III. Источники церковной истории

Historical sources are divided into silent and speaking, or non-written and written. I will not talk about the silent sources of church history, because they provide too little for our science. Written sources based on the material on which the letter was preserved are divided into 1) monumental, or inscriptions on stone and metal, on the walls of buildings, on marble tablets, on monuments, coins, etc., and 2) bookish, written on papyrus, parchment and paper. Among these latter sources, one can distinguish, on the one hand, a) sources of a general nature, on the other b) special sources, which, in fact, represent the processing of historical material, but at the same time have the significance of primary sources for us 8. 1. Monumental springs According to the degree of their authority, in general, in a number of historical sources, inscriptions of various kinds should be placed in first place, no matter what they were made on: on walls, marble monuments, coins, seals, etc. Stone is worth more than some bad papyrus; It was not so easy to write on the walls. Naturally, therefore, since there are well-known inscriptions on stones, walls, and metal boards, then one cannot see in them only a sample of a pen. Not everyone who felt an inclination towards literary activity would find it easy to write on such material. If monumental written monuments exist, then it is natural to assume that they were prepared by someone who had real motives for leaving a well-known inscription. Inaccuracies in such monuments could only occur when, for example, the government prepared them in anticipation of a yet-known event. However, cases similar to the act of Napoleon, who celebrated his victory over Russia with medals in advance, are very rare. Since these monuments were mostly written by the participants in the events themselves, this gives them even greater significance. [Falsification of this kind of monuments for the purpose of selling them to learned collectors is a phenomenon of modern times]. But, firstly, these monuments are few in number, and secondly, in their mass they are monotonous. Everything they give for history is usually limited to proper names and numbers. In comparison with other written sources, they can sometimes be like lanterns lit in broad daylight. The majority of this type of monumental written monument consists of funerary inscriptions; their content is limited to a prayerful appeal to God, the appeal of the dead to the living and vice versa. Inscriptions are more valuable when they perpetuate the activities of famous people. But epigraphy rightly figures among the aids of church history. Her merits are rare, but valuable. I will now illustrate this point. The martyr Justin says about Simon Magus that the Romans recognized him as a god and erected a statue of him on one of the islands of the Tiber with the inscription: “Simoni Sancto Deo.” This story seemed unlikely. In 1574, this statue was also discovered during excavations; the inscription on it turned out to be the following: “Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio sacrum”, therefore, it was dedicated to one Sabine deity, Semo Sancus. One of the most valuable inscriptions is the inscription on the pulpit of Hippolytus. In 1551, a statue of a person sitting on a chair with lion heads was discovered near Rome. The head and arms of the statue were broken off, and the inscription was open on the side walls of the chair. On the right side there is a list of works by an unknown author (later his identity with Hippolytus was proven) in Greek; An Easter canon from 222–333 was found on the opposite wall. according to R. X., i.e. a 112-year cycle (16x7 = 112), which assumes that after 112 years Easter should go as before. Also noteworthy is the recently discovered inscription in Olympia (1880) with the name of the asiarch Gaius Julius Philip Trallianus, dating back to 149 AD. It is important in deciding the time of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp of Smyrna. We find news of the death of Polycarp in the full version of his acts and in the abridged version of Eusebius. Since Eusebius did not give the final words of the full edition, which mentions government officials, they imagined that these acts were forged, drawn up according to Eusebius, and that Polycarp suffered in 166, and not in 155-156, as the acts indicate. The newly discovered inscription resolves the issue in favor of the full edition of the acts, for the consul Philip Trallian is also listed in the acts, and his year according to the inscription is 149, in any case closer to 155 than to 166. In 1882, the inscription of Averky, Bishop of Hieropolis, was discovered. This inscription was known in its content before. It was preserved by Simeon Metaphrastus, famous for alterations of ancient hagiographical monuments, in the life of Saint Equal-to-the-Apostles Averky of Hieropolis; but little confidence was given to her, since the life contained many incredible details: it spoke of the miraculous transfer of the stone on which the inscription was made to Hieropolis, of Averky’s journey to Rome to heal the emperor’s daughter. The inscription discovered in Hieropolis in front of the city gates dispelled the darkness that surrounded the face of Averky, and is curious in the sense that it explains how a life could be compiled that amazes with its improbabilities. It turns out that this inscription dates back to the time when the Church of Christ was persecuted. Therefore, the compiler of the inscription speaks secretly about Christianity. He talks about Averky’s journey to Rome to the queen, mentions a shepherd with shining eyes, a faith that offers fish, bread and wine for food, and so on. For believers, its content was clear. By the queen here we meant the Roman Church itself, by the shepherd and the fish - Jesus Christ, etc. The subsequent compiler of the life understood this legend of the life literally and interpreted its content in his own way. Another interesting inscription is related to the “Octavius” of Minucius Felix, i.e. the dialogue between the Christian Octavius ​​Januarius and the pagan Caecilius Natalius, a dialogue that ends with Caecilius converting to Christianity. There is a debate about this work in the literature. The similarity between the famous part of the dialogue and Tertullian's Apologeticus is undeniable, and scholars only argue about who used whom. Ebert (1868) resolves the issue in favor of Minucius Felix and considers Tertullian to be the borrower; but it seemed impossible to prove this unconditionally. In the subsequent work of scientists, a movement is noticed that responds with the most radical denial. Kühn (Richard Kühn 1882) states that this dialogue of Minucius Felix is ​​only a literary form, a fiction, that there was no Octavius ​​or Caecilius. Meanwhile, an inscription was found in Cirta in which one local official is mentioned, praefectus quinquennalis Marcus Caecilius Quinti filius Natalis. The latter is undoubtedly a pagan, because he appears to occupy a pagan position. It existed between 211–217, and since Caecilius Natalius, who had a conversation with Octavius, probably also bore the name Quintus (c. 1, 5, reading ex conjectura) and was of the genus Cirtensis (pp. 9, 6; 31:2), then from here we can determine the time of origin of the dialogue. In Cirta, as can be seen from the inscription, the surname Tsetsiliev Nataliev undoubtedly existed. True, the Dessau inscription in question (1880) who brought to the solution of the issue states that Marcus Caecilius was the Natalius who later converted to Christianity; and in this case, the dialogue took place after 210, and Tertullian, who wrote his Apologetics around 200, could not use Octavius. But the German publisher of this dialogue, Aemilius Baehrens (1886), believes that the question of the time of its origin was irrevocably resolved by Ebert and that M. Caecilius Natalius did not himself conduct a conversation with Octavius ​​and was not the father of this disputant, but was himself the son of that Quintus who talked with Octavius ​​and converted to Christianity. Thus, we are dealing only with the unpleasant fact for Christianity that the father is a convert to Christianity, and the son is again a pagan official. But this is possible, especially if we take into account the persecution of Septimius Severus. Thus, this Cirtan inscription suggests that the dialogue took place in the second half of the 2nd century. However, some scholars believe that the idea of ​​direct use and immediate relationship between Tertullian and M. Felix should be abandoned; that they both used a Latin Christian apology from the second half of the 2nd century that has not reached us, perhaps belonging to Proculus. Great importance must be recognized in two inscriptions composed by Pope Damasus. These inscriptions were found by de Rossi and restored in their entirety due to the fact that they had been copied long ago and were preserved in one ancient manuscript. They refer to the Roman bishop Marcellus, who occupied the see from May 24, 307 to January 15, 309, and his successor Eusebius, who was bishop from April 23 to August 17, 309. The records say that Heraclius forbade the shedding of tears, i.e. to mourn the fallen for their sins, and Marcellus and Eusebius taught the unfortunate to mourn their sins. They further contain indications that terrible riots took place in Rome. They also shed bright light on the internal state of the church in Rome and find out that the question of accepting the fallen, which played such a prominent role in previous history and gave rise to the schism, has been raised head on at the present time. There is a fairly old Roman legend that Marcellus’s predecessor, Marcellinus, caught in persecution, had the weakness to sacrifice to idols by burning incense (thurificatio), but then repented of his weakness, confessed himself to be a Christian and was executed. Thus, judging by Roman tradition, there was an apostate bishop here. Marcellinus's successor was Marcellus. Marcellus was obviously brought to the pulpit by the party of strict Christians, and therefore he declared that the fallen must atone for their sins through severe church repentance. But at that time there was also a large party of people who stood for weak discipline. The debate between the two parties soon assumed extensive proportions. From churches and houses, the matter was transferred to the streets, leading to fights and murders. Therefore, the Roman authorities intervened in the matter in purely police interests. The matter ended with Marcellus being sent into exile, where he died. Eusebius was nominated by the Strict Christians party. But the opposing party also nominated its representative and installed him as a bishop. Having become a bishop, Heraclius treated the fallen condescendingly, forbade them to mourn their sins and accepted them into the church after the shortest penitential discipline. On the contrary, Eusebius maintained strict discipline, and here the same story repeated itself: it came to street riots, which ended with Eusebius being exiled without having been a bishop for even one year. Ancient historians are completely silent about this incident, and the name of Heraclius appears only thanks to the Damascus inscription. Other writers do not say anything about him, and there is a guess from Lipsius that in the heresy of the Heracliots, who figured in antiquity as a Gnostic sect, lies a trace of the movement raised by Heraclius. In relation to individuals, inscriptions generally provide information about the time of their life and activities. This is the inscription on the tomb of Victor, Bishop of Capua, who died in April 554, after 13 years of ruling the flock, from February 541. One Asia Minor inscription, published by May, testifies to the Bishop of Smyrna - Eferich (Aíférixo_s). Epherich was present at the Flavian Council (448), at the Robbers' Council and at the Council of Chalcedon. Intimidated by terror, he gave extremely vague testimony, and in general, judging by the council’s acts, he leaves the impression of a man of short-sightedness and who found himself out of place. But the inscription certifies that Epherich was an archbishop and was respected by his flock, and thus throws light on the spiritual state in which he was: it shows that his confused testimony was the result of fear, and not of mental disposition; at the same time, it is important for judging how the fathers were treated at the council. Then, as noted, the vast majority of inscriptions are on tombstones. This kind of inscription can be of great service to Christian archaeology, but can also help in other areas. Thus, based on their Cavedoni, it is possible to determine the usual age at which Christians got married - from 14–17 years, although there were cases of marriages at 12–13 years. You can also use them to determine the average life expectancy, which in ancient Rome turns out to be less than at the present time. The most complete collection of inscriptions currently existing was published by the Berlin Academy of Sciences under the title: “Corpus inscriptionum Graecarum (since 1825) et Romanarum (since 1863).” This is a huge collection of volumes into which all discoverable inscriptions are entered and grouped. The production of this edition is excellent, thanks to the luxurious material resources that make it possible to attract the best forces of Germany to participate in it. It can replace authentic inscriptions that are inaccessible to many. There were also separate collections of inscriptions. Thus, Le Blunt (1856–1865) published inscriptions of Christian Gaul. Berlin professor Speg published Spanish (1871) and English (1876) inscriptions. The Italian archaeologist de Rossi (1861–1888) especially worked on Roman inscriptions, whose work is unparalleled. Along with inscriptions made on stones or preserved on fragments of walls, inscriptions made on seals are also important. Seals, as is known, in ancient times were sometimes attached to documents on a cord (sigilla pendentia) and represented something like medals; In this case, they had a front and back side, so a lot could be written on them. Due to the similarity in the technique of seals with medals, they can be taken as known forms of medals, so those who collect medals should also take into account the seals. Ancient seals have survived in huge numbers, and each personalized seal is a document that can testify to a particular person or position. Sometimes in prints, the most seemingly insignificant detail can be decisive in identifying a historical figure. For example, the city strategist used to place in the seals next to Christ and the Mother of God the saint who was considered the patron of the city. Thanks to this, the question of the strategist’s place of residence can easily be resolved with the help of his seal. Only episcopal seals have survived in very small quantities. And they are also very valuable documents. For example, one seal has been preserved, belonging to the Bishop of Ivornos, Photius. On its reverse we read the name of Bishop Photius all around, and on the other side in the middle is St. a bishop dressed in a phelonion or surplice with the signature: “ó” Agio_s Ouránio_s _'Epískopo_s Ύ bórnio_s” (“Saint Uranius, Bishop of Ivornos”) It is not known when this Photius, Bishop of Ivornos, lived. Perhaps this seal fills the gap in the “fasti episcopates”, or perhaps it only constitutes material for correcting the reading in the signature of the Council of Trullo (692), where Photius Bishop of Ivornos appears. The name Urania also has meaning. This was the bishop whose representative at the Council of Chalcedon was Prester Paul. As we know from the life of Eutyches of Constantinople, the memory of Uranius was highly revered. Thus, this later inscription confirms that the celebration of this saint still continued. Information about seals can be found partly in works on diplomacy, partly in special works. Heineccius, De veteribus Germanorum aliarumque nationum sigillis. Francof. 1719. Grotefend, Über Sphragistik. Breslau 1875. [Byzantine sigillography was developed in the works of G. Schlumberger, the main work is Sigillographie de l' Empire Byzantin. Paris 1884]. One might look at it as strange that coins could be among the sources of church-historical information. In this case, their significance is mainly not from the technical side and not from how much they cost, but as a kind of inscription. Ancient coins are not like our coins, which retain their stamp even after a change of sovereigns, unless there is any change in government. In the ancient world, coins were, in fact, medals, issued not only in memory of the general reign of various sovereigns, but also in memory of various events of the then history, and had different values. There were, for example, coins in memory of the capture of Judea by the Romans, as a result of which they bore the inscription: “Capta Judaea.” The stamps on the coins changed very often back then, making it possible to get a more accurate idea of ​​the time of the events in honor of which they were stamped. In general, ancient coins are significant not only because they give a portrait of a famous sovereign, but also because they represent emblems and inscriptions that help determine the nature of a famous reign and the political objectives of one or another sovereign. Thus, it is known that the coins of Constantine the Great play a role in history because they make it possible to determine his attitude towards Christianity according to how often Christian symbols appear on them. The Englishman Madden (Madden 1877–1878) worked especially hard on their study. A characteristic coin is stamped in honor of the emperor Decius Trajan with the inscription: “pudicitiae Augusti”, “the chastity of Augustus”, indicating the strictly moral character that distinguished Decius, which is confirmed in the news of other sources. The coin of Emperor Nerva also provides interesting historical information. On its front side there is an inscription: “Imp. Nerva Caesar Augustus Pontifex Maximus Tr. P. Consul II”, and on the reverse there is: “Fisci judaici calumnia sublata”, “for the abolition of the slander of the Jewish fiscus”. The Jewish fiscus was introduced by Domitian. This name was used to refer to the tax that was collected for circumcision and paid to the Church of Jupiter Capitolinus. This submission was collected with great cavils and was accompanied by insults. The noble Nerva abolished this tax upon his accession to the throne. Chronologically, the coins minted in Alexandria are especially important because they were marked with the year of the reign of the emperor in which the coin was minted. It was denoted by Greek letters, which was preceded by a sign similar to the letter "L"; It is impossible to understand what this sign means. But, be that as it may, this “L” is followed by a sign showing exactly how many times August 29 falls during the reign of this or that sovereign, and the year preceding is fully included in the reign of this sovereign. Therefore, Alexandrian coins are precious for chronology. Coins, further, can be successfully used to determine the full name of one or another sovereign. As you know, the Romans had many names. Determining the full name of the sovereign is very important for the historian. Thanks to the surviving coins, it was possible to restore the full name of Emperor Decius Trajan: Cajus Messius Quintus Trajanus Decius. This makes it possible to correct one date in the martyrdom of Pionius, which begins with the words: "imperatore Cajo Mense Quinto Trajano Decio"... With the help of coins one can understand that the words "Mense Quinto" are altered from the real name of the emperor "Messio Quinto". From this it is clear that the Latin translator, although he changed the name of the emperor, nevertheless had good acts of martyrdom at hand. Establishing the full name of Decius, in addition to correcting the indicated entry, also makes it possible: a) to attribute part of the fairly numerous martyrdoms that, according to acts, under Trajan, to the time of Decius and b) to be skeptical about those acts where Decius is called Flavius. Thanks to the complete collection of the proper names of the emperors during the period of persecution, it was possible to find out a remarkable fact for criticizing certain acts of martyrdom from the point of view of their authenticity. The matter comes down to the use of the name Flavia. It turns out that in many martyrdom monuments Decius is called Flavius, and edicts about persecution are attributed to him. This apparently insignificant circumstance, however, is a chronological indicator of these acts. All such acts with the name of Flavius ​​arose, undoubtedly, after Constantine the Great, although they may sometimes be based on traditions that have come down from earlier times or even brief records of martyrdoms. It is known that in the second half of the first century the Flavian family reigned in Rome. It belonged to: Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. With Domitian this surname ceased. But the name Flavius ​​appears in the title of Constantius Chlorus, which he inherited from his grandfather and which showed the nobility of his origin. As you know, Emperor Diocletian came from a very low family. Having become emperor, he called himself "Cajus Aurelius Valerius Jovius (dedicated to Jupiter) Diocletianus." Then he elected his old brother-in-arms with the name “Marcus Aurelius Valerius Herculius Maximianus” as co-ruler. Thus, the names appear in the name of both Augustan emperors: Aurelius and Valerius. Then, when assistants - Caesars - were elected for both Augusts, they received the title of Valerius, but not Aurelius, so that Constantius Chlorus was called “Cajus Valerius Constantius”, and Galerius - “Cajus Galerius Valerius”. Thus, the sovereigns acquired many names, and the names of Aurelius and Valerius began to be treasured as the distinctive title of rulers. In the person of Constantius Chlorus, the Flavian family ascends to the throne, and Constantine, who inherited the name “Flavius” from his father, became emperor and began to be called: “Cajus Claudius Flavius ​​Valerius Aurelius Constantinus.” He was called Claudius in honor of the Emperor Claudius; the names "Valerius Aurelius" expressed the completeness of his power. Although the name “Flavius” was the family title of Constantine, all emperors began to be called by this name after him. Thus, although the Flavian surname was interrupted, the title “Flavius” continues with all subsequent emperors. Theodosius I, Theodosius II, Justinian, Heraclius were called Flavians. Something even more happened. All state dignitaries, even the lowest, not to mention the highest, were titled Flavius. Recently, open Egyptian contracts show that each of the contractors there is either Flavius ​​or Aurelius, and if he did not hold a public position in Egypt, he was called Aurelius, and if he held a public position, then Flavius. The result was a huge tradition of the name Flavius. To those who lived after Constantine, it seemed very incredible that the emperors who preceded Constantine did not bear the name Flavius, and they themselves endowed them with this name. All previous works on numismatics were at one time eclipsed by the work of the scientist Eckel from Vienna, J. Eckhel Doctrina nummorum veterum. Vindobonae 1792–1799 (8 volumes in 4°). Eckel's work was continued by H. Cohen, Description historique des frappees sous l'Empire Romain. Continue par F. Feuardent 2 ed. Paris 1880–1892 (8 volumes in 8°). Of great importance are the works of Sabotier, in 2 volumes, on the description of Byzantine coins, from Arcadius to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, J. Sabotier, Description generate des monnaies Byzantines. Paris 1862. Photographs of ancient coins, interesting for their designs to the public, are often found, for example, in periodicals of a non-scientific nature. In general, due to the scattered nature of materials on numismatics, it is difficult to stand at the height of knowledge on this subject. 2. General book sources and their fundamental editions All kinds of inscriptions are of secondary importance for church history and cannot withstand comparison with book sources. The most valuable monuments for church history are those contained in patristic and church writing in general. Experiments have long been made to collect them as completely as possible. Works of the Holy Fathers and Church Writers One of the oldest more or less complete collections of patristic writings is the so-called “Bibliotheca sanctorum patrum”, which was published in Paris in 1575–1579. in 8 volumes Marguerin de la Eigne, Sorbonne doctor and canon de Bayeux; it contains the Latin Fathers in the original, and the Greek Fathers in the Latin translation. It was reprinted several times with significant additions and was finally expanded in the Lyon edition of the Bibliotheca maxima patrum Lugdune of 1677 to 27 folios; Latin writers up to the 16th century are given here. (however, from the 13th century with gaps) in the original, and the Greek in translation. Then in Venice appeared the edition of Andrei Gallandi, A. Gallandi, “Bibliotheca veterum patrum” in 14 folios 1765–1781:1788), in which the Greek writers are printed in the original. Gallandi's edition was substantially supplemented by Angelo Mai, prefect of the Vatican Library († 1854). He had access to a sumptuous collection of Greek originals from this library and, during his service, published as many of them as rarely anyone can. His ten-volume edition “Scriptorurn veterum nova collectio” (in 4°) was published in Rome from 1825 to 1838. Another of his publications by ancient authors – “Classici auctores” was also published in 10 volumes from 1828 to 1838 (in 8°). In 1839–1844 his ten-volume “Collection of Ears of Ears” appeared - “Spicilegium Romanum” (in 8°). After this extensive work, he devoted himself exclusively to the publication of the Holy Fathers "Nova Patrum bibliotheca", in 7 volumes, from 1844-1854. (in 4°); volumes 8 and 9 were published after Mai’s death in 1871 and 1888 [the material for volume 10 in 1906 was no longer collected by Mai]. Mai's publications, despite their shortcomings, remain important to this day, because many of the monuments he printed can only be found in his collections. In the main and essential aspects, the previous editions of the patristic works are exhausted in the “Patrology” of the French Abbot Minge, publisher of the “Universal Library for the Clergy,” J. R. Minge, Patrologiae cursus completus seu Bibliotheca universalis omnium SS. Patrum, Doctorum Scriptorumque ec-clesiasticorum. First, Minh published Chrysostom and Augustine. But then in the 40s he came to the intention of publishing all the fathers. In 1844–1855 Minh published 221 volumes, in a format between 8° and 4° of close text, of Latin writers, brought up to Innocent III (1216), volumes 218–221 contain indexes; then in 1857–1866. published the Greek fathers in 161 volumes, bringing the publication to the capture of Constantinople by the Turks. Thus, the entire ancient and middle period of church history was contained here in its main representatives. His cherished dream was to publish the patristic works in Eastern languages, but he did not have time to do anything for this. Min's special working conditions left their mark on his work. In order to publish a huge collection of books without loss, he, without government support, formed a company and ran his enterprise with its funds. And although such a venerable publication as the Bibliotheca cleri universa should have aroused sympathy on the part of the spiritual authorities, the latter looked unfavorably on Minh’s industrial enterprise, in which she saw something unworthy of a sacred person and contrary to the apostolic rules, which prohibit a clergyman from “buying deeds,” so Minh was forced to fight with the Parisian archbishop. In view of these inconveniences, Min's publication could not be particularly brilliant. It was printed on the worst paper that could be found in Paris, so it must be used with caution. Nevertheless, he persevered and completed the job. He died in 1875. A significant part of his publication (Greek patrolology) was lost due to a fire in a warehouse in 1868. If we determine the value of Minh’s “Patrology,” then this value lies primarily in its practicality and ease of use. Minh freed the world from the tomes of the Benedictine monks, which were very inconvenient to use, among other things, due to the enormity of the format. The scientific value of Min's work is small, and he did not pursue this goal. Minh was not a publishing scientist among those who explored and discovered new paths. He did not set the task of publishing unpublished authors, he did not establish a critical text, he only reprinted authoritative publications. He published at a time when every scientist had to go from the publications of the Benedictines. That is why he offers only reprints of ancient authoritative publications, over which the advantage of his “Patrology” lies in the convenience of the format. True, he also had interests in the direction of science, but his experience in this direction ended unsuccessfully, and in general Min himself did not have the opportunity to particularly improve the text of the works that he published. Few cases of text correction led to big troubles: in particular, the story of the creations of the Makariev remained memorable for him. There were two Macarii in Egypt: Macarius of Egypt, or the great, and Macarius of Alexandria - politikó_s (“urban”). It was necessary to distinguish between their works. Minh thought to use the services of Bonn professor Floss when publishing. The latter composed a very good prolegomenon (“preface”), but when it came to setting the text, he not only did not meet the deadline, but did nothing more. There was a slowdown in publishing, which the commercial business did not tolerate. There was a break in the series of Greek patrols, the printing house could be left without work, and therefore Min began to publish the following volumes, but subscribers did not want to take these volumes without the previous ones. Minh turned to his previous practice, gave up on Fless and began reprinting old publications. He usually took the best Benedictine edition, more complete and authoritative compared to others, and indicated the pagination of the original in bold type in the text of his edition; when necessary, the patristic works published by later scholars, which were missing from the Benedictines, were added. All the shortcomings that weighed down on the previous Benedictine editions of the works of the holy fathers, obviously, should have been included in Minh’s “Patrology”, and new errors were added to them. Therefore, scientists are not exempted and now from the obligation to resort to the originals of patristic literature and to its earlier editions, and only because of the inconvenience of using both of them they resort to Min’s “Patrology”. As for the earlier editions, they were distinguished by the simplicity of their techniques. The first publishers based their works on one or two manuscripts and rarely allowed amendments, as the Benedictines did. But the latter, although they used a large amount of material for their publications and were distinguished by their diligence, omitted many options in the manuscripts and were guided by the authority of those who had previously worked in the field of publishing patristic literature. Thanks to the Benedictine works, the text of the manuscripts they provided acquired value in terms of meaning, but their editions do not provide the opportunity for scholars to trace the genesis (“origin”) of the manuscripts. Another convenience and at the same time inconvenience of Benedictine publishing works is that the Benedictines tried to find and verify the passages of Holy Scripture carried out by the holy fathers in their writings. The Holy Fathers, who had different copies of the Holy Scriptures at hand, also had different readings of the Holy Scriptures. text. The Benedictines used only copies of Holy Scripture preserved in the Vatican Library. Accordingly, they checked the texts found in the patristic works with them. If the holy father cited the place of the priest. The Scriptures do not agree with the Vatican lists, the Benedictines considered such a place a typo and calmly corrected it either according to the Sistine edition of the Bible (in the works of the Greek fathers) or according