biographical-literary-historical. Although in the very names “patrology” and “patristics” there are no scientific grounds for the difference between them, since neither in the name “patrology” nor in the name “patristics” there is an indication of the special attitude of the first to biographical and bibliographical material and the second to the systematic presentation of patristic doctrine and moral teaching, however, at present in Western science a fairly clear distinction has been established between them. Namely: “patristics” collects evidence scattered in the works of the Fathers of the Church for dogma, morality, church system and church discipline and seeks to present them according to their internal connections. Therefore, it can be defined as a systematic presentation of evidence borrowed from the works of our fathers, which serves to historically substantiate Christian truths. It does not give the lifestyle and literary activity of theological writers, but, omitting the biography and bibliography, it groups the dogmatic content of their works according to the main points of view, presents them in connection and thus creates a system of traditional religious teaching. Consequently, in “patristics” the individual characteristics of one or another church writer are deprived of their usual value, sometimes taking on the character of even an accidental deviation from the norm, and all the strength is concentrated on the fundamental identity of moral and dogmatic teaching with biblical Christian principles. “Patrology” differs significantly from this science, containing not only a biographical and bibliographical department, but also an exegetical one, which sets out the content of individual works of this or that writer and the integral image of his teaching, highlighting precisely his individual characteristics that characteristically distinguish this writer and determine his place in the history of theological thought, and this side is recognized as an essential component of science, which it cannot convey to the “history of dogmas,” since in the latter the historical side is not presented as such in detail and in detail and in a completely different form than in patrolology. In patrolology, the history of Christian dogmas is presented chronologically, in connection with the very life of the ancient Church and in the very order in which Christian dogmas were revealed in reality. On the other hand, in patrolology, each Christian dogma is considered in connection with the entire system of doctrine of those church writers in whom this dogma is revealed, while the “history of dogmas” leaves this connection aside and takes from the teachings of a famous father only what he says about this or that dogma separately. Processing the history of ancient church writing from an exclusively literary-critical and bibliographic point of view, i.e., in such a way that only various works or entire groups of them, as well as manuscripts and publications, would be considered, would eliminate the most noble and most important task to be solved: in patrolology, not only the outer shell should be examined and evaluated, but mainly the grain full of vital forces, and precisely in such a form that the material related to the external, literary side of the works being analyzed, contributed to the theological characteristics and literary-historical assessment of them. In Russian theological literature, no historical tradition has been created in relation to the name and even the content of science, because science itself, as a separate and independent one, has existed only since the 40s. XIX century and had to develop with a constant, almost skeptical attitude towards its validity as a scientific system, towards its task, method and practical necessity. 144 In ordinary usage, even in official documents, the names “patristics” and “patrology” are used, apparently, indifferently. But the presented data convinces, on the one hand, that such a confusion of these names is unfounded and can lead to misunderstandings, on the other hand, and that, according to the modern scientific situation, it is necessary to take care of the most thorough formulation and broad development of patristic science in the very direction indicated by the name “patrology” and not “patristics”. However, we consider it necessary to make a reservation that what has been said absolutely does not contain the idea that “patristics” as a systematic presentation of the theological truths contained in patristic literature does not have sufficient grounds or right to exist: correctly understood and scientifically formulated patristics is even desirable, since it would be very useful for the most accurate and deep understanding of Orthodox teaching. But as long as we do not have a scientifically developed patrolology, patristics cannot have a solid foundation, because it must be preceded by the correct installation of the teachings of individual ancient church writers, in the historical context and their mutual connection and continuity, which can only be given in a broadly and scientifically formulated patrolology. Otherwise, we will never be guaranteed against such use of the works of the Church Fathers, when individual passages or even phrases are extracted from the entire work to support the position being proven for the sake of their verbal suitability, but without paying attention to the fact that in context they do not have the meaning that is given to them, that this or that writer, according to the state of theology in his time, could not even raise and resolve the questions with which the modern theologian is busy, seeking support for himself in ancient church literature. And for the discipline that has the indisputable right to preliminary development, the name “patrology” seems more correct, according to how this name is understood in modern Western pathological science. True, the content of science turns out to be much broader than this name, since its subject is not only the works of the “Church Fathers”, but also all ancient church writers in general. However, from this side it can be justified and defended on the basis that from the point of view of the task that patrolological science sets itself, not all monuments of ancient church writing have the same significance and that the latter is determined by the proven and obvious influence of certain works of ancient church writing on the modern and subsequent life of the Church, as well as in connection with this recognition of their authority by the Church itself; but such significance is, if not exclusively, then in any case predominantly, οί 'έγκριτοι της έκκλησίας πατέρας - they are precisely in patrolological science and constitute the main and essential subject of study. {But in order to avoid practical misunderstandings, it would be appropriate to add another descriptive one to the name “patrology”: “the historical teaching about the Fathers of the Church and ancient church writers.”} The need for such research. Works of ancient church literature should be subject to study in patrol with the names of those authors who actually wrote them, and, if possible, in the form in which they came out of their hands; only authentic works and intact texts can give the sought-after truth, and therefore pathological criticism, which in its main provisions coincides with historical and literary criticism in general, should receive its due place and significance. The urgent need to apply critical research to works of ancient church literature is determined by the following considerations. Monuments of ancient church literature have a history of more than a thousand years. During this time they passed through thousands of hands and experienced many different fates, which was accompanied by the inevitable changes in such cases. But there are undoubted facts of intentional distortions and forgeries. Already under the name of the apostles, inauthentic works were put into circulation, which is why the Apostle Paul was forced to write the final greeting with his own hand as a sign of the authenticity of the message (2 Thess. 2: 2; 3: 17–18), and John the Theologian ends the Apocalypse with a formidable warning to anyone who would add or subtract the words of his prophecy (22: 18–19). This happened with some of the Church Fathers. Genuine works turned out to be distorted by distortion of individual words and expressions, arbitrary additions and omissions; Sometimes works written by other authors were published under the name of famous church writers, new works were compiled based on long-known ones, an original text was allegedly prepared based on an existing ancient translation, etc. The blame for distortions and sometimes forgeries falls primarily on copyists and proofreaders. Inattentive and often ignorant copyists, during hasty correspondence, distorted individual words and entire sentences, omitted expressions and entire lines, and corrected the text according to their own understanding; sometimes the works of several writers in one codex were attributed to one, whose name appeared first in the collection, the name of a little-known later author was replaced with the same name of a more famous ancient writer, etc. St. Irenaeus addresses the copyist of his anti-Gnostic work (Όγδοάς [Eight] 145) with the following words: “I conjure you, who will rewrite this book, by our Lord Jesus Christ and His glorious appearance, when He comes to judge the living and the dead, that what you rewrite, you will carefully compare and correct according to the original text from which you copied, and in like manner you will rewrite this oath and place it in the copy" (Euseb., Hist. eccl. V, 20.2; Hieron., De vir. ill. 35). Sometimes heretics, in order to give their teaching easier access and authority in Christian society, either inserted their thoughts into the works of ancient and respected church writers accepted by believers, or published their own works under their name. Already Dionysius of Corinth, in the second half of