To the unforgettable memory of professors A.S. Pavlova and N.F. Krasnoseltseva

Russian theological science in the year just passed (1898) suffered two heavy and, one might say, long unrequited losses in the person of two of its remarkable and prolific representatives: Honored Ordinary Professor of Moscow University A. S. Pavlov and Ordinary Professor of Novorossiysk University N. F. Krasnoseltsev. Both of these scientists, who completed their earthly career in teaching service in secular higher educational institutions, belonged to the clergy by their origin, received their highest education and upbringing at the Kazan Theological Academy, where both were at the beginning of their careers and professors of the same subject - liturgy, with the difference, however, that the first of them served in the pre-reform period, combining with liturgy or ecclesiastics and canon law, and the second, after the introduction of the statute of 1869, taught with liturgy a new science - church archeology. 1. Alexey S. Pavlov, son of the priest of the Tomsk diocese (born in 1832). After completing his education at the Tobolsk Seminary, as its gifted pupil, he entered the Kazan Theological Academy in 1854 to complete his education. With a sharp mind, a lively and enthusiastic temperament, the talented A. S. Pavlov, although he advanced from among his colleagues at Academy 1 and took first place in the list of the 7th year, was not retained at the Academy as a bachelor. The reasons for this circumstance lie, firstly, in the reluctance of the new rector of the Academy of Architects. Agafangel 2, in general, and personally to A.S. Pavlov, in particular, for his student hobbies and lively temperament 3 and, secondly, in the rector’s desire to see young people with inclinations towards monasticism in the academic corporation, for which Alexey Stepanovich did not show any hope. Appointed, after completing a course at the Academy, as a teacher of general and Russian church history at the Kazan Theological Seminary, Alexei Stepanovich, however, did not remain at the Seminary for even one year and was transferred to the Academy on March 11, 1859 as a bachelor in the department of canon law and liturgics, since there were no desirable candidates. But “liturgics, according to the remark of P. V. Znamensky, who was one of the first listeners of A. S. Pavlov, despite the many works he performed on this subject 4, was his less favorite science, and was developed by him less independently than the canon” 5. The main impetus for independent research in the field of canon law in general and Russian-Byzantine law in particular was the rich collection of canonical collections in manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, transferred to the jurisdiction of the Kazan Academy 6. Having enthusiastically devoted himself to their comprehensive study at the beginning of his service at the Academy, Alexey Stepanovich laid here a solid foundation for that scientific and rich supply of information on his favorite specialty, which he skillfully used throughout his short life, and which he did not manage to exhaust until the very end, despite his unusually prolific activity. Proof of this can be a number of articles published in the Byzantine Temporary for 1895 and 1896, and a lot of materials for the proposed, but not realized, 2nd part of “Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law.” As for the direct and obvious results of his passion and serious engagement with canonical monuments in the early stages of his service, they were reflected in a number of publications of new and unknown monuments, such as, for example. “Ecclesiastical and judicial determinations of Cyprian, Metropolitan of Novgorod” (Right. Sob. 1861, vol. 3), “Message of the Elder of the Eleazar Monastery to the Grand Duke Vasily Ioannovich” (ibid., 1863, vol. 1), “Message of Gennady of Novgorod to the Moscow Council of 1490” (ibid.), “Three, hitherto unpublished, messages of Prince Andrei Kurbsky” (ibid., vol. 3), “Polemical works of the monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev” (ibid.) and “Apocryphal word about judges and rulers” (ibid., 1864, vol. 1) With the transfer in 1864 to serve at Kazan University 7 with the title of extraordinary professor in the department of canon law, which was opened in our universities by the charter of 1863, Alexey Stepanovich continued his previous scientific and publishing activities in the field of Russian-Byzantine law. At this time, in addition to the assembly speech “On the participation of the laity in the affairs of the church from the point of view of Orthodox canon law” (Uchen. Zapisk. Kazan. Univ. 1866) and the article “Personal relations of spouses according to Greco-Roman law” (ibid., 1865), he published the following articles in the same vein: “On the helmsmen of the monk-prince Vassian Patrikeev” (ibid. same, 1864) and “Two messages to the Grand Duke Mikhail Yaroslavich of Tver from the Patriarch of Constantinople Nifont and the Russian monk Akindinus about the appointment to the bribe” (Right. Sob. 1867, vol. 2). The brilliant completion of this, one might say, the first and preparatory period of the scientific and literary activity of A. S. Pavlov in the field of church canon and the study of monuments of Russian-Byzantine law must be recognized as his relatively small in volume, but outstanding in scientific merits: “The Initial Slavic-Russian Nomocanon” (Uchen. Zap. Kazan. Univ. 1869). The learned conclusions of the late professor, based on comprehensive acquaintance with primary sources and manuals on this issue, shed bright light on the fate of our Helmsman and have now become not only the property of science, but are included entirely in educational courses on church law. Scientific authority has since been firmly established behind the name of Prof. A. S. Pavlova, and his scientific career took rapid steps forward. Awarded a prize from the Academy of Sciences for this essay, Alexey Stepanovich, soon after its publication, in 1870, was invited to that department, but with the title of ordinary professor at Novorossiysk University. The scientific and literary activity during the six-year stay of Alexei Stepanovich at the Novorossiysk University was clearly expressed mainly in two of his major works: 1) “Historical essays on the secularization of church lands in Russia” (Odes. part 1, 1871) and 2) “Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik, published together with a Greek text, still unknown and notes” (Odes. part 1, 1872). Both of these scientific studies were awarded by the Academy of Sciences, and the latter, in particular, gave the Faculty of Law of Novorossiysk University the moral right to award, in 1873, to its author, honoris causa, the highest academic degree of Doctor of Church Law. The materials for the first of these works were collected during his service in Kazan, in the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, and he came across the study of the Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik thanks to the accidental acquisition of an inferior manuscript from the 16th century on the book market. The Greek Nomocanon, hitherto completely unknown to him. This study of his about Nomocanon was a huge success among scientific specialists, and in the spiritual and administrative spheres, and even among readers and admirers of ancient written monuments, and therefore it was not found on sale at all in recent times. The desire to come to the aid of those who were eager to have this research of his, on the one hand, and on the other, the awareness of some incompleteness and imperfection in the notes and texts, which he later became aware of from other best copies, were always inherent in the responsive professor who loved his subject to the point of selflessness, and he constantly prepared materials for the second edition of this book, but only managed to complete it just before his death. The new (second) edition of the “Nomocanon at the Great Trebnik” appeared only at the end of last year, 1897, but in the form of “reworked from beginning to end” and was greeted with enthusiastic praise from critics. Here, during his stay at the department at Odessa University, Alexey Stepanovich, perhaps even under the influence of his studies on the Nomocanon, clearly realized the need for a closer acquaintance with the handwritten sources of Byzantine law, and therefore repeatedly made trips from Odessa to Moscow to study in the local rich libraries of Greek and Slavic manuscripts. The fruit of this acquaintance are his wonderful articles: “Excerpts of the Greek text of the canonical answers of Metropolitan John 2” (Zap. Imperial Academic Sciences. 1873, vol. 22, appendix No. 5), “The most remarkable Greek manuscripts of canonical content in the Moscow Synodal Library” (Zap. Novor. Univer., vol. 13), “Notes on the publication program in the Russian translation of church rules with interpretation" (ibid., v. 16) and "Notes on the Georgian Nomocanon" (Zap. Acad. Nauk. 1874, v. 25). A closer acquaintance with the book riches of the capital of the capital was undoubtedly of decisive importance in the matter of changing the place of his permanent residence and official position, since Moscow University did not provide any vital benefits in 1875, when Alexei Stepanovich moved from Odessa to Moscow. Alexei Stepanovich came to the department of the oldest of Russian universities: Moscow, fully armed with his scientific knowledge and with a firmly established reputation as a “famous canonist” not only in Russia, but even abroad among canonists enjoying enormous fame and popularity (such as, for example, the recently deceased scientist Tzaharie von Lingenthal and others). But, despite his firmly established academic reputation and already venerable age, the late Alexei Stepanovich, during all twenty-three years of his stay at the Moscow department, one might say, did not let go of his talented pen from his hands for a minute until his death. Having surrounded himself with a library of his science, selected with the subtle taste of an amateur and specialist, 8 compiled with his own funds, which he used for this he never spared the subject, and being close to the rich manuscript libraries of Moscow, Alexey Stepanovich worked so hard and a lot in developing the sources of Russian-Byzantine law that his Moscow period of scientific and literary activity can rightly be called the most fruitful. His major works for this period of activity are considered to be: “Critical experiments on the history of the ancient Greek-Russian polemics against the Latins” (St. Petersburg, 1878), “Monuments of Old Russian canon law up to the 15th century.” (Russian Historical Library. vol. 6, 1880. St. Petersburg), “Legal books containing, in Old Russian translation, Byzantine agricultural, criminal, marriage and judicial laws” (St. Petersburg. 