Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science

The name of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, who taught church history at the same Academy for thirty years and possessed extensive church-historical erudition, is almost unknown in our time. And it would be unfair to the blessed memory of this wonderful scientist and criminal for the entire historical science to continue to remain silent about his activities as a talented historian and founder of his own scientific school. This interesting and strong personality can and should be the subject of scientific study. Gorsky's name is inextricably linked with the history of the Moscow Theological Academy. It owes its flourishing and primacy among other Theological Academies of Russia to him, which it retained until the very end of the Synodal period. Little has been written about Gorsky, his works, the scientific nature of his views, his merits in the field of theological sciences, his significance in the history of spiritual enlightenment - much less than one would expect, taking into account the fact that Gorsky was a worker of science and a highly gifted worker. Unfortunately, for a number of random reasons, much of Gorsky’s readings on church history have reached us in incomplete and fragmentary form. And even a person who took the trouble to study his system would hardly be able to recreate it in its entirety. The image of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875) is one of the brightest in the history of Russian science, “but there is some kind of tragic fragility in him. There is more grace in this image than strength” 2. To many, Gorsky might have seemed like a frightened man. It is no coincidence that the historian S. M. Solovyov directly accused Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow of drowning out Gorsky’s enormous talent with his despotism 3 . This review is often repeated without verification. But such an accusation is completely false. Another thing is true - that Gorsky always felt some kind of internal coherence and indecision in his character and thinking. But this was not fear of someone’s condemnation or opinion, even the opinion of a bishop, it was a kind of spiritual suspiciousness. And it was not Saint Philaret who “dried up” Gorsky. He stopped himself at every step out of some kind of inner timidity. This can be seen immediately from his diaries of his early years. “Unfortunately, the more extensive his knowledge becomes, the more his distrust of himself seems to increase. This is what stops both himself, and through him, others, from publishing works,” contemporaries wrote about Gorsky in their time 4 . And this was not the helplessness of an erudite who knows too much and cannot cope with his knowledge. Gorsky truly had the gift of a historian, and he was fully in control of his knowledge. But he also had some kind of deep spiritual breakdown, a mental breakdown. And Gorsky himself knew this. “Already poor in the power of independent rational thinking, I must take every step after someone else, and with gullibility I am afraid of being carried away by good and bad drivers,” 5 - this is what he said about himself in a letter to a friend, and he was always looking for someone to lean against. Gorsky entered the Academy almost as a boy, at the age of sixteen, from the philosophy class of the Kostroma Seminary, two years earlier than usual. And at first it was not easy for Gorsky to study at the Academy. After all, he did not study theology at all in the seminary and had to study for the first time what others taught for the second time. At the Academy, young Gorsky developed an interest in the mystical side of Christianity. His religious appearance had many features of Alexander's time, for example, attentiveness to dreams and omens. But on top of this Western mystical influence lay a paternal wave, and it was stronger. This was the influence of Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky), later Archbishop of Chernigov, who at that time was a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy. He was the first to introduce the historical method into the teaching of dogma and managed to awaken in his listeners not only interest, but also love for historical studies. It was through his efforts that the Moscow Theological Academy became a source of new, historical trends in Russian theology. In the first years of his teaching, Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky) met a talented student who became his friend. It was the future saint who first revealed to Gorsky his calling as a historian. For many years they were united by a tender friendship and a common passion for historical science. And when the friends of science began to serve together, history studies became their daily food. Gorsky's help is felt in almost all the works of Archimandrite Philaret; it was the help of a librarian and critic. They first became close on an academic basis, later recalling long conversations on historical topics, the hours spent together over manuscripts or early printed books. But the rapprochement went deeper. Professor Gumilevsky introduced Gorsky into the world of fatherly philosophy and asceticism. He taught him ascetic wisdom and work on himself. “The work of salvation begins in us in