the 2nd century, complained about this when he wrote: “At the request of the brethren, I wrote letters; but the apostles of the devil filled them with tares, when they omitted some, they added others” (Euseb., Hist. eccl. IV, 23.12). In addition, little-known writers used forgery in order to gain greater fame and distribution for their works, as well as self-interested booksellers in order to quickly sell the manuscripts they had and make a profit. Sometimes, in the struggle with heretics and in the heat of dogmatic disputes, with a general conviction in the authority of the ancient Church and its fathers, unreasonable zealots of the purity of the teaching and rights of the Church thought to do a service to it by presenting new works, compiled in the church spirit, as works of the famous father of the Church of former times, in order to more successfully challenge and refute the enemy. All this opens up a very wide field of activity for pathological criticism, which sets as its task: 1) in relation to the origin of literary monuments, determine which of the works of ancient church writing are authentic (genuina, authentica) - regarding whose actual writers there is no doubt; which are inauthentic or spurious (spuria, supposita, apocrypha, adulteria) - regarding which it can definitely be said that they do not belong to those writers whose names they claim; and, finally, which are doubtful (dubia) - regarding which research has not yet yielded a definite result, since equally many and equal strength of reasons speak for and against their authenticity. 2) In relation to the present state of the text, pathological criticism must determine intact works (sincera) - containing no more or less than what was in the original, and damaged ones (corrupta); the latter can be interpolated (interpolata), if additions have been made to them by someone else, or abbreviated (mutila, mutilata), if omissions are found. Works in which all parts of them have been preserved in their entirety are called complete (integra); individual passages of works are called fragments. The main provisions of patrolological criticism. On the question of the origin of the works of ancient Christian writing to be studied, pathological criticism establishes the following basic provisions, which are common to the principles of any historical and literary criticism. Those signs by which the authenticity of written monuments is determined are called positive principles of criticism, and those from which data against authenticity are extracted are called negative. In both cases, evidence is borrowed either from other historical documents or from the work itself in question; in the first case they are called external grounds or signs of authenticity, in the latter - internal. External positive criteria are historical evidence of all kinds. They are of primary decisive importance. In the first place should be placed the testimony of the author himself, which he gives in his later works regarding those previously written. So, for example, blzh. Jerome, in his work De viris illustribus, himself lists all his works written before 392, and Bl. Towards the end of his life, Augustine, in his Retractationes, compares his own works in order to correct, supplement and clarify what is erroneous and misunderstood. Further, this includes the testimony of contemporaries or later writers (for example, friends, students) who knew the author and his literary activity and attribute the work (or part of it) to him or cite passages from it indicating the name of the author. The authority of these witnesses is significant insofar as they stood close to the author, they themselves are free from any suspicion, and also in accordance with the strength of the reasons they give in favor of the authenticity of the work: the older the witnesses, the closer they are to the author in place and time, the more definitely expressed their instructions, the more thorough their certification. In this case, the authenticity of the works from which the evidence is taken is assumed by itself. The agreement of all such witnesses leads to an indisputable conviction of the authenticity of the work or group of them in question. Finally, the evidence of codices is important if several manuscripts, namely the most ancient ones, belonging to different localities by origin, independent of one another, agree on the name of the author and if there is no reason to doubt the reliable origin of the inscription or signature in them. The older the manuscripts, the more consistent their evidence, the more decisive it is in favor of authenticity. Internal positive signs of criticism, which are extracted from the content and form of the work itself, are less important than historical evidence and, in general, external signs of authenticity. These include the grounds that affirm the agreement of the work with the national, historical and geographical relations in which the work should be composed, unity with fairly well-known authentic works of the same author in style and content of thoughts, method of presentation, correspondence with the character, individual characteristics and life circumstances of the writer, etc. By themselves, this kind of argument can never have the character of tactile persuasiveness, but if they are based on sufficiently strong external evidence, then the authenticity of the work can be considered completely proven. Negative criteria consist in internal contradictions, in anachronisms, in a sharp difference in style with the well-known works of the same writer, in contradiction with its characteristic properties, known from other reliable sources. If a work indicates and describes persons, events and relationships, church institutions, heresies, which, as is undoubtedly known, belong to a later time, or if dogmatic terms are found in the sense of the decisions of later councils, then it must be considered inauthentic or at least interpolated. Another sign of inauthenticity is the complete absence of evidence in favor of authenticity in the codices and among ancient writers. A work should be considered inauthentic if all available manuscripts indicate a name other than the one it bears, and doubtful if some manuscripts attribute it to one author, others to another. If modern and later authors do not make any use of a work that they could use for their own purpose, then this is also a negative sign; however, in itself it does not have decisive force, because the silence could have sufficient grounds either in unfamiliarity with the given work, or in deliberate avoidance of using it. Such negative properties make the work suspicious, but do not in themselves provide reliable evidence of inauthenticity. The same must be said about minor differences in style, method, and even content of works: such phenomena may be due to the composition of the work at a later time in the author’s life or to differences in the purpose of the works and the addressees. Only probable evidence can be extracted from this kind of data, and inauthenticity must be proven on other grounds. Study of the text of patristic works and scientific publications. The question of the integrity of the text can only be established on the basis of a thorough study of the handwritten material in which works of ancient church literature have been preserved to this day. The techniques, rules and tasks are the same as in relation to all kinds of works of antiquity preserved in manuscripts. It is necessary first of all to collect, as far as possible, all the manuscripts containing a known work, and through the most careful examination and study of each of them, establish the time of origin and the history of the further existence of each, the degree of accuracy and serviceability of the text in it in general, the mutual dependence of one manuscript on another, determine the main editions of the text and the variants that depend on them, explaining, if possible, the origin of the latter, in order to in this way reach the type of text that the first copyists of the main editions had before them and which, therefore, was the original text the work under study. This is the task pursued by scientific editions of the text of ancient church works. It goes without saying that, as in all other areas of scientific knowledge, so in this matter, possible scientific accuracy and perfection are achieved only gradually, through prolonged and intense effort. The beginning of such research coincides with the invention of printing, which generally caused a rise in literary activity and in the patristic field gave the most favorable results: over the course of several decades, many editions of the works of individual Church Fathers appeared. The oldest editions (editiones principes, antiquissimae) are mostly careful reprints of individual manuscripts and are especially important because in some cases they provide the text of manuscripts that later disappeared. The next stage in the development of this matter is represented by the works of learned philologists and typographers Robert and Heinrich Stefan (in Paris), whose publications are distinguished by the correctness of the text, the beauty of the font and the good quality of the paper. Even if they cannot compare with them, the works of the Frobenians - John and Jerome (in Basel), who, in addition to other scientists, were very actively helped by Erasmus of Rotterdam, stand close to them. Then, publications of the text of ancient church writing, based on newly discovered manuscripts, began to be carried out in Rome, Venice, London, Cambridge, Amsterdam, Antwerp, Brussels, Basel. Ahead of the others stood the Gallican Church and especially the Benedictine congregation of St. Mavra, established in 1618. 