1885), “Chapter 50 of the Helmsman’s Book, as a historical source of Russian marriage law” (M. 1887) and “Imaginary traces of Catholic influence in the most ancient monuments of Yugoslav and Russian church law" (M. 1892). In addition to these extensive and thorough studies, some of which received prizes and gold medals from the Academy of Sciences, the deceased published several small, but scientifically very valuable, articles also related to the study of the sources of Russian-Byzantine law, such as, for example, “On the writings attributed to the Russian Metropolitan George” (Prav. Obozr. 1881, vol. 1), “Unpublished monument Church law of the 12th century." (Journal of Min. Nar. Prosv. 1890, No. 10), “Who owns the canonical answers, the author of which was considered John, bishop. Kitra" (Byzantine Times. 1894, v. 3-4), "Synodal resolution of Patriarch Sisinius on the non-wedding of second-weds" (ibid. 1895, v. 1-2), "Canonical answers of Nikita, Metropolitan of Irakli (11-12 centuries), in their original form and in the later revision of Matvey Vlastar" (ibid.), “Canonical answers of Nikita, Metropolitan of Thessaloniki” (ibid. vol. 1, v. 3), “Synodal act of Patriarch Michael Anchial of Constantinople 1171 On the bringing of bishops to the oath of allegiance to Emperor Michael Komnenos and his newborn son Alexei, with the form of the oath itself" (ibid.), "Synodal resolution of the Patriarch of Constantinople Chariton (1177 - 1178) on the third marriage, edited by Theodore Balsamon" (ibid. v. 4), "Forged deed of gift of Constantine the Great to Pope Sylvester in full Greek and Slavic translation" (ibid. 1896, vol. 3, v. 1), etc. Alive by temperament and very responsive at heart, Alexey Stepanovich could not remain indifferent to the questions that current life or the topic of the day posed, and the solutions that his contemporary society was looking for from competent people who were fully armed with knowledge. That is why the talented and well-versed Alexei Stepanovich, or himself, on his own initiative, came out with an answer to these issues of the day, for example, in the articles: “What should be the canonical court about bigamous clergymen” (Manual for rural pastors, 1862, vol. 3), “On the participation of the laity in church affairs from the point of view of Orthodox canon law” (Teaching Zap. Kaz. Univ. 1866), “Can illegitimate children be promoted to clergy degrees” (Church history 1889, No. 9), “Additional historical information on the existence of the Inquisition in the East” (Moscow history 1891, No. 341), “Quuous tandem? Reply to V.S. Solovyov” (ibid. 1892, No. 8), or was called to it by representatives of the highest government authorities. For example, his article: “Is there a solid canonical basis for the rule contained in Article 253 of the Charter of Spiritual Consistories on the condemnation to permanent celibacy of a person whose marriage is dissolved due to his violation of marital fidelity?” published in a book published by order of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod: “Opinions and reviews on the right of persons whose marriage was dissolved due to adultery to enter into another marriage” (St. Petersburg, 1893) The late Alexey Stepanovich was even more responsive and sensitive to questions of a literary nature in his favorite specialty. Here, one might say, there is not a single more or less outstanding question left that our talented canonist would not respond to with his strength and sometimes, due to the nature of his choleric temperament, with a sharply accusatory and hot word. Articles: “Comments on the program of publication in the Russian translation of church rules with interpretation” (Zap. Novor. univers. vol. 16), “New translation of interpretations on church rules” (Orthodox Review. 1876, vol. 1), “The theory of Eastern papism in the newest Russian literature of canon law” ((Right. Review. 1879, vol. 3), “On the book of Zaozersky, the church court" (Critical Review 1879, book 4), "The question of the heresy of the Judaizers at the 4th archaeological congress - a response to Ilovaisky" (Sovr. Izv. 1884, No. 266), "Concerning some misunderstandings in the science of Orthodox church law" (Reading in the general lyub. spiritual enlightenment. 1891, vol. 1), “Imaginary traces of Catholic influence in the most ancient monuments of Yugoslav and Russian church law” (ibid. 1891, vol. 2, 1892 vol. 1), “Continuing confusion on the issue of succession and spiritual kinship as obstacles to marriage” (ibid. 1893, vol. 1), “Concerning the polemic against the Senate interpretation of prescription as applied to church lands” (Russian Review 1894, no. 5) - partly even with their titles they speak quite clearly for themselves. At one time, they served as a reason for a lively exchange of thoughts between the late canonist and his colleagues in the specialty and did not go unnoticed by the Russian intelligent public. Justice requires that it be noted that Alexey Stepanovich always and everywhere remained true to himself, and revealed his inherent qualities as an exemplary scientist to the same extent both in large capital studies and in small bibliographic articles. Possessing enormous erudition, thanks to an excellent knowledge of classical and modern languages, with a supply of always new and in most cases unknown in science data, extracted from manuscripts not only of our Russian libraries, but also of the most important foreign ones, 9 he began to work or study a particular question not before he could bear it well in his soul and felt able to give an appropriate answer. Hence, when reading his dissertation and articles, you are involuntarily amazed and amazed not so much by the depth of thoughts, its strict and clear consistency and erudition on the main issue, but by the detailed notes with which all his scientific works were usually dotted. Prof. Pavlov not only comprehensively investigated a well-known issue, but, one might say, sometimes did not leave room for another to work on the same issue, and therefore even his literary enemies listened to his authoritative opinion with respect. That is why, by the way, we share what was expressed by the venerable associate professor of the M. Theological Academy I.M. Gromoglasov in his heartfelt and meaningful commemoration of prof. Pavlov, we regret that the late authoritative professor did not have time to publish 2 volumes of “Monuments of Old Russian Canon Law” of the 16th–17th centuries, but at the same time we do not share his confidence “that there will be a person capable and ready to take upon himself the dismantling and bringing to light of the remaining materials” (Theological Vestn. 1898, No. 9, p. 335 note, 1). As far as we know, relatively little material has been collected for this volume, and they consist only of unpublished metropolitan and episcopal letters - this is, firstly, and secondly, the main content of this volume, according to the assumption of the learned publisher, should have been compiled by the so-called “Stoglav”, the lists of which Alexei Stepanovich began to study relatively recently and had a limited number of them. Meanwhile, for the 2nd volume of “Old Russian Canon Law”, it is important to select the main text of “Stoglava”, since Alexey Stepanovich was not satisfied with the list of “Stoglava” in the publication of the Kazan Theological Academy, to find the best and oldest lists for options, in a word, to carry out thorough scientific-critical work on the text of this important monument of the 16th century, which, in our opinion, is far beyond the capabilities of a person only “capable” and ready to take on the dismantling of the remaining materials.” The late A.S. himself is needed here. Pavlov, his many years of experience and rare conscientiousness in publishing monuments, sometimes reaching the point of scrupulousness. Only A. S. Pavlov could say his authoritative word about the canonical meaning of “Stoglav”, and, of course, such a word would be listened to by everyone with respect, but, alas, it is now in vain to wait for this, and the feeling of bitterness over the loss of such an outstanding and talented scientist is now even sharper, deeper and more painful for us... The loss of A. S. Pavlov, as a learned canonist, is a loss difficult to compensate. Revealing in himself an example of a true priest of science, to the service of which he devoted himself entirely, to the point of self-forgetfulness, to the point of complete, one might say, indifference to his other no less sacred duties, such as, for example, the duties of the head of a family, a member of society, etc., extremely demanding of himself, thorough, accurate and even elegant from the outside (he did not tolerate proofreading typos, cared a lot about paper for his publications, format, font and similar little things), Alexey Stepanovich was strict and demanding of the works of Russian and foreign scientists. His ardent, truthful and sharply accusatory critical articles earned the late A.S. the name of a stern judge and a man of bilious, difficult character, but whoever knew the deceased closely and had the opportunity to see and talk with him either outside his academic office, or even here, but in the moments when he, although occasionally, extinguished, so to speak, the fire on his altar, undoubtedly made a different opinion about him. In the company of people he liked, he was a lively, witty interlocutor, interspersing his masterful, fascinating speech with Latin sayings, poems, and anecdotes of humorous content, capable of attracting the attention of the society throughout the whole evening, no matter who it consisted of: ladies, girls and men were equally carried away by the conversation of this lively, witty and handsome old man. In a conversation with a scientist-specialist, Alexey Stepanovich was resourceful and inexhaustible and in a short time managed to reveal his encyclopedic knowledge, which many people positively marveled at. Alexei Stepanovich was charmingly amiable, helpfully polite and delicate to the highest degree in front of young people starting the thorny path of serving science. He greeted them with open arms, as if he were his good old friends, talked with them in the most intimate way, challenging them to frankness, and brought every young man, timidly and even not without fear, stepping into the office of a famous scientist for the first time, into such a calm and complacent state that it seemed to him that he was talking with a kind, pleasant comrade, a person he had known for a long time. For such young men, Alexey Stepanovich was a caring father, a tender friend and the