to the Vulgate (in the works of the Latin fathers). This innocent technique of the Benedictines deprives scientists of the opportunity to trace from which manuscript St. the father borrowed the text he cited. Therefore, scientists for whom the text of the oldest manuscripts is important are forced to bypass the Benedictine editions and use earlier editions. Such shortcomings of Benedictine publishing works also entered into Migne’s “Patrology” and thereby reduce its value. In addition, Min's publication does not represent a completely complete collection of church writers. Additional work in this regard was undertaken by Jean Battista Pitra (J. V. Pitra), later a cardinal and bishop of Tusculan († 1889). His activity is in connection with the restoration of the so-called congregation of the Moor after the pogrom caused by the French revolution. The latter was detrimental to the monasteries. The monasteries were plundered, during which many literary monuments were destroyed and plundered. After the revolution, the French government decided to restore the scientific activities of the monasteries. For this purpose, the congregation of St. Maura, the founder of which was a student of Benedict of Nursia, sent by his teacher to Gaul and here, according to his charter, established a monastery. Every member of the congregation of St. Maura was called "monachus Benedictinus sancti Mauri", or "San Mauritan". The restored congregation was given a monastery in Solem (1837). Its second abbot was Pitra. He published in 1852–1858. monuments of paternal literature in the collection: “Spicilegium Solesmense” - “Solemsky collection of ears of grain” (4 volumes in 4 °). Having become bishop of Tusculan, Pitra transferred his activities to Italy. Using manuscripts from the Vatican Library, he published in 1876–1884. another collection of patristic works called “Analecta sacra” (volumes 1–4, 6, 8 in 8°). When publishing this collection, he made extensive use of oriental manuscripts in Syriac, Armenian and Coptic. Then he published Analecta novissima in 1885–1888 (2 volumes in 4°) and Analecta sacra et classica in 1888 (in 4°). A more advanced edition of Latin ecclesiastical writers before the 7th century. took over the Vienna Academy of Sciences, which has been publishing “Sophia scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum” since 1866. The work was divided among the most outstanding philologists of the present time. In order to understand and appreciate the merits and demerits of this work, it is necessary to note the fact that the publication was undertaken with the aim of giving a stable, authentic Latin text of these works. Science owes this publication to changing views on the Latin language. Previously, they distinguished between the golden, silver, copper and iron periods of the Latin language and looked at any deviation from classical Latin as a corruption of the language, and tried to correct each such place in the spirit of the latter. Now, however, every change in a language is viewed as a natural modification of its organic life, and in order to trace the history of its development, they try to restore the original text of all works written in it. Even the period of language decline provides modern scientists with interesting data for the emergence of new Romance languages: that is why philologists began to study the works of Christian writers of the 4th, 5th and 6th centuries. Previous publications were inconvenient to follow. Previous publishers saw many grammatical errors in the manuscripts of the Latin fathers and corrected them. The learned philologists of the Vienna Academy of Sciences set out to restore the completely original text. The case is conducted exclusively by philologists: this gives the publication a special flavor. De Lagarde in a review of the publication of the works of St. Cyprian in the Vienna corpus, made by Hartel (1868–1871), having pointed out various shortcomings of the edition, explained by the fact that the publisher was not a theologian, rightly notes that, after all, the shortcomings from the publication of the Holy Fathers by philologists will not be the same as those that can be expected from their publication by theologians without proper philological education and with tendencies harmful to science. Everyone remembers the ideas of Abba Sionnet in the publication of new and improved texts of the holy fathers that he undertook in Paris; from them it is clear what theological science could expect from the publication of the Latin fathers by Catholic theologians. During the publication of Augustine and John Chrysostom, the outstanding philologist Dübner was invited for philological work. Dübner found that the Latin Bible used by Augustine had been horribly altered. He told Abbot Sionne about this; he rudely replied: “The theological part is published by me, Abbe Sionne, and he would do well if he limited himself to finding and establishing quotations from classical authors.” Thus, the famous personality of Dübner appeared only instead of a sign, as a bait. The philologist Jahn suffered the same thing when reprinting the works of Basil the Great: his instructions were treated with extreme disdain. These precedents did not promise anything good from the publications of the Holy Fathers by Catholic theologians. Philologists are alien to theological interests, and this serves as their best guarantee that they will give the text exactly as it was in the best manuscripts and how it can be restored using the best means. But philologists do not care about commentary on theological content. They give good text; but they do not give footnotes. That is why Min’s “Patrology” has not yet lost its significance, since it contains dissertations and commentaries that are so valuable that they cannot be neglected. From a practical point of view, the publication of the Vienna Academy of Sciences evokes the reproach that it comes out slowly. But this slowness also shows the difficulty of publication. Thus, about the edition of Orosius, published in 1882, it is known that the publisher Zangenmeister worked on it for 15 years; 15 years of work enabled this scientist to establish the text in good faith. For their own purposes, Viennese scientists collect information in all libraries, and everything that the whole of Europe gives finds practical application in their works. Slowness is thus associated with quality of work. This publication applies the most reliable method to the use of manuscripts. It considers it insufficient to write down variants from manuscripts, but establishes the connection of manuscripts by the names to which they belong. In this way, the publishers thought to paint a picture of the history of the monuments. Another reproach that can be made to this publication is that it contained for the most part authors less important for theology in general and church history in particular, so that of the initially published authors there were few valuable ones, such as Cyprian, Victor of Vitus, Sulpicius Severus, Paul Orosius, John Cassian. The rest are writers who provide so little material for church history that hardly anyone except philologists will undertake to study them. The success of the Vienna edition depended, among other things, on special reasons, the essence of which was the rivalry between the Vienna and Berlin Academies, despite all the assurances of each other of mutual assistance. The Monumenta Germaniae historica, which is of great importance, is published in Berlin; here in the “Scriptores” department, among the “auctores antiquissimi” (1877–1898, 13 volumes) appear those Latin church writers who acted on German soil, for example Orosius and others. Thanks to the competition between Berlin and Vienna, Viennese scientists, having encountered disagreements in manuscripts, waited for their publication in Berlin and then checked their text in Berlin. Thus, it can be hoped that the ancient Latin ecclesiastical writers will be published in Vienna and Migne's "Patrology" in the corresponding part, in relation to the text of the writers, will be abolished. But Minya’s “Patrology” regarding Greek church writers will not lose its significance for a long time. One can hardly expect that the ancient church Greek writers will appear in their entirety in the 20th century. Until recently, at least, it was possible to point out only a few who did at least something to reprint Greek church writers; The only exceptions are a few writings of apostolic and Christian apologists. When Origen appears after the apologists, it is already very difficult to find publishers for reprinting it, especially Vasily V., Gregory the Theologian, John Chrysostom. As for what was previously published in Germany, for example by Harnack, these were only small pieces from the monuments of ancient Christian literature. The publications of Karl de Boor, which introduce us to Theophan the Confessor, Theophylact, Nicephorus - Patriarch of Constantinople, etc., have the same comparatively small quantitative significance. Hence, Min’s “Patrology” still, one might say, has not become obsolete. This attitude towards Greek literature is self-explanatory. Latin writers are of interest to Latin philologists, Romance philologists, Romance and Germanic historians. On the contrary, Greek writers are of interest to civil historians and, perhaps, also to the Greeks themselves. The fact is that the Greek language did not introduce any new adverbs; the modern Greek language is only a modification of it. Hence, it can only be of interest to a Hellenistic philologist, and under this condition, the lack of scientists who would be interested in studying the Greek language is a completely natural and understandable fact. The extent to which civil historians view the matter narrowly is easy to judge by at least the following fact. When the edition of Theophanes's chronicle appeared, learned reviewers made notes of this kind that this publication was not useful for the Germanic world, and precisely because Germans had also been on Greek soil 10 . The Patrology of Min, even if it were replenished, would still have the significant drawback that it does not embrace the two branches of Greek and Latin writing. The fact is that it only publishes works that belong to certain authors. The very program of Min's "Patrology" therefore excludes anonymous works (with some exceptions) on the one hand, and such collective works as the "Acts of the Councils" on the other. [Ming himself had the intention of publishing “The Acts of the Councils” in 80 volumes, but did not have time to begin to implement this idea.] Thus, we have to turn to other collections of monuments of ancient Christian literature in addition to Min’s “Patrology”. The history of the publication of conciliar acts is very interesting in the sense of the gradual growth of publishing techniques. The medieval Romano-Germanic world was content with only canonical collections in its theological and historical publications. Naturally, under such conditions, the specified literary branch was in complete oblivion. Meetings of this kind appeared only under the direct influence of the German Reformation. In order to combat innovations, the Parisian canon Jacques Merlin in 1524 undertook the publication of councils, representing one folio in 2 parts. It was supposed to contain the acts of all ecumenical and local councils and the decisions of the popes. One can judge how little this scientist imagined about the field of canonical materials, and it is quite natural that his intention turned out to be better than the execution itself. The collection turned out to be unsatisfactory. Thus, the letter of Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius is attributed in it to the Council of Ephesus. The V Ecumenical Council (553) turned out to be completely unknown. And what appears under the name of this council actually refers to the council of 536, which was under the Patriarch of Constantinople Menas, and to the Council of Jerusalem. But once the first impetus was given in this direction, Merlin found followers. Merlin's edition was reprinted in 1530 and 1536. In 1538, a publication by the Franciscan monk Peter Crabbe appeared in Cologne, in the form of 2 volumes in folio. For this publication, he said, he reviewed up to 500 libraries. New documents were discovered here, such as the “Breviarium” of the Carthaginian archdeacon Liberatus. Hence this edition is somewhat better compared to the previous ones. The advantage of Crabbe's collection, by the way, lies in the fact that the acts of the IV Ecumenical Council are given in his translation by the Roman deacon Rusticus, so that, thanks to this, it became possible to revise the Latin translation. Moreover, since ancient editions were often undertaken in such a way that the ancient manuscripts served in the printing house along with the originals and therefore very often disappeared, the Krabbe edition is very important in the sense that it is sometimes a replacement for the originals. After Krabbe, in the sense of expanding scientific knowledge, it is worth noting the 4-volume edition of Laurentius Sury in 1567. In it appear the Decrees of the Apostles (8 books), the acts of the V Ecumenical Council, the so-called “codex encyclicus”, which is a collection of messages from metropolitan councils to Emperor Leo I. Sury was followed in 1585. Venetian edition of Nicolini in 5 volumes. The next edition, reprinted up to three times, is by Severinus Binia; of these, the 1st edition in Cologne dates back to 1606. It shows, among other things, how insufficient the views of the publishers themselves were regarding their tasks. So, for example, the work of Gelasius is cited in it as the acts of the Council of Nicaea. The most prominent step in this regard is the Roman publication of the Collectio Romana of 1608–1612, undertaken by order of Pope Paul V. The Jesuits, especially Sirmond, were at the head of this publication. This publication contained the documents of the ecumenical councils in four volumes. The material for this publication was Greek manuscripts found among the treasures of the Vatican Library; the latter was responsible for the enormous success of this publication, but at the same time one cannot help but notice that this circumstance (Greek manuscripts) also had some disadvantages. Having the Greek text at hand, the publishers imagined it to be perfect, infallible, and in those cases when they had to ascertain the difference between the manuscripts, they corrected the Latin text. Thus, having discovered the Greek text, these publishers, as proofreaders, sinned significantly against the original Latin text. They corrected the style, crossed out a lot, replaced some places with their own expressions; in a word, they treated the translation as if it were school work, so that in their edition the Latin text lost the meaning and character of the ancient translation. It is important that these publishers, having become convinced of the infallibility of this text, corrected the Latin text of the symbols based on it. The Roman edition was followed by the Conciliorum collectio regia (royal collection of councils), which appeared in Paris in 1644 and consisted of 37 volumes. And in this edition we find new documents, for example the message of Vigilius, with which he recognized the council of 553 as the V Ecumenical Council. Typographically, this publication represented the height of art: all measures were taken to ensure that the publication turned out luxurious. And indeed, it was striking in its appearance. But, unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the internal dignity of the publication. In its completeness it was surpassed by the edition of Philippe Labbe, a French Jesuit, who set about the matter with great caution: he first printed the program of his publication, so that the learned world became familiar with this program and made many instructions to the editor in order to correct the shortcomings. Thanks to this technique, he was able to open up to 30 new cathedrals, which took place in the west and were hitherto unknown. The Greek text in this edition appears in its best form. Labbe died in 1667 while he was preparing volumes 9 and 10 for publication. The publication was completed by Lyabba's fellow Jesuit member Gabriel Cossart in 1672, when the last 17th volume was published. But Philippe Labbe could not give up the Collectio Romana either. One French scientist, Etienne Baluze, who had the fortunate ability to find the most valuable documents and was gifted with an extraordinary flair for publishing, drew his attention to this significant drawback. His comparison with other manuscripts of the existing Latin text convinced him that the romani correctores had fundamentally damaged the text and distorted the meaning. Therefore, he set out to restore the original Latin text, establishing the difference between two editions for the acts of the IV Ecumenical Council: a) before Rusticus and b) Rusticus. But since before him all the bookstores and markets were overcrowded with previous editions and not a single publisher wanted to accept a new edition without selling the previous one, Baluz had to limit himself to publishing only versions of the edition of Lyabbe-Cossar in 1683. He managed to find out the nature of the councils of 355. in Milan and 359 in Rimini, also the nature of the Carthaginian conference of 411. with the Donatists. His work on the restoration of the original Greek text covers all documents up to and including the V Ecumenical Council. The publication most often cited in the old days was Lyabba, but now it has lost its significance, and if it continues to be cited, this only indicates that the authors are far from being in a favorable environment, namely, in some provincial town, where it is not possible to obtain more important sources, such as the work of Hardouin and Mansi. The first of them, the publication of the Jesuit Jean Hardouin (Hardouin, 1729) “Conciliorum collectio regia maxima” appeared in Paris in 12 volumes in 1715, the last cathedral is dated 1711. Typographically, this edition is distinguished by its purity and clarity and generally has many advantages. However, the publisher failed to take proper advantage of Baluz's additions and, using them only lightly, corrected the text without even indicating the name of the author he used. The false side of this work is Hardouin’s special attitude towards the works of his predecessors, since he, using Baluz’s publication, presents its data as the results of his work. For the Latin text, something is given between its true character, as it appears in Baluz, and that with which it appears in previous publishers. The advantages of Gardouin's edition include the various indices attached to it. The enterprise of Dominic Mansi is well-known in connection with the publication of the cathedral acts of the bookseller Nikolai Koleti, published in Venice in 23 volumes in 1728–1734. In itself, this publication did not represent anything new, being a reprint of Lyabba’s text. Its lucky feature is that it has attracted the interest of the scientific world. Mansi, who was a canon in Lucca, took the trouble to compile six additional volumes to this edition, published in 1748–1752. And then he himself decided to publish the councils. “Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio” appeared in 31 volumes, of which the first volume appeared in Florence in 1759, the last in 1798. Mansi did not have time to complete the publication and died this year with the rank of Archbishop of Lucca (from 1765). The Mansi enterprise was in the hands of booksellers and suffered somewhat typographically. Perhaps the very schedule of this publication depended on commercial considerations. Almost every more or less prominent cathedral has been divided into two volumes, so that half begins in one volume and the end is contained in the other. Mansi's edition ends with the Council of Florence. Therefore, it could not supplant Gardouin's publications. It also doesn’t have the kind of signs that Gardouin has. But in scientific works it is necessary to be guided preferably by the Mansi collection, not only because Mansi used a large number of options, but also because Gardouin inserted his own conjectures into the text. The advantage of Mansi's edition lies in the fact that it is more complete than Hardouin's edition. Everything published in Supplementa is marked with the sign of a pointing hand; he published everything that was known. Its publication includes all ecumenical councils, local and papal epistles. The shortcomings of the Mansi edition naturally make one want to replace it with something better. A new edition of the council's documents was announced back in 1870 and then in 1884 by the Parisian publisher Victor Palme. But Palmet in the end only promised to provide a reproduction of the Mansi edition, and in order to attract the public, he promised the 32nd volume, which would contain an index, which would not be sold separately. From a scientific point of view, such an enterprise seems to be a harmful undertaking, because once this expensive publication is thrown onto the market, it will be impossible for individuals to undertake anything new. That the inconveniences of the Mansi publication are sensitive cannot be subject to any doubt. The format of this publication is huge, it does not fit on the table, so in this regard it is inconvenient to use. Despite its completeness, the Mansi collection contains a lot of unnecessary things. It contains pseudo-Isidore's decretals, and then further papal letters. The reason for reprinting some papal epistles was that popes sometimes wrote epistles after Roman local councils. But for such a publication as the publication of councils, papal epistles are unnecessary ballast, since the latter have their own publishers. The epistles of the popes before Leo were published by Coutant, Leo the Great was published by the scholar Ballerini, the successors of Leo before Hormizda were published by Thiel, Gregory the Great is in the Monumenta Germaniae. Thus, a significant part of Mansi's edition can be considered superfluous. The publisher, further, expanded his task, as well as his program, and in order to explain the activities of the popes, whose messages he places in his publication, he gives excerpts from the Liber pontificalis before each pope. This part of his works became outdated, especially after the publication of the French scientist Duchenne. But especially unnecessary ballast is provided by those comments that accompany both the papal letters and excerpts from Liber pontificalis. Currently, in matters relating to the history of cathedrals, scientists bow to the authority of the scientist Hefele and therefore use his work (S. J. Hefele, Conciliengeschichte. 2 Aufl. Freiburg im Br. 1873 onwards). Mansi’s reasoning is addressed by those who want to give suum cuique and indicate the significance of Mansi’s works in the history of the study of conciliar acts. Thus, there is a lot of unnecessary stuff in Mansi’s work. If you exclude unnecessary material, then its publication will be reduced significantly. What relates to the councils, he reprinted piece by piece from the ancient synodicus (Liber synodicus), where information is given, sometimes very brief, sometimes strikingly borrowed from some unknown sources. Gardouin did better by reprinting this synodic in its entirety. Another inconvenience of the Mansi edition is that it does not mark the pages of previous editions. If ever a new edition of conciliar documents is to be realized, then, in any case, it must appear in a different form, with the highlighting of papal letters and other superfluous documents and with a change in the chronological order of publication, which Mansi held. In general, the volume of the collection of documents related to the councils is difficult to determine with accuracy. It is difficult, for example, to say which documents dating back to the Council of Ephesus belong to the Council of Ephesus. It would therefore be better if scholars refrained from reprinting the epistles of Celestine, Sixtus, and even Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril of Alexandria had his own publisher, but under the name of the Council of Ephesus one must publish only what was read at it, or what modern fathers attribute to it, or, finally, what could not have its own publisher, such as, for example, the letter of John of Antioch. As for, on the other hand, the order in the distribution of documents, reading the acts of the councils of Muncie in chronological order, now eastern, now western, gives the impression of strangeness, because the nature of the activities of the councils for the east and west is different; while the East was concerned with Christological disputes, the West with the establishment of church discipline. It is further known that the councils expressed their activities in three forms: 1) pepragména or pra_kseis are a detailed shorthand account of the activities of the council; 2) there were other kinds of monuments with which the fathers of the cathedral informed the Christian world and sovereigns about the conclusions to which they came, brief reports in the form of reports or protocols; 3) finally, the decisions of the councils are sometimes expressed in a document known as “kanone_s”, which includes the briefest provisions developed at the council and brought to the attention of the entire Christian world by the fathers of the council. It is obvious that the separation of “prá_ksei_s” from other documents in cathedral monuments has a legal basis. All councils could be divided into three cycles. A) The documents of the first cycle - the I and II Ecumenical Councils, in connection with the local eastern councils, are important not so much for the history of dogma as for canon law. It is known that the acts of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils have not survived, except for the lists of the fathers and some other documents. B) With the Third Ecumenical Council, a new era opens for the publishers of conciliar acts, since all subsequent councils were devoted to one issue and their results were preserved in the form of “pepragména”. In the edition of the ecumenical councils from III to VII, the acts of the Council of Constantinople of 536 under Menus and the acts of the Lateran Council of 649 under Pope Martin should also find a place. The Acts of the VII Council will represent the final link B). Finally, the local councils, with which the Western Church is rich, should compile a separate collection, which will be of more interest to the canonist than to the historian. Thus, the publication of conciliar documents should consist of 3 parts: the first part should contain the decisions of the first two ecumenical and eastern local councils, the second - the acts of the ecumenical councils, starting with III, and the third - the monuments of the western local councils. Cathedral monuments about the face of the Lord Jesus Christ would be grouped together. The Greek text could be supplemented on the basis of rare Vatican manuscripts, while the Latin text would appear in both editions, the ancient one and the one corrected by Rusticus in the 6th century. Baluz and Cardinal Pitra worked to restore the original Latin text. It would be possible to restore it in all its purity. In Mansi, the case was left in its original form; everywhere he reprints the old text, corrupted by Latin proofreaders, next to the Greek (according to Lyabbe), and below he gives corrections borrowed from Baluz 12. A successful experience in publishing the canons of the Eastern and Western churches in a small volume has already been made under the leadership of Neander Bruns, N. T. Bruns, Bibliotheca ecclesiastica. Canones apostolorum et conciliorum. I-II. Berolini 1839. Two volumes in octavo instead of 12 volumes of Mansi contain here all the most valuable in this regard from the decrees of the ecumenical and local councils. Hagiographic monuments Another type of collection of individual documents important for church history are collections of hagiographic monuments, acts of martyrs and biographies of saints - “acta sanctorum”. The publication of these monuments belongs to the so-called Bollandists and has the following full title: “Acta sanctorum, quot toto in orbe coluntur”, “Acts of all the saints who are revered throughout the entire universe.” The Bollandists were Flemish Jesuits led by John Bolland, who died in 1665. Bolland was, in fact, the continuator of the business, which was started by Heribert Rosweyde († 1629). His successors were other Jesuits, Henschen († 1681), Papebroch († 1714), etc. The Jesuits, when undertaking the publication, according to the custom that existed at that time, did not indicate the extent of the participation of their fellow members in the enterprise. This is due to their modesty; but modesty in the present case cannot be called commendable, because for subsequent scientists it is very important to know whether a well-known work belongs to some experienced scientist, or to a Jesuit just beginning his scientific career. However, some participants in this publication were so sensitive to their needs that they put their initials, the original purpose of this enterprise was to be modest in nature. The publishers had an example for themselves in the person of their predecessor in this field, Lawrence Surius, who published in 6 volumes the lives of saints honored by the Latin Church (1570–1575); this included many Greek monuments. The Jesuits only wanted to supplement the edition of Surius, and in 18 folios Bolland wanted to publish the lives of the whole year. But when he began publishing, the material began to grow rapidly: now not a month is published in two volumes, but a whole volume covers only two days of the month. From this you can see how the end of the enterprise does not correspond to the beginning. Along with the growth of scientific material, the form of publication also changed. At first they thought of giving only a Latin translation from Greek monuments, and then they began to give the Greek text as well. The first volume of the publication (January 1–15) was published in 1643. In the history of the publication, the French Revolution had a fatal significance. Due to the secularization of property, the Jesuits lost their influence, and in 1794 the last 53rd volume was published (the 6th for the month of October). Only at the end of the 30s of the next century could the Belgian Jesuits begin this enterprise again. The first one, published by them in 1845. Tom hugs on the 15th and 16th of October. Currently, this undertaking has been completed until the first days of November, but for the end of the year we have to use the old edition of the lives of the saints Surya. These Jesuits have also published since 1882 the periodical organ “Analecta Bollandiana”, which fills the gaps that appeared in the first months. The fact that the Jesuits took upon themselves the publication of the Acta santctorum seemed to cast a shadow over their enterprise, since this order had acquired notoriety. But in reality, science should consider it the greatest happiness that the Jesuits took up this matter. This is the most widespread and enterprising order: it could collect monuments from everywhere. Further, this is the most powerful order. After the Reformation, he was the firstborn son of the Catholic Church, enjoying the special trust of the popes. Thanks to the power of the Jesuit order, the Bollandists could express their scientific views without risking persecution than members of other orders. And this is important, because the “Acta sanctorum” touched upon the interests of other orders and, although the Bollandists stipulated at every step of their “Acta” that they were sinful people who tend to make mistakes, they were nevertheless subject to criticism. For example, when in the July volume of acts they, speaking about the prophet Elijah and his widespread celebration, said that the Spanish Order of Carmelites does not trace its origins to the prophet Elijah, the latter rebelled against them and declared that the “Acta sanctorum” were heretical works, and the publishers were heretics. It is easy to imagine what could have happened to another order, less powerful, more defenseless than the Jesuit Order. The Carmelites and the Inquisition could not do anything against the Jesuits. In the "Acta sanctorum" the Jesuits conduct their work strictly scientifically. They have to deal solely with the lives of martyrs and saints, to provide for this historical documents in the form in which they have come down, and they do not need to indulge in inventions to defend the papacy. If sometimes in the lives of the saints of the Eastern Church, for example, in the life of the Patriarch of Constantinople Ignatius, they present the Latin translation of the Greek original as somewhat reinterpreted in their favor, then this does not oblige the scientist to turn to this translation when there is a Greek original. The Bollandists publish not only the text, but also commentaries, which testify to their enormous erudition. As the publication moved forward, new scientific perspectives opened up for them. In order, for example, to operate on chronological dates, they had to establish the chronology of the Eastern patriarchs. To clarify some of the features of Greek worship, it was necessary to publish a service to three saints. Thus, the closer this enterprise is to us in time, the more it benefits in quality 13 14 . Among private collections of hagiographical monuments, one should also mention the Benedictine edition of 77 Ruinarfa “Acta primorum martyrum sincera et selecta” (Paris 1689, last edition Ratisbonae 1859). The publisher's intention was to contain in the collection what is genuine in the ancient acts of martyrdom. Ruinard was strict about his work, but did not follow through with his criticism. On the one hand, he has too little criticism (some acts are not fully authentic), on the other, as ELe Blunt believes (Les Actes des martyrs. Paris 1882), there is too much (acts with genuine details are not accepted). In the opinion of Le Blant, learned criticism should begin its work by isolating these particulars from later additions. Min's intention to publish writers in Eastern languages ​​has recently found fruition in the West, even in two forms at once. On the one hand, Patrologia Orientalis began to be published in Paris in 1903, edited by R. Graffin and F. Nau, professors of the Paris Catholic Institute. According to the publishers, this “Patrology” should complement the Greek and Latin patrolology of Min, even maintaining the format of the latter, and is, as it were, a continuation of the Graffin'oM undertaken even earlier, but which did not go further than the first volume of Patrologia syriaca (1894, the homilies of Afraat). It will also contain Greek texts that are not found in Minya. Along with the original texts, a translation into Latin or one of the new European languages ​​(French, German, English, Italian) is given. The editions of the first four volumes that have appeared do not reveal any definite plan in the placement of published monuments. Simultaneously with this “Patrology”, on the other hand, was conceived, also in Paris, and published under the editorship of the orientalists V. Chabot, J. Guidi, H. Hyvernat, V. Carra de Vaux according to the previously developed very broad program “Corpus scriptorum christianorum orientalium”. The entire publication is divided into departments according to the languages ​​of the printed works (scriptores arabici, aethiopici, coptici, syri), departments into series in relation to the content. The outlined plan is carried out as individual volumes or issues are prepared for printing. So far, 16 volumes have been published or just begun. In total, the collection contains at least 200 volumes in 8°. The translation is supposed to be given, with a few exceptions, only in Latin; it is printed and can be purchased separately from the oriental texts. Both editions will include the most varied content of monuments of Eastern literature, including hagiographical, liturgical, canonical, and even philosophical (in the Corpus). Competition between two homogeneous enterprises, in which the majority of outstanding modern Orientalists take part, seems not entirely understandable and in this case hardly desirable (cf. B. A. Turaev, Modern enterprises for the publication of literary monuments of the Christian East. Journal. Min. Nar. Proev. 