146 Its learned members powerfully and for a long time supported interest in the study of ancient Christian writing with their classical editions of the Church Fathers, which, in their richness and diversity, philological-critical merits and even external beauty, surpassed all that had existed before. Their editions are distinguished by the possibly correct text, corrected according to all the then available rules of scientific textual criticism; in addition, they contain a good Latin translation for the Greek fathers, furthermore, scientific dissertations, critical studies on guilt and inauthenticity, explanatory notes and marginal notes, descriptions of the manuscripts used in the publication, several indexes 147. Of these devotees of science, the following names must be mentioned: Jean Lucas d'Achery (Dacherius, d. 1685; Spicilegium, sive Collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum etc.), Jacques du Frische (d. 1693; Ambrose), Thierry Ruinart (d. 1709; Acta martyrum sincera), Rene Massuet (d. 1716; Irenaeus), Jean Martianay (d. 1717; Jerome), Ant. Aug. Touttee (d. 1719; Cyril of Jerusalem), Pierre Coustant (d. 1721; Hilary of Pictavia), Denys[-Nicolas] Le Nourry (d. 1724; Ambrose), Denys de Sainte Matthe (Sammarthanus, d. 1725; Gregory the Great), Julien Garnier (d. 1725; Basil the Great), Charles de La Rue (d. 1739; Origen), Bernard de Montfaucon (d. 1741; Athanasius, John Chrysostom), Prudence Maran (d. 1762; Cyril Jerusalem, Cyprian, Justin), Charles Clemencet (d. 1778; Gregory the Theologian). Other orders competed more or less successfully with the Maurinians, especially the Jesuits: Fronton du Due (Ducaeus, d. 1624; John Chrysostom, John of Damascus), Jacob Gretser (d. 1625), Jacques Sirmond (d. 1651; numerous separate editions), the Belgian Jean Bolland (d. 1665; Acta Sanctorum), Jean Gamier (d. 1681; Theodorit of Cyrus), Dominican Fransois Combefis (d. 1679; Maximus the Confessor); private scientists: Jean-Bapt. Cotelier (d. 1686; Patres Apostolici; Ecclesiae Graecae Monumenta), Etienne Baluze (d. 1718), etc. As individual patristic works were published in print, little by little they began to combine the accumulated and scattered material into collections in which the literary heritage of ancient centuries is arranged either according to the time of origin and the language in which the works were written, or according to different theological disciplines. These collections have different names: Bibliotheca, Monumenta, Spicilegia Patrum, Analecta vetera, Collectanea veterum monumentomm, etc. Collections began to appear quite early and partly pursued scientific goals, partly they were meant to satisfy practical needs. The oldest of them met the scientific requirements for textual-critical publications much less than the oldest individual publications. The first publisher of a large collection of patristic works was de la Bigne (d. 1589). His Bibliotheca SS. Patrum (Paris, 1575–1579) embraced in nine volumes (in folio) the works of more than 200 theological writers of antiquity and the Middle Ages. The collection contained mainly documents that had not yet appeared in separate publications or were inaccessible; Greek writers are given here in Latin translation. The enterprise was met with great sympathy, brought to life significantly increased and expanded revisions and, finally, after a century, grew into Maxima Bibliotheca veterum patrum et antiquorum scriptorum ecclesiasticorum (Lyon, 1677) in 27 volumes (in folio). This Maxima Bibliotheca is the Oratorian Andr. Gallandi (d. 1779) again, almost a hundred years later, contrasted with a new edition: Bibliotheca veterum patrum antiquorumque scriptorum ecclesiasticorum - in 14 volumes (in folio). The difference between these two editions is as follows: Maxima Bibliotheca covers writers up to the 16th century, and Bibliotheca Gallandi only up to the 12th century; the former pays primary attention to the most significant fathers of the Church, the latter selects mainly less significant writers with works of a smaller volume; the first gives the Greek writers in a Latin translation, the second also adds the original Greek text. Gallandi gives the works of 380 authors, including some unpublished ones, but mostly reprints previous editions, usually adding new introductions, notes and corrections to the text. In the XlX century. in the field of publishing, the works of Cardinal and Prefect of the Vatican Library Angelo Mai (d. 1854) are of outstanding importance: Scriptorum veterum nova collectio (10 volumes, Rome, 1825–1838); Spicilegium Romanum (10 volumes, Rome, 1839–1844); Nova patrum Bibliotheca (9 volumes, Rome, 1852–1888, volumes 8 and 9 published after the death of May in 1871 and 1888). May's publications remain important to this day, since many monuments were published by him alone. Somewhat later, Cardinal Jean-Bapt developed his publishing activities. Pitra (d. 1889): Spicilegium Solesmense (4 volumes, Paris, 1852–1858), Analecta sacra Spicelegio Solesmensi parata (in seven volumes, 1876–1891) and Analecta novissima (Paris, 1885–1889) in two volumes. But the greatest and most complete of all collections of works of ancient church literature, which in the main and essentially exhausts previous publications, is the “Patrology” of the French abbot J.-P Migne (d. 1875) Patrologiae cursus completus seu Bibliotheca universalis omnium SS. Patrum, doctorum scriptorumque ecclesiasticorum. This monumental publication contains all the works of Latin church writers that were known at the time of its printing - from Tertullian to Innocent III, and Greek (with Latin translation) - from the apostolic men to Bessarion of Nicaea. The Patrologia Latina, or Latin series, contains 221 volumes (of which the last four contain indices) and is divided into two parts: from Tertullian to Gregory the Great - 79 volumes, and from Gregory the Great to Innocent III - the rest (published 1844-1855). The Patrologia Graeca, or Greek series, in 162 volumes, is also divided into two parts: from Barnabas to Photius - 104 volumes, and from Photius to Vissarion of Nice - the rest [(published in 1857-1866)]. Min was not a scholarly publisher and did not pursue scientific goals: he did not set out to publish unpublished authors and did not establish a critical text; he reprints only ancient authoritative editions, usually basing it on the best Benedictine edition, more complete and authoritative compared to others, and adding, where necessary, works missing from later editions. Thus, Min repeated the shortcomings of previous editions, only increasing the errors. In addition, this publication does not represent a completely complete collection of church writers. Its advantage lies in the convenience of the format, making it more suitable for use than previous volumes. But if it is necessary to establish the exact text, one should always turn to the oldest publications. In the first half of the 19th century. Gradually, new areas of study of ancient church literature began to be defined. Literary monuments of the Syrian Church, which were first introduced to the West in the 18th century. J. S. Assemani, increasingly became generally known through publications and translations. Mekhitarists of the Congregation of St. Lazarus in Venice began to collect and publish monuments of Armenian church writing. Recently, new editions of the works of Greek and Latin ecclesiastical writers have been undertaken, which set themselves the task of providing a text restored according to the most rigorous scientific method. Based on a thorough assessment of the entire manuscript tradition, the text review is based on those manuscripts that, according to all scientific data, contain the original text or the closest to it. The notes give more significant deviations in the manuscripts than present a clear picture of the changes that the text has experienced over time. The first place here should be given to the Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, the so-called “Vienna Corpus”, published by the Vienna Academy of Sciences, which should embrace writers up to the 7th century. The first volume of this publication was published in 1866, and until 1881 business progressed very slowly: only four volumes were published; but then it became more successful and to date [...]' volumes have been released. For their publication, Viennese scientists collect information from all libraries. In the very use of manuscripts in this edition, a reliable method is used: it is recognized as insufficient to write out variants from manuscripts, but the connection of manuscripts by surnames is established, and thus the history of the monuments themselves is outlined in the publication. Although the textual-critical merit of individual volumes varies (mainly depending on the insurmountable difficulties, given the current state of documentary evidence), and although the entire publication suffers from shortcomings that are closely related to certain shortcomings (one-sided predominance of philological interest and hence the use of exclusively philological criticism with the elimination of theological criticism, the absence of a definite plan, etc.), nevertheless the Corpus represents a significant step forward in comparison with previous editions of Latin ecclesiastical writers. The outstanding interest in Protestant scholarship in the first three centuries of Christianity prompted Protestant scholars to begin the scholarly publication of Greek writers of this period. This publication was undertaken (in 1897) by the Berlin Academy of Sciences under the general title Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte in such a way that it would include all the monuments of ancient Christian literature up to and including Eusebius, even those preserved only in translations. It is conducted, unlike the “Vienna Corps”, mainly by theologians. The best scientific forces are attracted to participate in it, and in its implementation all the means of modern scientific philology are used. Therefore, the publication should be considered exemplary. Nothing similar has yet been done for Greek church writers of the 4th and subsequent centuries, and there is no hope for a solid scientific publication in the near future. Church writers in Eastern languages ​​found themselves in a better position. Since 