most experienced leader: recommendations to famous people in archives and libraries, textbooks and manuals from his own library, often even extracts and copies from manuscripts that were in his hands 10 were given by Alexey Stepanovich willingly. He then vigilantly followed such young people in life, if he could, guided them in their first experiments in independent academic work, shared with them all the joys and failures that befell them... An excellent and quite correct description of this side of the personality of the late professor was made by the already mentioned associate professor of the Moscow Theological Academy I.M. Gromoglasov, who was his student for some time at Moscow University. We, for our part, willingly and fully subscribe to this truthful description, since we experienced the charm of this bright personality during our student years and had the good fortune to maintain a personal and even family acquaintance until recently. As a young man of twenty-five years old, a 3rd year student at the Kazan Theological Academy, I arrived in the summer of 1881 for the first time to study in the libraries of our capital. Not having a single soul I knew in Moscow, not knowing well the conditions of life in the capital, I came to Moscow with a hundred rubles of money and the desire to work in the capital's libraries for four summer months. Letters of recommendation given to me in Kazan by former colleagues and students of the late professor gave me access to the professor’s family. Pavlova, who at that time lived in a dacha along the Kursk-Moscow road in the village of Voskresensky. Alexey Stepanovich received me cordially, as a “countryman” and “fellow mate” - epithets with which he awarded me until his death. Having, in turn, provided me with recommendations to various Moscow libraries, and having learned of the meagerness of my finances, he offered to move into his empty apartment (Komlev’s house on Novinsky Boulevard) and be the complete owner of it. I accepted this offer with deep gratitude, and all the more joyfully because he placed the keys to his rich library at my complete disposal. During the day I worked on the Greek manuscripts of the Synodal Library and tormented myself over the intricacies of Greek tachygraphs, with whose art at that time I was very little familiar, and in the evenings I sought solutions to my perplexities and difficulties in books on Greek paleography by Montfaucon, Hardhausen, Arch Savva. and others, which constituted the property of the scientific office of A. Stepanovich. Filled with deep gratitude to the memory of the late professor, I cannot help but declare that the most reliable and experienced leader in my lessons on Greek paleography was my unforgettable kind host, A. S. Pavlov, who during the summer quite often left the village and came to his city apartment. These visits were a real holiday for me, since at that time I was looking for a solution to all my perplexities, and the responsive Alexey Stepanovich willingly shared with me his extensive information on issues that interested me, and initiated me into the secrets of his scientific research, which occupied him at that time (About 50 chapters of the book “The Helmsman”), and often told me his living memories of the Siberian school, of the old Kazan Academy and others. Entire evenings passed in these conversations, and often they dragged on until dawn, when the candles had already been extinguished, and we went to bed.... These deeply instructive and highly interesting conversations with the late A. S. Pavlov will remain unforgettable for me forever: I learned a lot of useful things from them for life and I cherish this, like a dear gift, in my grateful heart... From this first meeting, I established with A. S. Pavlov has the kindest friendly relations, which were expressed in that friendly and flattering review of my little brochure: “Euchologion of the 4th century. Sarapion, Bishop of Tmuit", which was made by A.S. Pavlov in “Byzantine Time Book” (1894 vol. 1, v. 1), and in that communication that did not break between us until his death. Eternal memory to you, great ascetic of Russian science! May your high example of valiant service to her be a guiding star for us, your young admirers and students! A. S. Pavlov was a strictly armchair scientist, whose privacy should not be disturbed by anything in the house, and therefore his family inner life was little accessible to observation by strangers, very few of whom managed to go further than the office of the learned owner. It is not surprising, therefore, that over the fresh grave of the deceased professor-worker, there were heard from his friends, although good acquaintances, but little privy to the inner intimate life of the deceased, bitter complaints about his “evil suffering” during his life and about the complete insecurity or “inadequacy of material means for the comfortable existence of his rather large family.” These plaintive lamentations, poured out on the pages of the Moskovskie Vedomosti 11, penetrated and were reflected in the spiritual periodicals (Tserkovn. Vestn. 1898, No. 39). But, in our opinion, they, first of all, do not honor the name of the late professor, and besides, they are completely in vain, since, as far as we know, they do not correspond to the actual state of affairs. Anyone who knew at least a little about the family life of the late professor, extremely neat in economic terms, can never come to terms with the idea that the late professor, who had long received a salary and a pension, and recently a very substantial fee for his lectures for lower-year students at the populous Moscow University, with “side earnings” - at the Tsarevich Lyceum, where he was a teacher, from publishing articles in various publications, during annual business trips to preside over examination committees - so that such a hard-working and thrifty professor “during his entire long toiling life saved almost nothing,” and “due to the poverty of the content he received, suffered all sorts of hardships, from which he died prematurely.” These vain complaints, in view of the now indicated “scarcity of the content received,” which many of the Russian professors cannot even dream of, for people little familiar with the habits of the deceased and his daily home life, will undoubtedly give grounds for many conclusions that are insulting to the memory of the deceased professor, who did not know any other disastrous passions in life, except for one passion - for science, which was the reason for his relatively premature death. Meanwhile, a picture of the office life of the late A. S. Pavlov, drawn by the masterful pen of Iv. Iv. Shchakhovsky, is true to reality, completely natural and can be reproduced with a talented brush even on a canvas with the signature: “martyr of science.” But the reason for these “sufferings” is not the scarcity of means of subsistence, but something else, which Mr. Shakhovskoy did not bother to explain. Alexey Stepanovich Pavlov, having spent his entire life in his study reading books, devoted very little time to his family, and therefore, when the children grew up and demanded attention from their father, who seemed to have not noticed their existence until then, since raising them with all its burden usually fell on the good mother, he recently began to think more and more often about their fate in the distant future. Under the influence of these thoughts, he and his wife had a desire to accumulate, through “savings,” a penny from work “for a rainy day” to ensure the future of the family. Both by upbringing and habits, both very modest and undemanding from life, the Pavlov couple began to implement the “savings” system, sometimes too harshly, limiting themselves to the most pressing needs. The “housing problem,” and not an easy solution for every Moscow citizen, especially plagued the late Alexei Stepanovich, for whom it was the “spite” of almost every summer vacation. Allocating sums for an apartment that were modest in Moscow style and demanding from it at the same time amenities, Alexei Stepanovich always rented an apartment within the second boulevards, so that communication with the city center would not be difficult for him or him family. There were no apartments for a modest amount that were quite comfortable. In addition, Alexey Stepanovich, as a person who is impractical in everyday life, had a very original understanding of apartment amenities. During the hot summer months, he wandered around Moscow for whole days, looking for suitable apartments, which he considered to be premises of 6-7 rooms no higher than the ground floor, with a spacious and high office, in which his elegant bookcases with books could be installed freely and without breaking, as well as with some other devices that were very necessary for a weak, senile and sickly body. Therefore, in the hands of Alexei Stepanovich, the centimeter was a constant companion, apartment amenities were found with its help: first of all, the walls and partitions of the office were usually measured, and since they were suitable for his closets, he worried very little about the other amenities in the apartment. There was no end to his delight at the new apartment if he found a house with windows and a balcony from the hall to the garden, since his idyllic dreams were given the widest scope here, due to his love for rural simplicity, and he was absolutely no longer able to resist such a temptation. In these cases, cabinets with books were also sacrificed, which in such cases (we mean his apartment on Smolensky Boulevard in Smolyaninov’s house) were placed along dark corridors... But rejoicings and delights were quickly replaced by complaints and laments of the most bleak nature, when the forty-degree Moscow frosts set in, when dampness appeared in the rooms, and the charming balcony to the garden was a treacherous conductor of the terrible cold on the whole house... In such cases, a visitor to Alexei Stepanovich’s scientific office observed the picture described by Mr. Shakhovsky: “the stove did not warm his office well; he protected his feet with felt boots, and his body with sweatshirts and a warm coat. It was sad to see how in winter an emeritus professor of the oldest university, the beauty of Russian science, could hardly write and warm his hands from the cold with his breath.” Yes, it was really hard to see such a picture, but the fault in this, of course, is neither “in the oldest University”, nor “in the poverty of the content received”, but in excessive savings, in everyday impracticality and in excessive care about cabinets and books, with complete forgetfulness about his advanced years and about his health, which has never been brilliant. No, - we speak with confidence, and on this we have undoubted data - Alexey Stepanovich Pavlov, strict in the performance of his other duties, remained true to himself in the performance of his parental duty, of course, as he himself understood it, and in the performance of his parental duty, of course, as he himself understood it, and left a family, moreover, with the exception of two sons, already more or less settled, not without means, and the children in this regard cannot blame their father for indifference to their material provision. Perhaps even his grateful grandchildren will preserve the eternal memory of the zealous grandfather. 