1905, No. 1) and was already accompanied by some unpleasant misunderstandings between the publishers regarding the appearance of the same monument in both editions (the Arab history of the Alexandrian patriarchs Sevier of Ashmun, Seybold in Corpus and Evetts in Patrologia). In any case, one cannot fail to recognize the extreme importance of these enterprises for church history and for theological science in general, since they promise to introduce the scientific world to a mass of little-known or even completely unknown hitherto monuments. (A.B.) Of the publications indicated by A.I. Brilliantov, many have made significant progress. Thus, the “Berlin Series”, having changed its name (instead of “Greek Christian Writers of the First Three Centuries”, it became known as “Greek Christian Writers of the First Centuries”), already includes more than 50 volumes, expanding its chronological range (up to the 6th century after R.H.). It published the works of Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Hippolytus of Rome, St. Methodius of Olympus, St. Macarius of Egypt, Eusebius of Caesarea, “Church Histories” of Sozomen and Blessed. Theodoret of Cyrus and others. Its complementary series: “Texts and studies on the history of ancient Christian literature” already has more than 130 issues. In addition to individual (often very valuable) studies and monographs, this series also includes editions of texts, for example, Greek commentaries on the Gospels. “Eastern Patrol” (Patrologia Orientalis) also contains about 200 volumes (in Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian, Georgian, Greek and Slavic languages). The Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, which includes six series (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Arabic and Ethiopian), has now exceeded 500 volumes. It should be noted that after the Second World War, other critical editions of the texts of the Church Fathers and Christian writers appeared. Of these, the most respectable can be considered the following: firstly, the monumental “Corpus Christianorum”, published in Belgium by Catholic scholars (Brepols publishing house). This “Corpus” is divided into several series: “Latin Series” (Series Latina), which according to the plan should contain 250 volumes and include works of Western Christian authors of the first seven centuries (more than 170 volumes were published); directly adjacent to it is the series “Medieval Continuation” (Continuatio Mediaevalis), covering the period from the 8th to the 12th centuries. (about 70 volumes were published); a little later (since 1977), the “Greek Series” (Series Graeca) began to be published, setting the task of publishing the works of the post-Nicene fathers and teachers of the Church, and therefore organically complementing the “Berlin Series” (more than 20 volumes were published); finally, the “Apocryphal Series” (Series Apocryphorum), begun in 1983 (the apocryphal “Acts of John” and “Armenian Acts of the Apostles” were published). In terms of its monumentality, this “Corpus” can be compared with Minh’s “Patrology”, but in terms of the quality of the published texts and critical apparatus, it is far superior to it, using all the achievements of modern science. Secondly, one cannot help but say something about such an outstanding series as the French “Christian Sources” (Sources chretiennes). Started during the Second World War, it initially contained only French translations of works by Christian writers (both Greek and Latin), but soon switched to publishing the texts themselves with parallel translations (only Eastern Christian authors are published only in translation). This series is remarkable in that its individual issues, as a rule, are supplied with an extensive preface (often developing into a monograph) and commentary. The number of volumes in this series is approaching 400. (A.S.) – 127. 3. Special sources of church history Let us now turn to what was written in ancient times in church historical literature. Works of this kind actually represent the processing, to a greater or lesser extent, of church historical material. But for us they are also primary sources. Greek church historiography At the head of church historians is the famous Eusebius of Caesarea with his historical works: Libri chronicorum II, Historia ecclesiastica and Vita Constantini. We know very little about his life. He was born between 260 and 270 and died around 340. From his life before his appointment as a bishop, his relationship with the Caesarian scientist presbyter Pamphilus is known, out of respect for whom he adopted the name “Pamphilus.” However, nothing definite can be said about this. In historical monuments we find the name of Eusebius only in the genitive case: Eúsebíou tou:' Pamfílou, so we cannot say whether this is "tou:' Pamfílou", according to the property of the Greek language, a designation of the fact that Eusebius's father was called Pamphilus, like "'Alé_ksandro_s tou:' Filippou", or a nominative case for Eúsebíou tou: 'Pamfílou is Eúsébio_s ó Pámphilo_s, and then this would mean that Eusebius actually adopted the name "Pamphilus" out of respect for Pamphilus. With this learned presbyter, Eusebius defended Origen from his opponents. Eusebius speaks about the persecution of Diocletian as an eyewitness. He himself was subjected to them, but survived. This gave rise to criticism: they said that he saved his life by making a concession and betrayed Christianity. However, these suspicions should be considered exaggerated, because soon after the persecution Eusebius became the bishop of Caesarea and all his activities take place in this rank. Eusebius caused more controversy as a learned theologian-historian. First of all, his dogmatic Orthodoxy was discussed - whether he was an Arian or an Orthodox. Already in the 5th century. judgments about this were shared, but the most correct opinion is the one that rejects the very question about this. In any case, Eusebius was not one of the great historical geniuses who see deeply into facts and events and evaluate them broadly. He was a highly educated man, but at the same time an ordinary thinker. In addition to strict Orthodoxy, approved at the Council of Nicaea, and strict Arianism, there was also the view of Origen, which was shared by many. Eusebius, as a man of the middle, adhered to Origen's theology. He, as his relationship with Pamphilus suggests, was an Origenist and believed that all important questions had already been resolved by Origen. Therefore, when Arianism appeared, which received a strong rebuff from Alexander of Alexandria and Athanasius the Great, Eusebius did not understand the essence of this phenomenon: it seemed to him that Origen had resolved dogmatic issues well, and Arianism was not of particular importance, and for this reason he did not pester either the Arians or Alexander. In the end, Eusebius became closer to the Arians; throughout his life he stood with them and, due to his historical position, could not be considered Orthodox. Naturally, some of the Arians considered him their leader, and Athanasius the Great also considered him an Arian. This view was reflected in the attitude towards his works. But if we take into account everything that has been said, then the question of whether Eusebius was an Arian or Orthodox is rejected by itself, and the dogmatic position of Eusebius is determined as follows: Eusebius was neither Orthodox nor Arian - he was an Origenist 16 In modern times, the unfavorable view of Eusebius was based not on this, but on the quality of the work itself. Eusebius interested scientists in terms of the reliability of his historical legends, especially the work “De vita Constantini” (“On the Life of Constantine”). The predominant tone in this essay is panegyric. Therefore, they think that Eusebius exaggerates the actions of this sovereign, and they conclude that this work is far from reliable and even the documentary part of it should be used with caution. Eusebius sees in Constantine V. a perfect and pious man; he does not find words for a worthy description of the emperor’s merits. Since such a panegyric tone should be significantly lowered, as research has shown, this casts a certain shadow of suspicion on the veracity of Eusebius as a historian: they say that he is more of a court flatterer than a historian. In this case, it is pointed out that Eusebius is silent, for example, about the executions that Constantine carried out on members of his family, and does not report anything about the unfortunate fate of Crispus, the eldest son of Constantine. Thus, the question is how much Eusebius can be trusted when he concerns various historical events. That Vita Constantini is not a strict history is to a certain extent true. But we must not forget that Eusebius’ panegyric itself is important. Eusebius illuminates the persecution of Christians not only in the sense of the activity of the devil and human malice; on the contrary, he impartially describes the state of Christians before Diocletian’s persecution in such terms that this persecution was God’s permission, a thunderstorm that was supposed to clear the air. Recognizing all this, he, an eyewitness of the persecution, perfectly understands what a disastrous time it was, and highly appreciates the benefit shown to the church by Constantine, and paints him as a hero, forgetting about some of his shortcomings. Eusebius was not a man significantly superior to his contemporaries, and Eusebius's attitude towards Constantine was the general attitude towards him of the Eastern bishops. The persecution in the east was more severe than in the west. When Constantine ascended the imperial throne, the position of Eastern Christians changed: according to the Edict of Milan, they were freed from persecution for their faith. However, despite the existence of the Edict of Milan, persecution was actually possible and was often undertaken against Christians. From here it was easy to come to the conclusion that all support for those professing Christ’s teaching lies in nothing other than Constantine himself. That is why Constantine the Great is surrounded by an aura of glory and his contemporaries spoke of him with praise. As for Eusebius’s silence about the executions of members of the imperial family, it is hardly possible to strictly blame him for this. The modern historiographer does not look at the murder of relatives through the eyes of sentimentalism: Constantine acted on the principle of political necessity. However, it is hardly fair to put the historian in a dilemma: either say everything unconditionally, not excluding state secrets, or say nothing. If at present documents, even of an academic nature, can be published only after a certain number of years, then what is surprising if a historian of the 4th century, publishing his works, passed over in silence some facts that do not speak in favor of the contemporary emperor. Eusebius acted as everyone else does in such cases, especially since his writings could reach the emperor himself. Recently, the voices of competent historians have been inclined to take a more favorable view, even of the Life of Constantine. Thus, Mommsen recognized the authenticity of the documents presented in Vita Constantini. Another objection to Eusebius is based not on the Vita Constantini, but on the Libri chronicorum. Here Eusebius allegedly sins by concealing his sources: Eusebius’s chronicle was considered an unspoken document of his dishonesty. It is known that Sextus Julius Africanus wrote the chronicle even earlier; but it survives only in fragments. It has been suggested that Eusebius compiled the work of Africanus without naming its original author. Already Scaliger (1606) points out the fact that Eusebius is silent about the chronicle of Julius Africanus, although he had it at hand and used it when compiling his chronicle. In itself, this accusation is not particularly strong, since in ancient times it was not the custom to provide quotations, but it was held too stubbornly. In recent times, prof. has taken up the study of this issue. Geizer, who at first held the same opinion (N. Geizer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die Byzantinische Chronographie. Lpz. 1880–1885). But when he began a comparative assessment of both authors with the conviction of the greatness of Africanus and the insignificance of Eusebius, then, in his own expression, the scales of Eusebius rose more and more, and the scales of Julius Africanus more and more fell; it turned out that Eusebius gave a more exemplary work than Julius Africanus. Eusebius used more abundant and better sources, and if he, using the work of Julius Africanus, kept silent about it, it was because he assumed that readers interested in his work also had the chronicle of Julius Africanus at hand. Africanus's work was so famous in its time that anyone interested in history was familiar with it, and it did not seem necessary to quote it. The charge against Eusebius is, therefore, as ingenious as the charge against the New Testament history book of the worship of the Magi of stealing that story from the gospel of Matthew. In addition to the abundance of sources, Eusebius declares himself to be more broad and more scientific in his view. He wrote at a time when all interest was concentrated on establishing the antiquity of the Christian religion, when they tried to prove that Jewish history is the most ancient. Despite this, Eusebius pursued the idea that the foundations of culture existed before Moses. The peculiarity of Eusebius’s view was also reflected in the fact that for his chronology he chose the years not from the creation of the world, but from Abraham, and from them he brings his chronicle to the end. Reading the chronicle of Eusebius, Geltser was amazed at Eusebius’s erudition, his knowledge of the sources, which he used with such skill that it does not obscure for us the results he obtained. a) The Chronicle of Eusebius is divided into two parts: 1) chronografía, an extensive introduction - extracts from historical documents on the basis of which the chronological system is established; 2) xronikoí kanone_s, synchronistic tables. Canons (kanw'n ruler, graph, straight regulating line) represent rows of vertical graphs, which contain only numbers that make up the so-called “fila regnorum” (“threads of reigns”). On both sides of these columns there is the so-called “spatium historicum”, i.e. fields where events from political history are entered on one side and events from church history on the other. Thus, the events of church and political history were also separated externally. Chronological canons begin with the birth of Abraham. Eusebius identifies the first year of Abraham's life with the 43rd year of Ninus, king of Assyria (who built the city of Nineveh in this year), with the 22nd year of Europs, who reigned in Sikúwn in Greece, and with the 1st year of the 16th Egyptian dynasty (the so-called Theban, Fhbaíoi). Thus, the chronicle begins with five fila regnorum: in the first column the general account of the years from Abraham, the second column is inscribed Níno_s, the third 'Abraám, the fourth Eurw_ps, the fifth Fhbaíoi. And in the spatium historicum it is entered on one side: gennátai ó par_' E=braíoi_s _'Abraám, (“Abraham was born to the Jews”), on the other: Níno_s thn pólin megálhn Nínon, hn oi Ebraíoi Nineuí kalou:'sin, ektisen en th gh' twn Assuríwn (“Nin formed in the land of the Assyrians the great city of Nin, which the Jews call Nineveh”). Fila regnorum then increase to 10, and then are reduced to three: in the first - the Olympiads, in the second - the years from Abraham, in the third - the years of the Roman emperors. The form given by Eusebius to his work was detrimental to its further existence. It was artificial and required a skilled scribe to copy it, because the slightest deviation from the original distorted it. In addition, this form significantly increased the price of the composition, because it left a lot of free space, which was very noticeable given the high cost of parchment; Meanwhile, the desire for economy in material (i.e., not leaving free space) was inevitably accompanied by damage to the original appearance. For a whole reign of 10 years, for example, there were one ecclesiastical and two political events. The first political corresponded to the first year of the reign, the second to the eighth, and the church-historical one to the fifth. The first political event had to be stated in the "spatium historicum" against the first year of the reign. Then in the column of political events there should have been a space under the second, third, etc. years. to the eighth, under which the second event should be recorded. In the column of church-historical events, the gap should be from 1 to 4; there is a record under the fifth year, and a space from the 6th to the end. Meanwhile, the scribes, to save space, could not leave spaces, and the narration about the event of the first year continued under the second, third, etc. There could also be random distortions in the lines, so that in one list an event could be recorded under one year, and in another - under another. The question arose as to which year it belonged to. Thus, the more the work of Eusebius was copied, the more it was spoiled. In the end, the Greeks, as usual, lost the Greek original, and only the Latin translation of the second part, made by Jerome, was preserved and known in the West, which he supplemented with information unknown to Eusebius, and continued until 378. This Latin translation was the only one previously published, but it has been preserved in many discordant manuscripts. Previously, it was assumed that Jerome’s text was a literal translation of Eusebius’s chronicle, but then it turned out that there were some changes and deviations in it. The first attempt to restore the original text of the chronicle of Eusebius was made in 1606 by the scientist Scaliger based on data found by Kedrin and Sinkell. Since this attempt was unsuccessful, scientists were forced to use Jerome’s translation as a positive value until the Armenian translation of the chronicle appeared in print. The manuscript of this translation was sent in 1787 from Jerusalem to Constantinople, and was made from it in 1790 and 1793. two copies for the Venetian mekhitarist Avkerian. The Armenian translation also included the first part of the chronicle, which is not in Jerome’s translation. The issue of publishing this monument was controversial among the Mekhitarists themselves. The wrangling ended with one of them, Zohrabian, coming to Milan and publishing, together with May, a Latin translation of the Armenian text in 1818. But in the same year, another publisher, Mkrtich Avkeryan (Aucher), also came forward, who in Venice, along with the Latin translation, also published the Armenian text. In 1833, May published the chronicle in volume 8 of Nova collectio. Thus, it became possible to check the Latin translation of Jerome. But 33 years passed before a completely satisfactory edition of the chronicle appeared. This edition was made by Alfred Schöne in his Eusebii chronicorum libri duo; the second volume of this publication appeared in Berlin in 1866, and the first in 1875. To carry out this publication required a lot of work. Much has been done in this regard by the scientist Petermann, who was in both Constantinople and Venice in order to be able to restore the Armenian text more fully. This scientist managed to restore the Armenian text on the basis of two manuscripts. From the second of these manuscripts, its variants are marked with the letter “N”), dating back to 1696 and written in Tokat, it is clear how the Armenian text of Eusebius’s chronicle was preserved. The scientist Samuel of Ani wrote the chronicle before 1179 and for the most ancient times limited himself to reporting only the text of Eusebius’s chronicle. In the new edition of Schone's chronicle, in the first part, the Armenian text in Petermann's Latin translation replaced the Greek, which was preserved only in fragments. The second volume of the quartet published by Schone looks like this. The left page is divided into two unequal parts: one (margin) is occupied by Greek text, i.e. extracts from later writers who made indirect or direct use of Eusebius; the other contains fila regnorum and spatium historicum. The numbers in the fila regnorum have Latin letters; under the same letters the events occurring in these years are written down in the Greek text and in the spatio historico. In the field (behind the spatium historicum) variants from Armenian manuscripts are marked. On the right page is the Latin translation of Jerome, namely: fila regnorum, spatium historicum, and on the margin (behind the spatium historicum) there is partly a marking of variants of Latin manuscripts, partly an indication of the Latin sources that Jerome used in his Additions. At the end, after 2342, when the chronicle of Eusebius stops, on the right and left pages there is a chronicle of Jerome himself. All previous works of the publishers of the chronicle of Eusebius lost their significance with the advent of this work and now only Shona has to use it. When encountering, therefore, in any scholarly work with a chronological date based on Eusebius, one must first of all pose the question: did the author of this work have at hand the Schone edition? But a positive answer to this question does not mean that this date is set correctly. This is easy to understand for those who know what form Eusebius’s chronological canons look like. Here's a sample of them: The Golden Palace burned down in Rome Strong earthquake; 4 cities destroyed in Asia Trajan launched a persecution against Christians 9 Simon Kleopov, bishop of the Jerusalem church, died a martyr. Justus was his successor. Likewise, Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, died a martyr From this external form of the chronicle it is clear: 1) that each event is marked (even in the last section of the chronicle) with at least three dates, which, therefore, may not agree with each other. Therefore, the question is very important: which of the three columns of Eusebius should be considered normal? Persons who have not worked on the chronicle of Eusebius for a long time, when starting to work on it, easily fall into error: they look for the exact chronological dates of Eusebius in the years of his reign; for example, if an event stands opposite the eighth year of the reign of Marcus Aurelius, then it is dated on the basis of modern accurate information about the moment at which the 8th year of Marcus Aurelius begins and ends. But the greatest expert on chronology in our century, Prof. Alfred von Gutschmid, in a number of special works, showed how to use the chronicle of Eusebius. This issue was resolved by him in 1868 (hence, after the publication of volume II of Schone’s edition, in which the xronikoí kanone_s are placed), in the work: De temporum notis quibus Eusebius utitur ii Chronicis Canonibus [reprinted in volume 1 by L. von Gutschmid, Kleine Schriften. Herausgeg. von F.Rühl. Leipzig 1889. S. 448–482]. The result of his extensive reconciliation of dates is as follows: a) the Olympiads of Eusebius (i.e., the Armenian list) - artificial, Julian, which began on January 1, 777 BC, which are placed against the Julian leap years; in the Latin adaptation of Jerome - the true Olympiads (beginning around July 1, 776 BC). b) Occasionally, Eusebius borrows facts from monuments where the score was kept according to the true Olympiads; mo in these cases he does not make a reduction to his fictitious Julian ones, but writes down such facts under the same years of the Julian Olympiads, under which years of the Olympiads, not the Julian ones, but the true ones they were listed in his sources. Thus, by the very nature of events, the scientist must guess from which author he is borrowing data. And if Eusebius uses authors who use the correct Olympiads, then the scientist must proceed from the Olympiads, and not from the years from Abraham. c) But the main, normal “canon” of Eusebius is the years of Abraham; It is always from them that one must proceed in chronological definitions (or to prove in advance that this “canon” for a given event cannot serve as the norm). Eusebius artificially subsumed the years of reigns under the years from Abraham; in this case, of course, inaccuracies could occur; for example, Tiberius died in March, and the years of Abraham are counted from the fall. Thus, identifying the years of the reign of Tiberius’ successor with the years from Abraham will inevitably be inaccurate, d) As for the reduction of the years from Abraham in the chronicle to the years BC or from AD according to the Dionysian era, then in this case the chronicle of Eusebius falls into several sections: 1) from 1–1239 from Abraham; when calculating, you need to subtract the year of Abraham (α) from 2019, you get the year B.C. in which the event falls (2019-α = year B.C.). 2) From 1240–2016; you need to subtract from 2017 the year of Abraham = the year B.C. (2017-α = the year B.C.). 3) From 2017–2209; should be subtracted from the year of Abraham 2016 = year from R. X. according to our reckoning (α-2016 = year according to R. X.). 4) From 2210–2343; you should take the year of Abraham, subtract 2018 = the year from A.D. (α-2018 = the year A.D.). Finally, 5) the section processed by Jerome, from 2343–2395; according to von Gutschmid's recipe, you need to subtract 2017 from the year of Abraham, you get the year from R. X. But in the latter case, I cannot agree with Gutschmid’s view: it is not 2017 that should be subtracted, but 2016 (A. von Gutschmid: α-2017 = AD year; I: α-2016 = AD year). It is possible to count at least 19 dates during Jerome's life that would have to be falsely dated if one were to follow von Gutschmid's rule. In essence, the disagreement between me and Gutschmid boils down to the following: in the available manuscripts, Jerome’s chronicle ends in 2395, under which is placed: the disastrous battle in Thrace (Lacrimabile bellum in Thracia), during which Valens died. As is known, the battle took place on August 9, 378. Since August is the last month of the year, if we count by the years of the era of Abraham, it took place at the end of the year of Abraham. Since Jerome could not have known the year in which this battle took place, then, von Gutschmid concludes, it is clear that 2395–378 = 2017. I assume that an error crept into the manuscript. The scribe arbitrarily continued counting the years until 2395, while Jerome ended with 2394; 2394–378=2016. Therefore, 2016 must be subtracted from the year of Abraham. 