winter, precisely with contrition of heart, strong self-immersion and constraint of will, thoughts and feelings” 6. Archimandrite Philaret warned his friend against speculative hobbies, against that “almost Gnostic” spirit that could so easily be infected from German books. He taught Gorsky precisely the spirit of practical churchliness and canonical obedience, warned him to subordinate faith to the arguments of science, and warned him against the passion for books itself - dangerous, like any passion. Taste and see (Ps. 33:9) - this is the way to know the Christian religion: Sacraments and prayer. Gorsky firmly remembered this lesson and subsequently accepted the priesthood to strengthen himself in theological work and for the joy of making the Bloodless Sacrifice. Gorsky achieved spiritual silence through many sorrows. A parental ban prevented him from following his friend on the monastic path. He submitted bitterly, but went into scientific seclusion. Later, he himself no longer wanted to part with the academy, to which he had given all his life and love. In Gorsky we are struck by his impressionability, sensitivity, and insatiable ability to learn. He read a lot. He liked to read more than to write. But this was not passivity or sluggishness of thought, this was his way of thinking. Gorsky preferred to work from primary sources in order to build from them himself. He not only collected material, but immediately built it, if only for himself. This was the curiosity of a researcher, not the curiosity of an amateur. When Gorsky, at the age of 22, took the chair of church history at the academy, he had to read too much alone: ​​from biblical history to later times. And so for many years Gorsky taught a complete course of general church history and the history of the Russian Church. And it took a lot of time to develop these courses. Gorsky's main subject was the history of the Russian Church. First of all, it is necessary to note his work on the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. The fruit of several years of hard work was the “Description” of the library in six volumes (volumes I-V, 1855–1869; volume VI, printed at the time, was released only in 1917). This is not only a description of manuscripts in the proper sense of the word, it is also a reasonable assessment or characterization of monuments and their significance as historical sources. Suffice it to say that a wonderful monument of antiquity, “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion, was first published by Gorsky in 1844 7 . This was Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov’s) plan for the Synodal Book Depository, to introduce all this new manuscript material into scientific circulation immediately with proper interpretation. That’s why he wanted to entrust this to “his” person and did not like the interference of strangers, such as M.P. Pogodin. Gorsky completed the task exemplarily. The lasting value of his work is that instead of external description, he gave research. This especially applies to the description of biblical manuscripts: to this day it remains of great importance as an experience in the history of the Slavic text of the Bible. But it was this work that caused a lot of criticism from the censors, who found it difficult to let it through. With the consent of Professor Gumilyovsky, Gorsky composed an “apology” against the censor’s withdrawal, defending the freedom of historical criticism of documents in its own field. And he never hesitated on these issues. Gorsky was not so much an archaeographer as a historian in the literal sense. He perceived documents and monuments with the gaze of a researcher. He had a thoughtful historical worldview, his own philosophy of Russian history. Connected with this is his constant interest in the inner life of the church people: how Christian teaching was accepted in everyday life and in life. Therefore, he was interested not so much in official documents as in literary monuments, especially lives and sermons, which gave access to this inner world. And it is precisely from the lessons of Gorsky that this definition of the task of Russian church history comes from: to present the life of the Russian people as a society of believers. Unfortunately, the history of the Russian Church has not yet been written in such a setting. Gorsky was not only a researcher, not only a master, but also a teacher. He was an incomparable teacher, he taught in word and in life, he taught not only at the department, but also in the library (he was a librarian at the academy throughout his professorship, until his appointment as rector). He knew how to arouse students' enthusiasm for learning, knew how to arouse their interest in history, and knew how to attract them to historical work, always connected with sources. Gorsky closely monitored his and other students, helping them with advice and warning them if necessary. “Gorsky was one of those higher school teachers who commanded the attention of the audience and knew how to captivate their listeners; at the same time, he was an outstanding educator who enjoyed enormous moral influence on students” 8 . Archbishop Alexy (Lavrov-Platonov), one of Gorsky’s students, who became a professor of church law at the academy, paints the following image of his