2. The late Nikolai Fomich - the son of a poor priest with a large family in the Ufa province. He spent the years of his early childhood and school education under the yoke of severe poverty and every kind of deprivation of the most basic needs. It is not surprising, therefore, at all that these difficult life circumstances that surrounded his childhood cradle and accompanied him in the years of his receptive youth were deeply and forever imprinted on his naturally gentle and kind soul and were indelibly reflected in the make-up of his character. Until his death, Nikolai Fomich, despite his high official position, was modest to the point of shyness, self-absorbed to the point of secrecy, not trusting the secrets of his heart even to people who were completely devoted to him and who loved him deeply; - in his ordinary everyday life he is simple and unpretentious, reducing his needs to a minimum and often denying himself the necessary, especially if it was required by his highly developed sense of moral duty. Endowed by nature with outstanding mental abilities, which were happily combined with remarkable hard work, Nikolai Fomich, despite the difficult material conditions of his school life, took one of the first places among his peers at the Seminary and was sent, after completing the course there in 1866, to complete his education at the Kazan Theological Academy. The gifted young man Krasnoseltsev was not lost here, among his Academy comrades who made up the 13th year (1866–1870), who later gave the Academy many excellent professors and talented workers 12 to science, but did not get lost, but took a high place in their list. For his candidate's thesis: “Western missions against the pagan Tatars and especially against the Muslim Tatars” (Kaz. 1872), Nikolai Fomich was awarded the degree of Master of Theology by the Academy Council and appointed teacher of the Holy Scriptures at the best Samara Seminary at that time. 1870, the year of completion of the course at the Academy of Nikolai Fomich, was at the same time the year of transformations in the Kazan Academy and the introduction of a new charter in it in 1869. Following the example of university faculties, our Academies, according to this charter, were divided into three departments: theological, historical and church-practical; Many new subjects were introduced into teaching courses, which until that time had either not been taught at all at the Academy, or had no independent significance. Naturally, for this reason, the Academy immediately required several professors for new departments, and Nikolai Fomich, summoned from the Samara Seminary in March 1871, i.e., just eight months later, at the end of the academic course, along with his other gifted comrades, at the direction of the highly reverend rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Nikanor 14, who died at the department of the Archbishop of Kherson and Odessa, took the newly created department of liturgics and church archeology at the Academy. If at present, with the existence, according to the new charter of 1885, of the institute of so-called professorial fellows left at the Academy for one year to prepare them, under the guidance of a specialist professor, to occupy vacant professorial chairs at the Academy, our young professors in most cases are inexperienced and poorly prepared for the department, then what needs to be said about the young associate professors of the academic charter of 1869, who were placed directly from the student bench on professorial department. The situation of these assistant professors was undoubtedly extremely difficult. This difficulty was aggravated even more for some of them, since they had the responsibility to teach courses that they themselves had not even taken at the Academy, and, therefore, these young professors had to start the matter from the very beginning... This is precisely the situation in which the late Nikolai Fomich found himself, as an assistant professor of church archeology and liturgics 15. Church archeology, as a science, was created by the statute of the Academies of 1869, and until then had no place in religious educational institutions, and although liturgics existed in the Academies, according to the old statute of 1814, with the modest name “rites,” it had no independent meaning and huddled, as an appendage, at the department of canon law. The young assistant professors of our Academies, who had the difficult responsibility of occupying the department of liturgics and church archeology, thus had to start a new business: it was necessary to develop reading programs, study the literature of the subject, carefully prepare lectures and, moreover, in two subjects at once, guide students in writing course essays, etc., etc. In a word, from the teachers of these subjects, in addition to talent, intense effort was also required perseverance, and hard work, and the most conscientious methodology in their studies, in order to happily get out of those collisions into which they were placed by their new, although high, but for many of them completely unexpected position. But here it was justified with all clarity and convincingness that flattering reputation for the pupil of our spiritual, and especially the old, school, that for him there are no difficulties that he cannot overcome. The brilliant liturgist of the Moscow Theological Academy, the late I. D. Mansvetov and the unforgettable Nikolai Fomich Krasnoseltsev not only bore with honor on their mighty shoulders all the difficulties that lay ahead of them at this, one might say, critical time, but also a whole series of talented works in their chosen specialty left such a noticeable mark on themselves that their ever-memorable names will, we are sure, be repeated for a long time and often with gratitude by their successors. Nikolai Fomich, like his talented colleague in the department at the Moscow Academy, I. D. Mansvetov, with knowledge of new languages, devoted himself primarily to the study of monuments of Christian antiquity or church archeology, as a new science, to some extent fashionable, interesting in equal measure for both listeners and the young professor, who also already had a rich literature in the West. The fruit of these first hobbies of Nikolai Fomich with his new specialty and a tribute to the times was an independent course of readings on church architecture, which was published as a separate book entitled: “Essays on the history of the church” (Kaz, 1880) and a critical brochure “On the origin of the Christian church” (Kaz. 1880). But the insufficiency of special preparation for scientific studies of the monuments of Christian antiquity was felt by the young talented professor at every step and was clearly recognized by him, and therefore he decided to ask for a scientific trip abroad. “In fulfilling the duties of a teacher of church archeology, as well as in closely studying the literature of this science and its written sources, I, Nikolai Fomich wrote in his statement to the church-practical department in 1881, more than once had the opportunity to become convinced of the absolute necessity of visual and personal acquaintance with the monuments of Christian antiquity. In view of this, I decide to declare to the department my desire to engage for some time in a visual study of the monuments of Christian antiquity at their locations and, for this purpose, to visit those cities in Europe where the most abundant and valuable material for such study can be found” (Protok. Acad. 1881, pp. 8–9). Having received a one-year business trip (from September 1, 1881 to September 1, 1882), Nikolai Fomich visited the cities of Rome, Florence, Milan, Venice, Ravenna, Paris, Berlin, etc. and studied in them the monuments of classical antiquities, Christian catacombs, ancient Christian churches and wonderful museums, mainly with Christian antiquities. Nikolai Fomich presented the results of this journey to the Council of the Academy in two semi-annual highly scientific reports, published in the minutes of the Academy (1882, pp. 64–87, 269–293). Undoubtedly, under the impression of the same trip abroad, he also wrote an academic speech entitled: “Ancient Christian tombs in Rome and the significance of the discoveries made in them for theological science” (Prav. Sobesedn. 1883, 111), which served as an epilogue 16 to his scientific works on church archeology. As surprising as it is, but this is a positive fact, Nikolai Fomich, after a trip abroad, stopped his studies in archeology and turned sharply towards his other specialty - liturgics 17, major works on which earned him mainly an honorable and authoritative name among Russian scientists. This turn took place, however, not without serious reasons. The time of Nikolai Fomich's entry into the fraternal and unanimous corporation of the Kazan Academy coincided with the time of unusually lively scientific and literary activity among it in general and deep interest in the study of monuments of ancient writing, thanks to the rich collection of Solovetsky manuscripts located in the academic library, in particular. At the head of the lovers of ancient writing and its scientific researchers, from the environment of the academic corporation, were two such luminaries and experts on it as, ever-memorable in the chronicles of the Kazan Academy, I. Ya. Porfiryev and, still happily alive, the most talented historian P. V. Znamensky. Nikolai Fomich, together with some other young fellow associate professors, joined this circle 18 and from 1875 began describing the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, first of a canonical nature (9 printed sheets were printed in the 2nd volume of “Descriptions of the Solovetsky Library Manuscripts”), and then liturgical (more than 20 printed sheets included in the 3rd volume of this “Description”, published only in past year). Approximately the entire description of the liturgical manuscripts was prepared in rough form by the late Nikolai Fomich even before his trip abroad in 1881, and undoubtedly already at that time it greatly contributed to the awakening of his interest in his second specialty - liturgics, to