2) From the same external form of the “canons” it is easy to understand, as has already been noted, that it is extremely unfavorable for the faithful preservation of the chronicle of Eusebius. An insignificant distortion of the line in the spatium historicum already led to an error of a year or two in the date; long records of events almost always stood against several years of "canons", and it was very difficult to understand whether this entire record refers to the year against which the first line falls, or whether individual details of the record refer to those years against which they are recorded; for example, does Eusebius want to say that the beginning of the persecution of Trajan, and the death of Simon, and the consecration of Justus, etc. fall in 2122 (116), or in 2122 only the beginning of the persecution occurs, and the death of Simon and the consecration of Justus - in 2123. Naturally, therefore, in the Latin manuscripts of Jerome’s translation: A[mandinus], B[op-garsianus], F[reherianus], P[etavianus], R[eginensis], (S[fragments Petaviana]), M[iddlehillensis], and in the Armenian: N [Tokat], XG [Jerusalem], there were many options. Schone generally gave preference (almost always accepts it in the text) to the dating of V. With the help of the Orientalists Petermann (Armenist) and Roediger (Aramaist), he tried, on the basis of Eastern translations, to complete and correct the edition of Jerome and thus restore the text of Eusebius. But, unfortunately, Roediger pointed out to him passages of the Syriac translation that had almost no value (a list of events without years) and looked at a very important monument, namely the “Chronicle” of Dionysius Tell-Mahr (Teil-Mahr), Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch (818-845), the Syriac text of which was published by Tullberg (Upsala) back in 1850; Dionysius copied almost literally most of Eusebius's chronicle. A German translation of this part of the chronicle of Dionysius was published in 1884 by Siegfried (Aramaist) and Goelzer (historian, researcher of the remains of the chronicle of Julius Africanus). The result of this new growth of the critical apparatus for Eusebius was summed up by the same Alfred von Gutschmid in his expanded rector’s program: Untersuchungen über die syrische Epitome der Eusebischen Canones. Stuttgart 1886 [also in 1 volume of Kleine Schriften, S 483–529]. The result of an extensive comparison of dates in different manuscripts was the following: a) We are dealing with two reviews of the chronicle of Eusebius: 1) Armenian and 2) Latin Syrian. b) Out of 115 (= 99+16) events, the Armenian review correctly dates 45 (= 29+16) events, the Latin-Syrian 44.Igitur: the merits of both reviews are almost the same. But c) in particular, of these 115 events, 45 (29+16) are correctly dated only in the Armenian review, 15 - only in the Sirian, 16 - only in the Armenian and cod. P., 18 – only in R., 11 – only in Syrian and R., 10 – only in Armenian and Syrian. So, d) the merits of the Syriac review compared to the Latin are unimportant: of the 59 events that the Latin-Syric review, alone or together with the Armenian, dates correctly, 34 are recorded correctly in P and only 25 in the Syriac. A e) in relation to the Latin manuscripts, this summary reads: 1) die Güte von P, 2) der geringe Werth von E, 3) die Werthlosigkeit von B, that is, Schone followed the wrong trail in the Latin part of the text. And hence e) the general rule: the Schone edition should be used, having corrected the printed text in advance based on the readings of NP. Von Gutschmid shows that the only good manuscript is P - codex Petavianus. Therefore, when assigning events in the spatio historico to years in the fila regnorum, one must give preference to the instructions of R. As for the left side of the column, where the translation from Armenian is placed, one must take into account the manuscript marked with the sign N. Let us suppose that in Jerome’s spatio hisu we read under the sign a note about a terrible earthquake on the island of Co (in insula Coo). In the Armenian translation, this event is in manuscript G under 2013, in manuscript N under 2012, in Jerome - under 2011, but according to P - under 2012, RN for 2012 consecutively, Eusebius dated this event to 2012. Thus, the question posed above boils down to another: did this scientist use the results of Gutschmid’s research? All these details about the operations on the chronicle of Eusebius are inevitable due to the fact that about three-quarters of the dates that historians have for the corresponding period of time originate from the chronicle of Eusebius. The question of the time of compilation of the “Chronicle” by Eusebius is resolved in connection with the question of the origin of his other work, “Church History”. This last work, as can be seen from the first chapter of his first book, appeared after the chronicle, and it was the chronological works of Eusebius that served as the impetus for him to write church history. It can be assumed regarding the chronicle that although it ends (according to Jerome) in the year 2342 (324), it was compiled earlier and was subsequently supplemented 17. b) The church history of Eusebius came to light because Eusebius, when he first wrote his chronicle, collected a lot of material that did not fit into the narrow framework of spatii historici. Eusebius therefore decided to give a more complete account of church historical events in a new work: Ekklhsiastikh' istoria. Eusebius processed its first 9 books and published them before the last 10th book, written at the request of Bishop Paulinus of Tyre. In the afterword of the 9th book, Licinius still remains faithful to the edict of Constantine and does not act as a persecutor of Christians, for which Eusebius praises him along with Constantine. It is clear that this book was written even when the relationship between Constantine and Licinius was not completely defined, i.e. until Constantine's final break with Licinius and his victory over him on September 18, 323, when Constantine became sole sovereign. The tenth book already refers to the betrayal of Licinius and ends with a glorification of Constantine. It turns out, therefore, that he wrote the end of his history after 323 or even 325, and it is very likely that the history itself was written by him approximately between 315 and 316 18. And this work can be called conscientious and even scientific. Eusebius’s coverage of events is unimportant for us; he is indispensable for us as a supplier of facts that he borrowed from sources that often have not survived to us. Eusebius' theological views are both broad and too one-sided. He speaks of the ways of God and the influence of the devil more often than is allowed by modern historians. His history in some respects does not satisfy not only the requirements of real historians, but even those of his contemporaries. It can be accepted as indisputable that his contemporaries were able to characterize historical figures better than Eusebius does. They at least retain more lively features. Ammianus Marcellinus is a positive master of his craft compared to Eusebius. Eusebius is rather colorless here. In general, we must admit that his talents as a historian-psychologist and even a stylist are not paramount. If we apply our point of view to his story, it will not stand up to testing: there is almost no pragmatism in it. But the significance of Eusebius's work will appear in a different light if we establish a different point of view. His whole strength lies in the fact that he had access to huge libraries, Caesarea and Jerusalem, from which he used various works of ancient writers. He is a master when he writes. The church historical work of Eusebius is, in essence, a description of the richest collection of books that was at the hands of the author, a description arranged in chronological order according to the reigns of the emperors. In this respect it can be compared with Assemani's Bibliotheca Vaticana (1719–1728). The difference between Assemani and Eusebius comes down to the abundance of material, and not to the essence of the techniques. Among the learned historians of later times, it is also right to point out as an analogy in this case to Tillmon, who gave an exemplary history in terms of scientific reliability. He reveals on each line where he took the information from: the French text represents his translation of the Greek and Latin originals. The reader can immediately guess whether he is based on reliable sources or just assumptions. As this historian conducted the matter, so did Eusebius, who tried to prove the existence of a famous historical figure through extracts. In its content, the history of Eusebius is theological. All secular history is left aside from him. The goals he pursues in his history perfectly characterize its theological character. In the preface to his history, Eusebius says that he will follow the continuity of the apostolic tradition as expressed in the succession of hierarchical persons who occupied the most important departments, and in the preservation by them and other teachers of the Christian faith of the apostolic teaching. This is the positive goal of his story. The negative one is a description of those wolves who, appearing in sheep's clothing, plundered the flock of Christ, that is, heretics, a description of the persecution of Christians by pagans and the death of the tormentors. Here, then, is an essentially simple, but strictly thought-out program of his work. He promised to monitor the continuity of the apostolic tradition, and in his history he collects such material from which it is clear that the continuity has indeed been preserved. On the negative side, Eusebius is not one of those historians who are completely objective. When listing heresies, he does not precisely indicate the teachings of the heretics, but usually only says that in such and such a reign such and such a heretic appeared. For example, about Sabellius, he says that in the teachings of Sabellius one senses great blasphemy against God; Obviously, from such a message one cannot get a clear idea of ​​​​the false teaching of Sabellius. Regarding persecution, he is more consistent. The order of presentation is as follows: speaking in great detail about the ancient period of church history, he names the Roman emperor, as well as the bishops who ruled the most important sees - Jerusalem and others during the reign of this emperor. Having established such a chronological framework, he extracts synchronisms and metachronisms from literary monuments, and at the same time provides information about the content of these works, about correspondence between bishops, heresies, and polemics against them. He usually says that such and such a document literally (katá lé_ksin) says this; Thanks to this manner, Eusebius’s own guesses are quite easy to distinguish from what is actually given. He used Greek literature; he, as the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, could probably read Syriac, but it is not clear that he widely used Syriac writing. As for the Latin monuments, he used them in translations, but not particularly skillful ones, so it would have been impossible to understand many passages if the originals had not been preserved. The last books of the history of Eusebius are devoted to the history of persecutions under Diocletian. At the end of the story, or after the eighth or ninth book, the “Tale of the Palestinian Martyrs” (Perí tw'n én Palaistính marturhsantwn) is also placed in the manuscripts. Eusebius speaks about them either as an eyewitness, or according to the testimony of eyewitnesses. The most prominent place here is occupied by the martyrdom of Pamphilus, presbyter of Caesarea, a friend of Eusebius. The “Tale” has been preserved in the original to this day in an abbreviated version. The complete version is available only in the Syriac translation published by William Cureton in 1861 (W. Cureton, History of the Martyrs in Palestine. London 1861). The reviews generated by this edition indicate the importance of the Syriac translation, which is easy to understand, bearing in mind the fact that the Greek text presents insurmountable difficulties in chronology 19 20 . In the last books of history, Eusebius's verbosity, which constitutes his shortcoming, is especially evident. Here we find a lot of unnecessary things, and by this circumstance we can judge Eusebius as a writer in general. In general, the style of his writings is very dark and confusing. If in some places in his history he refrains from speaking, then this positively serves in favor of the interests of church history. The first edition of Eusebius's ecclesiastical history (editio princeps) was made in Paris in 1544 in folio by Robert Stephen. The publication of this publication was, one might say, fatal for publications of subsequent times. The publication was made according to one codex, located in the Royal Library of Paris, which was called the “codex Regius” and was very bad [few readings, also the division into chapters, are borrowed from another manuscript, the codex Medicaeus]. Stephen's publication was followed by the publication in Paris in 1659 of the talented Valesius. The latter was associated in his business with his predecessor. Considering Robert Stefan's edition the height of perfection, Valois retained his text almost everywhere. But having good manuals in the codes C [Mazarinaeus], ​​B [Medicaeus], ​​D [Fuketianus], Fa [Savilianus], using them and some others, he indicated a more correct reading under the line. The text was reprinted by Valois in Cambridge in 1720 Reading. The Valois edition gives the history of Eusebius in Migne's Patrology (1857). Then there were publications by Stroth in Halle in 1779 and Zimmermann in Frankfurt in 1822. In 1827, Heinichen's edition was published in Leipzig. He had only Valois data for his critical apparatus. A step forward, thanks to the reconciliation of some codes, was made by Eduard Burton, whose publication appeared in 1838 in Oxford and was reprinted in 1872 and 1881. Bright. This was followed by the publication of Albert Schwegler in 1852 in Tübingen, where the groups into which Eusebius's manuscripts should be placed were well clarified. But, having classified the manuscripts well, he set himself a limited goal, wanting to restore the texts of Eusebius on the basis mainly of C [Mazarinaeus or Parisiensis 1430]. In Schaffhausen (Scaphusiae) in 1859–1862. The history of Eusebius was published in parts by a Breslau Catholic professor, a former Protestant who converted to Catholicism, and a former associate professor at the University of Berlin, Hugo Lämmer. Upon conversion to Catholicism, Hugo Lemmer took the chair of church history at the Catholic University of Breslav. He outlined his motivation for converting to Catholicism in the brochure “Misericordia Dei,” which soon after its publication became an antique rarity. Lemmer, a Catholic, was, so to speak, persona grata in Rome, and therefore the doors of those libraries were easily opened to him, which previously would have been very difficult for him to enter as a Protestant. To study the manuscripts of Eusebius, he visited Dresden, Vienna, Venice, Rome and Munich and thus brought his critical apparatus to the number of 24 Eusebius manuscripts and passages. This was a huge step forward. But Lemmer suggested that Code O (Venetus 338) most accurately conveys the original text of Eusebius, while, on the contrary, this code represents a kind of abbreviation of other editions. Lemmer even reproduced the division into chapters according to Code O. He was not familiar with French and English manuscripts, and therefore the Venetian manuscript was not checked against them. The manuscripts that Lemmer used for his publication are arranged in Schwegler's order. The second edition of Gainichen, most satisfactory for its time, also in Leipzig, dates back to 1868. Gainichen stands, in essence, on Lemmer's shoulders. This is evident from the fact that, for example, Vita Constantini, which Lemmer did not publish, he publishes only 5 manuscripts, while church history - 24. After this publication, Lemmer's Schaffhausen edition lost its value. Gainichen discarded the Latin translation of Eusebius in previous editions, which was unnecessary for the learned reader. Gainichen left clear passages of the Greek text of Eusebius without notes; He provided the dark passages with notes under the line where he indicated the Latin and German translation of these passages. When Eusebius’s text erred in neologisms, Gainichen referred readers to manuals on the grammar of the later Greek language. After this, most of Eusebius’s works were published in Leipzig by Dindorf in 1871. This edition represents a step back compared to previous editions, namely the second edition of Gainichen. In previous editions, it was already established that the manuscripts of Eusebius’s works were divided into 2 or even 3 surnames, but Dindorf again mixed them up in his edition. Dindorf wants to restore the best text only according to some codes - first of all (like Schwegler) according to C; but O also appears among these selected ones, although she belongs to a different family, and in his eclecticism Dindorff turned out to be inconsistent and often rejects the reading of C and accepts the reading of other manuscripts. What, in fact, remains to be done to restore the text of Eusebius’s church history? Regarding Dindorf's edition and then in subsequent times, there were complaints from German scholars that there was still no completely satisfactory critical edition of Eusebius's text. But these complaints are in vain. The best, of course, is always the enemy of the good, and human thought must necessarily move forward over time. But it is unlikely that anything essentially new will be found in comparison with what has already been given by Gainichen. The selection of discrepancies that he made in his edition contains a lot of material, and the whole task of the learned publishers of Eusebius comes down to the taxation of manuscripts. But perhaps reading Eusebius' text will always be controversial. To restore the text of Eusebius, apparently, in addition to the manuscripts, Nikephoros Callistus (c. 1333) can also serve. But this is a late writer and therefore not authoritative; Meanwhile, there are manuscripts of Eusebius from the 10th century. Moreover, Callistus sometimes changes the text of Eusebius. The importance of Callistus as a commentator, i.e. How much he explains Eusebius is unimportant. The story of Callistus gains significance only because he was able to use the library of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. This is a Greek manual. If, when assessing the manuscripts of the history of Eusebius, we were to recognize prescription as a criterion, then we should recognize the most perfect reading of Eusebius, which we find in the Latin translation of the history of Rufinus of Aquileia. But Rufinus only conveyed Eusebius in Latin, and did not at all literally translate him, and therefore it cannot be argued that Rufinus’s reading is completely correct and most perfect. For the same reason, the reading of Eusebius, found in Jerome’s work “De viris illustrious,” cannot be considered perfect. In addition to Greek manuals and Latin translations, there is also a source for establishing the text of Eusebius. These are eastern translations - Syriac and Armenian. Of the Syriac manuscripts of the translation of history, one dates back to the 6th century. and is in London in the Nitrian collection of Syriac manuscripts of Tattam; it contains only the first five books. Another manuscript is barely 120 years younger than Eusebius and written in 462, located in Imp. public library in St. Petersburg; it is missing the 6th and partly the 5th and 7th books. An edition of this Syriac Eusebius was expected from William Wright. [After his death it was completed in 1898 by Mac Lean (Cambridge). A year earlier, the publication of Bedjan was also published in Leipzig. The manuscripts, as stated, have gaps. But where the Syriac translation leaves us, the Armenian translation comes to the rescue. The Armenian scholar Djarian published his translation of Eusebius into Armenian in Venice in 1877, and below he printed the ancient Armenian translation [from Syriac]. This translation, although the manuscript is late, 5th century. and dates back to the time of Mesrop 21. With the collection of oriental manuals for Eusebius, the critical apparatus can be considered complete. If you master all these manuals, the result will be that there are two classes of Eusebius’ codes: one review can be called Parisian (C, Mazarin), the other Florentine (G and H, the manuscript of the Moscow Synod. Bibl. J also belongs to it). The Syriac translation and the Armenian one are adjacent to one of them, then to the other. Thus, when publishing Eusebius, one cannot stop at just one reading, but one must either follow an eclectic path, or present two readings sequentially (one in the form of text, the other in the form of notes); Perhaps the reviews came from more than one manuscript of Eusebius, then, therefore, the conclusion will be that they should remain so 22. c) The later work of Eusebius, covering the events of the era of Constantine the Great, his four “Words” (lógoi) about Constantine, or the Life of Constantine in 4 books, was already discussed above. In the Gainichen edition they are followed as the 5th book by the Homily Pro_s tón sullógon twn agíwn ("To the Council of Saints") of the Emperor Constantine and, finally, as a conclusion, by the Homily of Eusebius himself on the occasion of the thirtieth anniversary of the reign of Constantine"). As a primary source for this period, the work of Eusebius remains valuable forever, because Eusebius makes extracts from documents - on the one hand; on the other hand, Eusebius speaks about many things here as an eyewitness. But here all those shortcomings of Eusebius as a writer, which we already notice in the last books of his history, were fully expressed. Verbosity, grandiloquence and confusion constitute the characteristic feature of his “Tales” about Constantine. Eusebius’s essay on Constantine should be viewed precisely as words of praise to the latter, which are not devoid of historical errors, inaccuracies and exaggerations. Such a free attitude to historical data is generally characteristic of speakers, as shown by the examples selected by A.P. Lebedev. The “word” on the occasion of Constantine’s thirtieth birthday does not add anything to the latter’s life story and is, as it were, an official confirmation of everything said in it. Successors of Eusebius in the 5th and 6th centuries. The successors of Eusebius's work in the field of historiography are people who lived a hundred years after him. The era of the reign of Theodosius the Younger is especially favorable in this regard; A number of church historians appear here in a short time. The first place in time belongs to the Arian historian Philostorgius, who lived around 425 and wrote 12 books, each of which begins with one of the letters of his name. This work, due to the non-Orthodoxy of its author, was not distributed in Byzantium, and we know it from extracts made by Photius (Biblioth. cod. 40). It goes without saying that Philostorgius wrote from his own point of view, and his coverage of historical events is purely Arian. But since he had at hand documentary sources concerning Arianism, for a clearer understanding of the latter it would be very important to have its history. Philostorgius reports many interesting details; for example, that the Council of Nicaea was preceded by a congress of bishops Hosius and Alexander of Alexandria, at which it was decided to proclaim omooúsio_s at the Council of Nicaea. This story is not anything incredible, although it is tendentious. He also has data regarding the disagreements that existed among the Arians themselves. Particularly remarkable is his view of Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. He presents them as so learned that Athanasius the Great is almost a child before them. And this idea seems impartial, because Eunomius, revered by Philostorgius, was in controversy with Basil the Great. Subsequent historical writers apparently did not use Philostorgius. Then, around this time, the not yet preserved history of the Jerusalem presbyter Hesychius appears; that it was written under Theodosius the Younger, this is evident from the notes in it about Theodore of Mopsuestia, read at the 5th Ecumenical Council. The work of the Sidic presbyter Philip, of which Photius speaks without much approval (cod. 35), has also not survived. Further, three historians appear in the same field almost simultaneously, who can be called weather forecasters, as they described approximately the same time. The first of them is Socrates Scholasticus. His “Ecclesiastical History” consists of 7 books and covers the time from the abdication of Diocletian from the throne in 305 to the 8th quinquennium of Theodosius the Younger, or until 439. Socrates wrote on behalf of a certain holy man of God, Theodore, as he himself puts it. This Theodore, as one must guess, was a bishop, but what see he occupied is unknown, only it was not Theodore of Mopsuestia. Little is known about Socrates' face. He was born, raised and lived in Constantinople; the affairs of Constantinople seem to him the most important, and he speaks about them in detail; He saw a lot of what was told himself. Summarizing all the data relating to his biography, we can assume that he was born at the end of the 4th century. This is evident from the fact that Socrates studied with the pagan grammarians Ammonius and Hellas, who had to flee after the closure of the serapion in Alexandria (388–389). Among the witnesses and eyewitnesses with whom Socrates had to deal, Auxanon, the Novatian presbyter, ranks first. About this Auxanon, Socrates reports that he was young at the Council of Nicea and saw bishops who were born around the year 250; This means that thanks to Auxanon, with whom Socrates personally talked, he could talk about tradition over a period of about 200 years. Socrates also calls other witnesses and eyewitnesses by name. As for Socrates' motivation to write history, it was to continue the story of Eusebius of Caesarea. Therefore, Socrates speaks in more detail about what Eusebius mentions briefly. He drew his information about some facts of the era of Constantine the Great from the writings of Eusebius. Regarding the events after the Council of Nicaea, he speaks on the basis of the history of Rufinus. Regarding the literary integrity of Socrates, it should be noted that he, having already written the first two books of history, after he had found access to the works of Athanasius of Alexandria and was convinced of the fallacy of Rufinus’ testimony, considered it his duty to redo them anew, in the form in which we have them at the present time. Actually, Socrates did not have serious preparation for his work, and could not have had it. The education he received was secular, and he worked in the legal profession (he is called a “scholastic” in the sense of a lawyer); in the theological field he admits himself to be incompetent. But despite his theological incompetence, he declares complete impartiality in assessing the facts of church history from his worldly point of view. One of his guiding views is religious tolerance. He always condemns those bishops who sin against her, and not only the Arians, Appolinarians, Macedonians, but also the Orthodox. Thus, he speaks extremely harshly about Nestorius for his persecution, and does not sympathize with the persecution of heterodox and non-Orthodox people by Cyril of Alexandria. He is critical of theological debates themselves; the truth, according to him, lies so close to both sides that it would be possible to argue even less. In connection with this religious tolerance stands his moderate attitude towards Julian. He does not admit that the latter forbade Christians to engage in classical literature, as other writers claim, he only forbade them to explain it; he was quite critical of the Christian attempt to replace classical poetry with theological adaptations. A very characteristic side of the story of Socrates is the question of his relationship to the Novatians. Many argued that he himself belonged to the Novatians, but this is unfair: in his story, Socrates contrasts himself with the Novatians as a member of the Catholic Church. But he's actually interested in the Novatians. So, for example, he reports that Novatian died a martyr, that the Novatians were present at the Council of Nicea, where their bishops were summoned; monitors the succession of their hierarchy, as well as of Orthodox bishops. He has clear information about internal events among the Novatians, and determines their situation even in insignificant areas of Phrygia and Rome, which was not easy to know while living in Constantinople. He emphasizes Chrysostom’s well-known attitude towards the Novatians. One day he expresses the judgment that Novatian accidentally did not unite with the Orthodox Church. Finally, regarding the most sensitive issue - the excommunication of the fallen, Socrates, although he belonged to the Catholic Church, was very skeptical about discipline, which allows for repeated repentance. Thus, from this point of view, Socrates is obviously Novatian. Such familiarity with Novatian history suggests that Socrates came from a family that once belonged to Novatianism, which is why he could know the past history of the latter from family traditions. A peculiar feature of Socrates' history is its Romanizing tendency. In his history there are judgments so unfounded that Roman Catholics can only rejoice at them. Thus, he claims that when disputes arose in the east about the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, Damasus, Bishop of Rome, wrote that the Holy Spirit should be recognized as consubstantial with God the Father and the Son, and the disputes ended; even asserts that an ecumenical council cannot take place without the permission of the bishop of Rome. An original feature in the history of Socrates is that he stood for the good name of Origen: the latter seems to him to be a great man; the persons who attacked him were pygmies in mental terms and Herostratas in moral terms. He does not forget to emphasize that Theophilus, having opposed Origen, was himself caught reading Origen's works. In any case, the condemnation of Origen was met with unsympathy by Socrates. The sources Socrates used were limited. He is not even familiar with the writings of the great Cappadocians. One of the most prominent sources, which does not currently exist, was the Sunagwgh' twn sunódwn (collection of councils) of Savinus, bishop of Herakleia, a follower of Macedonius. This collection of conciliar documents covers almost the entire history from the beginning of Arianism. Socrates points out that this work is supplied with comments that are not without bias: Savin is silent about the facts and events that cast an unfavorable light on Arianism. Thus, he does not talk about the outrages that occurred in Alexandria on the occasion of the accession to the episcopal see of the Arians Gregory and George; in the same way, he does not talk about how, after the death of Athanasius the Great, the Arian Lucius was appointed to the department. But in other respects this collection is very valuable. This collection of councils is important for the documentation of the acts and their completeness; It speaks in particular detail here about the debates that took place at the Council of Seleucia, so that it seems that the report was made almost from a shorthand record. Regarding the various details of Socrates' history, it should be noted that he pays very serious attention to chronology. That he makes mistakes in places is beyond doubt; nevertheless, the desire for precise designation is clear. He does the dating according to the consuls. One of Socrates' mistakes was dating the Council of Serdica to 347, and this mistake caused a lot of difficulties. Currently, after the publication of the Easter messages of Athanasius the Great and the table of contents for them in Syriac [Cureton 1848, trans. on it. language Larsow 1852], it is recognized that the cathedral was in 343 23 24. Regarding the year of death of Athanasius the Great, Socrates also makes a mistake of about two years; he determines the time of his death in 371, but meanwhile he died in 373. Apparently, one would have expected more precision from Socrates, at least as far as he was concerned as a lawyer, namely, regarding legislation, trials and defense. However, the information he provides in this area is such that, on the basis of it, it is in no way possible to recognize the author as a lawyer. Incorrect from a legal point of view, they appear to be the same from a historical point of view. For example, Socrates claims that Emperor Valentinian, having married her maid of honor during his wife’s lifetime, issued a decree allowing everyone to have two legal wives, while it is known that he had already married a widow and a widow. The publication of the history of Socrates, together with the edition of Eusebius, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius, was undertaken by Stephanus (1544 Christophorson (1612), Valesius (1668) and Reading (1720). The best edition is Robert Hussey, Oxonii 1853 (according to 5 codes and 4 editions), codd. Florentini FM - the most important. Text by Brighfa (1878) represents a step back. After Socrates, Hermias Sozomen wrote church history. He was from Palestine, from the village of Bethelia near Gaza, and was on good terms with the Palestinian ascetics; one of them, Hilarion, once healed a resident of Bethelia, Alafion (possessed), from an illness, and this served as the reason for the conversion of Sozomen’s grandfather to Christianity. Sozomen remembered Zeno, Bishop of Mayum. As a lawyer, Sozomen settled in Constantinople, where he participated in a church procession that was under Patriarch Proclus. Close relationships with ascetics left their mark on the character of Sozomen, who was a pious man prone to asceticism. He wrote a history of the church covering events from 324 to 439. and consisting of 9 books. But his historical narratives have survived to us only until 423. The lost part, however, is insignificant. To the question of what made Sozomen take up his pen, it is difficult to give an exact answer. It should be noted that Sozomen, as a historian, is in close connection with Socrates. Comparing