famous teacher: “He taught us in three ways: everyone in general at the department, captivating us with his deep research, historical paintings, brilliant characteristics of the fathers and teachers of the Church, then he taught us all at his other department - in the library. These are also his most precious lectures for us, with which he introduced us to full mastery of the literature of the subject. But there were also his lectures - lectiones privatissimae (purely private lectures - lat.) - at home. Sometimes he called us to these lectures one by one, regarding our arguments that he had read or to communicate his thoughts on a given topic” 9 . The history of the Russian Church has always been Gorsky's especially favorite academic subject. Here he did a lot of research work, opened and studied many documents. Gorsky loved to work for others. There is a legend in the Moscow Theological Academy that Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov) owes much to Gorsky for the amazing depth of canonical and historical justification for his famous resolutions. His influence is felt in many other ways. It was he who gave E.E. Golubinsky the idea of ​​basing his reconstruction of the structure and life of the ancient Russian Church on Byzantine material. He himself gave examples of such comparative analysis in his lectures. Gorsky suggested to Kapterev the method he used in his works on the history of the Patriarchate of Nikon, and Kapterev used the materials selected by Gorsky. The completeness and versatility of his knowledge were truly amazing, and therefore his influence extended to all branches of Russian theology. His school produced not only wonderful church historians, but also excellent specialists in patristics, dogmatics, church law, etc. Gorsky managed to create a powerful scientific movement at the Academy. By his personal example, he testified that science is a feat and service. Therefore, largely thanks to him, a real school of strong historians was created at the Moscow Theological Academy. Gorsky understood church history itself not as a collection of facts, dead and dry, but as a science indicating the idea of ​​church-historical life. He looked at facts as external indicators of internal relations and phenomena. Gorsky said that church history should not only collect facts, but must penetrate into the internal connection between them, extract the idea of ​​a fact from the fact itself. This is how, according to our historian, church history in general should be, and this is how it should be when it surveys particular groups of phenomena of homogeneous content. According to Gorsky, church history should introduce not church-historical facts, but precisely church-historical life. Why cite a fact if it stands alone, does not explain anything in the general flow of life, if it can be told, but nothing can be explained to them? As a historian of the Church, Gorsky was distinguished by the most sublime view of his subject, looking at it with religious animation. But at the same time, Gorsky never forgot the fundamental truth that the history of Christian life was revealed among purely historical, human relationships, and therefore should be studied only in connection with these relationships. After all, the history of the Church, according to Gorsky, represents, on the one hand, God in the closest relation to humanity, and on the other, man in the highest of his aspirations. Despite the awareness of the high importance and obvious benefits of studying church history, Gorsky nevertheless well understood that achieving the goal - serious knowledge of this science - is a very difficult matter. The thought of the difficulty of studying the subject prompts him to address various comments regarding this subject to his listeners. He either explains what this difficulty is and what it depends on, or declares what can and cannot be achieved in the study of science with zealous pursuit of it at the Academy. Understanding how broad and immensity church historical science is, what kind of work, how much time is needed to thoroughly familiarize yourself with it, Gorsky did not think of demanding the impossible from his listeners. “The highest desire for a mentor is if he manages to arouse in his students a love for science and a desire to study it thoroughly himself” 10 . These are the words of a truly experienced mentor, which Gorsky was. With these words our scientist addresses his listeners, and with what sincerity, what warmth and friendliness they resonate in the hearts of his students! Individual character traits and personalities of A.V. Gorsky, preserved in the memoirs of his contemporaries, collectively present us with a very attractive image of a gifted historian. Gorsky firmly remembered the immutable laws of history, looked at his subject from a position of high religiosity, loved it to the fullest and wanted others to love it. Church history, as is known, provides an extraordinary wealth of material for professorial readings from the pulpit. But the merit of readings on this subject does not depend on the breadth and detail of the presentation of one or another aspect of this science. One can read widely and comprehensively from church history on any issue. The art of reading should be expressed primarily in selecting