which he was not able to pay much attention at the first stages of his service. Being in Rome near the famous Vatican Library, rich, by the way, in liturgical manuscripts, Nikolai Fomich could not remain indifferent to its precious monuments of Byzantine worship, he sought explanations in them of many curious ritual features of our ancient worship, which he managed to get acquainted with at home, when describing the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library. Nikolai Fomich often visited the said library for the mentioned purpose, and thus he accumulated a lot of extracts, notes, even entire lists or copies selected from the Vatican manuscripts of Greek and Slavic. Apparently, at the beginning of his academic studies in the Vatican Library, he did not attach much serious importance to them and worked on the manuscripts without a specific goal, getting acquainted with the book treasures of this library in the interest of self-education and practice, since until now he had not yet had the opportunity to read Greek manuscripts, which explains the disorderly appearance of his materials, in which they were brought to Kazan and fell into our hands when writing his master's thesis dissertations 19, and those annoying omissions, omissions and other shortcomings that are undesirable in major publications, which we see when processing these materials, are already in print. But be that as it may, upon returning from a scientific trip to Kazan, Nikolai Fomich, despite his diligent studies abroad, mainly on material monuments of Christian antiquity, as eloquently evidenced by his two semi-annual reports, unexpectedly for everyone, and perhaps even for himself, when compiling a full report on his scientific studies, he dwells exclusively on the above-mentioned materials extracted from the liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library, which, in truth, to say, under his talented pen they turned into something unrecognizable. It is clear to the point that Nikolai Fomich, after a comprehensive acquaintance with the monuments of Christian antiquity at their location, learned from bitter experience that a Russian archaeologist has no opportunity, standing far from these monuments, to work independently, but must always follow in the footsteps of his foreign colleagues, who were more happily placed in relation to these monuments, to assimilate and process their scientific results, which his inquisitive mind, striving for work, could not reconcile with. independent, creative. The transition from church archeology to liturgy was therefore natural and quite reasonable. Having set about completing the task set for himself and having in his hands only the materials he had taken from the Vatican manuscripts, Nikolai Fomich soon realized that he could not complete his task with complete success, and therefore decided to involve in the task the most important liturgical manuscripts from our Russian libraries of the Moscow Synodal, Rumyantsev Museum and St. Petersburg Imperial Public Library, with which he managed to briefly familiarize himself upon his return from traveling abroad - fortunately, given the existence of such a wonderful custom - sending manuscripts to other cities, even from the Moscow Synodal Library, he could work on the mentioned manuscripts in Kazan in his office. A detailed report on academic studies abroad in 1882, published in the form of a voluminous book with the title: “Information on some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library with comments on the composition and features of the liturgical rites contained in them, and with appendices” (Kaz. 1885), thus, is not only a description of the liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library, as the title of the report says, but at the same time a description of the most important liturgical manuscripts of Russian libraries (pp. 207–375). For science, however, it is indifferent to the manuscripts of which libraries this or that scientist used in his work - what is undoubtedly important are the scientific techniques that he applied during his work, and what scientific conclusions he ultimately came to after studying the materials at hand. Considering the aforementioned report of Nikolai Fomich from these particular sides, we hope we will not exaggerate if we say that in both respects it represents a remarkable phenomenon and should be recognized as a valuable contribution to our relatively sparse liturgical literature. Real work is especially important for those beginning to work in liturgics. Professor N.F. Krasnoseltsev, presenting in this report to the judgment of scientific experts the results of his observations of Greek and Slavic manuscripts? With which he personally had to deal, every time, on each individual issue, on something that interested him, he tries, first of all, to present, albeit a condensed, but rather vivid outline of his literature in Russia and in the West, and, thus, introduce his reader to the very essence of the issue and makes it clear to him what new he brings from his experience and observation of manuscripts. His numerous detailed and sometimes quite voluminous “notes”, equipped with thorough critical remarks and subtle, sometimes reaching the point of virtuosity, considerations and fortune-telling, with an elegant literary presentation, are fascinating and instructive not only for specialists, but also for everyone who is interested in ancient Russian and Byzantine writing in general and the religious life of our ancestors by faith in particular. It goes without saying, as one would expect, not all the issues raised in the report are resolved by the author with the same thoroughness and thoroughness: his best pages must be recognized as those devoted to the late professor’s favorite question about the historical fate of our full rite of liturgy and the significance of ancient interpretative works for the history of this rite. The late Nikolai Fomich at one time seriously thought about devoting a special monograph to this issue, but for some reason did not carry out his good intention, limiting himself to publishing only “Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom "(vol. 1 Kaz. 1889, and the continuation of this work, 2nd issue was just begun by printing in the Right Sobesedn. (1896, 1), but remained unfinished 20). – That is why the book “Information on Some Liturgical Manuscripts of the Vatican Library” will undoubtedly remain for a long time in liturgical literature as a guiding manual for anyone who takes upon himself the work of developing the historical fate of our rite of liturgy. The outstanding scientific merits of this book attracted the attention of specialists and the Council of the Kazan Theological Academy, which decided to first publish the work of Prof. Krasnoseltsev at public expense (Prot. Acad. 1884, p. 208), and then in 1886 awarded him the Metropolitan Macarius Prize of 600 rubles. (Ibid. 1886 p. 9, 280–292). Some time later, in 1893, when the Council of the same Academy raised the issue of awarding Nikolai Fomich, honoris causa, the academic degree of Doctor of Church History, the official reviewers, who subjected a thorough examination of the entire body of his scientific and literary works, in order to motivate the justice of recognizing the author’s right to this highest academic title, dwelt with particular expressiveness and thoroughness on the scientific merits of this particular work (Ibid. 1893, pp. 35–46). Nikolai Fomich’s work “Information on Some Liturgical Manuscripts of the Vatican Library” directed his scientific curiosity towards liturgics, although, unfortunately, as we will see below, not for long and not entirely 21. Following the completion of the report on the foreign business trip, prof. Krasnoseltsev on the pages of “Prav. Interlocution.” began to publish a whole series of very interesting “studies” under the title: “On some church services and rituals, now not used” (1887 and 1889), which later formed an independent book: “On the history of Orthodox worship” (Kaz. 1889). The material for this scientifically valuable book was provided, on the one hand, by the manuscripts of the Solovetsky Library, and on the other, by the Greek manuscripts of the Eastern book depositories, which Nikolai Fomich managed to become acquainted with during his first scientific trip to the Orthodox East in 1888. Imperial Novorossiysk University on church history, and he was forced to stop his highly interesting “research”. With the transfer to serve at Odessa University, Nikolai Fomich once again changed his sympathies in literary and scientific research. Received very friendly and sympathetically by his new colleagues at Novorossiysk University, Nikolai Fomich soon became close to an intimate friendship, which lasted until his death, with the handsome and famous Byzantine scholar, Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky, who at that time was the dean of the history and philology department of this university (now the director of our Archaeological Institute in Constantinople). Around Fyodor Ivanovich Uspensky, enthusiastically devoted to the study of Byzantine history and all kinds of monuments of Byzantine antiquities, just at this very time a small circle of philologists grouped under the name of the “Historical and Philological Society at the Imperial Novorossiysk University” with a “Byzantine department”. Always responsive to all good things, Nikolai Fomich joined this circle and became an active member in it. Since 1891, one might say, almost not a single book of the “Chronicle” of this society has been published without several articles by the late Nikolai Fomich on its various departments. His first scientific works in the place of the new ministry are still in connection with his previous literary activity in Kazan and, in particular, with his favorite specialty, such as, for example, his articles: “On the significance of archaeological discoveries for the processing of ancient church history” (Notes of the Imperial Novor. Univers. 1891), “Patriarch Photius and the Byzantine worship of his time” (Ibid. 1892), “New list of Russian liturgical “actions” (Proceedings of the 8th Archaeological Congress of 1890, vol. 2 M. 1895), about the cave action” (Russian Philological Vestn. 1891, vol. 26), but, since the appearance in the light of his capital article, which made the name of the deceased known even abroad, under the title: “Typik of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople" Years. Historical-philol. total V. 2, 1892 and separately), in which almost two-thirds of the text is devoted to questions about Constantinople topography and the local historical element, Nikolai Fomich is interested in studying the topography of Constantinople, monuments of Byzantine antiquities in general and ancient Byzantine writing in particular. His following articles date back to this period of his activity: “A note on the location of the Chalkopratian Church in Constantinople” (Ibid. 4. 