the stories of Socrates and Sozomen, scientists came to the conclusion that the latter borrowed almost everything from the former. The decisive factor in this matter is not that these two stories are similar in general, but that in particular they are strikingly similar. Thus, some episodes inserted by Socrates are found there in Sozomen, although he had no logical need for them. Socrates has a story about the Novatian Council and the controversy regarding the celebration of St. Easter, and Sozomen too. Socrates speaks about the issue of celebrating Easter twice, and Sozomen also, and in the same connection. However, Sozomen does not mention Socrates as a leader in his work. It is recognized that Sozomen is independent only in the information about the existence of the church in Persia and about monasticism in Palestine and Syria. Here he wrote on the basis of primary sources, oral information and testimonies and is for us as a primary source. So, Sozomen used Socrates, and his story is only a reworking of Socrates'. Other writers in Byzantium also used the works of their predecessors, but for the most part they literally copied from them, and Sozomen only told in his own words and in a more elegant language what was written by Socrates. What prompted Sozomen to write this way? The question is difficult. One might think that Sozomen did not like the direction of Socrates because of the latter’s sympathy with the Novatians, for his constant censure of the persecution of the unjust, and for his respect for the authority of Origen. But although these (from a certain point of view) roughnesses of Socrates are smoothed out in Sozomen, at this point no significant difference is noticeable between their works. It is also incredible that Sozomen treated the work of Socrates this way because he hoped that his story would be known no further than Palestine. From Sozomen's address to Theodosius, to whom he wanted to dedicate his work, it is clear that it was intended for distribution outside Palestine. One might also think that Sozomen, who previously wrote an abbreviation of the history of Eusebius in two books until 323, wanted to shorten the work of Socrates for ease of use. But this was unnecessary, since the history of Socrates was quite short and could satisfy such needs. And Sozomen’s abbreviation is not entirely successful, since he gives out the proper names of many persons and many chronological dates, so it is impossible to give an exact chronology according to Sozomen. In fact, not only in the points mentioned above, Sozomen is independent, since in this case he used materials untouched before him, which he himself mentioned with emphasis: he first of all checked and consulted personally with those sources that Socrates used. So, he used Savin’s collection. But he expands his horizons to the west when he points to Martin of Tours, Hilary of Pictavius. In relation to the history of the Patriarchate of Alexandria, Sozomen used the Greek text of “Historia acephala”, first published by Maffei in 1738, which Socrates did not have. Thanks to this circumstance, we can use Sozomen’s beginning of the story, that part that has not reached us in the Latin translation. Here, however, Sozomen makes an erroneous deviation from the original, according to which the patriarchate of Athanasius the Great lasted 45 years without 30 days, while according to Sozomen it was 46 years. Thus, Sozomen's case is not as bad as some scholars make it out to be. If they say that he wrote history with too little new material, then one can say that even now different works are written even without the semblance of new material. He doesn't quote Socrates by name, but he doesn't quote anyone either. Likewise, Eusebius does not quote Julius Africanus in his chronicle, assuming that the latter’s work is known to readers. We must then pay attention to the fact that Sozomen dedicated his work to Emperor Theodosius, and this indicates that, perhaps, Sozomen wrote his history against his will. But even with all that, he did everything he could 25. Actually, in terms of scientific training, Sozomen was no higher than Socrates. He couldn't figure it out where the last one couldn't figure it out. But for the most completeness of quotations, Sozomen has a price, and his work cannot in any case be considered superfluous. Sozomen should be given preference in cases where he does not agree with Socrates and corrects him. Despite all this, this is still an unprocessed historian, and it would be good if someone took the trouble to check these weather forecasters, especially in connection with Theodoret, and pointed out parallel places, etc. A distinctive feature of Sozomen’s work is a kind of ecclesiasticalism, carried to the point of false apologetics, as he tries to give moral justification to almost all church events. Thus, regarding the death of Emperor Julian, Socrates assumed that it occurred from an attempt on his life by one Christian, and Sozomen, recognizing this thought of Socrates as undoubtedly true, adds that this constitutes a great feat on the part of Christians. Or another example. Theodosius the Great divided his empire into two sons, Arcadius and Honorius, and since both of them were minors (however, not in age, but in character, and such people are minors until old age in the development of their will), he added guardians to them. Under the eastern emperor Arcadia, Rufinus was the guardian, who aroused displeasure on the part of the soldiers and was killed by the latter. Sozomen was able to say here that this was arranged for the greater success of the Church of Christ. The best edition is Robert Hussey [finished by J. Barrow], Oxonii 1860 (5 codices, 6 reconciliations [extracts] of variants and 4 editions). Codex Baroccianus (B) ab Husseio collatus is the most important for edition 26. Somewhat later, Theodoret of Cyrus wrote his history. Theodoret was generally lucky in science: in 1890, an outstanding work about him by N.N. Glubokovsky was published in Russia (Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus. His life and literary activity. I-II. M. 1890 27. Church history embraces him in 5 books, the time from the fall of Licinius in 323 to 428. The last chapters are dedicated to Theodore Mopsuestian and the list of bishops of the Orthodox Church. The time of origin is unknown; in any case, it ranges between the years 441 - 449. Judgments about this work are quite diverse and diverge. The question first of all is whether Theodorit knew the works of his predecessors, Socrates and Sozomen, and whether he gives anything new in comparison with them. In the work of Mr. Glubokovsky it is proved that there is no evidence that Theodoret used Socrates and Sozomen, and only the possibility of his acquaintance with Philostorgius is allowed. But this is hardly probable: there are more differences between Philostorgius and Theodoret than similarities. There is more evidence in favor of the opinion that Theodoret used Rufinus in the Greek translation. What is the merit of Theodoret's story? The German scholar Ieep speaks of him in such a way that among all church historians Theodoret is the most insignificant and useless. Schaff, on the contrary, values ​​his work very highly; Mr. Glubokovsky also overestimates its importance. In fact, this work, as a historical one, is mediocre: the chronology is sometimes confused, the factual details are incorrect. Theodoret sometimes used documents of not indisputable authenticity, such as the dialogue between the Roman bishop Liberius and Constantius. Using the works of Athanasius, Theodoret could not understand the history of his flight. The value of his history in particular lies in the fact that Theodoret contributed up to 12 documents to it, which were preserved only in his work. But when assessing the work of Theodoret, one should not lose sight of the fact that he defines his history as ecclesiastical and conducts it as ecclesiastical; and therefore, in the sense of civil history, its history is extremely meager. And Ieen only considers it from this (civil) point of view. As a church historian, Theodoret has some features that constitute his advantage over Socrates and Sozomen. Socrates and Sozomen look at church events from the walls of Constantinople. Theodoret belonged to the east, and therefore looks at church history from within this area and, based on local data that neither Socrates nor Sozomen had, describes events within the east, the center of which was Antioch. As a good dogmatist, Theodoret perfectly understood what could be accepted and what could not be subscribed to. He had at hand some documents that Socrates and Sozomen did not have. But the most important and most valuable thing in the history of Theodoret is that he teaches us to understand the later era of Arian disputes and to correctly look at the persons and events of this era. Socrates, being not a theologian, adopted a stereotyped view of the persons and events of the East. He brands those bishops who do not have ecclesiastical communion with Athanasius the Great with the name Semi-Arians. But it is impossible to judge them from this point of view. Meanwhile, Theodoret’s point of view is the point of view of Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and other fathers. Theodoret is a representative of Eastern Orthodoxy, standing on a different historical point of view than the specifically Alexandrian point of view of Athanasius the Great (in the early years of his life). Persons who, under the pen of Socrates, are semi-Arians, in Theodoret turn out to be champions of Orthodoxy; his point of view is obviously Meletian. As a person of higher position and as a developed character, Theodoret is noticeably restrained in his judgments; therefore his story is full of omissions. One example in this regard is the presentation of the events that led to the fall of John Chrysostom, who was a luminary for Theodoret. Nevertheless, Theodoret did not talk about him from the point of view of his supporter. In Book V he expresses himself this way: “Having reached this point in history, I am in a difficult situation; I have to tell about the impudent insults to John; but since his opponents were also worthy in other respects, I will hide their very names.” Without at all hiding the truth that Chrysostom’s oppressors were unjust to him, he does not mention the names of John Chrysostom’s enemies. The fate of the publication of Theodoret's church history is rather strange. It appeared in print earlier than the history of Eusebius. Its Greek text appeared in Basel in 1535. In 1544, a Paris edition by Robert Stephen was published, which was based on the Paris manuscript. In 1612 it was printed in Geneva by Christophorson. Then the story of Theodoret was published in 1642 in his “Opera” by Sirmond. But to improve the text, apart from correcting spelling errors, Sirmond did nothing new. The question of the manuscripts these publishers used is very obscure. Already Robert Stefan, following the text, placed extracts of various options, collected inconsistently. The Geneva edition of 1612 also contains all these options. Much more important is the Parisian edition of 1673 by Valois, who had at hand the codes of Lev Allatsiya and Savilevsky. After Valois's death, extracts from another Parisian codex were found, which were included in the editions of 1677 and 1695. Valois's edition was then reproduced in Cambridge in 1720 by Reading (reprinted in Turin in 1748). Further, Schulze-Nösselt's publication, Opera omnia Theodoreti (1772), represents a significant success. The Oxford edition of Gaisford dates back to 1854, generally reproducing Valois's review. Sirmond's edition is reprinted in Minh's Patrology (vol. 82). In addition to church history, Theodoret wrote two other works of a historical nature. The first is “Filófeo_s istoría (Historia religiosa)”, “God-loving history”. The story talks about thirty ascetics and consists of thirty chapters, each of which depicts for us the life of one of these ascetics. This is the most important story for the history of Syrian monasticism. The publication of this story is based on a single manuscript and therefore does not represent any variants. Another work is inscribed with the following title airetikh'_s kakomufía_s epitomh' (Haereticarum fabularum compendium)", "Abridgement of heretical false wisdom." This work consists of four books expounding the false teachings of the ancient heretics. A controversial issue is presented in chapter 12 of the last book, where Theodoret talks about Nestorianism. Some say that this chapter was inserted by another hand. Others, on the contrary, argue that Theodoret, after breaking all ties with Nestorianism at the Council of Chalcedon, could, of course, speak harshly about Nestorius 28. This work did not have separate editions, and was not even accepted into the Corpus haereseologicum of Franz Ohler (Öhler). After Theodoret, in the first half of the 6th century, again almost simultaneously, three persons acted as church historians: Theodore the Reader, Basil, the Cilician presbyter, and John Diacrinomenos. All of them are lost. The first of the historians is best known; We know about the last two from a few references to them and from the “Library” of Photius. Theodore the Reader lived under Justin or Justinian. He, following Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, wrote a set of church history in 3 books. A reduction was made from the codex, preserved in the Oxford Codex Baroccianus. From this abbreviation it is clear that the last excerpt is taken from the 7th book of Socrates. The continuation of this code was his own history, preserved only in an abbreviated code, also in cod. Baroccianus at Oxford and at cod. Regius in Paris. This abbreviation is incorrectly attributed in the first codex to Nikephoros Callistus (c. 1333), it existed earlier, and was already used by Theophanes. The abbreviation is divided into 2 biblía, “books” (1 - of 37 passages, II - of 65). I, 1–37 and II, 1–37 are taken from Theodore (before the accession of Justin); II, 38–59 probably taken from the lost work of Basil of Cilicia (Antiochene view); II, 60–65 (about the reigns from Constantine to Leo) - perhaps from Theodore the Reader. Theodore is quoted by John of Damascus, in the acts of the VII Ecumenical Council, by Svida. His works were of no small importance. John Diacrinomenes wrote, according to Photius (Bibl. 41), a history, starting from Theodore of Mopsuestia to the Emperor Zeno, and was a Sevirian. Photius identifies him with John of the Aegean. Basil of Cilicia, according to Photius, is a cunning Nestorian; He also owns an apology against John of Scythopolis (Bibl. 42, cf. 107). In fact, he was simply a representative of the Antiochian trend, and, as has been said, the insertions in the extracts from Theodore probably belong to him. After these successors of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret, a break in church historiography begins again. At the end of the 6th century, the Antiochian scholastic Evagrius, who was born around 536 and died after 594, acts as a church historian. Occupying a prominent social position in Antioch, he even received the honorary title of prefect, which is also mentioned in the inscription of his history (ápó éparxwn). Despite his secular career, he was also close to the ecclesiastical sphere, was close to Gregory, Patriarch of Antioch, and rendered him an important service in one lawsuit. Evagrius wrote a history in 6 books, covering the time from the first Council of Ephesus (431) to the twelfth year of the reign of Emperor Mauritius (594). This history is not as rich in content as the works of Evagrius’ predecessors. The author uses more secular writers than church documents. However, he also contains many excerpts from the correspondence of the characters, which are now lost to us 29. Evagrius was published together with other church historians. Reading's edition (1720) was reprinted by Gaisford in 1844 [There is now a critical edition by Bidez and Parmentier, London 1899]. With Evagrius, the last successor of the direction that began with Eusebius of Caesarea leaves the stage. Writers in this direction do not appear until the 14th century - until Nikephoros Callistus 30. Byzantine civil historians and chroniclers In Byzantine history, political and church events are mixed with each other, so that those who took on church history made many political reports. Interest in church affairs then weakened so much that no distinction is even made between church and political events, but they are all reported together. Thus, church history is lost in state history, so that church history in the proper sense almost disappears, only civil history remains. The writings of civil historians existed before, before Evagrius, and we have many works characterizing this or that reign, this or that period in the life of the state. The beginning of the period after Constantine V. is characterized by the participation of pagan historians (Zosimus, Evnapius) in the literary works. The best edition of Byzantine historians is the Bonn one (Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae) in 49 volumes from 1828–1878, as far as it has not yet been replaced by separate, completely scientific publications (such as, for example, the editions of de Boor). Most of the Bonn edition was reprinted by Minh. The best study of these works [for the period from 813 to 963] is due to Hirsch, F. Hirsch, Byzantinische Studien. Leipzig 1876. N.A. Skabalanovich speaks about some Byzantine chronicles in his essay “The History of the Byzantine State and Church in the 10th and 11th Centuries.” St. Petersburg 1884 31. In the era of Justinian, the historian Procopius of Caesarea, a rhetorician by training and secretary under the commander Belisarius, was issued. Therefore, his works devote a lot of space to military events. He wrote 2 books "De bello Persico", 2 books "De bello Vandalico", 4 books "De bello Gothico" [Opera omnia ed. Haury, vol.I-II, 1905], which describe all the campaigns of Justinian. The same rhetorician appears, either of his own free will or by external prompting, as a panegyrist of the Emperor Justinian in 6 books “De aedificiis”, in which he examines everything that is remarkable about Justinian. Much information is given here about the churches built by Justinian. But if here Procopius appears as a panegyrist, then in another work “Anékdota”, or “Historia arcana” [ed. Krasheninnikov 1899], on the contrary, he exposes the emperor and empress themselves as monsters in human form; Theodora, by the way, is also represented as a monster of depravity. The point of view on Justinian's buildings here is completely different; he says that the emperor undermined the resources of the state with these buildings. If in the first work of Justinian's building witnesses are presented about his glory and power, then here it is said about them that it was a vain and waste of huge sums and that Justinian in this case is completely a despot. It is impossible not to notice that Procopius is biased here, on the other hand. But this needs to be said only about facts borrowed from the scandalous chronicle of Constantinople. In other cases, when Justinian’s actions are assessed, it is difficult not to believe him, especially since these messages are similar to his messages in other historical works. This kind of work on civil or secular history in its form should be called history in the proper sense and has a parallel in the church history of Eusebius. But the Byzantine period is mainly characterized by a special form of historical works. Instead of history, chronicle now predominates, which can be judged from our chronicles, where stories are reported by kingdom and by year, so that along with political and military events, purely church events are also reported. Thus, the Greeks changed history to chronicle. This change is usually regarded as an indicator of the decline of Greek literature and culture. It is impossible to deny certain aspects of the decline, but these aspects are, from our point of view, positive advantages. A Greek historian is good when he knows a lot and speaks like a contemporary. Such is Procopius, a contemporary of Justinian. But if we abandon the richness of the content, then it is hardly possible to give preference to the historical account of the Greeks over the chronicle. Historian writers tried to avoid chronological data. Procopius could, for example, convey events from week to week, but he only knows the four seasons. In the chronicle, each event is dated to a specific year, although this is often shown incorrectly. But it is easier to get to the truth from incorrect testimony than when there is none at all. Greek historians are distinguished by an incorrigible tendency to floridity. They all want to be successors of Herodotus and Thucydides. The chroniclers narrate concisely, dryly and only about the matter. If they convey little of the pragmatic connection, then historians do not have it either. But, to be fair, there is often more life in their conciseness than in the works of historians. The civil structure of the east has long changed, Roman officials appeared there; but vitiary historians tried to designate positions descriptively. Thus, in their histories one can find satraps instead of rectores, correctores and judices. Historians despise the Greek language of their time as low and write it in a sublime style. Only the chroniclers began to draw quite freely directly from everyday sources and present the people really as they are, with incorrect expressions of speech and their way of life. Textual extracts from the protocols, for example, on the occasion of popular indignation in Alexandria or Antioch, paint a clearer picture of people's life than the orbits of historians. And the fact that the chroniclers were people with a limited outlook is of great importance for historians of the present time. If the chroniclers had been less limited in their mental development, they would have become conductors of the point of view of their time. They would neglect all the data that comes from non-Orthodox sources, they would neglect the non-Orthodox point of view on events. But due to limited mental development, the chroniclers did not know how to distinguish Orthodox sources from non-Orthodox ones and, thanks to this, preserved excerpts from heretical chronicles. In this field during the period under review we come across a lot of works. The first experiments are the works of the Egyptian scientists Panodorus and Annian. They were discussed when the issue of eras was considered. The compiler of the chronicle Panodorus is not so clear to us, but regarding Annian we know that his chronicle arose from Easter records (the cycle from the creation of the world) and represents a canon by which the time of Easter was supposed to be calculated. Since Annianus reproaches Eusebius of Caesarea for not including some Egyptian martyrs in the chronicle, this shows that this writer also pays attention to church events. There, probably, there was a lot reported about the Egyptian martyrs. This form has found many imitators. One of the most prominent is the Antiochian chronicler John Malala, who joins the previous Antiochian writers - Timothy and Theophilus and partly refers to other unknown chronographers. His work has not survived to us in the original. What is available are excerpts from his work, arbitrarily abridged. This work appeared in this form in print in 1691 in Oxford (ed. Chilmead, with prolegomena Hody) and a second time in Venice in 1733; the best edition is Ludwig Dindorf's 1831, reprinted by Ming (vol. 97). The publications are based on the codex Oxoniensis; Mommsen reported in 1872 excerpta from cod. Scorialensis. The said manuscript has neither beginning nor end; therefore, in the first edition the beginning was replaced by excerpts from other collections, which now constitutes the first book of John Malalas; all books 18. The last passages refer to December 563; the chronicle ended with the reign of Emperor Justinian [or, perhaps, it was brought to 573]. The question of the author's lifetime presents many difficulties. In the first edition of Malala's work, due to the imperfection of the Greek syllable, the opinion was expressed that he lived at the beginning of the 9th century. In modern times, scholars have come to the conclusion that Malala wrote shortly after the reign of Justinian - on the grounds that the Greek language of this time has shortcomings and that the last excerpts date from this time. Malala himself was not Greek, but a Syrian who spoke Greek. The very word “Malala” = rh’twr (“rhetor”, “speaker”) is Syriac; in the 9th century, when Arabic replaced the Syriac language, the author could not have been called Malala. Regarding Malala’s sources, we can say that in the 1st part he used his local (Antiochian) data - the information is more complete regarding Antioch. In the last parts the direction changes, the author already used other sources - official records of urban incidents in Constantinople; this source accompanies him until the end of his work - through the entire reign of Justinian. John Malala is often confused, following the testimony of John of Damascus, with John of Antioch, the author of “Archaeology” (the story of Adam), preserved in fragments. But John of Antioch, according to the study of Sotiriadis'i (1888), lived around the time of Heraclius, wrote in the manner of Eusebius-Procopius and brought the story to the emperor Phocas, and John Malala is a chronicler who lived under the emperor Justin. At the same time as John of Antioch, the unknown author of the Easter Chronicle wrote, the full text of which has survived to this day. This “Easter Chronicle” has a rather peculiar literary history. When the first news about it reached Rome and its codex (from the 10th century) was brought from Sicily, it was mistaken for a consular chronicle (fasti siculi). The first edition of the Easter Chronicle was made in Munich (1615) by Matthew Rader. This edition is based on the late Munich Codex. The manuscript was not particularly correct and Rader's edition was not entirely satisfactory. He called the chronicle “Alexandrian,” whereas there is less Alexandrian in it: the name is due to an accidental circumstance, namely the fact that the chronicle begins with extracts from Peter of Alexandria. In 1688, the 2nd edition in Paris was made by the famous philologist Du Cange, who did a lot for the Easter Chronicle. It was repeated in Venice in 1729. The newest edition in its final form was given by Ludwig Diendorf in the Bonn collection of 1832 and repeated in Ming's Patrology (vol. 92). Significant improvements to the text are presented here; the publisher used two manuscripts (Vaticanus 1941 and Monacensis [olim Ilerdensis]). The Vatican manuscript begins with messages from Philo about the time of the celebration of Easter, Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Peter of Alexandria from his Easter word. But this is not the beginning of the chronicle, but only an introduction, where the purpose of writing the chronicle is stated. Next, the author establishes a method for calculating the time of Easter celebration. The author calls his work "Epitomh' xrónwn", "The Shortening of Times", and runs it from the time of Adam to the reign of Heraclius (630). In fact, the Vatican manuscript turns out to be unfinished. It breaks off in the middle of the text of the message of Emperor Heraclius of 628, although very little remains unfinished. The name “Easter Chronicle” was given to this work because the author intends to use Easter calculations to establish this or that event. The author tells the story year by year according to his account from the creation of the world, and when the Olympiads and consuls appear, then according to the Olympiads and the years of the consuls. The first part embraces Old Testament history, and the author borrows a lot from John Malala; also used by Julius Africanus and Eusebius. Information from the Christian period is scanty, especially from 532; Sometimes only lists of consuls are given. But in the last section, the chronicle takes on a documentary character: thus, from the reign of Emperor Phocas, the names of those executed are recorded with all ranks and positions. The author deals in detail with the time of Emperor Heraclius. Details regarding the time of Heraclius confirm the assumption that the author was a monk of the Constantinople Studite monastery. Regarding the author’s mental development, it must be said that it was at a low level. Such a writer can neither introduce anything from himself nor distort anything, but simply copy from some sources. Regarding the time of Constantius, the author used the works of an Arian writer, although he did not suspect this, and, apparently, this Arian writer is not Philostorgius, but a person unknown to us. The author reports such information that Meletius was deposed for impiety; under the year 350 it is said about blessed Leontius that he is a faithful man, a zealot of the true faith; the charities of the Arians are described; the story is told that the Arian presbyter Eugene and three comrades once met a Jew who thought to laugh at Christians and invited them to eat a snake (Mark 16:18), which they did, and the Jew converted to the Christian faith. This story should characterize the Arians from a flattering side, and the author would not have allowed himself to bring it if he understood that he was using non-Orthodox sources. The author reports information under the year 362 about the movements of pagans against Christians, including the Arians. From the Orthodox point of view, this message is remarkable in that George, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and according to the Easter Chronicle, was killed by the Hellenes, thereby refuting the opinion of the historian Gibbon that the answer for the murder falls on the Orthodox. The assumption once made by Holsten that the Easter Chronicle consists of two parts belonging to two authors, the first extending inclusively to the reign of Emperor Constantius, is without foundation. Geltser proved the groundlessness and incorrectness of this assumption, because borrowings from Arian sources refer to a time later than 354, and details characterizing the time of Heraclius are found earlier. After the “Easter Chronicle” there comes a break in the historiography of the East, followed by the works of Patriarch Nikephoros of Constantinople. The time that embraces him “Istoría súntomo_s” (“Brief History”) is from 610 to 769. Nikephoros does not present events separately by year and does not distinguish between church and civil affairs. In addition, Nikephoros wrote “Chronografikon súntomon” (“Chronicle in Brief”) - an essay containing a list of the patriarchs and kings of the Old Testament and New Testament, indicating the years of their service and reign. The first edition of Nikephoros's "history", Petavia, followed in Paris in 1616. The best was given in Leipzig in 1880 by Karl de Boor, based on a Vatican manuscript; He also published another work by Nicephorus. Simultaneously with the works of Nikephoros, there is the historical work of Theophan the Confessor, the abbot of the monastery Tou megálou A grou:' ("The Great Field"). He wrote a chronicle - "Chronografía", covering 528 years, from the first year of the reign of Diocletian to the second year of the reign of Emperor Michael, or from 285 to July 11, 813. Theophan the Confessor began his work at the request of George, syncellus of the Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople. George wrote a chronicle from the beginning of the world to the reign of Diocletian. On his deathbed, he bequeathed Theophanes not to abandon the work he had begun. Feofan continued it in a primitive way. If Sinkell's work is of little interest, then Theophan's work would not have had the same significance if the sources from which he wrote had not been lost. He wrote his history in chronological order and usually indicated the years from the creation of the world according to the Alexandrian reckoning, the years of the reign of the emperors and the years of the patriarchs. For control, there are instructions on indicators. The main source, after the time of Socrates - Theodoret, for Theophanes was excerpts from Theodore the Reader to the extent that they have survived to our time. These sources could serve until the beginning of the reign of Justinian. For the reign of Justinian, he used the history of Procopius and official Constantinople records. For the period where he is