from many a few, but characteristic and essential. If we consider Gorsky's readings from this side, we will have to give him praise as a true expert on his subject. He knew how to focus the attention of his listeners on the most essential and important things, without suppressing thoughts and memory with details, special and petty presentation of scientific facts. The language of Gorsky's readings was calm, brief, and alien to any decoration or artificiality. But this did not prevent his readings from sometimes acquiring a peculiar poetry. He was a conscientious and attentive professor; he wanted to acquaint his listeners with the entire scope of church historical science. And he successfully developed his subject - in this he was helped by a thorough knowledge of new and ancient languages ​​and an amazing memory. Gorsky's student, Professor A.P. Lebedev, said that Gorsky as a historian belonged to the so-called objective 11 direction. And indeed, as regards the generalization of facts in the sense of historical pragmatism, the study of history in the sense of the development of church-historical life, Gorsky did not set himself such tasks. One cannot, of course, think that Gorsky lacks talent for this kind of scientific formulation of the matter. Most likely, he simply considered such work premature. In fact, the pragmatic treatment of church history is possible only when the private departments of science have been thoroughly processed, when the material that serves the purpose has already been studied, when science can assert the versatility of its information. All this, of course, did not exist in Russia in those years. Russian church historical science was just beginning its work. Consideration of church history from a pragmatic point of view is all the more difficult because the Orthodox historian must develop his own principles, independent of Western models, and treat his subject from this point of view. But an Orthodox historian can only place Orthodoxy as the initial and most perfect point of view on the historical development of all aspects of the Church. Gorsky, with his scientific activities, responded to the urgent needs of the time. He did not take on broad tasks, because first it was necessary to establish the foundations of science, it was necessary to understand scientific materials in advance. And the science of church history had to go through its history, but even to this day it has never passed this thorny path. Gorsky’s exceptional talents were clearly demonstrated in the administrative field. In 1864, Gorsky was appointed rector of the academy and remained so until his death in 1875. During his rectorship, a radical restructuring of theological education occurred, ending with the reform of 1867–1868, which “had, perhaps, even greater significance than the reform of 1808–1814,” 12 and Gorsky took a direct part in its preparation and implementation. Under his direct and sensitive leadership, teachers and scientists were formed, who were later destined to become figures in the post-reform Theological School in Russia. I would like to summarize my thoughts about the personality of A.V. Gorsky with the words of his students, which were published in the anniversary collection dedicated to the centenary of the MDA. “Undoubtedly, for the Moscow Theological Academy, Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky is of the greatest importance, occupying first place throughout the hundred-year existence of the academy. Without exaggeration, we can say that all the best and brightest in the academy comes from Gorsky, and the academy will not completely lose its theological and scientific strength until the spirit of Gorsky completely dries up in it” 13. These words clearly and convincingly indicate that Gorsky was a knowledgeable pioneer of Russian church historical science. Gorsky was also theologus pectoralis (spiritual theologian - lat.). He inseparably combined the qualities of a researcher and scientist with the qualities of a man of faith and a good Christian. Indeed, Gorsky’s life was full of originality, which is so characteristic of the biographies of many leading minds of Russian culture, and his scientific heritage is an invaluable treasure passed down to us from the past of pre-revolutionary church historical science. For the biography of A.V. Gorsky, his “Diary” is very important. See: Diary of A.V. Gorsky / with note. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885; see also: At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914. Sergiev Posad, 1914. pp. 252–341. For information about Gorsky's life, see: Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. Memories of Gorsky as a professor: Belyaev A.D.A.V. Gorsky. M., 1877. Florovsky G. Paths of Russian theology. Vilnius, 1991. P. 367. See: Soloviev S. M. My notes for my children, and if possible, then for others. St. Petersburg, 1907. Florovsky G. Decree. op. See: Additions to the works of the holy fathers. M., 1844. No. 2. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. Part 1. M., 1996. P. 435. At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914. Sergiev Posad, 1914. P. 290. Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 449. At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914. Sergiev Posad, 1914. pp. 7–8.