1894) “On the study of the “Typika of the Great Church” (Ibid. 6. 1896), “On the question of the Greek sources of the “Conversations of the Three Hierarchs” (West. Imperial Novor. Univ. 1889), “More on the question of the sources of the “Conversations of the Three Hierarchs” (Ibid. 1890), “Debate of Panagiot with Azimit” on the new Greek copies” (Let. Historical and Philological Society. 6th century 1896) and his last work “Addenda to the publication of A. Vasiliev “Anecdota graeco-byzantina” (Odessa, 1898), completed almost on the eve of departure (September 2), to the place of eternal rest, in Constantinople. The papers left behind by the deceased contain the beginnings of new works in this area of ​​Byzantine studies 23 and indicate that, setting off on his unfulfilled journey, he dreamed of continuing the work he had begun, in which his interest undoubtedly arose in Kazan under the influence of the famous works of his teacher Professor I. Ya. Porfiryev. As for his sympathies for his former favorite specialty - liturgics, they lay dormant in the late professor, although they were revealed relatively weakly in the last years of his life. The fruit of his interest should be considered a special article: “On Ancient Liturgical Interpretations” (Annals of Historical and Philological Society. v. 6, 1894) and two detailed reviews of my books: “Divine services for Holy and Easter Week in Jerusalem in the 10th–11th centuries. and “Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East” vol. 1 century. 1 Τυπικά", published in the "Byzantine Temporary" (vol. 2, v. 6 and v. 4, v. 3-4), of which he became an active collaborator, from the very appearance of this venerable magazine, undoubtedly, out of sympathy for its tasks and direction, and, finally, his frequent requests to me about the fate of the second volume being printed, "Description of the Liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East,” dedicated to Greek euchology. Here is a brief outline of the scientific and literary activities of N.F. Krasnoseltsev for his entire relatively short, twenty-eight years of professorial service. From it, however, it becomes very clear that the late professor was a very prolific worker in the field of Russian science and worked tirelessly until the last day of his life - this is firstly, and secondly, that he was not a narrow, one-sided specialist, but worked with his masterful pen in various fields of human knowledge, was interested in many living issues of Russian science and worked diligently to solve them with outstanding success. As a liturgist, the late Nikolai Fomich, after the death of prof. I. D. Mansvetov, had no equal in many respects, and inveterate specialists listened to his voice in this field of knowledge with deep interest, and for non-specialists he was an indisputable authority. As a church archaeologist and as a conscientious researcher of Byzantine antiquities, he was respected by people very competent in this branch of human knowledge, and his works of this kind were met with keen interest and were highly valued. Nikolai Fomich also made a significant contribution to the history of Russian-Byzantine literature. Now is not the place or time to enter into a serious critical assessment of the numerous works of the late Nikolai Fomich, but it is not without interest, however, for everyone to understand the reason for their diversity and undoubted success in science among specialists. Above, in the review of the scientific and literary activities of the late professor, we have already pointed out the external reasons for this diversity, i.e., his moves for work from one city to another, meetings with new people who had a great influence on him, etc., but such an explanation must still be recognized as one-sided. The reasons for the above curious phenomena lie, in our opinion, deeper, namely in the temperament of the late scientist, in the main features of his character, in his mentality and in the special inherent properties of his literary talents. Endowed by nature with a somewhat phlegmatic temperament, with a raw and sickly complexion, and a modest and shy character, Nikolai Fomich was the type of strictly armchair scientist. Lively, vigorous activity, mobility and energetic persistence in achieving intended goals, highly valued by the deceased in others, were never his personal property. Making quite frequent trips to the East in the last years of his life for recreation and scientific research in the monuments of ancient writing, Nikolai Fomich chose as his place of stay there in most cases the Russian Panteleimon Monastery and St. Andrew's Russian Skete on Athos, the Panteleimon Russian Metochion in Constantinople and the Russian buildings of the Palestine Society in Jerusalem, i.e. such “peaceful” and hospitable places in which he found both a decent environment for someone unaccustomed to luxury and satisfaction of the very first essential needs of a person unspoiled by life, thanks to which even the most scientific studies here were pleasant entertainment for him, a break from everyday worries. Points, so to speak, “combat”, where a Russian scientist has to obtain what interests him and what is necessary for science through all sorts of deprivations, even sometimes in a piece of daily bread 24, but with a huge reserve of persistence, not retreating from anything, great patience, which one constantly hears in the East as a conditio sine gua non, the late Nikolai Fomich either deliberately avoided, or visited them for a very short time. He became acquainted with the libraries of the Vatopedi Monastery, Kutlumush and Xenof, to which access is relatively easy, only very recently, and he had never been to many Athonite monasteries that have valuable book treasures. Having thus lived for entire months under the hospitable roof of the Russian Athonite monasteries, Nikolai Fomich naturally had every opportunity to thoroughly and comprehensively familiarize himself with the manuscripts of the libraries of the Panteleimon Monastery and the Russian St. Andrew's Skete (he was also well aware of the manuscripts of the library of the Jerusalem courtyard in Constantinople). Not having any strictly defined goal or task in front of him, he gradually, slowly, first studied liturgical manuscripts, then moved on to canonical ones, and when both of them were of no interest, he leafed through and read various kinds of literary collections. In his notebooks and memorial books, therefore, a wide variety of material was accumulated for each trip, although often very valuable in its novelty, but not always satisfactory, which justice also requires to be noted, in a textual sense, because the deceased did not have enough strength or energy to find the best lists of texts discovered by him, due to the above-mentioned properties of temperament. Anyone who carefully read the works of the late Nikolai Fomich and even studied them could not help but see that they often lack a comprehensive acquaintance with the sources, and most importantly, the primary sources of the issues raised by him - this is, firstly, and secondly, in the absence of valuable available material, he sometimes tried to fill his works with material of shallow antiquity and not always directly related to the title of the book (for example, “Information about some liturgical manuscripts of the Vatican Library"), often receiving it second-hand, that is, either from his students, or from his numerous good friends (This is how he compiled the 1st century “Materials for the history of the rites of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom” and in the same way his most important work was written under the title: “Type 25 of the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople”). Here lies the true reason for that curious phenomenon inherent in the works of Nikolai Fomich, that he, due to the lack of positive facts, did not like to put off the solution of some questions that interested him greatly, with hope and hope for a lucky chance and a successful discovery somewhere in the manuscripts, but tried to give answers to them through his witty considerations, which he called assumptions, fortune-telling, and to which he attached important scientific significance. meaning. “Of course, this is an assumption,” Nikolai Fomich wrote to me in his dying letter (dated May 30, 1898) in response to my objection regarding the insufficiently convincing reasons expressed by him in the review of my book “Divine Service for Passion and Easter Week in Jerusalem,” that the Sinai Canon can be recognized as a monument to the worship of Jerusalem - if you like, even a dream, but such dreams are very useful in science, because they direct the researcher’s attention to various dark corners and sometimes lead to unexpected and amazing discoveries.” Of course, dreams remained dreams in most cases, did not move into the realm of reality, on the contrary, often, at the first contact with facts, they scattered like smoke in the wind, but sometimes they were truly amazingly justified. So, for example, there are many of his assumptions on issues of Constantinople topography, expressed in the article “Typic of St. Sofia in Constantinople,” confirmed with new considerations and positive data the well-known Russian scientist D. F. Belyaev, former prof., competent in works of this kind. Kazan University. I personally, rushing to our agreed meeting in Constantinople from Jerusalem, after comparing the handwritten Typikon of St. The coffin, 1122, of the patriarchal library of Jerusalem with the publication in volume 2 of “’Αυαλεκτα” by the famous Papadopoulo-Keramevs, carried, as pleasant news for the deceased, the news that the readings suggested by him in the above-mentioned review of my book of some passages 26 of this wonderful Typikon, in many cases incorrectly read by the publisher, were justified completely original. I am sure that Nikolai Fomich would receive this very pleasant news for him with the greatest pleasure. He experienced moments of this kind with a feeling of complete self-satisfaction, and they were a triumph of his kind soul and a bright, warm ray into his heart, full of suffering and torment. Where, after all that has been said, lies the reason for the success of his various literary works in science, among specialists, as we noted above? First of all and mainly in the freshness and interest of the material that the late Nikolai Fomich gave in his works almost every time. This is the first thing. Secondly, we