similar to Nicephorus, their sources are the same, but still he does not know at all about the work of his predecessor. Feofan - more Nikifor. He describes the era of iconoclasm based on contemporary records. He could write a lot as an eyewitness. To judge his age, the following story is important: in February 764, by God’s permission, there was an extreme cold, so the Danube and Bosphorus froze; people crossed them on dry land, and he and thirty one-year-olds jumped onto the ice floes washed up on the shore. At this time, Feofan could have been ten years old. He died around 818 as a confessor for icon veneration. In the absence of other chronographs, Feofan's chronicle is an irreplaceable primary source. The first edition of Theophanes's chronicle appeared in Paris in 1655 and was made by Goar, who provided it with notes. Regarding the text, he stood on weak ground, since the manuscript he used was filled with abbreviations that were not always clear to him. The best newest edition is by de Boor (Lipsiae 1883), who used ten manuscripts. Of these, he himself gives preference to the Vatican manuscript 154, which, unfortunately, was brought to light only before the beginning of the reign of Justinian. The remaining manuscripts fall into three categories, and each of them has its own special character, although it is impossible to give preference to any of them - they are all damaged, there are notes in the margins, and there are abbreviations. For control and choice between them, the Latin translation, made 60–70 years later by the Roman librarian Anastasius with great closeness to the Greek text, and therefore very suitable for its criticism, is important. As a consequence, from the reign of Justinian, the history of Anastasius is of somewhat greater importance than the Greek lists of later origin, which are much less stable. A translation of Anastasia was also published by de Boor (1885). The first successor of Theophanes was the monk George, known under the name Amartola (sinner). This chronicle was first published in 1859 in Notes of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences by Muralt. The publisher had many manuscripts at hand; he himself counts them up to 27, but his publication was not satisfactory. In essence, this first treatment was made on the basis of the Moscow codex of the 12th century, and this latter is similar to the Parisian list of the 10th century. [This edition has now been superseded by de Boor's 1904–1905 edition]. George Amartol brought his chronicle from Adam to 842; ancient history is presented very briefly. We have several revisions of this chronicle. In many manuscripts it appears with the continuation of Logothetes, up to 948. In some manuscripts there are a number of continuations up to 1071, up to 1081, and even in the Moscow manuscript up to 1143. The continuator of Theophanes - for the most part - was an anonymous author, unfairly mistaken for some Leontius. He wrote on behalf of Konstantin Porfirorodny, from whom a lot of historical material was collected. But in its present form, he processed his chronicle and probably completed it under Emperor John Tzimisces (969–976) or even under his successors. The chronicle (813–961) consists of 6 books: 1–4 books belong to the author, the 5th book is the own work of Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who used the chronicle of Genesius; 6th (886–961) – again to the author [or perhaps Theodore Daphnopatus]. The chronicle of the anonymous author is the most informative. The successor of the anonymous one was Simeon Magister and Logothete, who brought his chronicle from Adam to Romanus II (959–963). The question of the author is controversial. It is believed that Simeon Magister is one and the same person with Simeon Metaphrastus. But Metaphrastus (according to the panegyric of Michael Psellus) lived before the Master. The chronicle of Simeon the Master is replete with chronological dates, the only inconvenience is that he has a peculiar, fluctuating era (from the creation of the world) with a difference of 1 to 7 years from the correct one. Next comes Leo the Grammar; he may have held a high civil position and completed his chronicle on July 8, 1013. He used the chronicle of George and the works of Logothetus and brought it to the death of Romanus (948). Among the historians of this time, Genesius is famous. The author wrote under Emperor Constantine VII the Porphyrogenitus (912–959). The author's name has been scratched out from the manuscript. Two later persons, ad marginem, tried to guess him. One put the name Genésio_s, the other put the name 'Iwánnh_s epískopo_s Diokaisareía_s th_s Ana_ksárbh_s. The first is right, as a comparison of the story with Skylitzes’ note about bias (“_psílon égkw’mion” “just a word of praise”) of the writer Joseph Genesius shows. Joseph Genesius wrote on behalf of Constantine Porphyrogenitus; he was the son of the patrician Constantine, who came from a noble Armenian family and distinguished himself in the period of time - 842–867. - under Michael III, which Genesius mentions more than once. This imbued his works with a color of tendentiousness. The chronicle also reflected the relationship of Genesius to Constantine VII. In his 4 books he covers the time from Leo the Armenian to half of the reign of Basil the Macedonian. The significance of Genesius as a church historian is uncertain, because he used both non-written sources and the works of his predecessors, for example, the chronicle of George, the biographies of Patriarchs Nicephorus and Ignatius, without criticism at all, and where this was required by the author’s relationship to Constantine VII, very tendentiously. At the end of the 10th century, Leo the Deacon spoke, describing in 10 books the history of time from 959 to 975. Michael Psellus, in addition to chronography (976–1059–1077), also wrote biographies. The historian John Skylitzes of Thracia, who lived at the end of the 11th century, deserves special attention with his chronicle. From 812 he brought the chronicle up to 1081. But the fate of the chronicle of John of Thracis is rather strange. In the 12th century. it was used by Georgy Kedrin. From the place from which John continued Theophanes until the end of his chronicle (1057), Kedrin copied literally. When similarities between the chronicles were discovered, they concluded that John of Thracis copied his chronicle for 1057 from the chronicle of Kedrin and the latter began to appear, and the chronicle of Skylitzes (John of Thracis) was not even honored with publication. John Skylitzes, as a historian, had a lot of historical material at hand. He does not approve of his predecessors for the monographic nature of their works and bias (sympathy towards individuals). He had many works by different authors, which have not survived to us, such as: Sikeliot didaskal, deacon Nikephoros of Phrygia, Bishop Theodore of Side, his nephew Theodore, bishop of Sebaste, Demetrius of Cyzicus and the monk John of Lydia. From this it is clear that Skylitsa had many sources that came from the pen of clergy and, moreover, lived not in Constantinople, but in the provinces, and therefore with an abundance of church and everyday historical material; this had a beneficial effect on Skylitzes’ work. But he did not treat these sources critically, so he comes across a lot of anecdotal information that Kedrin also released. After Kedrin comes John Zonara, who lived under Emperor Alexei Komnenos (1081 - 1118); he occupied the high position of drungaria vigla [aka nikteparh - “night eparch” - from the end of the 8th century, head of the security of the main imperial palace, hippodrome and court, as well as the night guard of Constantinople] and is known in theological science as an interpreter of the canons. This competence in resolving canonical issues gives important significance to his “history” [chronicle]; Moreover, his language is simpler than that of his predecessors, and in the history of Zonara there is a lot of historical, biographical and linguistic explanations. The story of Zonara spans 18 books; 6 books are devoted to ancient history, and 12 to Roman and Byzantine history. The sources in the first part are indicated in detail by Diendorf, in the subsequent part they are not indicated, but this is not of particular importance, since Zonara used historians known to us, and was independent only in 1081 - 1118. Regarding the next generation of writers, two features should be mentioned: 1) the fear of the abyss of wisdom contained in the works of their predecessors, which was expressed in their desire to shorten the already brief works (Mikhail Glika, XII century, Konstantin Manassi, XII century, Joel, XIII century, Ephraim, XIV century), and 2) about their Byzantine weakness to colorology, expressed in the unique form of the works of the last three historians, who conveyed historical events in political verse (tonic meter). Despite, however, such a unique form of their works, in presenting the content they remarkably strictly adhere to the letters of the works of their predecessors and most of all Zonara. The last church historian in Byzantium was Nikephoros Callistos, a Constantinople monk (c. 1333) who intended to write church history in 23 books; but only 18 books have reached us (the history was completed up to 610), and only the titles of the following books have been preserved (until 911). His history was published from a single Viennese manuscript in 1630 by Fronton le Duc. From this edition it was reprinted in Minh’s “Patrology” (vols. 145–147) 32. Latin ecclesiastical historiography Latin literature on church history in the ancient period reflected the strong influence of Greek literature. We know that the great works of Greek literature were almost all translated into Latin. So, for example, the Church History of Eusebius was translated, then the works of his three successors - Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret. The work of Eusebius was translated by Rufinus in 410, and the works of Socrates, Sozomen and Theodoret by the scholastic Epiphanius (historia tripartita), who took up this work at the request of the senator Cassiodorus († c. 562). The following series of Greek works on our subject have escaped the attention of Latin scholars, but the works of George Syncellus, Nikephoros and Theophanes were translated (partly processed) into Latin by Anastasius, the Roman librarian († c. 886). The Chronicle of Eusebius, namely the second part - the canons, was translated, processed and continued by Jerome. It should be noted that the attention of Latin translators was drawn to minor works on church history, and these translations are valuable to us, especially since the Greek originals of some works were lost over time. It is known, for example, that the chronicle of Hippolytus, lost in the Greek text, survived in Latin translations [in two so-called “Libri generationis” and “Excerpta latina barbari”] 33. Often these translations are literal to the last degree. In this regard, the “Excerpta latina barbari”, “Latin Extracts of the Barbarian”, i.e. a completely preserved Latin translation (probably c. 491–518) of a completely lost Greek chronicle written by some Alexandrian c. 400 “Excerpta barbari” was named so by Scaliger due to the barbaric translation and rough processing. Proof of this can be found in the following passage: ille solis sonfixus est ab acheis = to "Ilion [ó "Ilio_s] h'lw [taken for dativus, from h'lo_s nail] úpó twn áxaíwn; solis exterminatio = 'Ilíou ékpórfhsi_s; that is, it turned out that the sun was nailed to the cross with nails by the hands of the Achaeans. This incongruity is explained by the fact that the word “Troy” - “Ilion - was taken for the word “sun” - h'lio_s, which in Greek are pronounced the same but are written differently. Here, obviously, we are talking about the capture of the city of Troy by the Achaeans, and not at all about the sun, as the translator who did not know the Greek language perfectly accepted it. This chronicle, not preserved in Greek, is дошедшая на латинском, имеет значение для установления текста хроники Евсевия. [Libri generationis и Excerpta barbari вместе с греческой реконструкцией издал С. Frick , Chronica minora. Vol. I. Lipsiae 1892, также 77z. Mommsen в Monumenta Ger-maniae historica. Auctores antiqu. T. IX. Chronica minora. Vol. I. Berolini 1892]. We should also apply the “Historia acephala”, preserved (not completely) only in the Latin text and completely lost in Greek, written before 412, [ed Maffei 1738, Sievers in Zeitschrift für historische Theologie 1868, Batiffol in Melanges Cabrieres, t. Under Greek influence, independent Latin historiography began to develop. First of all, Lactantius appears as a historian in his work “De mortibus persecuto-git” (“On the death of the persecutors”). The purpose of this essay is to show that all the emperors who persecuted Christians died unsuccessfully. The best previous edition of this work is Bünemann's edition, published in 1739 in Leipzig. There is now a new edition of the Vienna Academy of Sciences by Brandt (vol. XXVII, 1897) 34 35 . Then comes the work of Rufinus († 410), who not only processed the history of Eusebius in Latin, but also brought it to the death of Theodosius (395), mainly on the basis of oral reports received by him during his journey to Alexandria, and in general to the east. This independent work of his covers two books. Regarding the significance of Rufinus's work, it should be noted that he influenced Greek church literature. Scientists (Gwatkin) have a very low opinion of the merits of Rufinus’s work, citing the fact that Rufinus reports a lot of incredible things and is silent about actual historical facts; for example, they say, although he had the opportunity to communicate a lot from the life of St. Athanasius, as a person familiar with the friends of this saint, limits himself to reporting only two anecdotes, and even then of an unreliable nature. But the conclusion that Rufinus is generally unreliable in his reports is excessive pessimism; some of his messages are very important, such as, for example, messages about Christians in Ethiopia, Georgia and Saracen Christians as borrowed from the stories of people who knew the preachers of the Word of God in these countries personally - reliable. Finally, he talks about later events as an eyewitness, and therefore the stories are worthy of being trusted. Rufinus joins those historians who took the work of Eusebius as a model, and therefore deserves our sympathy. In his other work, “Historia monachorum”, he presented facts reported earlier by another writer as his own messages and thus, of course, cast a shadow over his work. This trick of Rufinus had the consequence that scientists began to suspect all his historical reports as unreliable. Next we should mention Paul Orosius, whose general history “Historiarum contra paganos libriseptem” (“Seven books of stories against the pagans”), brought to the year 417, provides few church-historical messages, because it contains more illumination than the facts themselves, which is explained, however, by his apologetic task, which he pursued in his work. Published by Zangenmeister in the Vienna corps (vol. V) in 1882 and then in Leipzig in 1889. Sulpicius Severus, as a historian, declared himself a work known under the name "Chronicorum libri duo". The first book of this chronicle contains a brief outline of the history of the church, beginning with Adam and up to Daniel, the second - from Daniel until the time of the author himself (before 400). How brief his history is can be seen from the fact that he treats history from the time of the apostles from Chapter 29. according to 51. The text of this work is preserved in an 11th century manuscript located in the Vatican (Codex Palatinus). Another work of the North of the same kind is “The Life of Martin of Tours,” which has survived in 6 manuscripts. The best edition of the works of Sulpicius Severus is the edition made in Vienna (vol. I, ed. Halm 1866). Then one should name, among the historians of the same trend, the archdeacon of the Carthaginian Liberatus, who compiled brief reports on the Nestorians and Eutychians, “Breviarium causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum” (“A brief summary of the case of the Nestorians and Eutychians”). It is known about this historian that he was a defender of the “three heads.” For the first part of his work, he used the works of previous historians (Socrates and others), and in the last part he acts as an eyewitness. Despite his bias, scientists find in him significant objectivity and value his work for the reliability of the information it contains. Further, Latin historiography in this direction had a representative in the person of Victor, Bishop of Wit, for whom the task was to describe the persecution of Christians by the Arians - Vandals in Africa: “Historia persecutionis Wandalicae, II. Ill (V). Accedunt: 1) Passio martyrum apud Carthaginem, 2) Notitia episcopatuum Africae.” Its history consists of 3, otherwise (as before) 5 books, and is preserved in 6 codes. Of the editions of this work, only two are considered good, one of which was given in the Vienna corpus (vol. VII, ed. Petschenig 1881), and the other in the Berlin Monumenta Germaniae (Austores antiquissimi III, I, ed. Halm 1879). In subsequent times, Latin church historiography loses its universal trend and becomes local, national, and acquires a certain type of character - monographic. These are: Gregorius Turonensis († 595), Historia (ecclesiasica) Francorum, II. 10 (Gregory of Tours, "(Ecclesiastical) History of the Franks"); Beda Venerabilis († 735), Historia ecclesiastica gentis Anglorum, II. 5 (The Venerable Bede, "Ecclesiastical History of the English"); Paulus Diaconus († post 773), Historia Langobardorum, II. 6 (Paul the Deacon, “History of the Lombards”). It must be admitted that the chronicle of Eusebius in the Latin translation of Jerome was more to the taste of the Latins than his church history. This can already be seen from the fact that the chronicle of Eusebius was read very often, which is why it was preserved in many manuscripts, which Schöne fell to publish in modern times. The interest in this work of Jerome was made by the fact that many writers went in this direction in their historical works. Prosper, the Aquitanian presbyter, in his “Chronison integrum”, who continued the work of Jerome from 379 to 455, is remarkable. Based on some manuscript data, it is noted that during his lifetime three editions of his Chronicon were published in 433, 445 and 455. [The chronicle was published by Mommsen in Monum. Germ. Auct antiqu. IX, 1892]. The chronicle of Prosper was continued by an unknown person from 456 until the era of Justinian (the death of the Vandals), and the author took a purely African point of view. In parallel with Prosper, another writer who lived at the same time was working on the continuation of the chronicle of Eusebius - the Spanish bishop Hidatius (Idacius) of Aquaflavia (between 472-474), whose work begins in 375 and ends in 469. This work is remarkable for the accuracy of local dates and characterizes the then relations of the West to the East. Reading such works, one can come to the conclusion that Western Christians were very interested in the East, while in the East they were rather indifferent to Western Christians. Idatius was born around 393 et, quam infantulus et pupillus (in childhood), had the opportunity to travel to Palestine, where he saw Jerome, Theophilus of Alexandria, Eulogius of Caesarea and John of Jerusalem; from there he returned to Spain until 412 and throughout his life retained deep respect for these great men. He is keenly interested in rumors from the east, although they reached him in the most vague way and sometimes in a distorted form, for example, he does not know what happened to these persons subsequently, when Jerome died, and rumors about the expulsion of St. He reports John Chrysostom under the year 404 and says: “Ioannes ob fidem catholicam Eudoxiam Arcadii uxorem infestissimam patitur arianam.” It is obvious that he confused Eudoxia's relationship with St. John Chrysostom with Justina's relationship to Ambrose of Milan. Then the first information about the Council of Ephesus reached him completely by accident; from the presbyter of the Arabicae regionis Germanus, who arrived in Gallaecia in 435, he learned that Juvenal was the bishop in Jerusalem and that he was summoned to the capital by Theodosius II to talk about the Nestorians, and Nestoria was recognized as the continuer of the Ebionite heresy. Idatius left the famous list of consuls (fasti), to which additions were made in places about the events that took place during their time. [A new edition of the chronicle of Idatius and the list of consuls is made by Mommsen in Monumenta Germaniae, Auetores antiqu. XI, 1894; IX, 1892]. Comite Marcellinus belongs to this type of successor to Eusebius’s chronicle; his work covers the time from 379–534. Marcellinus lived in Constantinople, and therefore his reports about the events of the Western Church are scant. His chronicle was continued by an unknown person until the year 548, and the list of indictions - until the year 566. The chronicle of the Numidian Bishop Victor of Tunnun begins at another point. Involved in the dispute about the “three heads” as their defender, he was exiled to Egypt and, having changed several places of imprisonment, died after 566, probably in one of the monasteries of Constantinople. His chronicle is from 444 to 567. Although his work is tendentious, the importance and accuracy of individual factual testimony cannot be denied. [The Chronicles of Marcellinus and Victor were also published by Mommsen in Monumenta Germaniae, Auetores antiqu. XI, 1894]. In addition to this kind of historiography, special literature on our subject of a monographic nature also developed in the West. Thus, we know that Jerome came up with the idea of ​​composing a work that did not exist in the east. This is precisely his monographic work on the history of Christian literature “De viris illustribus” (the so-called catalog of church writers), compiled by him on the basis of Eusebius and brought to the year 392 or 393 [ed. Richardson 1896, together with Gennady's continuation, Texte und Untersuchungen XIV, 1]. It was continued until 460 by Gennadius of Marseilles († about 495), and further by Isidore of Seville († 636) and Ildefonso of Toledo († 667). Then a work appeared in the West entitled “Liber Pontificalis” - reports on the life of the Roman bishops, which was misunderstood by Anastasius the librarian. Since it could be based on data from the Roman church archive, the testimony of this work can be very important. Editio princeps: Busaeus, Moguntiae 1602. The best of the ancients: Bianchini, Romae 1718–1735, t. I-IVfol.; Vignoli, Romae 1724–1755,1.1-III, 40. Scientific: abbe L. Duchesne, Paris 1886–1892, t. I-II, in 4°; Mommsen, Berolini 1898, pars prior (up to 715), in 4°. The question of the various sources (manuscripts) of the Libe Pontificalis was seriously raised for the first time in 1869 by the Jena professor Lipsius (R. Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe, Kiel 1869), who had the opportunity to use the critical apparatus placed at his disposal by Dr. Pabst, appointed publisher of the "Liber Pontificalis" in the Monumenta Germaniae. But the fate of “Liber Pontificalis” in Monumenta Germaniae turned out to be very strange. Scientists editores designati [appointed editors] worked on the manuscripts and died (Pabst, Waitz) without publishing a single line of this work. This is explained by the difficulty of understanding the numerous layers of handwritten material that Lipsius undertook to explain. Lipsius came to the conclusion that a directory of bishops was kept in the Roman church, to which short reports about the life of each of them were usually added. From these additions, around 354, the Catalogus Liberianus was compiled, a list ending with Liberius (352–366). A further addition of lists appeared under Leo the Great, Catalogus Leoninus, ending with Sixtus III (432–440). The next treatment (after the unattested Catalogus Symmachianus) of the lists of Roman pontiffs is given around 523 in the form F, Catalogus Felicianus (Felix III [IV], 526–530). This is already the oldest review of the Liber Pontificalis itself. His later review is by K, Catalogus Cononianus, up to and including Conon (686–687). In this almost final edition, the Liber Pontificalis (LP) is continued in parts to Stephen V (885–891). For this last entry (Cononianus), according to Lipsius, the Codex Neapolitanus (B) of the late 7th century is of particular importance. After Lipsius (and Duchenne), Pabst’s successor as editor designatus, Berlin University professor Georg Weitz, took up this issue. The peculiarity of his view in comparison with Lipsius is the following: a) Catalogus Leonini should be left aside as insufficiently attested in manuscripts; b) F and K are not precedents of LP, but extracts from LP independent of one another; c) in the history of LP we have no solid chance of rising above the 7th century (cod. B and other later ones). The third researcher is the French scientist Duchenne; in 1877 he published “Etude sur le Liber Pontificalis”. Duchenne's propositions: α) = Waitz: F and K are extracts from LP; β) v Lipsius u Waitz: cod. Lucensis (A) VIII century. represents cleaner LP text than cod. IN; γ) against Waitz: LP appeared around 530. Finally, in 1879, in a special article, with some modification of αβ, Duchesne argued that δ) based on the comparison of F and K, the text of LP can be restored better than on the basis of AB (the view is to a certain extent cum Lipsio contra Waitz). Waitz and Duchesne, even after printed explanations, each remained with his own view*, and in 1884–1885 Duchesne published two editions of his Liber Pontificalis, which was completed in 1892. The high merits of this publication were also recognized by German scientists (Harnack). Waitz, remaining consistent with his view, admitted in any case that, assuming that Duchenne’s view of the history and sources of LP (αβγδ) is correct, “Liber Pontificalis” should be published scientifically exactly as Duchenne publishes it. The French scientist made public a lot of unpublished manuscript material and restored the text of the editio prima anno 530 he accepted (left page: F and K; right page: the reconstruction itself) and finally gave the later text (“Liber Pontificalis” in the proper sense) with a complete critical apparatus and very informative notes 36. [* Note: the common position between Waitz and Duchenne “F et K post LP” is, however, also a point of mutual disagreement. According to Waitz: FK from LP, which is not earlier than the half of the 7th century; according to Duchenne, FK from LP, which is in 530.] Church historiography in Eastern languages 37 Church historiography in Syria Now we move from Western historiography to Eastern historiography. Of all the Christian eastern peoples, Aramaic or Syriac should undoubtedly be considered the most ancient, because the language of Christ the Savior himself was Aramaic, and Christianity spread primarily among persons of this language. Although Greek culture made very significant advances in the east, it must nevertheless be admitted that the Aryan element acted weakly when confronted with the Semitic, and that Greek civilization took root there only superficially. It can be assumed that if the Greek language made progress, it was only in high society, in big cities (Antioch, Damascus, etc.), while the people remained Aramaic, and the population near Antioch did not accept the Greek language. This created the need for independent Syrian literature 38 . As far as we know, the first historical works in Syriac were translated. Quite early, the chronicle of Eusebius and his church history were translated into Syriac; translations of other outstanding works of Eusebius, for example about the Palestinian martyrs, etc., have also been preserved. The first of the Syrian historical writers is before us Bishop Maruta of Mayferkat, who wrote the history of the martyrs and the Council of Nicaea. The last work was written not so much out of his own impulse, but out of obedience to the will of the highest hierarch, the Seleucian Catholicos Isaac († 416). Maruta's works would have been very valuable as historical sources, but in their original form they have long been lost. [Parts of the first were published by E. Assemanius in Acta sanctorum martyrum. I. Romae 1748, and reprinted by P. Bedjan'oM in Acta martyrum et sanctorum. II. Lipsiae 1891. Passages of the latter translated into German by Braun, De Sancta Nicaena Synodo. Syrische Texte des Maruta von Maipherkat übersetzt von O. Braun . Münster in W. 1898]. Of the currently existing works that have been preserved in their entirety, the first place is occupied by [the so-called chronicle of Jesus (Yeshu) the Stylite. The author is an ascetic who lived in the first half of the 6th century; At the request of Archimandrite Sergius, he wrote [approx. 518] memoirs about his time, titling his work as follows: “On the disasters that befell my city of Edessa and all of Mesopotamia.” The chronicle is divided into two parts: the first contains a general outline of the history of previous disasters (political), the second presents a description of specific disasters by year, when political disasters were joined by physical ones. This chronicle covers the time from 806 to 818 of the Seleucid era, i.e. 494–506. The author turns out to be extremely familiar with the theater of military operations and the topography of the places. In addition to the fact that the chronicle, as secular history, is important, it is even more important because its author devotes space to reports about the internal life of the East, for example, he describes famine, pestilence, reports about bishops and their actions, etc. [The Chronicle was published by Martin in 1876 and Wright in 1882 39 ]. After this, the most ancient works of Syriac literature are again translated works; the oldest among them is the history of Zechariah the Rhetor. Assemanius, having encountered passages of it in the Syriac manuscripts of the Vatican Library, suggested that Zechariah wrote in Syriac. But Land presented quite strong evidence that he wrote his history (Monophysite) in Greek. Subsequently, a change occurred in him, and we meet him at the Council of Constantinople in 536 as the Orthodox bishop of Mytilene (Mitulh'nh on the island of Lesbos). The original text of his creation (Euagr. II, 2. 8.10; III, 5. 6. 