1903, Patrologia Orientalis began to be published in Paris under the editorship of R. Graffin and Ε Nau. Together with the original texts, a translation is given here into Latin or one of the new languages ​​(French, German, English, Italian). Apparently, another publication, which began to appear simultaneously with the Patrology, was more thoroughly conceived and organized: Corpus scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, edited by the orientalists J. B. Chabot, J. Guidi, N. Hyvernat, V. Carra de Vaux (also in Paris). The publication is divided into sections according to the languages ​​of the printed works (scriptores Arabici, Aethiopici, Coptici, Syri). The original texts are provided with translation, almost exclusively into Latin. Along with these collections of works by ancient Christian writers, there arose a need for monographic processing of them according to a certain system. This enterprise was started in 1882 by O. de Gebhardt and Ad. Harnack with their publication Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur and until 1897 produced 15 volumes, which contained many new or until then poorly published texts, as well as individual studies. Since 1897, a new series has been started, which is connected with the aforementioned publication of the Berlin Academy of Sciences, and since 1907 - a third series. An excellent and scientifically important parallel to this edition is the English edition of patristic texts Texts and Studies, undertaken in 1891 by J. Armitage Robinson. At the same time, both in connection with these scientific publications and on the basis of the data they obtained regarding the text, a significant number of publications appeared, pursuing purely practical goals - to give wider distribution to the correct original text of works of ancient Christian writing in circles interested in this branch of theological knowledge. In them, the textual-critical apparatus is either completely eliminated or significantly reduced. Between these publications, Gust is currently recognized as the best. Krüger'a Sammlung ausgewählter kirchenund dogmengeschichtlicher Quellenschriften. Freiburg, 1891 ff. (the first series contains 12 volumes); second series started in 1901 In Russia we still have neither scientific patristic editions of the original text of 148 Greek and Latin writers, nor publications intended for school use, and therefore in all necessary cases we must turn to the works of Western scientists. A general view of the development of church literature throughout the patristic period. The material to be studied in patrol science is extensive in quantity, varied in time of origin and content. Therefore, one of the essential requirements for scientifically posed patrolology is that the grouping of materials in it, based on a thorough study of it, would make it possible to establish a framework in which each individual work would find its specific place and could be correctly assessed in its meaning. In this regard, the arrangement of literary monuments according to purely chronological sequence and language, established in previous patrolology courses and repeated in them in almost identical form, must be decisively rejected. But attempts to replace this kind of plan with a better one have not yet been crowned with success, since it turns out that one or another accepted point of view cannot be applied to all works without significant reservations. It was already said earlier that when studying ancient church literature, literary form cannot be of decisive importance, as in national literatures, primarily because ancient church literature arose not from literary-aesthetic, purely artistic needs, but from practical-religious, ecclesiastical and theological needs. In addition, in contrast to classical writing, in ancient church writing the same individuals used a variety of literary forms in their works. The most natural plan for the study of ancient Christian church literature should be recognized as the one outlined within the framework of ancient Christian church life, the course of development of which was of decisive importance both for all other discoveries of this life and for the literary activity of Christians within the Greco-Roman empire and on the basis of Greco-Roman culture. But this course of development was different in the three main areas that the ancient Church embraced: Greek, Latin and Eastern. Already from this point of view it is clear that any division into periods, which is applied in the same way to all three areas, must be rejected. The division into origin, development, flowering and decline (as in Fessler, Alzog, Nirschl and essentially also in Bardenhewer and Kihn), regardless of the fact that it is too schematic to be historical, cannot be applied in chronologically corresponding periods to Greek and Latin literature, since in the Greek Church and in the Greek language church literature begins almost a whole century earlier than in Latin. A true view of the internal development of ancient church literature can be achieved from such an initial point of view, which will give due significance to all individual points that explain the historical reasons for the origin of ancient church literature, comprehensively embrace the practical and theological goals served by literary activity, will pay attention to the literary forms in which it was clothed, and finally, will evaluate the individuals who were bearers of ancient Christian literature in accordance with their distinctive features and advantages. From this point of view, in the development of ancient church literature, two eras are clearly identified, separated from one another externally and internally. The boundary separating both literary periods is the same that is of decisive importance in the entire history of the ancient Christian Church: the cessation of persecution, the liberation of the Church from the oppression to which the Roman “state and the cultural circles of society associated with it were subjected,” the entry of Christianity into the number of recognized cultural factors of human history - in a word, the reign of Constantine the Great. This change in the external position of Christianity in the state was to be reflected in the most significant way on the development of ancient church literature, which is why here it is precisely necessary to see the indisputable beginning of the second era in its history. The connection and difference between both eras is clear from the most general internal and external definitions of them. Both eras in the history of ancient church literature have in common: 1) cultural soil, which leaves an imprint on all Christian antiquity in its properties; these are the spiritual principles of ancient peoples and ancient culture; 2) the essential connection of all Christian literature with religious, practical-church and theological needs and the resulting limitation to the religious area in the broad sense of the word; 3) finally, a largely indifferent attitude towards purely literary interests. The difference between both eras lies in the following phenomena. The first era reveals an insignificant presence of written works, even if we take into account the numerous losses that its literature suffered. Inter arma silent musae [the muses are silent among the weapons]. Literary life could not flourish on the soil of the first centuries, watered with the blood of martyrs. The bulk of the works of this literature fall on the Greek Church and the Greek language; The West and the Latin language stand behind, and the eastern branch of literature is represented only by Syriac. The second phenomenon is even more important. In the entire field of ancient church literature, the works of this era bear a special imprint. All writers are dominated by a common interest that stands above the interests of individual areas: literary activity in the East and in the West is aroused and internally determined by the same practical needs. Greek writing prevailed until the 3rd century. also in the Roman Church. Only in Africa did the national element break through for the first time, and a special theological trend was discovered here, which in the second period conquered the entire West. But now even the Africans are still in very lively communication with the Greek East. As for all other areas of church activity, so for church literature, the first three centuries represent a catholic time in the true sense of the word, which was never realized in a similar way. The second era is incomparably richer in writers and literary works, and this wealth seems even more significant if we take into account that here, too, a significant part of literary works was lost. Latin writers now appear next to the Greek ones both in number and in importance. Syrian literature reaches its highest development, and next to it the other three literary branches develop: Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian. Even more significant for literary development is the national and cultural difference between East and West. Each of the three literary fields now follows its own path, both in relation to the internal course of development, which in the West moves in completely different periods than in the East, and in relation to the main subject on which literary activity extends. The latter in the Greek Church is determined by metaphysical-ontological disputes, and in the Latin Church by anthropological-psychological ones. Finally, the very entry of Christianity into the number of determining cultural factors of the Roman Empire is reflected significantly in the internal development of church literature: the elevation of its literary character and dignity, the internal connection with the spiritual means of education of the dominant culture, the formation of individual branches of theological science, most of which were only beginning in the first period. Development of ancient church literature in the first era. Having described in general terms both eras of ancient church literature, I consider it necessary to now dwell on a more detailed review of the literature of the first era, the study of which, in order of sequence, we will have to begin. Attempts to immediately determine the course of development of church literature of the first, pre-Nicene era must take into account two kinds of difficulties, the significance of which cannot be diminished. The first is the loss of a significant number of its monuments. The contrast between ante-Nicene literature before and now appears with terrifying clarity when leafing through the first volume of Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur bis Eusebius Ad. Harnack. The list of lost works covers entire pages, and if, further, of those that have survived, those works from which more or less significant fragments have survived to us were written on one side, and the surviving ones were written in full on the other, then the first list would be significantly larger than the second. This loss is extremely unfortunate, since it deprives us of the possibility of a full and comprehensive knowledge regarding the content and development of ante-Nicene literature. Another difficulty lies in the chronological definition of ancient church literature. Ad. Harnack, in his attempt to firmly establish the chronology of the most ancient literature before Irenaeus (including heretical literature), could indicate closer boundaries for only 19 works 149. For most of the rest, he must be content with assumptions within sometimes two generations, and between these works, which cannot be brought within certain narrow boundaries, there are many that are of great importance for the internal development of the most ancient stage of the first era. A large number of apocrypha and adaptations of Jewish works absolutely defy immediate chronological determination. Therefore, a historian who wants to outline the internal course of development of literature of the first three Christian centuries does not have solid chronological ground for determining the successive sequence of works of literature; on the contrary, a pre-established understanding of internal literary and theological development is often essential for the chronological determination of very many works. This takes away the objective value of such definitions, and a wider field is presented for subjectivism than in the study of all later periods of Christian literature. Detailed rec. see: Glushchenko A., deacon. Regarding the publication of “Lectures” by professors N.I. and A.I. Sagarda // BT 39. M., 2004. P. 351–372. It should be noted that the list of fathers in the typescript used for this publication is, apparently, the most complete among all surviving copies of N. I. Sagarda’s “Lectures” for different years. In the remaining lithographed courses, as far as is known, the following chapters are missing: “Codratus”, “Ariston of Pellus”, “Miltiades”, “Apollinaris of Hierapolis”, “Melito of Sardis”, “General View of the Theological Teaching of the Apologists”, “Igisippus”, “Alexander of Alexandria”, “Didemus”, “Gregory the Theologian”, “Gregory of Nyssa”, “Cyril” Jerusalem" (not all lithographs also contain the chapter "Papias of Hierapolis"). According to its scope in the old orthography, i.e. including "I", "i" and "V" (but without "ν"). For example (which we specifically noted in the corresponding notes to the text of the “Lectures”), corrections in the typescript itself show that N.I. Sagarda, who initially examined the fragments of “On the Resurrection” under the name of St. Justina as genuine, later came to the conclusion that they were dubious. Another example is the replacement by the author (in the introduction, in the typescript versus the manuscript) of the expression “patristic science” in several cases with “patrological science”. This more accurately corresponds to the distinction N.I. Sagarda makes between the concepts of “patristics” and “patrology”. He himself, in the several places mentioned, actually used the expression “patristic science” as a synonym for “patrology,” which, obviously, later seemed to him not entirely consistent in the light of his own distinction. However, such replacements were not carried out systematically and completely by the author. Let us note, however, that N.I. Sagarda’s references to patristic works, as the analysis showed, as well as quotations from them, were usually not double-checked by him and errors in them only accumulated. Unfortunately, due to the inaccessibility (or inaccessibility) of many Western European studies of the 19th - early years. XX century, to which the author refers, we were not able to verify the information reported by N.I. Sagarda from these primary sources themselves. Basically - a few references (without specific quotes) to the exegetical works of Origen in the chapter on his theological system. Naturally, it was taken into account that the same expressions could be found by one writer in several places in his works. If, of course, in the available publications the breakdown of the text was sufficiently detailed (in some cases, the page numbers for the publications included in the TLG were specified). Section or verse numbers were usually not indicated for quotes included in the author’s sequential (chapter-by-chapter) retelling of the contents of the works. The absence of clarification is in no way a sign of an unverified link. For example, punctuation, often replacing a period with a comma or a semicolon; stylistic, replacing “this” with “this” (much less often), etc. An analysis of the quotations given by N.I. Sagarda from Russian translations showed that he checked most of them with the original Greek or Latin texts. The vast majority of such omissions are found in lithographs (and not in the autograph manuscript) and, naturally, are associated with the inattentive work of student publishers. Naturally, taking into account the original critical text, since N.I. Sagarda often clarified the translations he quoted from the latest editions of the originals. In working with quotations from ancient authors, SC (almost complete), TLG # Ε (2000), CLCLT 4, GCS (separate volumes), as well as PG and PLD (and some individual editions) were used. Unfortunately, the critical apparatus, and sometimes the critical text, were not available for all works. Some missing subheadings, as well as titles for the first division ("Ante-Nicene ecclesiastical literature"), the fourth period of ante-Nicene literature ("The first supporters and opponents of Origen") and for the fathers of the 4th century. (“Second Division. Greek Church Literature of the 4th Century”) added without square brackets. Also, without square brackets, the indications of “saint” have been added to the titles of the chapters on Aristides, Melito of Sardis and Theophilus of Antioch. Notes compiled jointly or in the process of discussion have both marks (“Ed., Ed.” or “Ed., Ed.”). State Archive of Kyiv, f. 16, op. 465, units hr. 4811, p. 21–24. Central State Archive of Supreme Government Bodies of Ukraine, f. 166, op. 12, units hr. 6765. The fate of his brother Alexander, who also continued the family tradition, is interesting. Nikolai Ivanovich, as an older brother, had a significant influence on the worldview and choice of profession of his younger brother. Alexander Ivanovich Sagarda was born on December 15, 1883 in the city of Zolotonosha. Like Nikolai, he first graduated from the Pereyaslav Theological School, and then from the Poltava Theological Seminary. After graduating from the seminary, he worked as a teacher at a men's gymnasium in Zolotonosha. In 1905 he entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, from which he graduated in 1909 as a professor's fellow. His supervisor and mentor was Professor A.I. Brilliantov. According to the recommendations of A.I. Brilliantov and N. N. Glubokovsky in 1910, after the creation of the second department of patrolology at the Academy, he was elected acting assistant professor of this department. In 1913 he defended his master's thesis “St. Clement of Alexandria and his literary activity.” Having worked for 8 years as an assistant professor at the Academy, he gave courses of lectures on the history of the Alexandrian church school and the Antioch church school, as well as special courses on iconoclastic disputes and Christian moral writers. Along with teaching, he actively collaborates with the theological magazines “Christian Reading”, “Church Bulletin”, “Church Gazette”, etc. In 1918, after the closure of the Academy, Alexander Ivanovich, in search of work, together with Nikolai Ivanovich, moved to Kyiv, where he worked in the library of the Kyiv University of St. Vladimir. Since 1919 - member of the Standing Commission for the compilation of a historical and geographical dictionary of the Ukrainian land at the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. In 1920, after the restoration of Soviet power, he left Kyiv and moved to Zolotonoiga. He works in the Zolotonosha Udem-okrzemotdel and part-time in the Okrugfinotdepartment. In 1925, after the liquidation of the provinces and the reform of the districts, he worked as the executive secretary of the Prilutsky Okrzem. After disbandment in 1930 and this district moves to Nikolaev, where he holds a number of positions in various organizations: assistant of the Nikolaev Dairy Plant, head of the planning and production department of the Nikolaev Tram, head of the department of the bath and laundry plant and head of the planning department of the Nikolaev Regional Communal Bank. During the Second World War, Alexander Ivanovich changed his place of residence several times. As the front line approached Nikolaev, he was evacuated to Astrakhan, and in 1943, for health reasons, he moved to Batumi. From there, in 1944, in search of any information about the fate of his brother, he wrote a letter to S.I. Maslov: “... I beg you, write if you know or have heard anything about my brother Nikolai Ivanovich Sagard” (IR NBUV archive, f. 33, item 6385). In Batumi, he leads the planning group of a number of artels, and then goes to work in the labor supply department of the Black Sea Shipping Company, which in 1944 was transferred to Odessa. In 1947 A.I. Sagarda returns to teaching after passing the exam for the title of Candidate of Historical Sciences at Odessa University. From July 1947 to January 1948 – professor at Odessa Theological Seminary. In 1948, he was invited to work at the Leningrad Theological Academy. Until his death, Alexander Ivanovich lectured on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and the history of the ancient Church. A.I. Sagarda died on May 9, 1950 in St. Petersburg. Alexander Ivanovich, like his brother Nikolai Ivanovich Sagarda, left a noticeable mark on church history. Glubokovsky N. N. Notes on the 1st Epistle of St. Apostle John the Theologian // Kh. 1904. June. pp. 859, 871. N.I. Sagarda - N. N. Glubokovsky, September 15, 1904 // Chosen Vessel: Collection of documents on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church. St. Petersburg: Borey, 1994. P. 64. Dmitry Nikolaevich Revutsky (1881–1941) – musicologist, folklorist and musical figure, one of the founders of Ukrainian Soviet musicology. Born in the village. Irzhavtsy in Chernihiv region. Graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Kyiv University. In 1918–1932 Professor of the Kyiv Music and Drama Institute named after. N.V. Lysenko, also worked in the Ethnographic Commission of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. N.I. Sagarda - N. N. Glubokovsky, July 12, 1919 // Chosen Vessel. pp. 273–274. F. I. Mishchenko (1874-?) – historian of church law and Byzantine scholar. Professor at the Kiev Theological Academy and Kiev State Ukrainian University (1918). N.I. Sagarda – N. N. Glubokovsky; July 1, 1919 // The chosen vessel. P. 273. Academician A. E. Krymsky (1871–1942) - Orientalist, Slavist, historian of the Ukrainian language and literature. One of the organizers of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kyiv and its permanent secretary. Chairman of the historical and philological department of VUAS. Archive of IR NBUV, φ. III, units hr. 61348. Archive of IR NBUV, φ. 1, units hr. 24153. NBUV Archive, on. 1, units hr. 278-A, p. 45. Encyclopedia of decorative studies. T. 7. Lvhv, 1998. pp. 2686–2687. Rotach P. P. Lggeraturna Poltava region // ApxiBH Ukragni. 1968. No. 4. P. 107. Compiled by T.V. Koval. Of the archival (unpublished) materials, only those stored in Kyiv were taken into account; For the sources of this publication, see the editor's preface on p. VII-IX. Reviews, reviews of student essays, translations are indicated under the names and titles of the reviewed or translated authors and their works. The spelling of some names is slightly closer to modern (the hyphens in complex words have been removed). An asterisk * marks works for which the authorship of N.I. Sagarda is established on the basis of direct or indirect evidence. Articles and reviews marked with an asterisk and without special notes in the PSU and CV are signed with the initials “N. WITH."; the authorship of N.I. Sagarda for them is confirmed by the similarity of style and theme with his other works, and for the “Church Messenger” also by the fact of Sagarda’s work in this publication during the period of the corresponding publications. For authorship reasons for other works, see notes. Signed: “S. N. Sagarda." The “Master's Colloquium” (CV. 1904. No. 20. pp. 617–621; author - A. K-v) mentions the work of N.I. Sagarda regarding “the position of the presbyter in the first centuries of Christianity,” as well as the fact that Nikolai Ivanovich was published on the pages of the “Manual”. Nevertheless, his authorship for this article cannot be considered completely indisputable, since a mistake by the author of the Colloquium cannot be ruled out. It is not completely excluded, although it seems unlikely, that N.I. Sagarda also wrote the first translation (from English translation from Armenian) of the work that came under the name of St. Gregory the Wonderworker: “Praise to the Blessed Virgin Mary of St. Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop. Neokesariysky" (Addition to the "Church Gazette". 1896. No. 14. P. 495–505), signed with the initials "N. Γ." The second translation (see in No. 65 and reprint in No. 78, pp. 184–194) was carried out by N. I. Sagarda, taking into account the Greek text of the conversation established by him (see No. 78, p. V; here N. I. Sagarda does not indicate the name of the author of the first translation, while the second one calls it “ours”). – Ed. For authorship reasons, see SDHA. P. 775, No. 495. – Ed. The translation was made by Vladimir Vasilyevich Sagarda, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, professor at Uzhgorod National University, a descendant of one of N. I. Sagarda’s close relatives. – Ed. The archives of the IR NBUV contain reports of the work of departments headed by N.I. Sagarda, compiled and signed by him, as well as his memos and official letters to various organizations. Due to a strange misunderstanding, recently a translation of the “Philosophical Chapters” of LRP was attributed to N.I. Sagarda and published twice under his name. John of Damascus: John of Damascus, St. Dialectics, or Philosophical Chapters / Trans. N.I. Sagardy. M.: Ecclesia Press, 1999 (series “Teachers of the Undivided Church”) and in the book: John of Damascus. Source of knowledge. M.: Indrik, 2002. pp. 53–122. None of these publications even indicate the output data of the edition from which the text of the translation was borrowed, which was actually taken from: John of Damascus, St. Complete set of works. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1913 and does not belong to N.I. Sagarda (in the indicated first volume there is a translation of A.I. Sagarda “About a Hundred Heresies in Brief”, but the name of his brother is not mentioned among the translators). – Ed., Ed. See also: Stolyarov A. A. Patrology and patristics. M., 2001. pp. 51–63. 1st ed.: T. 1–3. St. Petersburg, 1859 (reprint: Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1996). 240, 384,450 units; 2nd ed., revised: St. Petersburg, 1882 (reprint: M.: Palomnik, 1996). Skvortsov K. Philosophy of the Fathers and Teachers of the Church. The period of apologists. Kyiv, 1868. 365 p. Gusev D. Readings on patrolology. Vol. 1. Introduction to patrolology and the age of apostolic men. Kazan, 1895 [from PS for 1895]. 277 e.; Vol. 2. The period of Christian writing from the half of the 2nd to the end of the 4th century. General outline. Kazan, 1898 [from PS for 1897]. 38 e.; dept. essays (Kazan, 1898) on St. Theophilus of Antioch, St. Justin and Tertullian. Bardenhewer O. Patrologie. Freiburg, 1894 (3 1910). Bardenhewer O. Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litaretur. 5 Bde. Freiburg, 2 1913–1932 (Neudr. Darmstadt, 1962). John Drozdov, priest. Essays on general church history. Vol. 3. Christian literature of the first three centuries (men apostles and apologists). Irkutsk, 1907. Partially published. in the Irkutsk Diocesan Gazette. Rec. N.I. Sagardy: above, p. XXX, No. 32. The personality and teaching of St. Augustine. T. 1.4.1–2. Sergiev Posad, 1916 (2 1917), Reprint in preparation. Saint Gregory the Wonderworker, Bishop of Neocaesarea. His life, works and theology. Pathological research. St. Petersburg, 1916.643 p. The research was accompanied by the work of N.I. Sagarda on the Russian translation of the works of St. Gregory (Pg., 1916, reprint: M., 1996. 211). Master's thesis, two of its volumes have been preserved: the first (revised candidate's essay), the introduction to the second (St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine theology. Kyiv, 1915, republished: M., 1996) and the appendix (Materials for the study of the life and works of St. Maximus the Confessor. Kyiv, 1917). The second volume (except for the introduction) is apparently lost forever. At present, all surviving texts of the master's work have been prepared for publication by Yu. P. Chernomorets and Deacon A. Glushchenko. In Kyiv, three student glass prints of patrolology courses for different years are stored (up to and including Origen; the volume of each glass print is approximately 600 pages). The typescript from one student manuscript, also dating back to the 3rd century, was made at the MDA: Epifanovich S. JI. Patrology. Church writing of the 1st–3rd centuries (course of lectures). Parts 1–3. Sergiev Posad, 1951. Popov KV. Patrology: A short course. M., 2003. 287 p. (ends with the Cappadocians, Jerome and Augustine). Karsavin L.P. Holy Fathers and Teachers of the Church (disclosure of Orthodoxy in their creations). 'Paris: Ymca press, [1926] (the period from Apollinaris of Laodicea to St. John of Damascus occupies only pp. 220–247). 2 M., 1994. 176 p. Eastern Fathers of the 4th Century: From Readings at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Paris, 1931 (reprint: Paris, 1990). 240 units; Byzantine fathers of the V-VIII centuries: From readings at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. Paris, 1933 (reprint: Paris, 1990). 260 s. Georgy (Florovsky), archpriest. Fathers of the first centuries [St. Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna] // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement 145. 1985. pp. 5–31. Reprint: Same. Fathers of the first centuries. Kirovograd, 1993; Eastern fathers of the IV-VIII centuries. St. Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1999 (Appendix 1, pp. 5–31). Cyprian (Kern), archimandrite. Patrology. I. Paris; Moscow, 1996. 184 e.; It's him. Alexandrian theology // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Movement 164. 1992. pp. 93–107; Clement of Alexandria // Ibid. 165. 1992. pp. 108–120; It's him. The Golden Age of Patristic Writing. Paris, 1967 (reprint: M., 1995, etc.). 177 p. Meyendorff I., prot. Introduction to Patristic Theology / Trans. from English L. Volokhonskaya. N. – Y., 2 1982. 359 p. (and re-ed.). Perhaps the most striking example is the double statement that Bl. Jerome remained a faithful follower of Origen, while Rufinus allegedly publicly renounced the Alexandrian didascal (p. 230; the opposite was the case). Sidorov A.I. Patrolology course: The emergence of church writing. Study guide. M., 1996. 349 p. / Sidorov A.I. Beginnings of the Alexandrian school: Panten, Clement of Alexandria // Russian Orthodox University ap. John the Theologian. Scientific notes. Vol. 3. Patrology. M., 1998. pp. 56–138. Sidorov A.I. Origen’s life path // Patristics. New translations, articles. Nizhny Novgorod, 2001. pp. 290–332; It's him. Origen’s biblical critical work “Hexaples” // AiO. 1998. No. 2 (16). pp. 61–69 (republished: Patristics. New translations... pp. 333–341). Sidorov A.I. Ancient Christian asceticism and the origin of monasticism. M., 1998. 528 p. (small format; essay by A.I. Sidorov on pp. 3–396). Stolyarov A. A. Quote. Op. P. 61 (with note 28). However, sometimes without taking into account the latest advances and research; This primarily applies to ignoring CPGs. According to the description of A. A. Stolyarov, “some confessional costs of the author’s position.” Indicated below in the footnote on p. 369. This gap is gradually being filled, however, the multi-stage task set by the Greek Cabinet of the Moscow Theological Academy of a complete repertory of Russian translations of patristic texts (not only into Russian, but also into Church Slavonic, taking into account unpublished ancient manuscripts that have not been introduced into scientific circulation) is still far from completion. In addition to the publications already noted above in the preface “From the Publishing House,” we should highlight the book “Hesychasm: An Annotated Bibliography” (Moscow, 2004), just published by the Publishing Council, which provides information about the editions and translations of works by a number of authors of the 4th-20th centuries. Quasten J. The Beginnings of Patristic Literature. Vol. 1–3. Westm., Maryland, 21986. The 4th volume was written by Italian scientists and then translated into English: Vol. 4. Patrology/Ed. by A. Di Berardino, intr. by J. Quasten. Transl. into English by P. Solan. Φρ. Transl.: Initiation aux Peres de l'Eglise. Vol. 1–4. Paris, 1955–1986. There are also Spanish (21968) and Italian. lane with additional bib. (1980). The project continued with the publication of the 5th volume: Patrologia. Vol. 5. Dal Concilio di Calcedonia (451) a Giovanni Damasceno (t 750). I Padri orientali/Ed. a cura di A. Di Berardino. Genova: Casa Editrice Marietti, 2000. RUR 719. (cp. rector A.V. Muravyova: http://portal-credo.ru/site/index.php?act=tv_reviews&id=45). Altaner V., Stuiber A. Patrologie. Freiburg, Basel, Wien (Herder), 8 1978 (paperback 1993). 672 S. Φρ. lane 1961, Spanish 5 1962, Italian. 7 1977, English 1961. Χρήστου P.K. Ελληνική Πατρολογία. T. Α'. Εισαγωγή, oo., 1981 (Χριστιανική γραμματολογία 2). 399 σ.; T.V'. Περιοδος διωγμών. 1978. 1002 σ.; Τ. Γ". Περιοδος θεθλογικής άκμής. Δ' και e αιώνας. 1987. 599 σ.; Τ. Δ'. Περιοδος θεθλογικής άκμής. Δ' και e α'ιώνες. 1989. 573 σ.; Τ. Ε'. Πρωτοβυζαντική περιοδος. Στ'–θ' α'ιώνες. 1992. 728 σ. Παπαδοπούλου Σ . Πατρολογία. Τ. Α'. Ε'ισαγωγή. Β' και Γ' α'ιώνας. Αθήνα, 1977. 500 σ.; Τ. Β'. Ό τέταρτος α'ιώνας (Ανατολή και Δύση). 1990. 757 σ. (No continuation yet.) Employees of the Greek Cabinet of the MDA under the leadership of Rev. Dionysius (Shlenova) translated volume 1 (preparing for publication by the “Greco-Latin Cabinet” of Yu. A. Shichalin). Let's take the book as an example: DrobnerH. R. Lehrbuch der Patrologie. Freiburg, Basel, Wien: Herder, 1994. 452 S., which already takes into account electronic media. With subsequent additions. The possibility of publishing a new version (or rather, variants) of Bibliotheca hagiographica orientalis is currently being discussed (in particular, a volume of Bibliotheca hagiographica syriaca is being prepared). The CPG ends with individual authors of the 8th century. CPL goes as far as Bede the Venerable (ΐ 735), but see below on p. 12 and 26 of N.I. Sagarda’s reservations about the opinions of Catholic scholars regarding the Western Fathers of the Church. So far only the second volume has been released: La Theologie byzantine et sa tradition. Vol. 2. (XIIIe-XIXe s.) / Ed. C. G. Conticello, V. Conticello. Turnhout: Brepols, 2002 (Corpus Christianorum). 1029 rub. (rec. A. G. Dunaeva: BT 39. M., 2004. P. 372–378; http://www/danuvius.orthodoxy.ru / BT39_The.pdf). This book selectively presents selected late Byzantine authors. Bde 1–12. Addenda. Wien, 1976–1996. There is no doubt that the emergence of a new course that takes into account all the achievements of modern science is more than desirable. However, something else is obvious. Although the modern level dictates the need to create collective monographs, the Russian Orthodox Church does not yet have scientists who could complete this task. A definite solution would be to publish a Russian translation of existing foreign patrols - for example, I. Kvasten or S. Papadopoulos. However, to date, Russian translations of only the first volume of S. Papadopoulos (Greco-Latin Cabinet publishing house of Yu. A. Shichalin) and the second volume of I. Kvasten (Resurrection publishing house) have been more or less prepared for publication (without taking into account the latest literature). The preparation and publication of translations of other volumes will apparently take many more years, so the publication of N. I. Sagarda’s book is fully justified. The publication of N. I. Sagarda’s “Lectures” - the best pre-revolutionary patrol course - is also necessary for the restoration of the forcibly interrupted Russian patrol tradition. We hope that the editorial and publishing work carried out and the new reference apparatus will to a certain extent compensate for the shortcomings of the book, for which the inevitable progress of science, rather than the author, is responsible. The text of the introduction is composed of two options - a manuscript and a typescript, differing both compositionally (the order of chapters and the arrangement of material in them) and in content (each option contains individual information, paragraphs and entire chapters that are missing in the other; the titles of some chapters are different, etc.). Among the significant differences, it is necessary to mention those that created certain difficulties in the editorial combination of options (the general principles of combination are set out in the preface “From the Editor,” pp. Χ–XV). The manuscript: lacks a chapter on the history of science; information about editions of patristic texts is placed at the end of the introduction as the third (c) paragraph of the chapter “Critical study of works of ancient church literature”; Some of the material on the history of science is presented in the chapter “Name of Science”. In typescript: information about the editions of texts is presented in parts in the chapter “History of the study of ancient church writing” interspersed with data on the patrolological works of the New Age; The chapter “Name of Science” is much shorter than in the manuscript (due to the transfer of material). When combining, the entire typescript version was taken as the basis for the order of the chapters, but information about the editions of patristic texts is placed separately - as in the manuscript version. The chapter “History of the Study of Ancient Church Literature,” after excluding from it the material about the publication of texts, was supplemented according to the manuscript with some information from the chapter “Name of Science.” Moved parts of the text were always “tied” to their position in one of the versions (manuscript or typescript). However, sometimes individual paragraphs or sentences could not be moved so as to leave them in the main text - for example, for the reason that they would violate the plan of the author's presentation. In such cases, such parts of the text were placed in a footnote (to the place where they appear in one of the versions) with the note “additional text”. – Ed. Kozhevnikov V. A. Thoughts on the study of patristic works. M., 1912. S. 6–7. [Reprint: Works of the Hieromartyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage. M., 1999 (Block of Fathers and Teachers of the Church, 6). pp. 688–709, cf. With. 692. – Ed.] Right there. P. 16. [Cit. With. 701. – Ed.] Cf. Harnack. GachL 1. S. XXII. Filaret. Teaching 1. P. III. Regarding the numbering of the messages of St. Cyprian, see below, note. 1 on p. 502. – Ed. Regarding the numbering of the messages of St. Vasily, see below, note. 2 on p. 619. – Ed. TLG 5000/1. Tom. 1.1.1, p. 35, IP. 12,13–14 (ed. E. Schwartz). Rus. lane see: Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 193. – Ed., Publishing house. TLG 5000/1. Tom. 1.1.2, p. 39, lin. 2–3. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 245. – Ed., Ed. TLG 5000/3. Tom. 2.1.2, p. 81, IP. 24. Rus. trans.: Ibid. T. 2. P. 242. – Ed., Ed. TLG 5000/3. Tom. 2.1.2, p. 129, lin. 23. Rus. trans.: Ibid. T. 3. P. 48. – Ed., Ed. TLG 5000/3. Tom. 2.1.3, p. 113, IP. 26. Rus. trans.: Ibid. P. 163. – Ed., Ed. Quoted Russian. lane (ibid., p. 313) with small omissions (partially restored by us) and stylistic changes at the end of the quote. – Ed. Wed: Ibid. T. 4. pp. 183 and 184. – Ed. Rule 19 of the Trullo Council. – Ed. Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. T. 4. P. 511, 590. – Ed. So in the quotation from Vincent; in Hilary: sed consequens error hominis (SC 254. P. 150). – Ed. Filaret. Teaching 1. S. Χ–XI. A typo in the typescript (wrongly typed “but”) and corrected by the author himself; the manuscript also contains the correct reading of “not” (note due to precedents for quoting this passage from an uncorrected text). – Ed. Wed. below, p. 718, note. + . – Ed. A translation is quoted, reprinted in reprint with new pagination: Dogmatic messages of Orthodox hierarchs of the 17th-19th centuries about the Orthodox faith. Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1995, pp. 164–165. – Ed. Epist. 70, ad Magnum, cap. 4, PL 22. Col. 667–668. – Ed. More precisely: “teachers”. – Ed. TLG 2040/51. Vol. 31, col. 845, lin. 52 – col. 848, lin. 2 (=PG). In the text N. I. Sagarda inaccurate link: “Ascetic word about faith”, without specifying the chapter. – Ed. More precisely: Fortunatian. – Ed. Photii...Epistulae et Amphilochia. Vol. 3/Ed. B. Laourdas, L. G. Westerink. Leipzig, 1985. P. 148, Ip. 284–287 (epist. 291). – Ed. More precisely: “and for the integrity of the rest of piety.” – Ed. Ibidem, IP. 305–311. – Ed. Bolotov V. V. On the issue of Filioque // Kh. 1913. No. 5. P. 575–578; separately ed. pp. 31–34. CPL616. CPG 3635. – Ed. [Additional text of the manuscript:] However, it was not just a polemical-apologetic need that prompted Roman Catholic theologians to pay attention to patristic antiquity - a positive dogmatic interest was added to this. The scholastics created something from patristic material that forced some Roman Catholic theologians, confused by the Reformation, to strive to refresh dogmatics; means for this were found mainly in the works of St. fathers. Thus, next to theologia scholastica, which they did not want to destroy, theologia positiva arose - a special type of dogmatics, which later received the name theologia patristica and which set as its task the extraction of faith directly from the dictis [statements] of the ancient church fathers and conciliar definitions. Typo or error; the first volume was published in 1729 - Ed. [Additional text of the manuscript:] This is how the discipline arose on Protestant soil, which was first called theologia historica, and then, especially from the end of the 17th century, theologia patristica. What was meant by this name is clearly stated by Joh. Fr. Buddaeus, who defines this science as follows: “Per theologiam patristicam intelligimus complexum dogmatum sacrorum ex mente sententiisque patrum, inde ut cognoscatur, quo pacto Veritas religionis chris-tianae conservata semper sit in ecclesia ac propagata” [through patristic theology we comprehend the totality of sacred dogmas from the way of thinking and the opinions of the fathers, in order to learn from here how the truth of the Christian religion has always been preserved and spread in the Church] (Isagoge historico-theologica ad theologiam universalem. Leipzig, 1730. P. 478). By this definition, theologia patristica is in some respects similar to theologia bibüca in the sense in which this science was then spoken of, and from this parallel the original concept of “patristics” can be elucidated. Just as theologia biblica meant a collection of biblical evidence, dicta probantia, for individual dogmatic positions, so “patristics” meant a combination of patristic evidence for individual dogmas, the sequence of which in dogmatic systems was of decisive importance both for biblical theology and for “patristics.” This concept of “patristics,” which was also adopted by Roman Catholics, remained dominant until the half of the 18th century, and Roman Catholic theologians added sayings related to morality and church discipline to the dogmatic sayings of the Church Fathers, which constituted “patristics.” In the manuscript: “in the sense that Buddha defined it.” – Ed. Nitzsch Fr. Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik // Jahrbucher für deutsche Theologie. Bd. 10. 1865. S. 45. Bardenhewer. GakL 1. S. 21. Bardenhewer. GakL 1. S. 33–34. CPL 546 (Gregory of Elvira, 4th century). – Ed. Could not establish by CPG. – Ed. Ehrhard. Altchristliche Literatur. S. 31; cf. Bardenhewer. GakL 1. S. VII, VIII. ZWTh 39. 1896. S. 169–174. Overbeck. Anfange. S. 417. Nitzsch Fr. Geschichtliches und Methodologisches zur Patristik. S. 39. [Additional text of the manuscript:] In Russia, our attitude towards patristic science at that time was not at all favorable for its development: three theological academies in their projects for the reform of theological academies * presented to the Holy Synod in the 60s. XIX century, spoke out against the independent, separate existence of patristics. The draft conference of the St. Petersburg Academy says: “From the range of theological sciences hitherto taught in academies, the conference finds it possible, without prejudice to the completeness of theological education, to completely exclude patrolology... Patrology, with the proper development of readings on church history and with the duty of dogmatic theology to set forth a detailed history of dogmas in the fight against heresies and rationalism, turns out to be completely unnecessary” (Kh.Ch. 1867. Vol. 2. P. 274–275). Almost the same thing is said in the draft of the Moscow Academy: “In the existing composition of educational subjects... it seems unnecessary to teach patrolology... as such a science, the entire content of which is partly included in church history, partly in the historical department of dogmatic theology and church eloquence” (ibid. p. 308). The project of the Kazan Academy, instead of homiletics and patristics, proposed the formation of a special science called the “history of church literature.” The task of this science in the project is defined as follows: the history of church literature, replacing homiletics and embracing patristics, in addition to famous church preachers, writers on church history, compilers of church hymns, should pay attention primarily to the fathers of the Church, not limiting itself to the presentation of their biographies, bibliographic studies of their writings and extracts from the works of the fathers, but presenting, if possible, the whole worldview of each father and determining the meaning of his writings for the history of the Church (ibid., p. 633). The practical consequence of these opinions was that patristics was excluded from the range of subjects taught in theological seminaries; in academies it is left as a separate science. Overbeck. Anfange. S. 419. For more details see: Bardenhewer. GakL 1. S. 27–28. Overbeck. Anfänge. S. 423; cf. Kruger. GachL. S.IX. [Additional text of the manuscript:] Its special pathological point of view acquires significance only when judging the merits of the results achieved by individual ancient church writers, and the necessity of this theological judgment is certainly required by the very nature of ancient church literature, the essence of which lies not in its forms, but in its content. But this judgment can be legitimate and fair only if its starting point is not taken as the later church dogma, but the church norms that existed and were recognized during the period of the appearance of the monuments in question, and then the theological assessment is determined according to the extent to which in the later course of church writing the direction outlined by the basic norms for the development of theological thought is retained or abandoned. Consequently, the standard for the theological assessment of later monuments must be taken from the books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament and the monuments of church literature of the previous time as sources for determining the church consciousness of the previous period. However, this attempt is from Gust. Krüger'a (GachL) was unsuccessful; see: Haussleiter J. // Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen. 1895. Bd. 5. S. 341 ff. For example: Fessler J. Institutiones patrologiae. T. 1. P. 1. For example: AlzogJ. Handbuch der Patrologie oder der älteren christlichen Literärgeschichte. Aufl. Freiburg im Breisgau, 1876. Ehrhard. Altchristliche Literatur. S. 14. [Variant text from the manuscript (from the beginning of the sentence):] As stated, it is forced to defend the right to independent existence and therefore must listen with special attention to all the instructions of its opponents, even if sometimes unfair, and eliminate, if possible, everything that serves as a serious and valid basis for such a humiliating assessment of it as a science. In this regard, it must make a decisive change in the method of research and, first of all, must counter the accusation of the dominance of mechanics in the arrangement of material, determined solely by a chronological and biographical point of view, with a clear consciousness of that... [Option for further text on the manuscript (instead of the following two sentences):] It is not surprising, therefore, that in Russian there is to this day only one course, covering all the most important phenomena of patrolological science, but even that is not called “patristics” - I mean “Historical doctrine of the fathers and teachers of the Church” by Rev. Philareta, Archbishop. Chernigovsky (d. 1866), in three volumes, published for the first time in 1859; although in the introduction to it the name “patristics” is also used. Since 1895, the publication of lectures by the late prof. in the Orthodox Interlocutor began. Kazan Theological Academy D.V. Gusev, which appeared in a separate publication entitled “Readings on Patrolology”. Here the science is called “patrology” or “the history of ancient church literature” (Gusev. Readings. P. 9). In ordinary usage, sometimes even in official documents, the names “patristics” and “patrology” are used indifferently. But the data presented above convinces us that the official name of our science “patristics” actually means something that has never been taught in academies; Therefore, even if the name “patristics” can be retained, it is only as a conventional designation that does not correspond to the content of science. It goes without saying that what has been said absolutely does not mean... The exact title of the work: Περί όγδοάδος (“On the Eight”). – Ed. Monachi o. S. Benedicti ex congregatione S. Mauri - in Paris. Cp.: Brilliantov A.I. Question about Benedictine editions of the works of St. fathers // Kh. 1908. No. 10. pp. 1365–1378. – Ed. There is a gap in the text. – Ed. K1913–1914 (to which the text of the introduction in typescript dates) about 60 volumes were published. – Ed. Harnack. GachL2, 1. S. 233–408.