are sensitive and responsive to the living demands of the given time, in which society was interested or which worried and occupied the minds of people of science. Thirdly, in a happy manner, discuss the issues he raises objectively, with academic calm and complete impartiality. Without any pompousness, devoid of conceit, which in most cases is the sin of narrow-minded mediocrity, with full respect for other people’s opinions, even if they did not agree with his personal views, the late Nikolai Fomich set to work with sincere benevolence and breathed with one passion to come with his feasible solution to the aid of scientific specialists and together with them, through sober discussion, to find a path in science the truth. Fourthly, and finally, in the impeccable literary processing of his works, thanks to the skill of expressing his thoughts clearly, distinctly and at the same time in a simple, but extremely elegant language. And, it must be admitted that in our time scientific works are written with such solid merits by far from very many Russian scientists. Modest and shy by nature, Nikolai Fomich could not change himself and being the same in the audience at the professor's department. Not possessing the gift of free oral presentation of his thoughts and multifaceted information, he almost always in our time delivered his lectures from notebooks, looking up from them only for a short time to make a drawing on the board or show an important drawing in a book. He never chased popularity among young people and was alien to the desire to snatch cheap applause from them, but he always remained at the department as a serious and businesslike professor, trying, whenever possible, to stand at the height of his high service and strictly fulfill his direct duty - to teach his listeners and make of them people of science and duty. As a professor, the leader of students, Nikolai Fomich, among his colleagues at the Kazan Academy was considered exemplary in our time, which can be confirmed by official data repeatedly stated by his former superiors (See S. Ternovsky. Historical Note on the state of the Kazan spirit. Academician after the transformation. Kaz., 1892, p. 408; Right Interview. 1895. 9). Loving his specialty with all his soul, Nikolai Fomich loved his students with his kind heart, especially those who wanted to work with him in church archeology or liturgics. With complete benevolence, he went to meet young workers and devoted himself to them with all his tender soul: he explained to them the subject of the chosen topic, clearly and definitely outlined the scope of the essay and expressed without mincing his demands and desires, spending a lot of time on this in the intervals between lectures and at home in the evenings, willingly supplied them with sources and aids and often from his own library, generously and generously put them in their hands their unpublished materials, gleaned from manuscripts, and various kinds of notes collected by him. In a word, he tried in every possible way to make the work of his students easier and to maintain their “vigorous spirit” with the hope of good fruits as a result. I personally, for example. While still a 4th year student at the Academy and doing his master's thesis, he often turned to Nikolai Fomich, when he was abroad, with requests to make one or another reference in Greek manuscripts, and always in a very short time received, to his satisfaction, complete satisfaction of these requests. Nikolai Fomich did not break off his cordial, truly fatherly relationship with his beloved students even later, when these students left the institution and entered life: he, if he could and was able, arranged their careers, promoted them in every possible way, carried on a lively correspondence with them, persistently recommended that they not stop scientific studies and for this purpose tried to put them in favorable conditions, fatherly reprimanded them for deviations to the side, etc. In a feeling of deep gratitude, I cannot keep silent about the fact that all of my sixteen-year teaching and scientific-literary activity passed under the strong influence of the unforgettable teacher Nikolai Fomich, who willingly and with full heartfelt participation shared with me the sorrows and joys that befell me during this time, was my only authoritative adviser in all my scientific enterprises and plans, and the strictest judge of all deviations to the right the path indicated by him... A monument to these living and cordial relations can serve as that enormous correspondence (in the posthumous papers of the deceased, my letter to him was found in 22 sheets of small postal size with objections to one of Nikolai Fomich’s criticisms of my book), which was conducted between us and which, as the late Nikolai Fomich reported, he kept “intact.” This correspondence is also interesting for me in the sense that it contains the most intimate and detailed reports about my travels and findings with Greek texts from the very monuments and such observations and impressions that in no way fit into the framework of ordinary official reports, on the one hand, and on the other hand, they openly expressed my opinions and objections regarding certain issues that the deceased subjected to scientific consideration in his numerous works. In order to illustrate my thought and more clearly describe the fatherly relationship of Nikolai Fomich to his pet, I will allow myself to translate here an excerpt from his last letter to me, written under the impression of my sorrowful 27 news for him that I, carried away by the development of the historical memoirs of Arseny 28, Archbishop of Elasson and Arkhangelsk, which I opened on last year’s trip to Trebizond, stopped for the time being the printing of the Greek euchology, which will compile volume 2 of my “Description of liturgical manuscripts stored in the libraries of the Orthodox East,” or, as I put it, “I stopped thinking” about it. “You say about euchologies,” Nikolai Fomich wrote to me, that “you stopped thinking about them.” The wait, therefore, will take a long time, but I am short-lived and will hardly live to see that time... It is fitting for me to pray, but are you growing? You are growing, of course, but your growth seems to be deviating more and more away from liturgics. You would greatly oblige me if you gave me copies of the white sheets of the Euchologion, already printed: I would study them during the journey (alas, which did not materialize!), and this, perhaps, would not be useless for you”... The great dying lesson of the unforgettable teacher! This is how the late Nikolai Fomich loved his work, how he valued the successes of his favorite specialty, sacrificing everyone and everything to it. And how much of the most tender and caring care he showed for one of his students, already standing with one foot at the edge of his premature grave, but I boldly affirm that I personally was not the only nurturer; He found both leisure and time to be no less keenly and ardently interested in his other students... As a fellow colleague, the late Nikolai Fomich enjoyed full respect and sincere love from his colleagues everywhere. Even-tempered, calm and equally benevolent towards everyone, Nikolai Fomich was always respectfully polite to his senior colleagues, and with his peers and junior members of the professorial corporation he was comradely sincere and always nice, and therefore was a common favorite. Sincere comradely relations towards him were especially intense among the professors of Odessa University when, unexpectedly for everyone, the sad news of his death in Constantinople arrived. In the deeply felt characterization of the highly respected Alexey Nikolaevich Derevitsky, dean of the Faculty of History and Philology, we, with a feeling of complete satisfaction and pleasure, read the following lines dedicated to outlining this trait of the late Nikolai Fomich: “Generously endowed with many qualities of a talented scientist, a conscientious researcher and a dedicated professor, Nikolai Fomich was more than a scientist and a professor: he was a man at his best in the noblest sense of the word. Sensitive and sympathetic, alien to any pettiness and vanity, fair and generous, he conquered everyone with his boundless kindness and imperturbable clarity of character. Everyone who got to know him closely became his friends. Did he have enemies - could he have?.. (Odessk. List. 1898 No. 211, p. 5). We answer the question posed: yes, unfortunately, they were. “And defeat a man, let us say with the words of the Holy Scripture, his household (Matthew 10:36; Micah 7:6). But pro domo the deceased did not like to talk even with intimate friends. And if I dare to touch on this side of the life of the deceased, it is only to point out a new feature of his character - his chivalrously generous attitude towards his family, whom he loved passionately and selflessly, and for whom he sacrificed absolutely everything, often denying himself the most essential needs. He generously forgave everything to those dear and close to his heart, while personally experiencing deep mental suffering. He taciturnly, but, in our opinion, eloquently expressed the strength of his mental suffering and the moral oppression of his “spoiled life” shortly before his death in the following quatrain, written by him in a notebook that we found in his posthumous package, and dated “July 21, 1898. Kislovodsk": Here is the alley of slender poplars Pleases my enchanted gaze, But that doesn’t make life any nicer for me, To her I send a bitter reproach.” With this “bitter reproach” of his “broken life,” Nikolai Fomich went to his grave, closing his eyes in a lonely foreign land, far from his homeland, from relatives, from friends, under the hospitable roof of the monastery of the Great Martyr Panteleimon, where he loved to spend his lonely holidays. But, no, Nikolai Fomich, even in his hour of death, was not alone and abandoned by everyone. Russian science, which he served faithfully. Throughout her entire life, in the person of her worthy representative, F.I. Uspensky, director of our Archaeological Institute in Constantinople, she stood at the head of the dying man, took his last mournful breath, closed his clear eyes with her friendly hand forever, and surrounded his mortal remains with such tender care and comradely participation 29 in the last days of their above-ground sojourn, which is not always the case with us to the lot of people of science at home in our homeland, under our own roof... Honor, praise and many years to you, great worker of Russian science, who, of course, never dreamed that in addition to the complex direct responsibilities in a foreign land due to the duty of his official position, he would also add concern for the dead members, and to the unforgettable Nikolai Fomich with one mouth and one heart we will say everything: “Eternal memory”! At the Academy, A. S. Pavlov was very strongly influenced by the famous writer A. P. Shchapov, who at that time was a professor of Russian history (P. V. Znamensky. History of Kazan spirit. Academician Kaz. 1892. part 2, p. 135). P. V. Znamensky. History of Kazan. spirit. Acad., Kazan. 1891, part 1, pp. 160–161 About prof. Pavlov can hardly be described as a prolific liturgist. Of his articles on this specialty, we know a few, such as, for example, Holy Week (Spiritual Conversations 1860, No. 14), Ancient Christian holidays in honor of martyrs (Stran. 1860, Vol. 3) and the holiday of Pentecost (Spiritual Conversations 1861, No. 23). History of Kazan. spirit. Academician Kaz. 1892, c. 2, page 320 A. S. Pavlova and the rector of the Academy, Arch. John, who often used the services of a hardworking young bachelor for his scholarly works on canon law (P.V. Znachensky. Historical Kazakh spirit. Acad., v. 1, p. 212; v. 2, p. 224). From Kazan A.S. Pavlov in 1865–66 academic years. I went on a business trip abroad for a year to attend a course of lectures on legal sciences. He spent most of this time in Heidelberg with prof. Vagnerov, about whom he kept grateful memories until the end of his life. Alexei Stepanovich's library is rich in publications of the 17th and 18th centuries, which in most cases are now bibliographic rarities, but publications of a bibliographic nature occupy a prominent place in it: in his library you can find all the most famous descriptions of manuscripts and early printed books of foreign and Russian libraries, the deceased was proud of his library and always dreamed, as we heard from his lips more than once, after his death, to donate to property of his native Tomsk University (Alexey Stepanovich Siberian, native of Tomsk province). The donation, to tell the truth, is quite timely and extremely valuable for the newly opened law faculty of this university, if, of course, the late professor put his dreams on paper. Proceedings Kyiv. spirit. Akkad., vol. 1, 1899 In his scientific research, A. S. Pavlov often used unpublished materials from foreign libraries, which were delivered to him by learned professors in London, Oxford, Paris, Munich, Berlin, Leipzig and other European cities, receiving from him for his courtesy, in turn, certificates and copies for himself in Moscow book depositories. Sometimes Alexey Stepanovich was forced to make copies from manuscripts in foreign libraries and for a very respectable fee to the copyists, asking one of his foreign friends only to compare the copy with the original. In the last letter to me dated December 28. 1897 A. S. Pavlov wrote to me about my review of the book by Prof. A.I. Almazov “Secret Confession”, that Prof. Moscow Academician Zaozersky, and that “a copy from the famous Munich list of the 10th century. Nomokanova of John the Faster was delivered to Zaozersky by me,” that is, by him, Alexei Stepanovich. This article was also reprinted in the magazine min. People's enlightenment 1898 Book 10, dep. 3, pp.134–136. The course comrades of the late Nikolai Fomich were: professor of the Kazan Theological Academy and Kazan University in church history F. A. Kurganov, late professor of the same Academy D. V. Gusev, former professor of the Academy A. V. Vadkovsky, now Archbishop Anthony of Finland, professor of the same Academy M. I. Bogoslovsky and former professor of the Academy on denunciation of Islam N. P. Ostroumov, now director of the Tashkent gymnasium. Quite a few were aware of 13 students of the Kazan Academy and other talented young men who had declared themselves either through practical activities for the benefit of the church and national education, or through literary works (See P.V. Znamensky. History of the Kazan Spiritualists. Academy. v. 3, Kaz. 1892, pp. 434–444). N. Fomich was brought up in the Ufa province, inhabited by many foreigners, and therefore at the Academy he studied foreign languages ​​and with particular diligence the Tatar language, which he even spoke. Obviously, he was not averse to devoting his energies to missionary service in his native diocese. The late Nikolai Fomich always treated his former rector, His Eminence Nikanor, with a feeling of deep gratitude, and, during his joint service in Odessa with the ever-memorable archpastor, he maintained the most cordial and lively relationship with him. By the charter of 1869, the famous archaeologist, prof. Petersburg Academy and director of the Archaeological Institute N.V. Pokrovsky, but he joined the department compared to other colleagues under more favorable conditions. Before starting his professorial career, he managed to get a long business trip abroad, during which he attended courses on his chosen specialty in the classrooms of German universities, and he became well acquainted with the monuments of Christian antiquities in museums in Germany and Italy, where he later made a second special trip for half a day for the same purpose. Proceedings Kyiv. spirit. Academy, vol. 1, 1899 After this speech, Nikolai Fomich wrote very little on archeology and by chance. We know of his articles in print: “Church archeology at Russian archaeological congresses” (Orthodox Sob. 1887, 3), “Church of St. Clement in Rome and the memories of the Slavic apostles connected with it" (Ibid. 1885, 1), and "On the significance of archaeological discoveries for the processing of ancient church history" (Uchen. Zap. Novoross. University, 1891). Before his trip abroad, Nikolai Fomich published only one liturgical article: “Explanatory service” and other works related to the explanation of worship in ancient Russia before the 18th century” (Right. Sob. 1878, 2). Under the influence of this circle, another young associate professor of the Kazan Academy, A.V. Vadkovsky, now the Archbishop of Finland, created a scientific reputation for himself, who worked very hard on describing handwritten collections of the same Solovetsky library. In his dissertation “Divine services in the Russian Church in the 16th century,” part 1, Kaz. 1884 introduced. Page 7, approx. 2, we expressed our deep gratitude to the late Nikolai Fomich for this kindness. Obviously, the late Nikolai Fomich, setting off on his last journey, which led him, as is already known, to an even more distant journey to the monastery of the Heavenly Father, dreamed of replenishing his materials with new finds... “The other day I received permission from the ministry to travel abroad for a year, from June 1, 1898 to June 1, 1989, of course, without any benefits, Nikolai Fomich wrote to me on March 30 1898. Now the question is: how to manage your time? Where to go and where to spend the winter? Of course, I can’t study seriously, but remaining completely without classes for a whole year is also terrible. I would like to settle down somewhere near a library so that I can at least have the consciousness that, if I want, I can do something, even just leaf through it; maybe something interesting will be found. The main thing that is necessary is to live the winter in a warm region. Some point to Cairo, in the vicinity of which there is supposedly a sanatorium for patients like me. I don’t know yet how things will turn out, but there’s plenty of time; Maybe it will be possible to visit Jerusalem. Of course, you will inform me in detail about your intentions, when exactly you will be in Jerusalem, and so on. Is it possible, perhaps, to meet? I would like to then visit Rome, Venice and Paris, and perhaps London, but...” At this point the plan for an unrealized trip ended, and not without reason... The following liturgical articles belong to this period of Nikolai Fomich’s literary activity: “Monument of ancient Russian writing relating to the history of our worship in the 16th century” (Right. Sob. 1884, 1), “Explanations of the liturgy compiled by Feodor, Bishop of the Andes” (Monument of Byzantine spiritual literature of the 12th century) (Ibid.) and “Divine service Jerusalem church at the end of the 4th century" (Ibid. 1888, 3). The direct result of this trip was the brochure: “Slavic manuscripts of the patriarchal library in Jerusalem” (Kaz. 1889). We consider his numerous critical articles, published in the Byzantine Temporary, to be the result of his passion for Byzantine studies: on my book “Palmos Sketches” (vol. 1, c. 3–4), on Sokolov’s book “On Byzantine Monasticism” (vol. 2, c. 1–2) and Andreev’s “On the Patriarchs of Constantinople” (vol. 4, c. 1–2) and etc. and in the “Chronicle of the Historical and Philological Society under the Imperial. New Univ." – on “editions of Rights. Palestine Society”, based on the book by F. Meer “The Main Sources for the History of the Leonese Monasteries” (vol. 4, 1894), etc. The reasons for the awakening of Nikolai Fomich’s interest in studying the monuments of ancient Russian and Byzantine writing undoubtedly lie in the lively development of these issues among his young colleagues at the Novorossiysk University. See my report “Travel in the East and its scientific results” Kyiv. 1890 pp. 11–12; Prof.'s report V. Istrina, published in the magazine of the Ministry of Public Education in 1896, part 398, No. 11, dep. 3 pp. 37 et c. This work was written by Nikolai Fomich mainly on the basis of the handwritten Typikon of the 9th - 10th centuries. No. 266 of the Patmos Library, but the deceased himself had never personally been to Patmos, and he had never personally seen this manuscript. He received all the information about this manuscript from part of the “excerpts and extracts” from it, made by order of Fr. the librarian of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos, Metropolitan Amphilomius of Pelusia, living on Patmos, and mainly from my copy of this manuscript. (N. Krasnoselts. Typical of the Church of St. Sophia pp. 6–8). Byzantine. time.1895 vol. 2, v. 4, p. 644, approx. 1. “I am very depressed,” Nikolai Fomich wrote to me on May 25, 1898, by the anticipation of your Euchology, and in general I am very interested in its speedy release. How nice it would be to do it in freedom, during treatment. But you're obviously in no hurry." Nikolai Fomich did not like students to deviate to the side and openly reproached them for this. So, for example, he did not approve of my intention to write an essay “Russians on Athos,” and when I chose the subject of an academic speech to be my impressions from a trip to Patmos, he positively reproached me for betraying my specialty and severely condemned me for this. Constantinople newspapers - French and Greek - honored the memory of the deceased professor with a kind word, and responded to his funeral with strong praise.