7.18) has not been preserved, and even the Syriac translation reproduces it only in part - with frequent abbreviations and arbitrary changes. Its significance, despite the wretched form in which it has been preserved, must be recognized as paramount, because apart from it we have no more satisfactory sources about the course of Monophysite affairs. The method of conducting the case also deserves special attention: he cites the documents on the basis of which he writes; but in the Syriac text they represent many abbreviations. Of particular importance are the reports on the state of church affairs in Egypt after Dioscorus, since in this respect Zechariah has no equal. In Syriac processing, the story is brought up to 569. Zechariah wrote about 518, and his history covered the time from 450 to 491. The Syriac text was published by Land in Anecdota syriaca, tШ, Lugduni Batavorum 1870. [German translation: K. Ahrens und G. Krüger, Die sogenannte Kirchengeschichte des Zacharias Rhetor. Leipzig 1899; English: F. Hamilton and E. Brooks, The Syriac Chronicle known as that of Zachariah of Mitylene. London 1899] 40. The first prominent Syrian church historian was Bishop John of Ephesus (born about 516), a contemporary of Justinian, who covered his reign in a very original way with his Monophysite reports. The Monophysite East knows Justinian as a zealot of Orthodoxy and a persecutor of Monophysitism; but from this work it turns out that, despite all his Orthodoxy, Justinian still adhered to a special policy in relation to the Monophysites. He turns out to be a man of such broad views that he would rather see Monophysitism in his subjects than paganism. Thus, John of Ephesus, who did not hide his Monophysite convictions, was summoned to court with the rank of Monophysite bishop of Ephesus and carried out various assignments of the emperor in relation to the pagans in Asia: he, “one above the tongues,” “breaker of idols” (as John called himself), often went there, found pagans and converted them to Monophysiteism. It was this person, who took such a prominent part in the affairs of his time, who left us historical information about his era. Unfortunately, his work has not reached us completely: the first two parts of the history were lost (from Julius Caesar to 570), only the third part was preserved in a fairly complete form, which splits into 6 books, which survived partly in the Syriac text itself, partly in its table of contents; it embraces the time 571–585, but with digressions in the form of memories of previous events, until the last days of the author's life 41. Land pays fair tribute to the historical talent of John of Ephesus; it lies not in literary merit, but in its remarkable truthfulness. Thus, despite his adherence to the Monophysite confession, John of Ephesus, nevertheless, transmitting various kinds of rumors that are unpleasant for his synodite opponents, almost always notices that he is transmitting this from rumors, without vouching for their authenticity. On the other hand, John of Ephesus is not blinded to the weaknesses and personalities of his own church, for example in the history of Paul, Patriarch of Antioch. Describing, in his words, “the heroic stand of the Monophysites for their confession, he makes it clear that this stand was without blood and that many were ready to sacrifice their convictions if some bishops had not shown amazing steadfastness. In addition, John of Ephesus was the author of several biographies of some of the prominent "confessors" of his time, for example Jacob Burd'ono (so should be called [according to the Jacobite pronunciation, according to the Nestorian "Burd'ana"] instead of the incorrect Baradaeus), etc. The history of John was published by W. Cureton'ou, The third part of the ecclesiastical history of John bishop of Ephesus. Oxford 1853. English translation by Payne-Smith, Oxford 1860, German by Schönfelder, München 1862. Other Joannis episcopi Ephesi scripta historica in Land, Anecdota syriaca t.II, Lugduni Batavorum 1868; [translated into Latin by van Dowen'oM and Landow Commentarii de beatis. orientalibus et historiae ecclesiasticae fragmenta. Amsterdam 1889]. The story is told from the Orthodox point of view in the Chronicle of Edessa. Nothing can be said about its author, because the work itself is anonymous, but it should be noted that its author is younger than Zechariah and older than John of Ephesus. It consists of 106 paragraphs and covers the time from the emergence of the Church of Edessa to 540 - until the 14th year of the reign of Justinian. This story is extremely brief, but extremely important in terms of chronological accuracy and the importance of those monuments from which the author could draw his information. He could have had at his disposal the city archive, which was then irretrievably lost. [The chronicle was published by Assemanius in Bibliotheca orientalis (1719) and reprinted by Michaelis (1786). Then it was published and translated into German by L. Hallier in Texte u. Untersuchungen v. Gebhardt u. Harnack IX, 1, 1892. It now appears in the edition of J. Guidi with a Latin translation in Corpus scriptorum orientalium, Scriptores syri, ser. Ill, torn 4: Chronica minora. Pars I. Paris 1903] 43. Then one must name among the Syrian writers, as a notable figure, Dionysius of Tell-Mahr, the XXII Syrian (Jacobite) patriarch, who died in 845, or 1157 of the Seleucid era. He was a chronograph that continued the work of his predecessors; his methods were of a primitive nature, which followed from the purpose of his work: he did not pretend to be any originality, he only wanted to provide his flock with useful reading, and therefore, if he found any edifying work in which this or that event was described, he copied it directly, indicating the source. Thus, he preserved the chronicle of Eusebius, the story of Jesus the Stylite about the disasters that befell Mesopotamia, and the messages of Zechariah. In addition, he used John of Ephesus, and, despite the fact that his third book has already been published in the complete Syriac text, his work does not lose its value, because he borrows not only from his 3rd book, but also from the previous ones. As the successor of Syrian historiography, who brought history to his time, Dionysius Tell-Mahrsky retains the importance of the primary historian for his time, which he talks about 44. Then the successor of Dionysius of Tell-Mahr in the matter of historiography is one of his successors in the rank of patriarch - Michael the Great (i.e. the eldest, † November 8, 1199). His work is known from its mention in further Syriac works, but the Syriac original [until recently was] unknown. The Armenian translation of this chronicle has survived [published in Jerusalem in 1870 and 1871], and science knew about it thanks to the works of French Armenianists Dulaurier, who published excerpts from it in a French translation in the Journal asiatique 1848–1849, and Langlois, who published the entire chronicle in French in 1868 (Chronigue de Michel le Grand, traduite par Viktor Langlois. This work is very important, since the author had at his disposal many monuments that have not reached us, which we learn about from the preface; These are the works of John of Antioch for the time from Theodosius II to Justinian, Gurias, who embraces the era from Justinian to Heraclius, Dionysius of Tell-Mahr - from Mauritius to Theophilus, Ignatius, Bishop of Melitina, Prester John of Caysum, Sliba, Dionysius bar Salybius. Based on these works and his own observations, the author brings his story to his time (with the Armenian continuation it reaches 1224). Already from the part published by Dulaurier, dating back to the time of Heraclius, one “was” able to see what an important treasure lies in this text. The mutual relations of the Monophysites are presented here with completeness and detail, despite the abbreviations made by Dulaurier. The history of the emergence of Monothelitism, the history of Heraclius’s attempts to acquire the assistance of the Monophysites receive a peculiar coverage; here it becomes clear how Heraclius wanted to organize the union of the Monophysites with the Orthodox Church. While in Edessa during a campaign, he wanted to commune with the Monophysite bishops, but the Monophysites declared that if he wanted to commune, he must enter into communion with them and renounce the Council of Chalcedon, which resulted in the taking away of the keys to the church and their transfer to the few Orthodox (diophysites) who remained in this city 45 . The last remarkable historical writer from the Jacobite Syrians was Gregory Abu-l-Faraj, the son of the Jewish physician Aaron (hence the Syriac name for Gregory _ps - mn Ί3, "Bar-Evroyo" ["Bar-Evraia" in Nestorian pronunciation], "son of the Jew", converted into the barbaric Barhebraeus), born in Melitene in 1226. At just 20 years old he became a bishop in Gübö, because, as the son of an outstanding physician, he received a solid education for that time: he was strong in Greek, Syriac and Arabic, very knowledgeable in philosophy, medicine and theology. He was soon promoted to “Mafryan” (Syr. = fruit-producing). two halves: the western was ruled by the Monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, and the eastern by the primate (“Mafryan”), with residence in Mosul, who, among other things, had the right to “bear the fruits of the Spirit,” that is, to ordain bishops and the patriarch himself. In 1286, Gregory died, deeply respected by everyone, having become a victim of his scientific knowledge and his own one-sided conviction: he himself predicted his death on the basis of the expected conjunction of the planets Saturn and Jupiter, which took place both at his birth, and at his installation as a bishop, and at his installation as a mafrian, and so firmly believed in the imminence of his death that he fell into illness and actually died. Gregory wrote a lot and, by the way, partly based on archival materials in Syriac, Arabic and Persian, an extensive political and church chronicle in the Syriac language (from Adam to his time). The first part deals with events up to the time of the Mongol rule (Chronicon Syriacum, edd. P. J. Bruns et G. G. Kirsch. Lipsiae 1789, 2 voll, in 4° [new best edition by P. Bedjan, Paris, 1890]); the second presents a successive series of high priests from Aaron to the Antiochian Monophysite patriarchs, and a series of eastern Mafrians and Nestorian Catholicos (Chronicon Ecclesiasticum, edd. J. B. Abbeloos et T. J. Lamy, Lovanii 1872–1877, 3 voll, in 4°). From the first part of this chronicle, at the request of some Arabs, the author himself made an extract under the title “Selected History of the States” - within a month (Arabic Historia dynastiarum, ed. Pocock, Oxonii 1663, 2 voll, in 4°) [republished by Salhaniy in Beirut in 1890]). Later anonymous writers continued the lists of bishops for another two hundred years. Assemanius calls this Syrian the last Monophysite historiographer. Among the Nestorian Syrians, two persons are most often mentioned who have most distinguished themselves literary in the field of church history with works of a monographic nature: Ebed-Yeshu [Avdisho in Nestorian pronunciation], bar-Briha, Metropolitan of Sob (Nasivinsky), † 1318, and Thomas (Tauma), Bishop of Marg (near Mosul) at the beginning of the 9th century. Ebed-Yeshu, Jerome of Syrian ecclesiastical literature, compiled a catalog of poetry, which included 197 writers, and, in conclusion (No. 198), like Jerome, the author himself, who enumerated his works. [The catalog was published in Rome by Abraham of Ecchellensis in 1653 and by Assemanius in the 1st half of Volume III of Bibliotheca orientalis in 1725; translated into English by Badger, Badger, The Nestorians and their Rituals. II. London 1852]. Thomas of Marg, who lived at the beginning of the 9th century, wrote “ktaba d-ri-sane” - “Book of Chiefs”, or “Book of Chapters” in 6 sections, where he presented the history of the Nestorian monastery “Beth Ave”. This work contains valuable information on the history of monasticism. [Published by Bege with English translation: The Book of Go-verners. The Historia Monastica of Thomas Bishop of Margä Ed. by E. W. Budge. I-II. London 1893]. At the beginning of the 12th century. (c. 1135) the Nestorian Mari-ibn-Sulei-man [Mare bar Shlemon] left to posterity an outline of church-historical events in Arabic, in an essay called “Majdal” (“Tower”). Around 1340, another Nestorian, named Amru-bnu-Matta, wrote a church historical work under the same title. [Currently, these works are available in the edition of Gismondi, who translated them into Latin. Maris Amri et Slibae de patriarchis Nestorianorum commentaria. Ed. etlatine reddidit H. Gismondi. Romae 1890–1899]. These works gave Assemania (in Bibliotheca Orientalis t. III) the opportunity to acquaint us with the history of Nestorianism. These works suffer from incompleteness. Church historiography in Egypt 46 Christian Egypt did not assert itself in the church-historical field with anything special: lives of saints and monographs were written there, but a complete history was not presented. The explanation for such a sad fact must be sought in the humiliated position of the Copts. That enlightenment did not flourish among this nation is evident from the fact that persons completely unfamiliar with the Greek language ascended to the episcopal sees. The records of past and current events that remain from the Copts are of a quaternary nature. The remains of Coptic ecclesiastical writing, historical and patristic, are almost all contained in a pair of broken chetiy-menya of two monasteries, one - St. Macarius in Skete, another - unknown southern Egyptian. What remains, by the way, are fragments of a rather fantastic collection called “church history”; the passage contains legendary accounts of the Alexandrian patriarchs (from Alexander to Cyril) 47 . These data from Coptic writing were used in his history of the Alexandrian patriarchs (in Arabic) by one of the outstanding Coptic writers Sevir ibnul-Muqaffa, bishop of Ashmunay (about 975), who thoroughly studied Coptic literature. This work of Sevier, continued by others, constitutes the main source for E. Renaudot, Historia patriarcharum alexandrinorum jacobitarum, Paris 1713. The contents of the Arabic synaxarum, read during worship, were also borrowed from the same ancient Coptic menaion. [The history of Sevier is currently published in Corpus scriptorum ori-entalium, Scriptores arabici, ser. Ill, t. 9: Severus ben el-Mogaffá. Historia patriarcharum alexandrinorum. Ed. Ch. F. Seybold. Beryti 1904 sq. The publication of the synaxarion was also started there, ser. Ill, t. ig-Synaxarium alexandrinum. Ed. J. Forget. Beryti 1905. The history of Sevier simultaneously began to appear with an English translation in Patrologia orientalis. Vol. I, 2, 4: History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria. Ed. B. Evetts. Paris 1905]. Sa'id ibnul-Batrik, a doctor and historian, and, finally, from 933 to 940, the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria under the name Eutyches, wrote his history in Arabic. This chronicle is entitled “Contextio gemmarum” (Contextio gemmarum) and covers the time from Adam to the year 937. This story is of low standard: it has a very legendary character. Emperor Theodosius the Great and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria, according to her assurances, were first woodcutters. Theodosius once saw an extraordinary dream and told it to Theophilus, who, on the basis of this dream, predicted Theodosius's accession to the imperial throne and the patriarchate for himself. Despite this and similar legends, the story of Eutyches still has some significance for our science (the later messages are no longer legendary; and the oldest may contain grains of data taken from the Alexandrian church archive). Published the chronicle of Eutyches R. Pocock, Contextio gemmarum s. Eutychii patriarchae Alexandrini Annales. I-II. Oxonii 1658–1659; [reprinted in Volume III of the Greek Patrology of Minh]. The deacon of the Cairo Church of Our Lady Abu Shukr Peter ibn-ur-Rahib (i.e., the son of a monk), still alive in 1282, wrote one theological work that year, the autograph of which (Cod. Vatican. Assem. Arab. 31) has survived to this day. In 1258, he compiled the Chronicon Orientale, a chronicle that initially contains a dry list of Old Testament events and the names of the reigning sovereigns. The chronicle becomes more detailed from the time of the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs. Here the author's messages have a kind of value, especially those that relate to the characteristics of this or that sovereign. The second half of this chronicle contains brief information regarding 76 patriarchs up to and including Athanasius III of Alexandria (1250–1261). What makes this work especially valuable is its complete chronological certainty, which depends on the peculiarities of its design. It has a double counting: Arabic and Coptic, the years and even days are indicated when one or another sovereign ascended the throne or died, so that, according to his chronicle, it is not difficult for a historian (by arithmetic) to restore the necessary dates, and, moreover, as the author himself wrote them. Ed. Abraham Ecchellensis, Parisiis 1651; J. S. Assemanus, Venetiis 1729. [New edition in Corpus scriptorum orientalium, Scriptores arabici, ser. III, t. 1: Petrus Ibn-Rahib. Chronicon Orientale. Ed. L. Cheikho. Beryti 1904]. Next comes George ben-abu-l-Yasir'ali-ben-abu-l-Mak-arim-ben-abu-l-Tayib-al-Makin-ibnu-l-Amid, originally from Cairo, the son of a military secretary. Due to the slander of enemies, Abul-Yasir was imprisoned along with George, but when his innocence was discovered, both were released. Abul-Yasir then became a monk. And George held an officer’s post in the Syrian army, was again arrested by the slander of enemies, again acquitted and released, and died in Damascus in 1273. He wrote a chronicle in two parts called “The Blessed Essay” (Syntagma benedictum). The second part was published with a Latin translation under the title: Historia saracenica – a Georgio Elmacino exarata, ed. Erpenius, Lugduni Batavorum 1626. The first part covers the time from the creation of the world to Mohammed, the second - from Mohammed to 1260. The information in this work is brief, but it is valued for its chronological accuracy. Al-Makin used Eutyches and the Chronicle of Peter. Abu-l-Abbas-Ahmad-Taqi-ed-din al-Makrizi is a highly educated Muslim. He held the post of... d. qadi in Cairo, then was a preacher at mosques, finally a professor of traditions at Muslim academies in Kiara and Damascus and died in 1442. He was a very prolific writer and "the most famous historiographer in Egypt." The most famous of his works is the Book of Instructions and Reflections Concerning the History of Lands ('al-hitat) and Monuments, or the Geography and History of Egypt. The eight chapters of Part III of this "'al-hitat" are published separately under the title of "Ecclesiastical History of the Copts"; best edition: Geschichte der Kopten v. F. Wüstenfeld, Göttingen 1845. It contains brief information about the Egyptian church, starting with the Evangelist Mark, the first Patriarch of Alexandria, and ending with the persecution of the Copts in 1354. Here, by the way, there is a list of outstanding Coptic monasteries (86) and Christian churches (72) with brief historical and geographical information about them. In general, the interest of Muslims in Christian churches was so great that, for example, the librarian of the Egyptian caliph al-'Aziz, al-Shabushti, who died in the year 1000, compiled a special description (which has not reached us, but was in the hands of Makrizi): “The history of monasteries in Iraq, Mosul, Mesopotamia and Egypt.” The other main reference for Makrizi was the chronicle of al-Makin. At the end of his life, al-Makrizi decided to publish the “Great Book of Chronicles of Egypt”, i.e. biographies of all the sovereigns and famous men of Egypt; the work was designed for 80 volumes, but the author managed to write only 16, and they were published. Ethiopian historiography 48 Ethiopian literature provides very little for church history. Among the surviving translated monuments of this writing, the most remarkable is the chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiou, Chronique de Jean, eveque de Nikiou. Texte ethiopien publie et traduit par H. Zotenberg, Paris 1883. About the author only the following is known: he was the bishop of Pshati (pípati), in lower Egypt (Delta), - in Greek this city is called Nikíou, - in 690 he took part in the consecration of Isaac, XLI Monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria and occupied a prominent position among bishops, as ápotríth_s of lower Egypt (Arabic, “mudäbbir” – a post like metropolitan). He was famous as a good canonist and was distinguished by the severity of his life, which is why the XLII Patriarch of Alexandria Simon appointed him overseer of the Egyptian monasteries. In his administration, John showed such zeal that one of the skete monks subordinate to him died on the 10th day from the punishment (“verbera”) imposed on him, for which in 694 (or between 692–700) John was deprived of the episcopate. Here's everything that is known about him. What language he wrote in is a very obscure question. Undoubtedly, this chronicle was translated into Ethiopian in 1602. was translated from an Arabic text (also not preserved): there is no doubt that John did not write in Arabic. But the choice between Greek and Coptic is very difficult. The publisher of the chronicle, Zotanber, speaks out (“medio tutissimus ibis”) for the fact that he wrote in Greek, but the sections relating to the history of Egypt are written directly in Coptic. But such a striped essay has no analogies behind it. It is more likely that John's chronicle was entirely written in Greek *. The reasons for choosing between Greek (e) and Coptic (k) are as follows: 1. John undoubtedly knew the literary kat_'e_ksoxh'n - Greek language, since he used Malala (+ e). 2. It is incredible that he did not know Coptic (+k). 3. Mina, John's immediate successor in the see of Pshati, is known as a Coptic writer (author of the "Life" XLI of the Patriarch Isaac of Alexandria) (+ k). 4. John's hostility towards Diophisite Byzantium may have prompted him not to write in Greek (+k). 5. But by this time the Arabs had shown themselves in the true light, and the Copts realized that by exchanging the Byzantines for the Arabs, they had committed a very dubious scam; this could not but moderate their anti-Byzantineism (+ e). 6. There was no demand for history, mainly and generally political, among the Coptic reading public (+ e). 7. The traces of the Coptic text in Ethiopic, indicated by Zotanber, are reduced to a pair of words with a Coptic (rather than Greek) term, pi - Moggo_s vm. ó Móggo_s , pi – Drakon vm. 6 Drákon, and to the supposed identity (incomprehensible in Ethiopian) of the official title “adagysn” (adagySn) with the Coptic “ethijn” (etíiokn), RR 362. 423; however, “pi” could also come from the Arabic “bi” (“in”), and the latter identification is strained (+ k). 8. But all these traces do not outweigh, in meaning, one fact: the Egyptian city of John in Ethiopian is always called “Naqijus, Naqyjus, Nakyyus,” and extremely rarely (3 times?) is added to this word: “called Abshadi,” or it is said: “Abshadi, i.e. Nakyyus.” This shows that the chronicle of John, even in its specifically Egyptian sections (cf. Chapter 31), was written not in the language in which this city is always called “Pshati”, but in the one in which it is called “Nikíou” (+ e). So: +4 e pro = 4 k contra: John wrote in Greek, perhaps inserting, where necessary, individual Coptic (proper) names in the gender pihati, pi - Drakwn (the name of a canal in Alexandria). John's work covers the period from the creation of the world to the conquest of Egypt and consists of 122 chapters. It is not divided into books; but in it one can discern three main layers: the first - the period before the accession of Constantine the Great, the second - before the accession of Emperor Phocas, and the third - until the end. This work, especially in the first period, is a copy of Malala. Few additions have been made to it, and they relate to the reporting of local (Egyptian) legends. The second period is more independent. The point of view taken here (monophysite) on historical facts gives the work originality; There are more additions from local stories. Thus, John reports on the origin of Theophilus of Alexandria, conveys various disputes between episcopal cities; Emperor Anastasius appears in a peculiar light in his relation to Egypt. In the last section of his story, John is completely independent and provides details that we do not find anywhere. So, for example, the fact that such a rude person as Phocas became emperor is explained very simply by him: the conspirators chose a king from among themselves by lot. It also provides information about the turmoil under Phocas in the east (in connection with the persecution of the Jews?), and the accession of Heraclius is described in particular detail, which John could have learned about from eyewitnesses. But in this same section - between chapters 110 and 111 - there is a significant gap, so that the history of most of the reign of Heraclius is lost (apparently in the Arabic or even in the Greek text) and the conquest of the Arabs seems to have already been accomplished. The third part directly unfolds the picture of those civil strife that made it easier for the Arabs to conquer. The mutual hatred of the Chalcedonites and Monophysites is depicted in vivid terms; it is well established that Heraclius’ attempts to unite the Monophysites with the Monothelites in Egypt were unsuccessful. In view of all this, the importance of the last section is recognized by all. But even if there were doubts about these messages, they would be shattered by messages from the papyri of Archduke Rainer (in Vienna), which contain official documents, receipts of financial officials of taxes mentioned in the history of John (apakure, Фiló_kseno_s doú_ks). But this important work is only the translated heritage of Ethiopian literature, which was fed mainly by translations from Coptic and Arabic. However, there were also independent attempts at historiography, the favorite form of which was the chronicle. From some surviving chronicles we learn of the existence of secretaries of state whose duty it was to record all outstanding events. But the most ancient experiences of these chroniclers have not been preserved; only their later (abbreviated) processing has survived. One of these later editions was published by the French Orientalist - Rene Basset, Etudes sur l'histoire d'Ethiopie. Paris 1882. This chronicle begins with Adam and ends with 1730. But the messages found here are generally insignificant, especially before 1508; their concise brevity often makes them incomprehensible; more is said about state affairs than about church affairs. The Armenian language belongs to the so-called Iranian branch, is related to Persian and is so far from other (Semitic) eastern languages ​​that it is read by few. It must be admitted that Russia is positioned very favorably in this regard, having such scientists as Brosset, Patkanov, Emin, [Marr]. Among the French, one can point to Dulaurier, and in Italy - the monastic order (September 8, 1712) of Mekhitarists, Unite Armenians living in the monastery of St. Lazarus on the island of Venice. For the historical literature of the Armenian Church there is a work by Prof. St. Petersburg University K.P. Patkanov, Bibliographical sketch of Armenian historical literature. St. Petersburg 1879; Ketre Patkanian, Esquisse bibliographique de la litterature historique des Armeniens. S.-Petersbourg 1880. Wed. S. F. Neumann, Versuch einer Geschichte der armenischen Literatur. Leipzig 1836. F. Neve, L'Armenie chretienne et sa litterature. Louvain 1886 49. The Armenian historical literature itself is very numerous, but is of a local nature. It is known that Armenian literature falls into two periods: pre-literal and post-literal from the year 400. Almost all the works of the first period have been forgotten, although some of them have miraculously survived [approx. author: In order not to really take this for a supernatural miracle, it should be noted that the pre-letter period is the one in which the Armenians wrote, but only in Syriac letters that were not native to their language - the same thing happened as if someone tried to write in Russian in Hebrew letters without dots (vowels)]. The first surviving historical writer of the pre-literal period was Agathangelus the Roman, secretary of Tiridates the Great (Tridatus, 286–342). He was a scholar familiar with Greek and Latin literature. He wrote a history of the reign of Tiridates (mainly the conversion to Christianity), which has been preserved with later interpolations. [Published in Venice 1862 and Tiflis 1882; Greek text ed. de Lagarde, Göttingen 1887] 50 The second writer was Zinovy ​​Glaksky, Bishop of Asia Minor, who renounced the episcopacy, followed Gregory the Illuminator and was the first abbot of the monastery of St. John the Baptist in Tarona. On behalf of Gregory the Illuminator, he wrote the history of the conversion of the Armenian region of Taron to Christianity, where he placed the correspondence of St. Gregory and Leonty. Zinovy ​​wrote in Syriac, but his story was then translated into Armenian [published in Venice 1832]. His work had successors: the most remarkable of them is John of Mamikon, XXXV successor of Zenobius in the monastery of St. Forerunners, who brought the story up to 640 51. Faustus the Byzantine continued the story of Agafangel until 390. Then comes Moses of Horen (b. c. 370, d. 489). From a young age, he was in close relations with the Catholicos of the Armenians Sahak the Great and Mashtots Mesrop, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, and is a figure of the first degree from that galaxy of scientists who wrote with newly invented letters (the beginning of the post-literal period). His history in three books begins with Hayk, the mythical ancestor of the Armenians ("Armenians" in Armenian: "Hajk"), and reaches the year 441 († Sahak and Mesrop). (The history was published together with other works of Moses, the most important of which are his geography and rhetoric, in Venice in 1843 and 1865, and very often separately, for example, in Tiflis 1881; Russian translation by N. Emin, Moscow 1858 and 1893) 52 53. After him, one should name the student of Sahak and Mesrop - Egishe (i.e. Elisha) † 480; this was the secretary under Prince Vardan, who described the history of the struggle (449–451) of the Armenians for faith with the Persians against the religion of Zoroaster and the war of the Armenians against the latter, which ended unhappily for the Armenians (the Battle of Ararat, in which Vardan † in June 451). [Published as a general collection of works in Venice in 1839 and 1859 and often separately, most recently in Moscow 1892; Russian translation in Tiflis 1853]. A student of Sahak and Mesrop, Koriun, wrote the life of Mesrop [Venice 1894]. Lazarus of Pharp wrote a history from 388–485, a kind of continuation of the story of Moses of Horen, which Lazarus, however, was not aware of [Venice 1793, 1807, 1873]. You can then point out from later times the work of Bishop Sebeos (i.e. Eusebius) of the 7th century. – “The History of Heraclius” [Constantinople 1851, St. Petersburg. 1879 ed. Patkanova; his Russian translation St. Petersburg. 1862]. [From the 8th century. the history of the Arab invasions of Armenia and their wars with Byzantium from 661 to 788 is known, “The History of the Caliphs” by Vardapet Ghevond, i.e. Leontius (Paris 1857, St. Petersburg 1887 ed. by Ezov; translation by Patkanov, St. Petersburg 1862). Perhaps Moses of Kagankatui, who wrote “The History of the Agvans,” or Albanians, dates back to the same time, if not to the 10th century (Paris 1860, Moscow 1860 ed. by Emin; translation by Patkanov, St. Petersburg 1861)]. In the 10th century Thomas Artsruni wrote history in 5 books from Noah to 936 [Constantinople 1852, St. Petersburg. 1887 ed. Patkanova]. [At the same time, Catholicos John VI brought his history to an earlier point, precisely to 925 (Jerusalem 1843, Moscow 1853)]. In the 11th century Stefan Asohik of Taron brought the story up to 1004 [Paris 1854, St. Petersburg. 1885; Russian translation 1864]. In the 12th century. Presbyter Samuel of Ani was the successor of the chronicle of Eusebius of Caesarea until 1179 [ed. Ter-Mikelian, Vagharshapat 1893]. Monumental sources of history and their development are generally discussed in manuals on the relevant auxiliary sciences, epigraphy, numismatics, sphragistics, and in guides to archeology and art history. In relation to the monuments of Christian antiquity, it is important in this case, in addition to those that have already become outdated by now, A Dictionary of Christian Antiquities, ed. by W. Smith and S. Cheetham. Vol. I-II. London 1875–1880, and Real-Encyclopädie der christlichen Alterthümer, bearb. und herausgeg. von F. X. Kraus. B.I-II. Freiburg im Br. 1880–1886, has a recently begun Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie, publie par F. Cabrol. T. I. Paris 1903–1906 (with many photographs from monuments). In general, S. Wachsmuth, Einleitung in das Studium der alten Geschichte, gives information about the sources of the history of the ancient world, monumental and literary or bookish, and about the development of this history. Leipzig 1895. In Russian there is V. Buzeskul, Introduction to the History of Greece. 2nd ed. Kharkov 1904. The history of the Middle Ages has an excellent index of sources in the work of A. Potthast, Bibliotheca historica medii aevi. Wegweiser durch die Geschichtswerke des europäischen Mittelalters bis 1500. B. I-II. 2 Aufl. Berlin 1896. There are special introductions to the history of the individual peoples who appeared on the scene with the beginning of the Middle Ages. W. Wattenbach, Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter bis zur Mitte des XIII Jahrhunderts. B.I-11. 7 Aufl. Berlin 1904 (B. I). Dahlmann-Waitz, Quellenkunde der deutschen Geschichte. Th. I-II. 7 Aufl. von E. Brandenburg. Berlin 1905 (Th. 1). A. Molinier, Les sources de l'histore de France au moyen äge. 1-V (until 1494). Paris 1902–1904. Ch. Gross, The sources and literature of English history from the earliest times to about 1485. London 1900. As an experiment for a special introduction to church history, one can point to the work of the Bollandist Smedt, S. de Smedt, Introductio generalis ad historiam ecclesiasticam critice tractandam. Gandavi 1876, and on the above-mentioned “Propaedeutics” by Nirschl (note 2). The work of E. Bratke, Wegweiser zur Quellen – und Litteratur-kunde der Kirchengeschichte is not considered successful. Gotha 1890. The closest guidance regarding ancient Christian literature in general and in particular regarding church historical works can be found in courses on the history of this literature and patrols. O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie. 2 Aufl. Freiburg im Br. 1901. His, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur. V. I-II. (first three centuries). Freiburg im Br. 1902–1903. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Th. (bearb. unter Mitwirkung von E. Preuschen), 1–2. Leipzig 1893–1904. G. Krüger, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. 1 u. 2 Aufl. Freiburg im Br. u. Leipzig. 1895; Nachträge, 1897. Work G. Slang a Historiographie ecclesiastica. Frib. Brisg. 1897 does not represent anything of value. Information about ancient church historians is given in the work of A.P. Lebedev, Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th. 2nd ed. St. Petersburg 1903. For the Byzantine period, the necessary reference book is the above-mentioned book by Krumbacher (note 2). On the publication and development of sources of Byzantine history, cf. work of V. G. Vasilievsky, Review of works on Byzantine history. Vol. 1. St. Petersburg 1890 (added extract from the journal of the Ministry of Public Education for 1887–1889). (A.B.) 108. Currently, more than 40 volumes of this collection have been published, and the number of works of interest from theological and church-historical points of view has increased significantly. (A.B.) – 126. Recently, however, the interest that Protestants have in the very first centuries of Christianity has led Protestant scholars to the idea of ​​undertaking a publication that fully satisfies scientific requirements of the works of all Greek writers of the first three centuries, since such a publication is primarily and most necessary for the serious study of this era. The Berlin Academy of Sciences took over this matter, and preparatory work began in 1891. In the publication, under the general title "Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte" herausgeg. von der Kirchenväter-Commission der königl. preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Leipzig, Hinrichs), should include all, without exception, Greek monuments of ancient Christian literature up to and including Eusebius of Caesarea, even if they were preserved only in translations, with the exception of the New Testament writings; Even works of later Jewish writing will be published, as far as they were accepted in the Christian environment. In 1897, the first volume of the publication was published, containing part of the works of Hippolytus of Rome. Since then, a number of other monuments have appeared (works of Adamantius, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius, Origen, the book of Enoch, Coptic Gnostic works, Oracula Sibyllina). The entire publication contains approximately 50 volumes. Unlike the Viennese edition of Latin writers, this new enterprise of the Berlin Academy is carried on mainly by theologians; it is headed by A. Harnack, and his monumental “History of Ancient Christian Literature” is closely related to this matter. But in general the best scientific forces in Germany were invited to participate in it (Mommsen, for example, published the first five books of the Latin translation of the history of Eusebius Rufinus) and part of other countries, and in its implementation all the means that modern philological science can provide are used. Therefore, despite the no less difficulty of the matter in comparison with the publication of Latin writers, it promises to be generally exemplary and to eliminate all previous editions of the works included in it. Publishers provide introductions to published works, sometimes very extensive ones, and detailed indexes. The goals of the enterprise under consideration should be served by the new series Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur herausgeg, begun in 1897. von O. Gebhardt und A. Harnack, which from that time received the subtitle: Archiv für die von der Kirchenväter-Sommission der kgl. preuss. Akademie unternommene Ausgabe der älteren christlichen Schriftsteller. But in relation to the Greek fathers of the 4th and subsequent centuries, the matter does not change; the old editions and Min remain here in the same meaning. True, there has been a significant revival in recent times in the field of Byzantine studies (K. Krumbacher and the magazine Byzantinische Zeitschrift published by him since 1892 in Germany, Ch. Diehl and his students in France, the publication of the Byzantine Temporary in Russia since 1894 and the founding of the Russian Archaeological Institute in Constantinople this year). But although it is possible to point to a number of new valuable editions of individual Byzantine authors, then one can hardly count on any solid Corpus of Greek church writers who lived later than the first three centuries in the near future. Palme did not carry out his project. But later, in 1899, another Parisian publisher, N. Welter, reprinted the Mansi edition. The number of volumes with continuation, additions and index should increase to 45 (or 50) and soon, apparently, the publication will be completed. Meanwhile, the Mansi collection was subjected to rather sharp criticism in the study of the Benedictine Quentin, N. Quentin, Jean-Dominique Mansi et les grandes collections conciliaires. Paris 1900. Conclusions from this criticism were not slow to appear in relation to the Welthe enterprise (Finke in Litterarische Rundschau Für das katholische Deutschland 1902). The publisher justified the expediency of his expanded reprint by the demand in the scientific world for the first edition, which had already become rare, and by the small hope that scientists would be ready in the near future to begin a new, more advanced edition. (A.B.) – 132. Many of V.V. Bolotov’s wishes were taken into account in the critical edition of the acts of the ecumenical councils (Acta Conciliorum Oecume-nicorum), begun by E. Schwartz in 1914. Unfortunately, due to the death of E. Schwartz (1940), this publication was interrupted, ending with the acts of the Council of Chalcedon. After the Second World War, E. Schwarz was succeeded by I. Schraub, who published the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. In modern times, the work of continuing this work was undertaken by the Austrian scientist R. Ridinger, who published the acts of the Lateran Council of 649 and plans to publish the acts of the VI Ecumenical Council. (A.S.) – 135. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Note about the book: Canons of the most important ancient church councils together with the apostolic canons, ed. prof. Fr. Lauchert. [Die Kanones der wichtigsten altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den Apostolischen Kanones, herausgeg. von F. Laucher. Freiburg im Br. und Leipzig 1896]. Christ. Reading, 1896, II, 178–195. – A critical edition of ancient Latin translations relating to the cathedrals of Greek monuments has recently been undertaken by S. N. Turner, Ecclesiae occidentalis monumenta juris antiquissima. Canonum et conciliorum graecorum interpretationes latinae. Phase. I, 1–2. Oxonii 1899–1904 (apostolic canons and Nicene documents). As for the Russian translation of the “Acts of the Ecumenical Councils” (vols. I-VII, Kazan 1859–1873, all volumes are available in the 2nd edition, the 5th in the 3rd), it was made, as noted in the preface to volume 1, according to the editions of Labbe-Cossar and Hardouin. A thorough revision and correction in many cases of the text of this translation must be considered more than desirable, especially if we keep in mind the importance of the conciliar documents. Indicating in the margins of the translation the pagination of the most commonly used editions of Gardouin and Mansi would not be an unnecessary luxury. (A.B.) – 135. The activities of the Bollandists continue to this day, and valuable hagiological studies and texts are constantly published in issues of their periodical Analecta Bollandiana. After the First World War they continued the production of Acta Sanctorum; New hagiological series also appeared, for example, “Library of Greek Hagiography” (Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca) and “Hagiographical Supplements” (Subsidia hagiographica). The recently deceased F. Alken worked especially fruitfully in this field, publishing several Greek lives of St. Pachomius the Great and other hagiographic monuments and studies. About him see P. Devos, Frangois Halkin, Bollandiste. Analecta Bollandigna, t. 106, fasc. 3–4, 1988, p. V-XL. (A.C.) 137. Bollandist H. Delehaye, Les legendes hagiographiques. 2 ed. Bruxelles 1906, offering experience in classifying texts printed by Ruinart, speaks out, however, only for shortening his edition. Wed. also A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius. Th. II. 2 (Die Chronologie). Leipzig 1904. pp. 463–482. Small collections of the most important acts of martyrdom were given by R. Knopf, Ausgewählte Märtyreracten. Tübingen und Leipzig 1901, and O. Gebhardt, Acta mar-tyrum selecta. Ausgewählte Märtyreracten und andere Urkunden aus der Verfolgungszeit der christlichen Kirche. Berlin 1902. (A. B.) 137. There is no complete unanimity among scholars regarding Eusebius’s position in the dogmatic debates of his time. Thus, N. Rozanov, noting his deep dislike for dogmatic debates, believed that Eusebius was more closely aligned with the Arians than with the Orthodox. At the Council of Nicaea, “as a conservative in the worst sense of the word, like a Russian schismatic, Eusebius was indignant at the inclusion of the word omooúsio_s (“consubstantial”) in the symbol and refused to sign the symbol compiled by the Orthodox fathers.” He later accepted the term “consubstantial” only out of obedience to Emperor Constantine, but this acceptance was not sincere, which is why the Orthodox called him “bilingual” (díglwtto_s - in a sense close to “double-minded”). See N. Rozanov, Eusebius Pamphilus, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine. M., 1880, p. 14–24. G. Berkhof, pointing to the subordinationism of Eusebius, believes, however, that he still did not cross the line beyond which Arianism begins. See N. Berkhof, Die Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea. Amsterdam 1939, pp. 79–82. Finally, I. Bertin ranks Eusebius among that middle group of “moderate conservatives” (not entirely accurately called “semi-Arians”), which a little later was represented by St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Eusebius of Emesa and who did not join either the “strictly Orthodox” or the Arians. Cm. . Berten, Cyrille de Jerusalem, Eusebe d'Emese et la theologie semi-arienne It is now recognized that Eusebius himself published his chronicle twice. Its first appearance should be dated, perhaps, to around 312 (according to Harnack, however, no later than 323). After that, the chronicle was continued by Eusebius himself and, at the same time, probably corrected around 325. The conclusion about two editions originating from Eusebius himself was reached in his later study of the chronicle by its publisher A. Schöne, Die Weltchronik des Eusebius in ihrer Bearbeitung durch Hieronymus. Berlin 1900. He traces the disagreements between the Latin and Armenian translations to these editions, suggesting that the Armenian translation was made from the original edition, and Jerome’s from the later one. Harnack, recognizing the fact of two editions, sees no basis for the latter assumption. A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlicher Litteratur bis Eusebius. Th. II. 2 (Die Chronologie). Leipzig 1904. S. 112. (A. B.) 150. According to Harnack, books 1–7 and part 8 were completed in 312–313; another part of the 8th and 9th appeared in 313–314, finally, the 10th at the end of 324 beginning of 325. Harnack, 1. p. 115. (A.B.) 150. It is unlikely that one can completely agree with V.V. Bolotov here. For comparison, see the opinion of A.P. Lebedev, who notes that Eusebius’s initial point of view is “sublimely dogmatic. He understands the history of Christianity as a series of beneficial actions of the Divine for humanity.” Therefore, for him, “in the Son of God, the history of the Church has its most important driving principle” (A.P. Lebedev, Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th. St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 66–67). V.V. Bolotov did not appreciate the “theologian of history” in Eusebius, and modern researchers see in him the only serious alternative to the “theology of history” blessed. Augustine. See G. Chesnut, The First Christian Histories. Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret and Evagrius. Paris 1977, p.35. It can be added that Eusebius was “ahead” of the blessed one by almost a century. Augustine was one of the very first Christian writers to attempt to outline such a “theology of history.” (A.S.) – 151. A translation into German of the full version was made by W. Violet in Texte und Untersuchungen, XIV, 4 (1896). It is considered highly probable that both versions originate from Eusebius himself. Harnack, I. p. 115. (A.B.) – 153. The translation of the Syriac text of history into German was made by E. Nestle in Texte und Untersuchungen, Neue Folge VI, 2 (1901), translation of the Armenian text of books 6 and 7 by E. Preuschen'ou, VII, 3 (1902). (A.B.) – 157. For earlier editions of Eusebius' history, see A. S. Headlam, The editions and manuscripts of Eusebius, in The Journal of Theological Studies, vol. IV, no. 13 (1902), p. 93–102. A new edition was started in the Berlin collection of Greek Christian writers of the first three centuries by the Göttingen professor E. Schwartz. In 1903, the first five books were published, together with a Latin translation of Rufinus, published by Mommsen (the first half of volume II of the works of Eusebius). Schwartz's text is reproduced with minor changes in a cheap French edition in the series Texts et documents pour l'etude historique du Christianisme publies sous la direction de H. Hemmer et P. Lejay: Eusebe, Histoire ecclesiastique. L.I-IV. Texte grec et traduction francaise par E. Grapin. Paris 1905. Schwartz promises explanations regarding publishing techniques in detailed prolegomena to the next part. The edition from Greek manuscripts is based on: C (Mazarin. or Paris. 1430, in Schwartz's designation A), G (Florent. 70, 77), H (Florent. 70, 20=E), J (Moscov. 50=R), E a (Paris. 1431=B) and two copies from it (P or Venet. 339=b and Paris. 1432=β), Paris. 1433 (=D), O (Venet. 338=M). Even earlier (1888), Schwartz pointed out the shortcoming of most of the previous editions as too much reliance on Codex C (cf. Headlam, 108). Unlike his predecessors, he himself generally gives preference to the E a Paris group. 1433 O (=BDM) before CG (=AT) (cf. Grapin, 489). (A.B.) 157. A new edition of these works in the Berlin collection of Greek writers, with an introduction and three indexes, was presented in 1902. A. Heikel (I volume of the works of Eusebius). (A.B.) – 157. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, Liberius, Bishop of Rome and the Councils of Sirmium. Christ. Thurs. 1891.1, 450–453 (separate reprint 28–31). (A.B.) – 162. Wed. V. V. Bolotov, Theodoretiana. Christ. Thurs. 1892, II, 121. – Liberius, Bishop of Rome, and the Councils of Sirmium. Christ. Thurs. 1891, 1, 514–515 note. (separate print 58–59). (A.B.) – 165. On the histories of Socrates and Sozomen and their editions, cf. G. Löschke in Hauck's Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche. 3 Aufl. B. XVIII (1906), 481–486, 541–547. The Berlin Commission for the Publication of the Church Fathers (Kirchenväter-Kommission) is preparing a new edition of both historians. For the sources of Socrates' history, see F. Geppert, Die Quellen des Kirchenhistorikers Socrates Scholasticus. Leipzig 1898. His research on the history of Sozomen is also expected. (A.B.) – 166. Wed. review of this work by V.V. Bolotov, Theodoretiana. Christ. Thurs. 1892, II, 58–164 (also separate reprint). On the question of Theodoret's "Ecclesiastical History" cf. 120–121, 147–148; on “Reducing heretical false wisdom” 105–113, 122–123, 154–159. (A.B.) 166. For evidence of the inauthenticity of this chapter, see Theodoretiana 105–113 (A.B.) – 169. A slightly different assessment of Evagrius is given by modern researcher P. Allen: “Evagrius’s greatest merit as a historian is that he used documents of primary importance, including the works of other historians, which are now completely or partially lost.” See R. Allen, Evagrius Scholasticus. The Church Historian. Souvain, 1981, p. 6 (A.C.) – 170. A natural question arises: why was the genre of “church stories” interrupted so suddenly and for a long time? It seems that this is due to the fact of an increasingly strong “perichoresis” (interpenetration) of the Church and society (and, accordingly, the state) in Byzantium, starting from the 6th century. Therefore, “church” history has become increasingly difficult to separate from “civil” history. Already the work of Evagrius provides an example of such a presentation, where the events of church life are constantly juxtaposed and are in close connection with the events of civil history, so that it is difficult to separate one from the other. Therefore, there was no longer a need for “church histories” proper, and their function was taken over by Byzantine chronography (A.S.) - 170. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur. 2 Aufl. München 1897, contains an essay on Byzantine historiography, covering Byzantine historians and chroniclers from the 6th century onwards. On the subject, in particular, of the Byzantine chronicles, see N. Geizer, Sextus Julius Africanus. I-II. Leipzig 1880–1898. On the latest works in this area, cf. essay Les etudes d'histoire byzantine en 1905 in Ch. Diehl, Etudes byzantines. Paris 1905. Of course, it is necessary in this case to turn to the Byzantinische Zeitschrift and the Byzantine Temporary, which now mainly focuses on the development of Byzantine studies and gives detailed bibliographic instructions in general about new works in this area (A. B.) - 171. It is suggested that Nikephoros only revised in his history the work of an unknown author of the 10th century, published before 920. Cf. S. de Boor, Zur kirchenhistorischen Litteratur. Byzant. Zeitschrift. B.V. 1896. S. 16–23. K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der byzant. Litteratur. 2 Aufl. München 1897. S. 291, 247 (A. B.) – 182. The beginning of the Greek original of the chronicle of Hippolytus was discovered in the Madrid manuscript and published by A. Bauer, Die Chronik des Hippolytus im Matritensis Graecus, 121. Leipzig 1905. (Texte und Untersuchungen von Gebhardt und Harnack. Neue Folge XIV, 1). (A.B.) 182. The time of origin of this chronicle is determined differently after 412; the Latin translation is attributed to the 7th-8th centuries. Wed. Bauer, 1. p.22, 169–170. (A.B.) – 182. For evidence that this work belongs to Lactantius, see V.V. Bolotov’s review of the work of Prof. A. I. Sadova, Ancient Christian church writer Lactantius. St. Petersburg 1895, in the Journals of the meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg. Spirit. Academies for 1895–1896, 138–165 (separate reprint, St. Petersburg 1900:42–69). (A.B.) 183. Mommsen, who published “Liber Pontificalis” in Monumenta Germaniae historica (Gestorum Pontificum Romanorum vol. I) in 1898, like Waitz, was of the opinion that the origin of this monument was late, not earlier than the beginning of the 7th century. Duchesne, in his criticism of Mommsen's publication in the same year, remained of the same opinion that the original edition of the Liber Pontificalis appeared already in the 6th century. shortly after Felix's death. V.V. Bolotov in 1899 expressed agreement with the position of M.I. Orlov, expressed in the essay “Liber Pontificalis”, as a source for the history of the Roman papacy and polemics against it” (St. Petersburg, 1899), that Duchenne was unable to restore the first edition of “Liber Pontificalis”. But, in his opinion, Duchesne, as well as Mommsen, are looking for him in the wrong place. In fact, on the basis of some scribes' mistakes and resulting misunderstandings in the surviving copies of the Liber Pontificalis, one can form an approximate idea of ​​the original original manuscript available in the archives of the Roman church (a page was equal to approximately 7 lines of Duchenne's edition) and use this to highlight in certain cases later additions that were first found in the margins of the manuscript. At the same time, Code A can hardly be placed together with Duchenne above B: the latter is closer to the original. Wed. a description of the master's colloquium of M. I. Orlov on March 15, 1899 in the Church Bulletin 1899, No. 12, and a note by V. V. Bolotov: “Treats” of Gelasius, in Christ. Readings 1899, April. Wed. also a review by V.V. Bolotov about the said work of M.I. Orlov in the Journals of the meetings of the Council of St. Petersburg. Theological Academy for 1898–1899. St. Petersburg 1907, 75–85. (A.B.) 189. The proposed outline of church historiography in Eastern languages, given by V.V. Bolotov back in 1887, especially requires additions and occasional changes in view of the later development of this area. A short history of Christian Oriental literatures - Syriac and Arabic, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian - has recently appeared in the series Die Litteraturen des Ostens in Einzelndarstellungen. B.VII, 2: Geschichte der christlichen Litteraturen des Orients von C. Brockelmann (syrische und arabische), F. N. Finck (armenishe), J. Leipoldt (koptische), E. Littmann (äthiopische). Leipzig 1907. See also essays in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, herausg. v. P. Hinneberg. Th. I, 7: Die orientalische Literaturen (Th. Nöldeke Die aramäische Lit., Die äthiopische Lit., F. N. Finck, Die armenische Lit.). Leipzig 1906. The magazines Oriens Christianus and Bessarione in Rome and Revue de l'Orient chretien in Paris are especially dedicated to the Christian East in a broad sense. Detailed bibliographic reviews of the relevant literature in some departments now began to appear in the Byzantine Temporary. - An essay was written on the history of Syrian literature for volume 22 of the Encyclopädia Britannica (Edinburgh 1887) by Wright. Wright's work was then published after his death separately with significant additions by Mac-Lean, A short History of syriac Literature by the late W. Wright. London 1894. From this edition a Russian translation was made with very extensive bibliographic additions by Prof. P.K. Kokovtseva: V. Wright, A Short Sketch of the History of Syriac Literature. Transl. from English K. A. Turaeva. Edited and supplemented by Prof. P.K. Kokovtseva. St. Petersburg 1902. The Russian edition also takes into account the data of the French work R. Duval, La litterature syriague. 2 ed. Paris 1900 (3 ed. 1907). (A.B.) 189. This statement by V.V. Bolotov requires some adjustment. Western Syria, with its center in Antioch, was in the first centuries after Christ primarily the region of Greek (more precisely, Hellenistic) culture. Even eastern Syria, with its center in Edessa, was almost entirely “bilingual,” and there is an active process of interaction between Aramaic and Greek cultures, which left a bright imprint on early Syrian Christianity. See N. J. W. Drifters, East of Antioch. Studies in Early Syriac Christianity. London, 1984; I, p.1–27; IV, pp.25–33. (A.C.) 190. Abbot Nau showed in 1897 that the chronicle was attributed to Jesus the Stylite through a misunderstanding; the name of the actual author is unknown. Wed. Wright-Kokovtsev, 55. Duval 3 178. (A. B.) – 191. A. Kugener, in the article La compilation historique de pseudo-Zacharie le Rheteur, in the Revue de l'Orient chretien 1900, distinguishes Zechariah Rhetor, the author of history, from Zechariah Scholasticus, who was later the bishop of Mytilene. Duval 2, 185. (A. B.) In modern times, scientists are still inclined to identify Zechariah the Rhetor with Zechariah, the Orthodox bishop of Mytilene. The work of Zechariah, as well as his Syrian successor (“Pseudo-Zechariah”), was actively used by Evagrius Scholasticus, naturally eliminating the pro-Monophysite sympathies of both. See P. Allen, Zachariah Scholasticus and the Historia Ecclesiastica of Evagrius Scholasticus. The Journal of Theological Studies, v. 31, 1980, p.471–488 (A.C.) – 191. Against the opinion of Nau (1896), that the second part of the story of John was preserved literally in the third part of the chronicle of Dionysius of Tell Mahr, cf. A.P. Dyakonov, John of Ephesus and the chronicle known with the name of Dionysius of Tell-Mahr. Christ. Thurs. 1903, II, 519–614, 818–835 (A. B.) 192. Another detailed monograph by A. Dyakonov is dedicated to John of Ephesus, who, among other things, characterizes this author as follows: John “represented a bizarre combination of Eastern intolerance and a broad consciousness of pan-Christian solidarity of all confessions and sects.” A.P. Dyakonov, John of Ephesus and his church-historical works. St. Petersburg 1908, p.341 (A.S.) 193. It should also be noted that such a Syrian church historian as Cyrus of Bath. His work has not reached us, but it was actively used by Mikhail the Syrian. Cyrus’s “ecclesiastical history” covered the period from the reign of Justin II (565–578) to the beginning of the Arab conquests (30s of the 7th century) and also had a Monophysite character. For details, see A.P. Dyakonov, Cyrus of Bath, Syrian church historian of the 7th century. Dept. reprint from Christian Reading. St. Petersburg 1912. (A.S.)193. According to the research of Abbot Nau and Nöldeke (1896), Dionysius owns only the so-called lengthy edition of the chronicle from 582/3 to 835 or 842/3, from which the only surviving passage was printed by Assemanius in Volume II of the Bibliotheca orientalis (1721). The so-called short edition, before 775, according to Nau, was compiled around this year by Jesus the Stylite. Assemanius, who first attributed this chronicle to Dionysius, gave in extracts the fourth part of it, from Justin II to 775. This part was fully published and translated into French by ChabotB in 1895. A complete edition of the chronicle of pseudo-Dionysius is being prepared by Guidi. Wed. Wright-Kokovtsev, 138–143. Duval 3, 193–196 (A. B.) – 194. Recently, manuscripts of the original Syriac chronicle of Michael have been found. A large part of it has already been published by the Abbe Chabot, together with a French translation: Chronigue de Michel le Syrien patriarche Jacobite d'Antioche (1166–1199), ed. et trad, par J.-B. Chabot . I-III, I. Paris 1899 sq. The Arabic translation of the chronicle is also known. Wed. Wright-Kokovtsev, 179–181. Duval 3, 196–198 (A. B.) – 195. A review of Coptic literature was given by L. Stern in Ersch und Gruber, Allgemeine Encyclopädie, II, 39 (1886), but it now requires additions in view of new finds (O. v. Lemm, E. Crum); bibliographical review presented in G. Steindorff, Koptische Grammatik. 2 Aufl. Berlin 1904; Wed Leipoldt's newest essay mentioned above. Fragments of the Coptic translation of Eusebius's history are mentioned by Crum in Hauck's Real-Encyclopädie für protest. Theologie und Kirche. 3 Aufl. XII (1903). 81445-". Coptic texts related to church history, hitherto largely unappeared in print, are promised in one of the upcoming issues of Patrologia orientalis in Crum's edition. - About Arab Christian literature in general (not just Egyptian) until the end of the 11th century. Wed essay by G. Graf, Die christlich-arabische Literatur bis zur fränkischer Zeit (Ende des 11. Jahrhunderts). Freiburg im Br. 1905. In the Count's detailed review, there is no mention at all of the hitherto unpublished and almost unknown Arab historian Agapius or Mahbub, to whom Yuriev professor A. Vasiliev, Agapius of Manbij, a Christian Arab historian of the 10th century, recently drew attention. Byzantine. Vremennik, 1904. 574–587. It is expected that these scientists will publish the Arabic text of the chronicle of Agapius with a French translation in Patrologia orientalis (A. B.) - 197. Wed. V.V. Bolotov, From the church history of Egypt. Vol. P. Life of the Blessed. Afu of the Bishop of Pemdzhe. Christ. Thurs. 1886, I, 334–343 (separate from 133–142) ​​– about the Turin papyri. (A.B.) – 197. On Ethiopian literature on ecclesiastical and civil history, see the special paragraphs in the above-mentioned essay by Littman; as the author notes, “Ethiopian church history consists almost exclusively in the history of the saints of the Ethiopian church” (S.240). A special work on the monuments of Ethiopian hagiology was given by prof. B. A. Turaev, Research in the field of hagiological sources of the history of Ethiopia. St. Petersburg 1902. Wed. his article “Abyssinia” in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, ed. edited by A. P. Lopukhina, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg 1900), 19–82 (25–27). (A.B.) – 200. On Armenian theological and historical literature, more recent information with bibliographical indications is given in the article (Petermann-) Geizer “Armenien” in Hauck's Real-Encyklopädie für protest. Theologie und Kirche. 3 Aufl. B. II (1897), 67–92 (67–74). For the literature of the earliest times, see the indications in O. Bardenhewer, Patrologie. 2 Aufl. Freiburg im Br. 1901. 519–526. About the book by A. Anninsky, Ancient Armenian historians as historical sources. Odessa 1899, Wed. review by prof. N. Ya. Marr in the Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Emperor. Russian archaeologist, society. T. XV, 4, St. Petersburg, 1904. 0137–0140. Translations of Armenian historians into French: V. Langlois, Collection des historiens anciens et modernes de l'Armenie. I-II. Paris 1867–1869. M. Brosset, Collection d'historiens Armeniens. I-II. St.-Petersbourg 1874–1876 (A. B.) 203. The surviving Armenian edition of the so-called history of Agafangel N.Ya. Marr dates back to the 8th century, its Greek translation dates back to the time of Patriarch Photius. A more ancient edition (VII-VIII centuries) of the legend about St. included in the “history”. Gregory the Illuminator presents, according to his conclusion, an Arabic text published by him, translated from the Greek original. N. Marr, Baptism of Armenians, Georgians, Abkhazians and Alans by Saint Gregory. (Arabic version). Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Emperor. Russian archaeologist, society. T. XVI, 2–3. St. Petersburg 1905. 63–211. (A.B.) 204. The works mastered by both of these writers are recognized as legendary works of the 8th-9th centuries that have no historical value. in the study of G. Khalatyants about Zinovia mentioned by Geltser in RE 3 II 67 27 (Vienna 1893). (A.B.) – 204. On the question of Faust (or Faust) cf. his rapprochement by N.Ya. Marr with the author of an anonymous work, preserved in manuscripts along with the history of Sebeos about the campaigns of Heraclius and recognized by Marr as the oldest monument that has reached us in the Armenian language on the initial history of Armenia. N. Marr, About the initial history of Armenia Anonymous. On the question of the sources of the history of Moses of Khorensky. Regarding the critical articles of Prof. A. Carriere. Byzantine Temporary, vol. 1. 1894. 263–306 (A. B.) 204. Against the extremely skeptical attitude towards the history known with the name of Moses Khorensky on the part of Gutschmid (1876) and then especially on the part of the French armenist A. Carrieréa (1891 onwards), who attribute it to the later author of the 7th-9th centuries. and attributing various fabrications in this work to the author himself, see the above-mentioned articles by N. Ya. Marr and himself: On the criticism of the history of Moses of Khorensky. I. G. Khalatyants, Armenian epic in the History of Armenia by Moses Khorensky. Visa. time 1898, 227–269. Arabic extract from the Syrian chronicle of Maribas. Notes of the Eastern Branch of the Imp. Russian archaeol. society. T. XIV. St. Petersburg 1902 (A.B.) – 204. You might be interested in: