ГЛАВА 1. ИСТОРИЧЕСКОЕ ВРЕМЯ И ПРОСТРАНСТВО В ПРЕДСТАВЛЕНИИ ЕВСЕВИЯ КЕСАРИЙСКОГО

At all times, historical consciousness has been one of the main elements of culture, structuring the entire complex of vitally important ideas of man. In each specific era, it reflected the dominant ideas about the world and the place of man in it, about society viewed through the prism of space and time 83 . The perception of time and space in a particular era are those basic ideas that organize the entire system of human perception of the world, although very often they remain unspoken and unconscious. However, despite the importance of this problem, the process of formation of historical consciousness as a whole, as well as the functioning and formation of individual categories of historical consciousness in each specific era, have been practically not studied in the scientific literature. A certain interest of researchers has recently been caused by the peculiarities of the worldview of a person in the ancient East, the specificity of a person’s worldview in the ancient era, in the Middle Ages, etc. The ideas of people who lived at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries constitute a separate problem. They were very different from modern ideas; moreover, they were neither ancient nor medieval in the full sense. In the words of S.S. Averintsev, this was “an era of shift and disruption,” “consistent meaninglessness or rethinking of the thousand-year-old forms of Greco-Roman culture and the search for new opportunities for the needs of the upcoming medieval millennium” 84. As researchers have long noted, the most radical changes in the understanding of historical time occurred during periods of changing social formations and were inevitably associated with fundamental shifts in the ideology and culture of a given society. It was during these eras that, as a rule, old historical and philosophical concepts were broken down and replaced by new ideas about the historical destinies of mankind. In the philosophy of history, the time and spatial continuum gradually changed, a new vision of the world was born, a different interpretation of natural and social phenomena, and the place of man in the Universe than before 85. The birth and strengthening of a different “image of the world” than in antiquity, new ideas about God, the world, the place of man in it, as well as the movement and development of this world, were greatly facilitated by the establishment of Christianity. It stimulated the crystallization of new spiritual values ​​that corresponded to the ideals of medieval (in the near future) society 86. It is in III-IV40; centuries, there has been a global shift in mental structures, a radical transformation of the entire system of previous ideas. From this time, it is probably possible to count the beginning of the formation of early medieval historicism. The problem of the formation of a new type of historicism includes many aspects and is still far from being resolved. Today, the scientific literature usually examines the features of ancient culture, ancient Eastern or medieval 87. Researchers try to emphasize the differences of each representation system from all others, its dissimilarity from all other cultures, its own uniqueness and originality. At the same time, the mechanism of this global restructuring of mental structures usually falls out of the field of view of researchers. The question of how a completely new system of ideas arises on the basis of the ancient heritage and the largely opposite biblical tradition turns out to be completely unexplored. § 1. TIME AND HISTORY. ANCIENT AND BIBLICAL SOURCES Scientific research usually states that at the turn of the ancient and medieval eras, on the basis of the ancient and biblical heritage, a completely new view of the world, a new “picture of the world,” was formed. At the same time, ancient historical thought and culture as a whole are, as a rule, opposed to the biblical tradition. As a result, a rather complex and contradictory picture of the relationship between the ancient heritage, the ancient Eastern (biblical) tradition and new ideas characteristic of the medieval era (or at least the early Middle Ages) emerges. The historical ideas of antiquity and the entire ancient culture seem completely different and even opposite in relation to the ancient Jewish (biblical) ones. The system of “new” ideas adopted by the Middle Ages is contrasted with the ancient one and at the same time is completely different from modern ideas about the world and man. Thus, each system of ideas is considered as a completely independent phenomenon, as a complete system. The connections and relationships between them, as a rule, remain behind the scenes. The question remains completely incomprehensible of how, on the basis of two completely different, largely opposite systems, a third system of world perception is formed, unlike either one or the other. The ancient and biblical traditions, which formed the basis for the formation of a new “picture of the world,” represent an extremely rich, diverse and at the same time very complex set of heterogeneous ideas, concepts and ideas. They are difficult to characterize in any unambiguous way. For the most part, researchers tend to contrast ancient historical thought with biblical thought. One of the main criteria for such a contrast is the attitude to time within each culture. The question is very often posed as follows: which time concepts - ancient or biblical - are closer to modern ones? Researchers' opinions on this matter are grouped around two diametrically opposed conclusions of historiosophical content. Some hold the view that antiquity was an era of non-historical, or even ahistorical, thought, and the origins of modern ideas about history and the movement of time in general should be sought in the Bible. Other scientists, on the contrary, tend to believe that biblical thought is devoid of historicism, and the roots of modern ideas about the historical movement of mankind lie precisely in ancient historical literature. The idea of ​​the ahistoricism of the Greeks, expressed at one time by F. Nietzsche and O. Spengler 88 , found support among a number of philosophers and theologians who set themselves the goal of comparing Greek thinking with the Old Testament 89 . From the point of view of the Dutch philosopher G. Boman, even Thucydides was far from historicism, for he understood history as an eternal repetition of the same events and phenomena 90 . G. Boman contrasts the statism of Greek thought with biblical dynamism. Most of the Old Testament books are supposedly historical, since history is understood by the Bible as movement. “The historical character of most of the Jewish writings is obvious,” A. Widgery also generalizes 91 . Where G. Boman discovers elements of dynamics in Hellenic thinking, he attributes them to Eastern influence. Accordingly, from here comes the statement that the modern understanding of history is rooted in Old Testament tales, and not in Greek historiography and philosophy, and the Old Testament is declared to be the cradle of modern historiography 92 . Historians of antiquity, however, adhere to a completely opposite view. Criticizing such conclusions, S. Mazzarino rightly notes “A priori, it seems absurd that the very people to whom we owe the largest works of historiography throughout the world are considered as ahistorical at their core” 93 . While paying tribute to the Old Testament in the field of understanding history, they consider such assessments of the historicism of the Bible, common in historical and philosophical literature 94, to be clearly exaggerated. 95 Moreover, considering the so-called historical books of the Old Testament and analyzing the periodization of history according to the prophecy of Daniel, which is considered an expression of the world-historical concept of the Bible and on the basis of which supporters of biblical dynamism build their concept, researchers come to the conclusion about their pseudo-historicity 96 . Thus, the question of the historicism of biblical books is far from being resolved unambiguously. Moreover, upon closer examination, not only the general conclusion but also the initial premise turns out to be controversial. At the heart of the judgments of modern defenders of the priority of the Bible in the development of historical thought is the idea of ​​a fundamental difference in the types of thinking of the Hellenes and the ancient Jews. For the first, space supposedly played the greatest role, and for the second, time. The first discovered God in nature, the second in history 97. From this a conclusion is drawn about the ahistoricity and mythology of Hellenic thinking and the historicity of Old Testament thinking. Thus, one of the most important arguments for the widespread opposition between biblical and ancient cultures is the recognition of the essential, fundamental difference between the dynamism of ancient Eastern thinking, manifested in the primacy of time, and the static nature of ancient Greek thinking, expressed in the primacy of space 98. Emphasizing the difference between the “dynamic” ancient Eastern and “static” ancient Greek thinking, researchers refer to the greater development, respectively, of the categories of time or space in each culture, to the predominance of some and the underdevelopment of other ideas. “If the world of Greek philosophy and Greek poetry is “cosmos,” that is, a law-like and symmetrical spatial structure, then the world of the Bible is “olam,” that is, the stream of temporal fulfillment that carries all things, or the world as history” 99. These conclusions prompted a special study of this aspect. Thus, I. P. Weinberg, having analyzed all the mentions of the word “olam” in the Bible (it occurs 450 times), shows that it had the meaning “hidden”, “completed”, “obstructed”, “obstructing”, etc. and contained the semantic connotation of “border”, “demarcation”, and was used to express the greatest spatial and temporal extent. It is by no means excluded that initially “olam” was precisely a spatial concept that had nothing to do with time. Thus, there is no reason to talk about the primacy of temporal ideas over spatial ones in ancient Eastern thinking and, on this basis, to emphasize its peculiarity and uniqueness. Moreover, the latter observation echoes the assumption that spatial representations generally develop in humans before temporal ones and that in ancient cultures they tend to dominate temporal representations 100 . On the other hand, as researchers point out, Greek terminology is by no means limited to the concept of “space” and was much richer and more multifaceted. The Greeks knew not only χρόνος (simply time), they distinguished it from the categories καιρός (temporal moment), αιών (age) and other concepts. It is hardly possible to talk about the undeveloped category of time in ancient historical thought. “Researchers who interpret the Greek “cosmos” as space, and the biblical “olam” as “time” (“age”), make their task easier by keeping silent about the Greek zone (αιών), meaning in the original sense of the word “age”, “eternity”” 101. All this, in our opinion, proves the limitations of the opposition “temporal ancient Eastern thinking - spatial ancient thinking.” Most likely, the culture of the ancient Near East had the same space-time orientation as the classical Greek one, but differed from the latter in the very perception and understanding of space-time 102. The question of the nature and direction of the movement of time is also hotly debated in historical literature. As a rule, researchers contrast ancient cyclism and biblical linearity. Moreover, the dominance of ideas about cyclical time in the ancient era is recognized by almost all researchers. It is almost unanimously noted that “ancient religion and culture were characterized by the idea of ​​an eternal cycle in the universe and humanity, which excluded the concept of the end” 103. Regarding the nature of biblical time, there are still heated debates in historical science. Usually, when comparing the two named time models, it is indicated that ancient Eastern (biblical) thought, in contrast to ancient thought, was characterized by eschatological ideas, the expectation of the end, which unfolded history in a straight line and gave it purpose and meaning. However, for other researchers, the eschatologism of Jewish thought is not yet indisputable proof of the linearity of Jewish temporal ideas. Therefore, the question of the direction of time in the most ancient Eastern (Jewish) model of the world in modern historical literature is far from being resolved unambiguously. Opinions on this issue range from the concept of linear time 104 to the recognition of a cyclical perception of time in the Old Testament 105 . From the point of view of the evolutionary perception of time, “mythological time, starting from the archaic oscillatory model, moves to a cyclic model and develops to a model of spiral time” 106. There is also the concept of cyclical-linear perception of time by ancient Eastern people, which is characterized by a combination of linearity and cyclicity. According to this theory, “at the heart of the value systems on which ancient Eastern cultures were built lies the idea of ​​an ever-lasting present, inextricably linked with the past” 107 . In particular, the idea of ​​time in the Old Testament appears to us as a combination of two ideas. Along with the concept of cyclical time coexists a theological view of history, linear, moving towards a given goal 108. Thus, from the point of view of some researchers, the schematic representation of the essence of biblical time representations is closer to a spiral than to a straight line or a closed circle 109. In our opinion, modern supporters of the priority of the Bible tend to greatly modernize the ideas of the ancients and impose their own stereotypes on them. So, today there are a huge number of different opinions and interpretations. It is quite difficult to clearly contrast the ancient perception of time and the Middle Eastern one, since both contain elements of different time concepts, and it is extremely difficult to characterize them in any unambiguous way. The point, apparently, is not whether the idea of ​​the cycle or linear movement of time was familiar to the Greeks, Romans or ancient Jews, but how fully and vividly these ideas were embodied in historical writings. In ancient historical thought, the concept of the cycle was widely represented in philosophical and historical thought and had a complete form. The works of Plato 110, Thucydides, Polybius are a vivid example of this. At the beginning of his work, Thucydides 111, for example, writes that his work “will be useful to those who wish to clearly understand events that took place in the past and which, since human nature is unchangeable, will sooner or later happen in the same way in the future” (I, 22, 4). Thus, theoretically, Thucydides recognizes the repeatability and cyclical nature of history. Polybius 112 most vividly expressed the idea of ​​the cycle in history. He saw the meaning of history in the so-called “natural cycles.” Society, the state in this case is likened to an individual; it passes successively through youth, maturity, then grows old, declines and disappears. “Such is the cycle of state life, such is the order of nature, according to which forms of government change, pass into one another and return again” (VI, 9, 10–11). Thus, relying on “natural cycles” in human life and projecting them onto the history of the state, he foresaw that the rise of Rome would someday inevitably be followed by its decline and fall. At the same time, the same authors, having completed their theoretical reflections and begun to describe specific historical events, retreat from their theories and present history as a process of progressive development of society, full of dynamics and uniqueness. As for Middle Eastern historical thought, there apparently were no special theories, formalized in a special way. Scientists are trying to reconstruct biblical ideas about time from scattered excerpts from so-called historical books, which contain a variety of ideas (from cyclical to linear). It is generally believed that in Judaism time is perceived as a flow, like a river of time. The historical process seems to be straightforward and directed from the past to the future, towards a specific goal. The eschatologism inherent in ancient Jewish ideas gives time linearity and a certain direction. On the other hand, the book of Qohelet (Ecclesiastes) gives a vivid image of the eternal return (1:9). “What has been is what will be, and what has been done will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.” Any change in the world is a movement in a circle, forming a closed cycle “and everything returns to normal” (1 6). Thus, in the Old Testament one can equally find both evidence of the linearity of temporal representations and elements of cyclicity. Obviously, the problem of the perception of time in the ancient Eastern (Jewish) tradition is still far from being resolved. However, such simultaneous existence within the same culture of two different, sometimes contradictory, ideas is apparently not a unique phenomenon. Apparently, both views were present in both ancient Eastern and ancient historical thought 113 . This duality is probably connected with the very history of the formation of spatio-temporal representations, which goes through two stages. First, the passage of time, marked by the change of day and night, seasons, and the position of the heavenly bodies, is recorded in memory and acts as an objective factor in a person’s simple adaptation to the natural environment. Therefore, at the early stage of development of societies, the dominant form of perception of time is cyclism. And only in the second phase of this process there is an active isolation of spatio-temporal connections from the experience of practical-objective activity and their conscious use for the purpose of its organization. Only in this second phase does the replacement of cosmological, naturalistic and other forms of consciousness take place with its actual historical form. Accordingly, a linear perception of time arises. Thus, as M.A. Barg emphasizes, mythological consciousness, which is based on the idea of ​​“eternal return”, circulation, and discursive (rational) thinking constitute two successive stages in the process of formation of consciousness 114. At the same time, right up to modern times, they somehow coexist and interact mainly as two forms of historical culture - folklore and written 115. The combination of a linear perception of time with a circular one in different forms can be observed throughout history. The question is, rather, not in their fundamental compatibility, but in the relationship between these two different forms of experience and awareness of the passage of time 116. So, by the 3rd-4th centuries, when a new worldview began to take shape, a new “picture of the world” that corresponded to the attitudes of the new society, a solid base already existed for the formation of temporary ideas. The ancient and ancient Eastern heritage was very rich and at the same time very heterogeneous. Therefore, the transition to an awareness of the linearity of time was by no means obvious. This transition was carried out slowly, rather painfully and for a long time. § 2. EUSEBIUS OF CAESARIA AND THE SYSTEM OF TEMPORARY REPRESENTATIONS AT THE TURN OF THE 3rd-4th CENTURIES. FORMATION OF A NEW CONCEPT The transition from paganism to Christianity was accompanied by a significant restructuring of the entire “picture of the world” and the entire structure of temporary ideas as an essential part of it. As is commonly believed, at the turn between classical antiquity and the Middle Ages, the cyclism of the ancient perception of time was replaced by ideas about the linearity, directionality and irreversibility of the movement of time. In its completed form, new ideas about the movement of time were formulated by Augustine the Blessed. He absolutely confidently and categorically stated that “only heretics wander around in circles.” History appears to him as the movement of humanity towards the City of God. The biblical concept of the Last Judgment gave this movement purpose and meaning. Thus, researchers traditionally recognize that within the framework of the Christian worldview it has become possible to create a new view of the movement of mankind and its history. It was Augustine the Blessed (354–430). AD) is considered to be the creator of this Christian philosophy of history, and his work “De Civitate Dei” is the first grandiose experience of a universal theory about humanity and its destinies 117. Humanity is presented here as “a single whole, governed by God,” and history is presented as “a grandiose process of educating the human race for salvation,” in which “the law of history and its progress” is revealed 118. Indeed, Augustine presented a global theory of the historical process in a formalized, more or less complete form. However, researchers, as a rule, do not go further than stating this fact. The research literature traditionally shows “key points”, i.e. those moments when certain ideas or ideas are expressed especially clearly. As a result, a fairly clear, but at the same time very simplified scheme is built: pagan historians imagined the history of the world to be cyclical, and medieval Christianity, usually associated with the name of Augustine, established a linear concept of time in the minds 119. However, the most important point in this process - how this global transformation of basic ideas occurs, accompanied by a restructuring of the entire system of world perception - is usually omitted by researchers and is not specifically considered. Meanwhile, the beginning of the formation of a new worldview, and a new perception of time, accordingly, should be sought, apparently, not in the 5th century, but much earlier. “By the end of the 4th century, i.e. By the time of the final victory of Christianity over paganism in the Greco-Roman world, the reorientation [from ancient thinking to new, Christian thinking - I V] had basically already been accomplished. A new universe of reasoning was defined, with new themes, ideas and language. And this was no longer an ancient, but a medieval universe” 120. And the system created by Augustine was not the result of a sudden insight that visited the Bishop of Hippo. He relied on already known, quite widespread and accepted ideas at that time 121. The idea of ​​evolution, the linear movement of history, generally progressive, does not first appear in Augustine. At least, it is already present in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea. In the same way we find in him many other views, which, according to the general opinion, were first presented by Augustine. Three works of Eusebius “Praeparatio Evangelica”, “Demonstratio Evangelica” and “Historia Ecclesiastica” are connected by a single idea and, according to the German researcher A. Dempf, “only a single name is missing for these three works, which could also be called “On the City of God”” 122. In his opinion, Eusebius has an even more thorough understanding of the ancient philosophy of history than Augustine, who only presented a later formulation of the three theologies of political, poetic-mythological and natural 123. In any case, the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea could provide very interesting information regarding the formation of a new historical concept. The life and work of the Bishop of Caesarea occurred in a difficult era at the turn of antiquity and the Middle Ages. He himself was raised within the framework of ancient culture, was well acquainted with Jewish traditions and, being a Christian and occupying not the last place in the church hierarchy, expressed ideas that corresponded to the new guidelines of the Christian church. Thus, the creative heritage of Eusebius reflects the complex interaction of these diverse traditions in the consciousness of a person of that era and the formation of a new system of ideas. Eusebius, obviously, did not set himself the task of creating his own global theory of time, and did not, like Augustine, go into philosophical reflections on what Time is. But his work had no less influence on the formation of a new, medieval, Christian worldview. He created the first “Church History” in world literature, a work with which all theologians and simply more or less educated people of his time should have been familiar. The writings of the Bishop of Caesarea were very popular in the 4th-6th centuries and subsequently both in Byzantium and in the West 124. And although Eusebius was not canonized by the official church either as a saint or as a “Church Father,” 125 his writings were of great importance for the development of Christian thought. His works formulate new ideas about time, on the basis of which he builds the history of the church and the history of all mankind. The views of Eusebius have more than once attracted the attention of scientists and have become the subject of controversy. A significant part of researchers admit that in the work of Eusebius there are already different ideas about historical time compared to antiquity. The ancient theory of the cyclical development of human society was now replaced by the linear movement of history 126. Moreover, according to the Western researcher J. Sirinelli, in “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius adhered to a “decidedly optimistic scheme”, seeing “in the movement of mankind a constant rise to even greater rationality, justice, piety, civilization”, an unconditionally progressive development, where “each stage prepares the next” 127. The same idea that “for Eusebius the history of the previous millennia was a history of constant progress” is also expressed by G. Chesnut 128 . Thus, a significant part of historians are inclined to see in the work of Eusebius an already established, complete, consistent idea of ​​​​the upward movement of history, truly revolutionary ideas about progress. Other researchers, on the contrary, do not attach much importance to the works of the Bishop of Caesarea in the process of forming new ideas and even, speaking about the idea of ​​a linear, generally progressive course of history, bypass Eusebius, completely ignoring his writings. From their point of view, “Eusebius came to a unique solution to the problem of unifying two traditions, the Hellenic and Jewish concepts of historical time. But what Eusebius “offers” is not a synthesis. This is a dual picture. This idea, as applied to the philosophy of history, had a long life ahead of it, but it was not Eusebius who began to develop it” 129. Quite often, Eusebius is generally denied any originality, considering him to be an exponent of traditional Christian ideas. The “Church History” of Eusebius of Caesarea also raises other judgments. The German researcher E. Schwartz, and after him K. Heusi, for example, generally deny the presence of any concept in Eusebius’s work and believe that Eusebius understood the term istoria itself only as a “collection of material” 130. Thus, Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” is perceived not as a complete independent work, but only as a collection of quotations from other authors or a collection of preparatory notes. It must be said that such a disdainful attitude towards Eusebius is not an exceptional phenomenon, but rather serves as a manifestation of a general trend. Research revealing the innovation of medieval scribes, refracting traditional themes in relation to new conditions, is still quite rare in both domestic and foreign scientific literature. The works of compilers dealing with traditional texts dating back to the biblical and patristic tradition are completely denied any originality 131, as, indeed, are the church historians who relied on the same tradition. As a rule, they are not considered as authoritative independent authors. A negative attitude towards the first Christian historian and his legacy is also manifested on a slightly different plane; the author of the first “Church History” is quite often accused of anti-historicism. There are often comments that “the course of history in Eusebius is very conditional” 132, that “the perspective of history leads in the eyes of Eusebius to the Christian power of Constantine and to some extent closes on it. The eschatological future is replaced by the political present” 133 that “such a scheme is deeply ahistorical, because it does not presuppose true historical movement and development. In the history constructed by Eusebius, repetition reigns” 134. They even point out that Eusebius “has no idea at all about intrahistorical connections or historical development. Historical facts are presented completely mechanically. And the main subject of Eusebius - the Church - does not experience any historical changes, it is as old as the world and even older than the visible Cosmos" 135. “The state theology of Eusebius is always static and devoid of dynamic movement towards any goal” 136. “The meaning of Eusebius’s story is that everything repeats itself” 137. Thus, if researchers nevertheless recognize that Eusebius of Caesarea has his own ideas about history, any historical concept expressed in his “Ecclesiastical History,” then, as a rule, it is noted that it is devoid of movement and development. In general, the range of opinions and assessments of the legacy of Eusebius of Caesarea is very wide, from recognition of the revolutionary nature of his ideas to complete denial of any of their significance. Some see in his “History” an ascending linear development, others – static and repetitive. Each of these assessments is not without its foundation. Indeed, in Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” one can find different approaches, sometimes contradictory. I. V. Krivushin, for example, having carefully analyzed the work of Eusebius, identifies as many as five concepts of history in it 138 . Thus, from his point of view, a historical excursion in the second chapter of the first book of “Ecclesiastical History” shows that Eusebius looked at pre-Christian history not as a holistic era, homogeneous in its internal content, but rather distinguished two periods in it - moral decline (1, 2, 18-20) and moral revival (I, 2,21 - 22). Thus, the history of mankind in the understanding of the first Christian historian first moves downwards and then upwards. In the next, third chapter of the same first book, I. V. Krivushin finds a different view of history before the Incarnation, close to the allegorical interpretation of Origen. He calls it the concept of prototypes. History here is understood as a system of prototypes, as a constant reproduction of one unchanging image of the future. From this point of view, the Jewish prophets, kings and high priests form a long chain of “lower forms” that point to a coming “higher form” (I, 3, 7). However, as I.V. Krivushin himself notes, this concept is not extended by the author to the history of mankind as a whole; it does not explain its main events and does not cover all historical time. It is used by Eusebius only to prove the antiquity of the name of Christ and its special meaning 139. Further, in the fourth chapter of the first book, the researcher sees such an understanding of history in which the historical process is viewed as the restoration of what was lost. As an argument, Eusebius interprets the laws of Moses as a departure from the original purity of “ancient Christianity,” the so-called “faith of Abraham,” or “the image of Abraham’s piety” (I, 4, 14) and, accordingly, the role of Christ is to restore “the first, only and correct faith” (I, 4, 15). But this concept also does not explain the entire order of history, all events, Eusebius uses it for one very specific purpose - to prove that Christians are “not a new people, appearing only with the First Coming,” but have existed “from the beginning of the human race” (I, 4, 4). Logically connected with this concept is a pessimistic view of history as a process of constant degradation of people. It was encountered already at the very beginning of the Church History and was further developed in the tenth book. In a panegyric in honor of Bishop Paulinus and the new church in Tire (X, 4), Eusebius considers the First Coming as “the reaction of the transcendental world to the complete fall of people” 140, “not only tormented by terrible ulcers and purulent wounds, but already swallowed up in death” (X, 4, 11–12). But this concept of history as a process of gradual decline and degradation does not cover all historical time and operates only in “intermediate” periods between the facts of direct intervention. Deities into the earthly life of people. Its presence in Christian history is also quite understandable. It is intended to emphasize the weakness of man and his inability to achieve salvation on his own, without the intervention of God, emphasizes the significance of the Incarnation in world history, “raises him to the level of Creation” 141. Next to them, according to the same I.V. Krivushin, Eusebius has another concept - the concept of historical succession. The entire narrative of books III-IV is permeated by the lines of episcopal heritage, passing on to each other the intellectual baton of Christian writers, one after another martyrs going to their deaths, chains of foolish heresiarchs, etc. “Pre-Christian history basically acts as a continuity of functions through the continuity of their bearers. Such a line comes from the beginning of the world, is continuous and thereby gives unity and integrity to history” 142. Researchers see in this repetition the immutability of history and its static nature. Highlighting this concept as the main one in the ideas of Eusebius, I. V. Krivushin believes that thereby “Eusebius turns history into the transmission of an unchangeable order, and any change, any innovation threatens to break the ties that cement it,” that “the integrity of history is determined by its ahistorical essence, for it is the very conservation, the self-preservation of the original” 143. And finally, in the last (VIII-X) books of “Church History” I.V. Krivushin again notes the presence of a view of history as a process of linear upward movement. Moreover, now, after the Incarnation, it is recognized as the main and leading concept. However, the time period allotted for the action of the new principle is too small in comparison with the entire previous “unhistorical” history. Thus, in the “Ecclesiastical History” of Eusebius of Caesarea one can indeed find traces of various ideas about time and history, ideas about the degradation of humanity (1), the theory of restoration and return to origins (2), an understanding of history as a system of prototypes of a key event (3), the idea of ​​continuity of development (4), and, finally, ideas about the ascending linear movement of history (5). However, in our opinion, one can hardly agree with I.V. Krivushin that they represent holistic, completely complete concepts. Firstly, none of these “concepts” applies to the entire historical narrative of Eusebius of Caesarea. Each of them appears on the pages of the first “Church History” only at a certain time, not explaining the entire course of historical development, but fulfilling only a very specific task. So, for example, the “concept of degradation” reveals its presence in Eusebius’s “History” only in the first book (I, 2, 17–20), and then in the last (X, 4, 11–12). He writes “immediately after the initial blessed life, the first person who neglected God’s commandment fell into this mortal and perishable life. His descendants filled the entire earth and, with the exception of one or two, turned out to be even worse, their bestial existence was a life beyond life. Cities, government, art, science - they had no thought about all this. Laws, justice, virtue, philosophy were not known to them even by name. They roamed the deserts like wild, ferocious animals” (I, 2, 17–18). So Eusebius paints a picture of complete degradation and decline. The next time he will return to this plot only at the very end of his “History” “He alone [Christ – I V] accepted our nature, which was in the abyss of destruction (11). He alone was not afraid of how deeply we are corrupted and how we suffer therefore, He alone bore our illnesses, He alone took upon Himself the punishment for our wickedness, He saved us and gave us abundant blessings (12). Once the entire human race perished, wandered in the impenetrable night and in deep darkness under the influence of criminal, God-hating demons, He appeared and untied the strong bonds of our iniquities (13)” (X, 4, 11–13). So, Eusebius shows the depth of the moral decline of people only two times. Moreover, the picture drawn by the author of the fall and degradation of humanity is not complete and colorful. In this regard, one observation 144 is very interesting. It is quite natural that Eusebius, as a church historian, had to build his concept on the basis of Holy Scripture. In accordance with this, it would be logical to expect that Eusebius would dwell in detail on the description of biblical stories associated with the fall of people at the beginning of human history. However, the fall of man described by Eusebius turned out to be paler than one might have expected. Of course, he could not completely ignore the negative events of human history indicated in the Bible, but he refuses to describe the Fall, fratricide, the flood, the construction of the Tower of Babel, etc. Although he does not dispute these crimes and global catastrophes, he limits himself to mentioning them only in passing. And in the chronology given in his “Chronicle”, they do not appear at all 145. This circumstance makes us think that this “concept” is not leading in the system of temporal and historical ideas of the first church historian. Most likely, it is used by Eusebius only when there is a need to explain God's intervention in human history and a radical change in its course. Simply put, this concept is of an applied, auxiliary nature and is not a fundamental idea that permeates the entire work of the Bishop of Caesarea. In addition, the idea of ​​degradation is found in Eusebius only together with the idea of ​​progress. It is from the moment of the fall that humanity’s gradual ascent (with God’s help, of course) to salvation begins. This is how Eusebius describes this event. “And when almost everyone was, as if in a deep intoxication, in this widespread stupor of vice and the soul of almost all people was engulfed in deep darkness, then the Wisdom of God, the eternal Word, in an abundance of love for people, began to appear to those in the heavenly places (21). When the seeds of piety were thrown into the souls of most people and all the people on earth turned to faith, then God gave them mysterious images and symbols through the prophet Moses (22). When the Law given to the Jews became known and, like a kind of fragrant breeze, spread among all people, when the majority of peoples, through their legislators and philosophers, softened their way of thinking, morals instead of wild and fierce became meek, friendship and mutual communication gave rise to a deep peace, when all people and peoples in the universe turned out to be, as it were, prepared and able to know the Father, then the same Teacher of virtue appeared at the beginning of the Roman Empire as a Man, accomplished and endured everything according to the prophecies” (I, 2, 20-22). Thus, the combination of ideas about the initial fall of humanity and its subsequent gradual ascent, firstly, in itself refutes the opinion about the immutability of history in Eusebius and, secondly, it is present in this work not by chance; it substantiates the need for divine intervention in history. At the same time, it is very significant that the author speaks about the fall and degradation of the human race only at the very beginning of the work, and in Book X he only reminds us of this once again. The rest of human history, described in the II-X books, should probably in this case be perceived as a rise, as a “progressive” movement of humanity towards its salvation. The next “concept,” which represents the historical process as restoration of what was lost and a return to origins, also does not explain the entire course and meaning of history. Its presence on the pages of “Church History” is rather a tribute to tradition. It is used extremely rarely to explain the real historical process. Perhaps the only place in which this “concept” is clearly manifested is a proof of antiquity, and therefore the truth of the Christian teaching, Eusebius specifically, so that “so that no one would think that our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is a very recent Person and so that His teaching would not seem new and strange, new created by man, no different from other people” (I, 4, 1) takes a short excursion into the history and beliefs of the ancients Jews He deliberately highlights common features in the ideas of the ancient “friends of God” and contemporary Christians. And he concludes his reasoning with the following conclusion. “It is clear that the most ancient, the oldest faith should be considered that which Abraham and the friends of God who lived with him acquired and which was recently preached to all nations in the teaching of Christ” (1:4,10). “The Abrahamic faith, confirmed by works, is currently observed throughout the entire universe only by Christians. What would prevent us from recognizing that both life and faith among us who live after Christ and among the ancient friends of God are the same - not new and alien, but if we tell the truth, then the first, only and correct faith handed down to us in the teachings of Christ? (1, 4, 14–15). Thus, it is hardly possible to talk about the presence of an entire historical concept of restoration in Eusebius’s work. Most likely, this is just one of the arguments that Eusebius uses to prove the truth of his faith. This argument - a reference to the ancient origin and prevalence of the doctrine in ancient times - is, in all likelihood, not used by chance. In the minds of his contemporaries, obviously, it was this argument that sounded most convincing. This tradition, according to some researchers, originates in the philosophy of the Stoics, who believed that the “golden age” of humanity, when people were closest to God and to divine truth, was left far behind, and therefore the most ancient teaching was perceived as the closest to divine truth 146. However, ideas about the “golden age” were characteristic not only of the Stoics, but also of all Greek mythology and ancient historical thought since ancient times. They can be found in Homer, Hesiod, etc. By the time of Eusebius, the use of this argument had already become common place in historical literature and was perceived as quite familiar and traditional. So, the presence of this “concept” on the pages of Eusebius’ “History” is again explained by purely applied problems. Eusebius resorts to it only once. It in no way explains the course of history, so it can hardly be considered a “concept of historical development.” In addition, Eusebius can hardly be considered an innovator in this area, since he does not introduce anything fundamentally new here. He only used the traditional argument of a traditional situation and probably thought least of all about introducing some new interpretation. However, here too one can notice some changes in the perception of history. The named two stages in the development of “Christian teaching” still do not seem to Eusebius to be completely identical. The teaching preached by Christ, as follows from the text of the entire “Church History,” is immeasurably higher than its ancient “prototypes.” Thus, even here, it would seem, in the traditional cyclical scheme there is no complete return to the previous state. What we see is more of a spiral than a vicious circle. However, we can only talk about this hypothetically. Eusebius himself, it seems to us, did not try to reduce real history to any kind of scheme. The allegorical interpretation of history as a system of prototypes of a key event does not take up much space in Eusebius’s History, but it is an important element in the system of his ideas. This allegorical perception of history goes back to the New Testament tradition and the interpretation of history by early apologists (Justine, Irenaeus, Origen in the first place). Within this concept, the Jewish prophets, kings, and high priests form a long chain of "lower forms" that point to a coming "higher form." All of them, as anointed ones (“Christs”), turn out to be bearers of the image of supreme power, the spiritual power of the “one and true Christ” 147. This plot is developed by Eusebius in his Demonstratio Evangelica, where he shows that the name “Christ” was attributed to the Jewish high priests, kings and prophets and that the Jewish priests were shadows and images of Christ “in type and symbol” (DE. V 3. H) 2. According to the first church historian, the incarnation of Christ turns out to be in some way predicted. However, this prediction does not deprive this key event of its exclusivity. It is no coincidence that Eusebius shows here - and this is noted by I. V. Krivushin himself - how Christ, in his nature and in the significance of his feat, surpasses all his earthly predecessors (I. 3. 9-20) 148. So, the concept of types appears in the work of Eusebius, firstly, because it was sanctified by the authority of the early Christian tradition. It was characteristic of the ideas of Origen, who was especially revered by him, and by that time it apparently represented a familiar system. Secondly, it gave history a certain unity, predetermination and predictability (predictability (?)). Moreover, the concept of prototypes initially presupposes the existence of certain “higher” and “lower” forms. Thus, it, like previous concepts, excludes a simple repetition of the old, and represents the historical process rather as a slow but ascending development. Another “concept” - the line of historical succession - just like the others, does not mean that history is static. It fulfills its very specific task - it connects the appearance of Christ with the history of mankind, explains the pattern of His Coming precisely at this time. “Christ fills the gap between the cultural tradition of the past, of which the Ptolemaic dynasty was the bearer, and the tradition of the new civilization, which will be preserved through the unbroken chain of emperors from Augustus to Constantine” 149. However, even in this scheme, the beginning of the chain of succession is not identical to its end point. Thus, this scheme conveys not so much the immutability of the old, but rather a slow, gradual, almost imperceptible change, not associated with a radical breakdown and global revolution of all social foundations. It is also possible that the use of this concept helped the author solve several auxiliary problems. Firstly, it solved the problem of the compositional structure of the work, which was the first experience of working in this genre. Secondly, the lists of Roman emperors and bishops of the most important dioceses given by Eusebius were supposed to help the author in calculating chronology, which was especially important for a historian who lived at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries. Finally, the concept of historical succession on the pages of Church History is again replaced by a different understanding of history. V40;III-X books differ significantly from the previous narrative. Here there is a strongly eventful beginning, the order of history is carried out in a sequential change and movement of events, the main of which are the Great Persecution, the Edict of Galerius, the persecution under Maximinus, etc., finally, the victory of Constantine and the triumph of Christianity in the Roman Empire. The idea of ​​a linear, generally progressive movement of history is especially clearly manifested in these books of Eusebius. (According to I.V. Krivushin, Eusebius uses the idea of ​​linearity only starting from Book VIII, from the prehistory of the Great Persecution - I.V.) The history of the church now seems to be a continuous movement forward (VIII, 1, 6; VIII, 13, 9-10 et seq.) until Christianity, having survived persecution and withstood all the trials, finally triumphed. It is interesting that at the beginning of the work (I, 2, 21) this idea of ​​progressive development is present along with four other concepts and does not play the main role. Then, when we talk about history after the coming of Christ, it gradually comes to the fore (IV, 7, 13–14) and in books VIII-X becomes leading. Overall, it seems that all other concepts in the pages of the first Church History are overcome in favor of the concept of progressive development. Considering that the work of Eusebius was created gradually, over several years 150, as well as the turning point nature of the era itself, it can be assumed that these changes reflect a certain evolution of the views of the author himself and the process of formation of the Christian worldview as a whole. It is also possible that the presence of these concepts on the pages of one work reveals the author’s dependence on the sources he used in each case. In the last books of his work, the author talks about the events of contemporary history, about events of which he himself was an eyewitness (and participant), and therefore they were written on the basis of personal experience and his own ideas. So, the conceptual content of Eusebius’s “History” is not so clear. According to I.V. Krivushin, in the “Church History” of Eusebius of Caesarea there is an understanding of history as a system of prototypes of a key event, and the concept of succession, and the theory of restoration and return to origins, and the idea of ​​degradation, and the concept of progressive development. As a result, the author concludes that “they do not form a complete theory”, that “there is no such theory in the “Church History” because it should not be there.” “Eusebius did not set himself the task of giving a detailed interpretation of the era between the Fall and the Incarnation. His goal was to compress this era as much as possible in time, for he wanted to make the history of the world the history of the church. All five concepts serve this super-task. The idea of ​​succession deprives history of real development, the idea of ​​prototypes turns history into one universal expectation of Christ, the idea of ​​restoration returns history to its initial state, the idea of ​​degradation elevates the Advent to the level of Creation. The optimistic theory only explains the reason for the delay in time of the universal and highest discovery of divine truth, that is, the reason why this “useless” pre-Christian history nevertheless took place” 151. However, this conclusion does not seem entirely convincing and raises some doubts. Firstly, it seems strange that a person starting to write “History” would not have in his head some unified understanding of the historical process. Secondly, Eusebius does not seem to have specifically sought to present the history of the world only as the history of the church. For him (as for many of his contemporaries and followers), church history was the essence, the core of the entire historical process. And he did not at all need to artificially attract various (often contradictory) theories to serve this “super task”. Most likely, the presence of different “concepts” in one work shows that in the Christian thought of that time no “canonical” or uniform attitude towards history had yet been established. A new Christian worldview and, accordingly, a new way of perceiving time was just taking shape. The fact that Eusebius used ideas that circulated in early Christian literature and, to some extent, were already familiar 152 is quite understandable. In addition, the presence of these “concepts” in one work perfectly conveys the features of a worldview that was already medieval in its essence. History presented as a system of prototypes of a key event reflects the symbolism of all medieval thinking. The concept of succession helps the author resolve the most important issues of the new chronology, which was extremely important for Christian authors. The theory of restoration and return to origins hardly represents a holistic, complete concept; it solves a purely applied problem - to prove the antiquity of Christianity and, therefore, its truth and authority. The reference to antiquity, which was almost the main argument in the dispute, emphasizes the traditionalism of medieval thinking. Rather, what Ecclesiastical History reveals is not various conflicting concepts of history, but a complex process of rethinking these old concepts and ideas. The result is a fairly consistent, holistic system of ideas about historical time and the history of J. Sirinelli, quite rightly, in our opinion, asserts that in describing the history of civilization, Eusebius “came to a holistic view, to a formulation that unites and turns disparate statements into a system” 153. In the work of Eusebius, a new type of history is formed. It is now perceived as a complex dynamic process. In the understanding of Eusebius, it unfolds according to a predetermined plan and moves from Creation and the Fall through the Incarnation of Christ to the end, in which earthly life will merge with heavenly life, to the achievement of the kingdom of God. History no longer moves in circles. In human history, Eusebius highlights the key moments of Creation, the Nativity of Christ, and the Second Coming of Christ. Historical time acquires a certain structure. At the center of history there is a decisive sacred fact that determines its course, gives it a new meaning and predetermines all its subsequent development - the coming and death of Christ. All history is divided by this event into two eras before the birth of Christ and after it. Old Testament history turns out to be the era of preparation for the coming of Christ, and subsequent history is the result of His incarnation and passion. Two of the most important works of Eusebius bear the corresponding names - “Preparatio Evangehca” and “Demonstratio Evangelica”. Thus, the new awareness of time is based on three defining moments - the beginning (the creation of the world), the culmination (the Nativity of Christ) and the completion of the life of the human race (the Second Coming of Christ and the Last Judgment), and the Nativity of Christ is dominant in this entire scheme. It is the presence of these reference points in time that “straightens” it with extraordinary force, “stretches” it into a line and at the same time creates a tense connection of times, gives history a harmonious plan for its unfolding 154 . Time becomes vector, linear and irreversible Thus, in the work of Eusebius, on a traditional basis, without a radical negation of previous values and attitudes, without shocks, the basis for the formation of fundamentally new ideas about time and history is very carefully created. An analysis of the vocabulary used by Eusebius in his work also leads to the same conclusion about the transition to a linear perception of time. The categories of time, space, cause, fate, etc., forming the basis of the historical consciousness of any era, often remain unconscious, “unspoken.” They are used, sometimes without paying attention to them. At the same time, language as a special sign system reflects a certain system of values ​​and ideas inherent in a given society 155. In all likelihood, the linguistic transformations that can be traced in the example of Eusebius’s “History” are not accidental; they reflect a certain evolution of ideas about the world during the transition from the ancient to the medieval era. So, Eusebius uses different categories to designate time. Eusebius denotes time in general by the familiar term χρόνος. This is a continuous flow of time, objective time Eusebius uses it in “Church History” quite often Χρόνος in Eusebius can mean a specific date, period, year (1, 6, 11.1, 9, 1.1, 10, 5.111, 31, 1–2 IV, 5, 4–5, VII, 15, 5), but more often this term describes the time of life (I, 4, 1, I, 14, 3, II, 23, 4, VII, 32, 31, VIII, 19, VIII, 12, 5, VIII, Arr, 2, VIII, Arr, 3) or the time of reign (III, 23, 3–4, V, 8, 15, V, 28, 3–4, VI, 61, VI, 28, 1, VIII, 13, 12–13, VIII, App, 4), i.e. some long period of time. In addition, χρόνος is measured time. It can be short or long (VI, 43, 6, VI, 44, 2, VII, 32, 21, VII, 11, 21), it can be counted (I, 9, 1, I, 10, 5, VI, 22, 1, etc.), it can be measured in number (years). But, perhaps, the most important meaning in which the concept of χρόνος is used is time continuously flowing from the past to the future, as if in one direction (I, 1, 1,1, 6, 2, II, 23, 4, III, 10, 1–2, III, 10,4,111,24, 13, IV, 5, 4–5, IV, 15, 39, IV, 29, 7, V, 16, 3, V, 16, 22, VI, 3, 10; VI, 19.6, VIII, 14, 9, etc.). Interesting information is provided by an analysis of Eusebius’ terminology and regarding the nature of the movement of time. Researchers quite rightly note that “not a single Greek or Roman author ever argued that history moves in a vicious circle, and not a single Christian author said that the development of history is linear” 156. Eusebius also does not advertise his ideas, does not reject so categorically (as later Augustine the Blessed) the ancient theory of cyclic time, but he still moves away from it, as if he is trying to avoid those terms that could cause associations with ancient cyclism. In his “Church History” the words κύκλος, περίοδος are used extremely rarely. The concept of κύκλος in Eusebius, as a rule, does not have a temporal, but a spatial, even geographical meaning and is often used as a preposition or adverb “around” (V, 1, 44, VI, 3, 4, etc.). In one case (VII, 32, 15) κύκλος designates the firmament with planets and celestial bodies. Moreover, here Eusebius does not use this concept independently, but only by quoting the so-called “Rules about Easter” by Bishop Anatolius of Laodicea (mid-3rd century). It is characteristic that in the entire “Church History” the word κύκλος is never used in the meaning of “cycle”, “circle of time”. The same can be said about the word περίοδος Eusebius used it only three times. In Book IV it has the meaning of “a period of time” (IV, 15.4), but Eusebius here quotes an earlier work - the so-called “Epistle of the Church of Smyrna”, which tells about the martyrdom of Bishop Polycarp 157. In Book VII, Eusebius uses the word περίοδος in the sense of “the movement of the planets,” “the ecliptic of the sun,” citing a work on astronomy from Hellenistic times (VII, 32.15). Finally, in Book IX (IX, 7, 11) περίοδος means “way of life,” “way of thinking.” Thus, Eusebius seems to be trying to avoid using this pagan term and uses it only when quoting ancient authors. And even in this case, περίοδος is not used in its basic meaning of “circle”, “circulation”, “certain circle of time”, “queue”, “circulation”. One gets the impression that the Bishop of Caesarea, consciously or unconsciously, chooses words and expressions so that nothing reminds of ancient cyclism Eusebius, it seems, no longer accepts the idea that time (χρόνος) moves in a circle. It should also be noted that χρόνος is thought of as something opposite to αίών. In Eusebius, the opposition χρόνος - αίών, “time” - “eternity” can be traced quite clearly (IV, 15, 24, V, 1, 26, etc.). However, Eusebius’ understanding of the term άιών (“eon”) is ambiguous. His ideas are largely eclectic. In most cases, Eusebius uses the term αίών (and also αίώνος, άίδιον), quoting Scripture (I, 2, 3, 1, 2, 15, 1, 2, 25, 1, 3, 14, 1, 3, 16, 111,36, 13, VII, 25, 19, VIII, 10, 2, X, 4, 9, X, 4, 30, X, 4, 49), or uses the already familiar biblical expressions “forever,” “forever and ever,” etc. (I, 3, 18.1, 3, 19.1, 3, 20, X, 4, 16, X, 4, 46, X, 5, 13). αίών is found, as a rule, in quotations from Old Testament books 158. “In the eschatology of Judaism and Christianity, the term “eon” appears as a Greek translation of the Hebrew “olam” (“age”) and means a very long, but fundamentally finite state of time and the whole world in time” 159. However, Eusebius' ideas are based not only on the Bible, but also on ancient tradition 160. He speaks with great respect of Plato, considering him the best of the pagan philosophers, and of his teaching about God. Apparently, the tradition of linking the eternal with the divine, the heavenly, and the temporal with the earthly goes back to him 161. In Eusebius, eternity, the eternal, is often associated with the “future age” with the establishment of the Kingdom of God (IV, 15, 24, IV. 15,33, IV, 17, 2, IV, 26, 13, V, 1, 26, etc.). In some places in the “Ecclesiastical History” one even finds an understanding of the zone close to Philon’s as the life of God himself and the intelligible cosmos (V, introduction, 4, IV, 15, 35, VII, 25, 19, X, 4, 9). Eusebius, obviously, was also familiar with the Gnostic interpretation of aeons as special powerful forces, which together (all 30 aeons together) constitute the expressed fullness of absolute being 162. N.V. Braginskaya, analyzing another work of Eusebius - “Eulogy to Constantine” (325), notes that here the eon has not a temporal, not a spatial, but a personal meaning 163, which was probably influenced by Gnosticism. However, in “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius does not accept such an interpretation, connects it with heresy and directly calls it “blasphemous teaching” (III, 26, 1, IV, 29, 3). Speaking about the specifics of Eusebius’ ideas about eternity, it should be noted that in some cases he uses the term “eternal” (άίδιον) in relation to earthly life before the Second Coming of Christ (111, 10, 5, III, 20, 4, IV, 15, 33, IX, 7, 14, X, 4, 18, X, 4, 49). Between time and eternity, as it seems to us, for Eusebius there is not so much a qualitative difference, as, for example, with Plato, but a quantitative one. As in all “New Testament” literature of the pre-Nicene period, the concept of “eternal” appears in Eusebius as something that was, is and will be forever and ever, that is, in reality it is identified with endless time, time that knows no limit 164. So, Eusebius’s ideas about eternity (αιών), apparently, do not yet constitute a clear, unified, complete teaching. His ideas have the character of transition, a certain duality. Mainly, Eusebius is based on biblical, Old Testament ideas, but at the same time he also relies on the tradition coming from Plato. By combining them, he lays the foundations for the Christian understanding of time and eternity. To denote time, Eusebius also uses another concept καιρός. This term is not new. Its use was characteristic of the Pre-Socratics, and this idea of ​​“kairos” is clearly expressed in the views of Democritus 165. This concept was a common linguistic expression and meant “a time moment necessary and convenient both for recording and characterizing an event, and for its accomplishment” 166 . The concept of kairos—the “auspicious moment,” or critical moment in which one human decision determined all subsequent history—was represented throughout the Greco-Roman world. Greek and Roman historians readily analyzed such turning points 167 . A. Sallust wrapped this popular idea into a generalized theory of the great man and his role in history 168. In ancient literature, καιρός was at the same time like the other side of Fortune (τύχη). The term καιρός often denoted a situation associated with many events that appear to a person as factors of social life external to him, a random coincidence of circumstances. However, researchers note some nuances in the meaning of these words Καιρός, from their point of view, differs from τύχη in that the first was associated with the impact of essential causes on a person and could be taken into account in the process of human activity, while the second required an instant reaction and therefore acted as a blind chance 169. However, in ancient literature these words were often used as synonyms. In the new situation III-IV40; Over the centuries, the fate of these concepts turned out to be different. The concept of καιρός, despite its pagan origin, was adopted by Christian thought. The works of Eusebius of Caesarea clearly show this. Eusebius often uses this concept in the meaning of “convenient moment”, uses the combinations κατά τόν καιρόν (in due time, on occasion, by the way), έπι καιρού (in due time, in a timely manner), έν τω καιρω (in due time), etc. 170. Moreover, the concept of καιρός does not just mean a moment, an insignificant, short period of time, but specifically a convenient moment, a certain situation, a coincidence of circumstances 171. Another, no less popular in ancient literature, the Greek word τύχη (corresponding to the Latin concept fortuna), which had similar meanings “chance”, “lot”, “share”, “fate”, “chance”, was not accepted by Christian thinkers. In Eusebius, it occurs only once in the entire work (IV, 15,18–21) 172. This line was later continued by the second Christian historian Socrates Scholasticus. He used the word καιρός to talk about the accidental in history without introducing those pagan associations that the word τύχη evoked. According to G. Chesnut, this is due to the fact that even in the Hellenistic era, τύχη from an abstract concept turned into a widely known deity, worshiped by many pagans, and καιρός, despite its popularity and even one altar dedicated to it found in Olympia, never developed into a widespread cult 173. Therefore, apparently, the word καιρός did not evoke pagan associations that were undesirable and unacceptable for Christian thinkers. On the contrary, καιρός is often found in the Gospels, alone or as part of the expressions έν τω καιρω τουτω, κατάτόν καιρόν yokeioi, etc. (Τό κατά Ί ωάννηνδ 4, 7, 8, Πράξεις των άγίων άποστόλων 1 7.3 19.7 20.14 17, 19 28, 24 26, Εύαγγέλιον κατά Ματθαίον 16, 4, 21, 34, 21, 41, τό κατά Μάρκον᾿άγιον Εύαγγέλιον 1, 15, 10, 30, 11, 14, τόκατα Λούκαν ᾿άγιον Εύαγέλιον 1, 20, 13, 1, 21, 24, etc.) 174 and could well have been used by Christians where the word τύχη 175 could not appear. In the use of the concept καιρός in III-IV40; centuries, it seems to us, one more feature can be noted, which probably made it possible and even desirable to include this concept in the lexicon of Christian thinkers. The term καιρός, as a rule, is used to describe a situation that has arisen as a result of a random or, in any case, unforeseen combination of many different circumstances, i.e. to describe, in general, a unique situation. If the word καιρός was also used in the system of cyclical perception of time, and more often it marked the background, the condition for the activity of a great personality, now it fits even more organically into the concept of linear time, since it emphasizes the uniqueness, singularity and originality of each more or less significant event in history. This circumstance makes it possible to use the concept of καιρός to describe events that are important from the Christian point of view of the hour of death, for example, the Resurrection, etc. (Euseb Hist Eccles VI, 37, 1, VII, 30, 21). The term καιρός even describes the Nativity of Christ (I, 6, 11). Moreover, in the Christian interpretation, καιρός is not just a random situation, a purely mechanical combination of various circumstances. This situation could turn out to be unexpected, unforeseen for the person himself, but it did not arise by chance, but was conditioned by the entire previous course of historical development. In the conditions of the early Middle Ages, καιρός receives a new interpretation - this is the moment in which the real interaction of human free will and Divine Providence is manifested, the moment of the discovery of God, His intervention in human history. All this makes the concept of καιρός extremely important for Christian thinkers. It should also be noted that in the Greek language there is another concept, the meaning is largely similar to the term καιρός. In the traditional Greek understanding, ώρα is “time of year”, “blooming time of life”, “youth”, “short period of time”, “hour”, “time”, “convenient time”, etc. But in Eusebius it is used quite rarely and, as a rule, in the meaning of “hour” or less often “season” 176. The same tendencies appear to be evident in this. Firstly, ώρα could be associated with pagan goddesses of the seasons and weather and therefore did not receive such distribution in the Middle Ages. Secondly, the original and main meaning of this concept is “season”, “time”, “period”, i.e. ' ώρα means a certain repeating period of time. Thus, it was more associated with the cyclical movement of time and was therefore unacceptable to Christian historical thought. So, an analysis of the vocabulary used by Eusebius of Caesarea in his main work allows us to identify some trends in the formation and development of Christian ideas about time. Consciously or unconsciously, Eusebius already determines the direction of the evolution of ancient concepts, lays the foundations for new, essentially medieval ideas about time, linearity, and the uniqueness of the most important events of history. At the same time, this is not yet a completed concept, clearly declared, firmly defended and based on authorities, such as Augustine’s Eusebius in this regard - a pioneer, intuitively, almost by touch, defining the path. In the work of Eusebius, a departure from ancient historicism is very carefully outlined and new aspects characteristic of the medieval worldview appear. Thus, practically not using the terms κύκλος, περίοδος, he gradually moves away from the cyclical concept of time. He often uses the traditional ancient concept of καιρός, but gives it a completely new meaning. In general, history in the writings of Eusebius takes on a linear, directional and progressive character. However, these achievements in the development of historical thought should not be absolutized, since early medieval ideas about the linearity and progress of the historical movement differ significantly from modern ones. The very concept of progress arose in ancient times. The Greeks used it in two meanings. In the philosophy of the Stoics there was an idea of ​​individual progress, which manifested itself in the field of ethics and was designated by the term προκοπή, which in Latin corresponded to the concept progressus 177. On the other hand, in Greek philosophical and historical thought there are also ideas about social progress, about the forward movement of the entire human society 178. The Hellenistic idea of ​​progress was fully developed and presented by Polybius. For him, historical progress meant the rise of the Roman Empire (I, 12, 7, II, 37, 10, III, 4, 2, X, 47, 12), and both the Stoic concept of προκοπή and another term - συντέλεια - “completion” (II, 37, 10) were used to designate it. In the ideology of the Roman Empire, the idea of ​​progress was expanded to include some additional aspects, for example, the concept of φιλανθρωπία, progress that was the result of Divine Providence - πρόνοια. To early Christianity, which lived in hope of the imminent coming of Christ, the idea of ​​historical progress was alien. However, when eschatological expectations turned out to be in vain and Christian thought had to develop its own concept of history, then, on the one hand, it adopted Jewish chiliastic traditions, on the other, it absorbed Roman ideas that had existed since the time of Polybius, and combined them with the idea of ​​sacred history, changing only some forms and merging the concepts of progress and “end times” 179. The combination of these seemingly disparate elements actually turned out to be possible and was realized, as researchers admit, under Emperor Constantine 180. Later acquiring important significance for the Byzantine understanding of the world and history, it was theoretically substantiated by Eusebius of Caesarea. The first church historian never once uses the ancient concepts of προκοπή or συντέλεια in his work. He, combining these ideas about social and individual development and giving them a new shade, introduces a new concept - οικονομια (divine economy). The picture of human history as a whole and the concept of historical progress is given by Eusebius at the very beginning of his “Ecclesiastical History” (I, 2, 18). Initially, man was not able to understand the Christian teaching, which existed even before the creation of the world, because due to the Fall he has a created essence and leads a life that is not worth living (βίον άβίωτον). But as a result of the divine φιλανθρωπία, piety (θεοσέβεια) gradually flows. Gradually embracing all people, it makes them capable of perceiving divine wisdom, and thereby human society prepares for Salvation, that is, for ascension to the Kingdom of Heaven. However, the prerequisites for further progress were laid with the emergence of the Roman Empire, which united all people under its rule and put a limit to their endless strife and wars among themselves. It is no coincidence that Eusebius emphasizes that “Christ appeared at the beginning of the Roman Empire.” According to researchers, here, when interpreting the divine οίκονομία, the biblical story was combined with ideas inherent in ancient culture, in which the movement of political events comes to the fore, and the main role in history was assigned to the “Roman World” - Pax Romana. Thus, in Eusebius’s inherent understanding of history, progress seemed to have a dual character 181 on the one hand, this is the growth and development of the church, the spiritual growth of humanity, the constant increase in piety, leading humanity to salvation and the establishment of the Kingdom of God, on the other hand, this is political progress, reaching its culmination in the empire of Constantine 182. In the work of Eusebius, these two lines are closely connected. Political peace and stability are perceived as a prerequisite for spiritual revival. Thus, Byzantine historical thought (and Eusebius as its representative) develops an idea of ​​progress that goes back, on the one hand, to Roman imperial ideology, and on the other, to the Christian expectation of salvation. In place of the divine πρόνοια of Hellenistic and Roman philosophy there now appears the οίκονομία of Christ, leading to the salvation of the human race. Eusebius is often blamed for the isolation and finitude of his “History”; it is believed that he paints a picture of a world striving for its culmination and already close to it. In many ways, the development of a hypercritical and generally disdainful attitude of modern researchers towards the works of Eusebius was facilitated by the fact that Eusebius singles out the “coup of Constantine” as one of the key events in history. In fact, the narrative of the Bishop of Caesarea ends with the glorification of the Christian power of Constantine. This circumstance gives researchers reason to reproach Eusebius not only for flattery, but also for inconsistency, anti-historicism, etc. F. Winkelmann, for example, writes that for Eusebius the goal of the historical process was a return to the original absolute dominance and recognition of the Logos. “In his account of church history, the victory of the church is the end of the account. In Book X it seems that the goal of the development of sacred history, namely the establishment of the earthly kingdom of God, has now been realized” 183. However, these accusations are unlikely to be fair. Indeed, Eusebius’s scheme of historical development is more optimistic than Augustine’s, and in the reign of Constantine he saw almost the Kingdom of God on earth. However, in our opinion, everything should not be explained by the flattery of the court bishop Eusebius, who survived persecution and experienced all the disasters, and then suddenly witnessed the establishment of Christianity as the state religion, the restoration of the power of the church and the patronage of the emperor for Christians, was naturally amazed and sincerely believed that he had witnessed the fulfillment of prophecies and the triumph of divine truth (X, 1, 6–7, X, 3, 2). That is why he attaches such importance to this event, seeing in it not the end of history, but a harbinger of the coming Kingdom of God. The completion of Christian history, according to Eusebius, should be the Second Coming and the establishment of the Kingdom of Heaven 184 (X, 4, 46, X· 9–8). And in these expectations, Eusebius is not much different from all other Christian authors. The story of Augustine is essentially just as closed. The end of it is also the Second Coming and the Last Judgment, which will not have long to wait. The world has reached the age of decrepitude and is already on the verge of destruction, on the threshold of death 185 (De civitate Dei, XXII, 30). Thus, the scheme is essentially the same, but in Eusebius and Augustine it has a different emotional connotation. The indicated “shortcomings,” therefore, were inherent not only to the Bishop of Caesarea, but also to the recognized founder of Christian philosophy of history, Augustine, and the entire Christian worldview until the 13th century 186. To a greater or lesser extent, this closed pattern of historical development was characteristic of all early medieval authors. The fundamental difference, apparently, lay in how each of them assessed contemporary reality. As a rule, attention is drawn to the difference in psychological assessments by Eusebius and Augustine of the course of human history. It is noted that Eusebius’s work (and therefore history) ends with a panegyric to Emperor Constantine, while Augustine’s does not. If Eusebius believed that everything was fulfilled with him, before his eyes, that humanity was ready to accept Divine truth and be saved, then Augustine did not allow the possibility of salvation in this earthly life. The standard conclusion is usually drawn from this observation. Eusebius is essentially an intriguer and a flattering courtier, deliberately distorting facts, or a theologian, far from real events, but not a historian. In any case, on the basis of such mental constructions, often unjustified, a generally negative and disdainful attitude towards Eusebius and his works is formed. In our opinion, the author’s optimistic or pessimistic mood is explained not so much by any personal motives and qualities of the author, but by the general psychological atmosphere that developed by the 3rd-4th centuries in the west or east of the former Roman Empire. Western Europe, which experienced terrible barbarian invasions, famine, ruin, lived with a constant feeling of political instability and the impending End of the World. Byzantium, the eastern part of the Roman Empire, which withstood the onslaught barbarians, who witnessed the establishment of peace and order in society, associated the establishment of harmony and peace with the triumph of Christianity and lived with a sense of stability and future exaltation. In addition, it is unlikely that the author’s psychological mood changes the general idea of ​​the course of history, of its main core. The idea that it is in the spiritual sphere that one should look for the meaning and explanation of everything that happens is characteristic of almost all historians of the early and classical Middle Ages. The second accusation that is traditionally leveled at Eusebius is that he pays too little attention to the events of the political life of the empire. It is usually noted that in the writings of Eusebius, political progress is subordinated to theological progress. Eusebius is mainly interested in sacred history, the history of salvation 187. This fact makes some researchers even doubt whether Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History is real history. The main drawback of his work, in their opinion, is the author’s insufficient attention to social, political and economic factors in the life of the Roman world and the Christian Church. Within this story, Eusebius asserts a moral order 188 . This feature is also regarded by modern researchers as a disadvantage. “Eusebius’s crude moralistic judgments about people and events keep him from understanding the past, as well as present times. He is too apt to find in the historical process the punishments of God, inflicted to justify the saints and destroy sinners." 189 As for earthly history, progress in it is very conditional. Although Eusebius speaks once about the development of laws, a sedentary way of life, government, the development of art and sciences, civilization, etc. (I, 2, 18–21), nevertheless, the main meaning of history for Eusebius lies in the spiritual development of humanity, in its “education for Salvation” However, these “shortcomings” are inherent not only in the works of Eusebius and are apparently explained not so much by the personal qualities of the author (his Christian religion, narrow-mindedness or dishonesty), but by the peculiarities of the worldview of that era. These same features are also present in the works of other early medieval historians. “In the 4th century,” the researchers emphasize, “there was not a single serious attempt to create a Christian version, so to speak, of Thucydides or Tacitus. No reinterpretation of ordinary military, political or diplomatic history in Christian terms has been created or even attempted. Lactantius is probably the only Christian author who dealt with social and political events, but even he cannot be compared with the annalist Ammianus Marcellinus, for example” 190. In our opinion, these changes reflect not so much a general decline in the level of historiography or the “shortcomings” of individual authors, as is commonly believed, but rather a transformation of the mechanism of formation of historical memory. Eusebius omits many facts of economic, political and social history not out of ignorance or malicious intent, but for him (and his readers, obviously) they were not of paramount importance. He places emphasis differently, sees the meaning and main line of human history differently, and builds his material in accordance with these basic ideas. In the understanding of early medieval authors, it is obvious that the progress of mankind was determined to a greater extent by Divine intervention, and to a much lesser extent by political unification or any other factors of a political order. Even in the perception of time in the III-IV centuries. a common feature is clearly visible - religiosity of consciousness. Time and history itself are now endowed with sacred significance. Time is necessary for the manifestation of God’s mercy, for the growth of the “City of God”, for the full disclosure of Providence - an ever more complete knowledge of the Almighty through His works. In a word, time is necessary for the “education” of the human race 191 . As for history as a science, at the turn of the 3rd-4th centuries the subject of its description, semantic accents, way of explaining events, etc. changed significantly. The point here, apparently, is not the affiliation of a particular author to the Christian church or his religion, but a radical transformation of the entire system of worldview. The history of the church is gradually coming to the fore. Even secular authors put church history at the center of all history 192. True, it is understood in a rather unique way. This is not the history of the church organization and not the history of the formation of its institutions, it is not even the history of the development of Christian teaching. It is understood as the core, as the main line of all human history from the Creation of the world to the end of human existence. It is she who reveals the meaning and the main direction of movement of all events - this is the history of the education of humanity towards its Salvation. So, the concept of progress, if it can be applied at all to the historical consciousness of the Middle Ages, had its own characteristics. Firstly, it extended, first of all, to spiritual life: in the course of history, people come closer to the knowledge of God, imbued with his truth. In earthly life, the spread and establishment of divine truth corresponds to the establishment of peace and prosperity (Augustim. De Civitate Dei, XVII, 13; XV, 4; Euseb. Hist. Eccles., I, 2, 22, VIII, 13, 9). Secondly, the progress recognized by teleological philosophy is not unlimited. History moves towards a predetermined goal and is therefore oriented towards a certain limit. The finiteness of the historical perspective, the closedness of history and, in many ways, the prediction of this end constitute another feature of the understanding of progress on the threshold of the Middle Ages. It is also, to a greater or lesser extent, characteristic of all early medieval authors. Another feature that is clearly manifested in the works of Eusebius is the author’s great attention to the problems of chronology. Historical scholarship has repeatedly expressed the opinion that Byzantine historiography was characterized by “a lack of interest in and neglect of chronology,” which is associated with “the didactic principles of Byzantine historiography and the tendency toward generalization observed in Byzantine literature. The good or bad deeds of historical figures were supposed to serve as positive or negative examples to follow; from this point of view, the exact indication of time did not play a special role” 193. Early Byzantine historians are accused of the fact that their works contain few specific dates and many events are introduced by rather vague formulas such as “while”, “some time later”, “shortly before”, etc. In any case, it is argued that the accuracy of chronology was not of paramount importance for Byzantine authors. However, it is unlikely that such characteristics can be attributed to all Byzantine historiography. Such “indifference to time” was more likely characteristic of Western historians and chroniclers 194 or secular historians of early Byzantium 195 . Early Byzantine church historiography. on the contrary, it is distinguished by the authors’ close attention to issues of historical chronology. A striking example of this is the writings of the first Christian historian Eusebius of Caesarea. He pays quite a lot of attention to issues of chronology. And although in his “Church History” there are also few specific dates, he often designates the time of any event according to the reign of the emperors, “in the twelfth year of the reign of Nero” (II, 26), “in the second year of the reign of Vespasian” (III, 73), etc. Without naming specific dates, Eusebius nevertheless carefully builds the lines of imperial and episcopal succession and inheritance. In all likelihood, this feature was associated with objective difficulties in calculating time. It was quite difficult to indicate a specific date for any event, since there was no single, universally accepted chronology system and no single point of reference for time. Incredible inconsistency reigned in the chronology of that time. There were different chronological systems and eras, different methods of chronology, which were difficult to bring together and harmonize with each other. In addition, for Christian historiography it was extremely important to create not just some kind of “average” chronology, equivalent to all previously existing chronology systems. Christian authors needed to create their own chronology, reflecting a new understanding of historical time and their own, Christian concept of history. The old systems that existed before no longer met the new requirements, since all nations used different time systems associated with local events. Christian historiography introduced the principle of unity and universality of history. Accordingly, it required a unified chronology, which, moreover, would have as its starting point not the founding of the city of Rome and not the accession to the throne of Seleucus, etc., but the activity of Christ, the founder of this teaching. Christian chronographs were intended to summarize a history that converts could claim as their own. Moreover, Christianity from the very beginning acted as a largely historical religion. The truth of her teaching was made dependent and justified by the authenticity and historicity of events from the life of Christ. Inaccuracies in chronology and doubts about the reliability of this or that fact undermined the foundations of religion. Therefore, the attention of Christian authors, including Eusebius of Caesarea, to chronology is not accidental. The question of dating this or that event, the problem of chronology in general, is extremely important for Christian writers. So, church historiography of the 3rd-4th centuries faced acute problems related to chronological calculations. Firstly, it was important to show the world-historical process in a strictly chronological sequence in accordance with the biblical concept of world history and the data of ancient authors. The given lists of emperors and bishops, successively replacing each other, were supposed to help the author in solving this problem. Secondly, it was necessary to correlate all the most important historical dates with Old Testament events and facts from the life of Christ, in other words, to give chronological calculations a special sacred significance. Third, a new starting point for this universal human history was needed. None of the chronology systems that existed at that time met these requirements. Each represented either only Roman history, or Jewish, or Syrian, etc., but not world history. Eusebius was well aware of the need to streamline chronology and tried to solve this problem. He needs the duration and sequence of events to calculate time and establish chronology. In his “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius most often correlates events with the years of the reign of one or another Roman emperor (I. 5, 2, II, 4, 16, 11.25–26, IV, 1, IV, 5, 5, IV, 6, 3, IV, 10.7, IV, 11.6, IV, 14, 10, V, introduction, V, 12, 1, V, 22, 1, V, 26, 1, V, 28, 7, VI, 2, 2, VI, 7, VI, 8, 7, VI, 1, 1, VI, 28, VI, 29, 1, VI, 35, VI, 39, 1, VII, 1–2, VII, 10, VII, 27, 1, VII, 28, 3, VII, 30, 2, VIII, 2, 4). Sometimes he uses events from Jewish history as a reference point in time, for example the capture of Jerusalem (III 11, 1, 111, 12, 1.) Where he quotes Syrian sources, the dates are given according to the Seleucid era (I, 13, 22). In addition to this specific, narrowly applied task, Eusebius sets himself a more ambitious goal. He tries to harmonize with each other all the diverse chronological systems that existed at that time. One of his works, “Chronicle” 196, is specifically devoted to this problem. “He appears to have been the first to use the convenient method of presenting the chronologies of different nations in parallel columns. No earlier chronographs seem to have used this design, although it is often attributed to Castor or Julius Africanus"197. Even in his “Ecclesiastical History,” without specifically considering issues of chronology, Eusebius tries to harmonize dates among themselves, especially when it comes to any important events in the life of Christ. Thus, he tries to determine the time of the Nativity of Christ “It was the forty-second year of the reign of Augustus and the twenty-eighth since the conquest of Egypt and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra, which ended the Egyptian Ptolemaic dynasty, when, according to the prophecies about Him, in Bethlehem of Judea, during the first census during the reign of Quirinius of Syria, our Savior and Master Jesus Christ was born” (I, 5, 2). The author also accurately calculates the time of the baptism of Jesus Christ and the beginning of his activity. “Then, according to the evangelist, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Caesar Tiberius and in the fourth year of Pilate’s rule of Judea, when the tetrarchs of the rest of Judea were Herod, Lysanias and Philip, our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, in the thirteenth year of his life came to be baptized by John and laid the foundation for the gospel” (I, 10, 1). Thus, Eusebius is trying to bring different chronological systems into one, to coordinate the reign of the Roman emperors, the rulers of Egypt, Syria, Judea and connect it with the main milestones from the life of Christ. The introduction of a new system of counting time, the era from the Nativity of Christ, is traditionally associated with the name of Dionysius the Lesser Dionysius lived in the first half of the 6th century in Rome and served as an archivist - secretary to Pope John I. One of Dionysius’s works, which does not have an author’s title, is now conventionally called “Easter Table” 198. It was in this work that Dionysius first used the era 199 which is now used by a significant part of humanity. It is curious that when introducing a new principle of chronology, Dionysius does not explain in any way what he was guided by in his calculations. Probably, when compiling new Easter tables, he did not resort to independent calculations, but only used the system that by that time had already been established in the minds of Christians. Much preparatory work to calculate and harmonize various chronological data was carried out long before the 6th century. The beginning of Christian, church chronography apparently dates back to the 2nd century. Painstaking preparatory work in Christian chronology was carried out by Clement of Alexandria, Sextus Julius Africanus, Hippolytus of Rome and other Christian authors 200. They converted Hellenistic chronography into Christian science and supplemented the list of kings and officials of the pagan world with a list of bishops of the most important dioceses. They presented an easy-to-understand scheme for saving humanity 201 . Eusebius combines all the achievements of his predecessors and gives not just a diagram, but connects it with actual human history. He poses problems for historians that will be resolved in Byzantine historiography only three centuries later - in the “Easter Chronicle” of the 7th century, which “reflected in a concentrated form all the achievements of Christian historical science” 202. The Gospel texts do not provide any reliable basis for determining the date of the Nativity of Christ. Each of the possible versions is accompanied by various reservations, assumptions, assumptions, etc. and, in addition, conflicts with others 203. It is no coincidence that the Christian historian strives for complete certainty and clarity in the genealogy of Christ. It is necessary “to establish the accuracy of dates” (I, 6, 11). That is why Eusebius takes the question of His genealogy so seriously. He tries to reconcile the stories of the evangelists and resolve the contradictions that arise. He cites a letter from Julius Africanus, specifically devoted to the harmonization of the evangelical genealogies, and, referring to his authority, concludes that the contradictions encountered among the evangelists are apparent. Eusebius suggests that the ancients had two systems of numbering genealogies in one Gospel, counting is carried out by nature, and in the second, by law (I, 7.2). He writes: “The names of generations in Israel were calculated either by nature, or by law by nature, when there was a succession of legitimate sons, by law, when, after the death of a childless brother, his brother gave his child the name of the deceased. Therefore, of the persons mentioned in this genealogy, some were the legitimate heirs of their fathers by nature, while others were born by one father, but by name belonged to another. They mentioned both those and others, both actual fathers and those who were, as it were, fathers. Thus, neither one nor the other Gospel is mistaken in numbering the names by nature and by law. The descendants of Solomon and Nathan were so intertwined with each other due to the “resurrection” of childless people, second marriages and “restoration of the seed” that the same persons could rightly be considered the children of both their imaginary and real fathers” (I, 7, 2–4). This proves the truth of the Gospels and establishes a unified calculation of time. The disappointing conclusion about the uselessness of the Gospel information in determining the date of Christmas could not satisfy educated supporters of Christianity. Already in the first centuries of the existence of this religion, Christian scientists tried to clarify the most important date in their history, using for this not only the information of the New Testament, but also some oral traditions and their own chronological calculations. Unlike their evangelical predecessors, early Byzantine writers tried to designate the time of Christmas with a specific year. One of the first, if not the very first, among early Christian authors to try to accurately date Christmas was the bishop of the Christian community in Lyon, Irenaeus (second half of the 2nd century). Apparently, his works were highly respected in other places where Christians lived, and were copied and reread with respect. In one of his works - in “Proofs of the Apostolic Preaching” - Irenaeus dates the Nativity of Christ to the 751st year from the founding of Rome (or 3rd year BC). It is unclear, however, whether he borrowed this date from some sources or calculated it himself (often quoting the Gospel of Luke). However, this dating was not accepted by everyone. Two other famous authors of this time give a different date. Clement of Alexandria dates the birth of Christ to the 752nd year from the founding of Rome. The same year was also recognized by one of Irenaeus’ closest followers, Bishop of the Roman community Hippolytus. The version of Clement and Hippolytus became popular and was repeated in several Christian works of the 3rd-4th centuries. However, neither Clement nor Hippolytus provide any argumentation in favor of their chosen date and no calculations 204. The first special historical and chronological work in the history of Christian literature, “Chronography,” belongs to the 3rd century author Sextus Julius Africanus. When determining the year of the Nativity of Christ, Julius was guided by the testimony of the Gospel of Matthew and determined it from the death of Herod the Great. The works of Josephus were unknown to the author of the Chronography, and therefore he resorted to translating some ancient Greek list of winners of the Olympic Games, where some historical events were indicated. According to Julius' calculations, it turned out that Herod died in the fourth year of the 194th Olympiad, and Christmas was two years earlier, i.e., in the second year of the 194th Olympiad (i.e., in the 2nd year BC). It turns out that Julius Africanus came to the same conclusion as Irenaeus, Clement and Hippolytus, but for him this date was not borrowed from some apocryphal texts, but was entirely based on special chronological calculations. The “Chronography” of Sextus Julius Africanus marked the beginning of the development of the Christian chronological school, specializing in calculating the dates of the most important events in Christian history 205. This tradition was continued at the end of the 3rd - beginning of the 4th century by the first church historian Eusebius Pamphilus. Like Sextus Julius Africanus, Eusebius used written sources to base the calculations of his Chronicle. The first of these was the Old Testament, from where Eusebius took information about the life expectancy of biblical heroes. He considered the earliest reliable date of Old Testament history to be the year of birth of the founder of “God’s chosen people” Abraham (2016 BC). It was from her that he made further calculations. Eusebius calculated the chronology of Sacred history, relying not only on the Bible, but also on information from ancient authors, in particular, he used some kind of “Canon” (chronological table (?)) of a Greek writer of the 1st century BC. e. Castor of Rhodes, where the events of the history of the entire ancient world were dated in the years of the Olympic era. Ultimately, Eusebius’ Christmas Day fell in 2015 after Abraham (i.e., 2 BC). Thus, the calculations of the Chronicle strikingly coincided with the results of the Chronography of Julius Africanus. However, perhaps this was explained by the fact that both Julius and Eusebius borrowed the chronology of the last centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ from similar sources. In any case, the authority of these two computists also influenced later ideas about the time of the Nativity of Christ. Thus, the famous writer of the late 4th - early 5th centuries, Jerome, the creator of the Latin translation of the Bible, completely accepted the chronological scheme of Eusebius. It is precisely this that is recorded in the Catholic Bible 206. However, Eusebius not only calculates the date of the Nativity of Christ and places it on a par with other events, but for Eusebius, the Nativity of Christ becomes the organizing principle of all history. Among all the events of sacred significance, Eusebius especially highlights the Nativity of Christ. Starting his narrative, he writes, “Let us begin with the appearance of our incarnate Savior,” and then, summing up all of the above, he continues, “In previous books we have established the order of succession from the birth of the Savior to the destruction of houses of worship, that is, for 305 years” (VII, 32, 32) Thus, the Nativity of Christ is put forward by Eusebius as a key event in history and the organizing moment of a new, Christian chronology. From this time on, the Nativity of Christ becomes the point relative to which the dates of all other events are calculated. Another possible option was to introduce the era from the creation of the world. However, it turned out to be almost impossible to more or less accurately calculate this date. Sextus Julius Africanus tried to determine not only the year of Christmas, but also the time interval that separated this event from another most important incident in church history, from the creation of the world by God the Father. Julius Africanus determined this interval at 5500 years, relying on the words of the Council Epistle of the Apostle Peter, “With the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Pet 3:2). From here the following proportion was derived: how many days did the Creation of the world last, how many thousands of years did this world exist before the Nativity of the Son of God? True, the time interval between the Creation of the world and the Nativity of Christ was not determined equally by all Christian authors. The Church Fathers and church writers for the most part “unanimously placed the Birth of the Savior in the sixth thousand years from the Creation of the world.” But the exact date of this event caused a lot of disagreement among church researchers of that time. Theophilus of Antioch, for example, dates the Nativity of Christ to 5515 or 5507 from the creation of the world, Clement of Alexandria - to 5472 or 5624, St. Hippolytus - by 5500, Sextus Julius Africanus, who devoted much work to the study of the sacred chronology - also by 5500, Eusebius in his “Chronicle” counts 5199 years between Christmas and Creation. In the 6th century, Dionysius the Lesser will adhere to the number 5501. Subsequently, the Russian Orthodox Church will accept the chronology of Dionysius the Lesser and will count 5500 years from the creation of the world to the Nativity of Christ. “The Westerners, from the 5th century, began to follow the “Chronicle” of Eusebius, with which Blessed Jerome introduced them. Thus, Pavel Orosius, disciple of Blessed. Augustine, counted in his history of the world 5199 years before the birth of Christ. Since that time, Western chroniclers have abandoned their independent study of biblical chronology. Relying on Eusebius and Jerome, they only continued the “Chronicle” of Eusebius. These are Tyrone Prosper the Aquitaine, Idatius and Comite Marcellinus. The works of Prosper, in turn, were continued by Victor, the Bishop of Tunis, the Spaniard John Biclaro and Bishop Marius. All of them followed the chronology of Eusebius from the Creation of the world to the Nativity of Christ. Isidore of Seville, in turn, continued the “Chronicle” of Victor of Tunisia until the year 627. The chronology is also in it of Eusebius” 207. Thus, early Byzantine church historiography pays great attention to the problems of chronology. They are extremely important for all Christian authors. Eusebius is far from the first in a long line of computists, but he made a significant contribution to the development of this issue. He presented world history in strict chronological order. In addition, he came close to replacing numerous and sometimes random methods of chronology with a single time, sanctified by the Christian tradition. Finally, Eusebius in his writings introduces the Nativity of Christ as the organizing principle of all history, thereby preparing the introduction of a new system of time counting - the era from the Nativity of Christ. In general, many of Eusebius’s ideas, having been continued and developed in the East and West, determined the principles of medieval historiography for a long time. For Augustine, many of these innovations are already familiar, and therefore he can afford some harshness and persistence in defending them. In the works of Eusebius (which is more valuable), they are still just being formed, isolated from a heterogeneous mass of contradictory ideas and concepts. His work as a whole reflects an active creative process in which basic ideas characteristic of a new era are formed. At the same time, Eusebius does not build his work on the denial of everything old associated with the pagan world, which could be expected from a Christian bishop. In his work there is no sharpness, no conscious opposition of his views to the entire previous tradition. He actively uses the ancient and biblical heritage, traditional ideas, operates with the usual categories of consciousness, but at the same time, his work testifies to the global transformation of the entire system of ideas about the world and history. One of the mechanisms for the formation of a new type of worldview is a very soft, unobtrusive rethinking of traditional categories. Eusebius uses neutral concepts instead of evaluative ones or endows neutral concepts with a Christian assessment. But the results of this rethinking were more than significant. § 3. ETHNO-GEOGRAPHICAL SPACE IN EUSEBIUS OF CAESARIA The writings of the Bishop of Caesarea also testify to a deep rethinking of spatial categories, a change in the perception of geographical space, and a fundamentally different attitude to the world compared to antiquity. To designate the entire world as a whole, the universe, the entire world space, he uses the familiar Greek term κόσμος as the most general concept. This word has many meanings. It can mean attire, decoration, glory, order (including military or state), structure and, finally, peace and the universe 208. This concept was first extended to the world structure by Pythagoras or Parmenides 209, according to other sources - by Anaximander or Empedocles. 210 It was in this meaning (“world”, “universe”) that κόσμος became one of the most important categories of the ancient worldview 211 . In Greek mythology and philosophy, the cosmos is a world order, a world whole, which, unlike chaos, is not only ordered, but also beautiful due to the harmony reigning in it 212. The concept of the cosmos included a divinely established order to which the earth, the sun, and the heavenly bodies were subordinated. Man, nature, and even “the sensible God” (Plato Timaeus 92 C) were also imagined as parts of this single, all-encompassing cosmos. In the vocabulary of Eusebius, the term κόσμος and words with the same root occupy a fairly large place. He used it at least 50 times in his Ecclesiastical History. However, here κόσμος takes on a slightly different meaning. For Eusebius, κόσμος is rather a populated, human world. This is the world of people, “all who have lived before and are now living” (I, 3, 19, 1, 13, 20, VII, 13 2, etc.), a world in which Christians live and act (I, 3, 12, 11, 2, 6), churches (V, 7, 5, VI, 43, 20), brotherhoods (V, 19.2, etc.) and other people for the sake of salvation whom Christ suffered (IV, 15, 41). Along with the concept κόσμος, Eusebius uses the word ή οίκουμένη (γη) 213 The meanings of these words usually coincide. This is the inhabited or inhabited earth, the universe. In fact, this is the entire land known to the Greeks by that time, as if the Greek analogue of the Latin concept Orbis Romanus. Both κόσμος and ο ’ ικουμένη cover approximately the same space, the same territory. In most cases, in Eusebius they are synonymous and replace each other. However, κόσμος also has an evaluative meaning. Everything “cosmic” (κοσμικός) now takes on a different meaning: “earthly”, “worldly”, “secular”. Now this category includes earthly rulers (V, 17, 5, X, 4, 16), worldly power (VII, 30, 19), worldly leaders (VII, 30, 8–9), worldly glory (VII, 11, 18), secular sciences (VI, 18, 4), earthly goods, etc. Moreover, comparing Revelation and the Gospel of John, Eusebius writes that both works are united by one common thought - “the exposure of the world, the devil, the Antichrist” (VII, 25, 21). Thus, Eusebius places the world on the same level as the devil. Obviously, this world (κόσμος) is an earthly world, sinful, imperfect and therefore obviously receives a negative assessment. In Book III (III, 20, 4) κόσμος is directly opposed to the Kingdom of God. “When asked about Christ and His Kingdom, what it is, where and when it will appear, they [the Christian martyrs – I B] answered that it is not of the world (κόσμος) and will not be on earth, but in heaven with the angels and will appear at the consummation of the age, when Christ, having come in glory, will judge the living and the dead and will reward everyone for his life.” Thus, in the minds of Eusebius, ordinary Christians, and then medieval thinkers and historians, κόσμος is the earthly world, the kingdom of sinners, which is opposed to Christ’s Heavenly Kingdom and is associated with the devil. Thus, the concept of “cosmos” changes its meaning during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages: “If the world in the ancient perception is holistic and harmonious, then in the perception of the people of the Middle Ages it is dualistic. The ancient cosmos - the beauty of nature, its order and dignity - in the Christian interpretation lost some of its qualities, this concept began to be applied mainly only to the human world and no longer carried a high ethical and aesthetic assessment. The world of Christianity is no longer “beauty,” for it is sinful and subject to God’s judgment” 214. The very category of earthly life acquires an evaluative meaning; it is opposed to heavenly life. Already in Eusebius, the opposition “earth” – “heaven”, characteristic of the entire medieval system of thinking, is outlined. Κόσμος no longer includes the sky, but is opposed to it. And earthly life acquires a religious and moral significance that is not characteristic of modern geographical concepts. These same ideas begin to be transferred to geographical concepts; in general, certain lands are perceived as righteous or sinful. The geographical scope of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History is very wide. This is one of the most important features of this work. Eusebius’ understanding of space expands to a world-historical scale. Unlike ancient historiography, Eusebius considers not only the Greco-Roman world, but the history of all countries and peoples known at that time. Eusebius’ “History” covers Rome and Italy, Egypt, Judea, Persia, Syria, Coelesyria. Asia, Phrygia, Cilicia, Cappadocia. Caesarea, Phenicia, Palestine, Bithynia, Mesopotamia, Pontus, Greece and the islands. Sometimes Eusebius himself designates the geographical scope of his narrative “from Jerusalem to Illyricum” (II, 18, III, 1, III, 4, etc.) These are the lands on which the most important events for the Christian historian of that era unfold, the lands about which Eusebius knew most. However, it is not limited only to this area. The thought of the Christian historian covers Gaul (V, 1, V, 5), Carthage (VII, 7), Sicily, Africa (VI, 43, 3), Libya (VII, 11), Numidia, Mauritania (X, 6, 1), Armenia (VI, 46, 2), Parthia, Scythia (VII, 5, 1–2), Assyria, even India (V, 10) and Ethiopia (II, 1, 3). He knows different peoples, not only the Romans, Hellenes, Jews, but also the Germans, Sarmatians, Scythians, Macedonians and even Ethiopians. Thus, Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” covers mainly the lands that were part of the Roman Empire in the 3rd-4th centuries, neighboring countries with which Rome had to deal, and even very remote areas. In essence, this is world, universal history. The very idea of ​​writing a general history does not belong to Eusebius. By that time, it was no longer new. The work of Herodotus was distinguished by universalism, and not only the Greeks and Persians, but also many other peoples of the ecumene came into his field of vision. The goal of Herodotus’ history (to preserve from oblivion everything that was done by people) allowed him to talk about all the peoples of the earth without exception, but at the same time deprived the work of some unity. By and large, this is a series of coherent stories 216 that provide rich geographical, cultural, historical, and ethnographic material, but not a holistic world history, subject to a single meaning and patterns. The first “universal history” in the full sense is generally accepted to have been created by Ephorus in the 4th century BC. e. Ephorus described the history not of individual cities, but of the entire Greek world, including the western and eastern colonies. However, only fragments of his work have survived; we can judge about it only on the basis of these fragments and references to this work by other authors, so it is quite difficult to say anything definite about it. In all likelihood, this was the history of the Greek world, and other countries and peoples did not come into the author’s field of vision 217. The creation of a classic work in the genre of “universal history” is usually associated with the name of Polybius 218. He made an attempt to write a world history that should cover the entire cultural world accessible to his horizons. His “History” is subordinated to a single idea. Polybius is interested, first of all, in questions. “How and under what social institutions almost the entire known world fell under the single power of the Romans in less than fifty-three years (1, 1, 5), how the Romans subjugated to their power almost the entire known world, and not just any parts of it, and raised their power to such a height that was unthinkable for their ancestors and will not be surpassed by their descendants” (I, 2, 7) 219. However, in reality, Polybius sets out the history of the Hellenistic states, the history of the Mediterranean countries. In addition, the main idea that permeates the entire work of Polybius is Roman domination and Roman exclusivity. Other countries and peoples are only a background against which the superiority and power of the Romans is more clearly demonstrated. The work of Eusebius of Caesarea was created at the turn of two eras. Accordingly, it continues many traditions of ancient historiography and at the same time embodies some new, Christian ideas. Eusebius of Caesarea, on the one hand, turns out to be the heir of Polybius, and on the other, in many ways opposes him. Eusebius perfectly understands the advantage of universal history, which Polybius pointed out: “it allows us to understand the general and natural course of events and the dependence of one event on another, and that intermediate events, with all their multiplicity and diversity, in their totality lead to the same goal” (111, 32, VII, 4, 2). But these goals, in the understanding of Polybius and Eusebius, are different for the first - the world domination of the Romans, for the second - the triumph of Christianity. It is hardly possible to put these two works on the same level. These works differ greatly in their nature, purpose, methods and principles of description, etc. Although chronologically the creation of Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” also belongs to the period of antiquity (albeit later), it is still the creation of a different era. It is fundamentally different from the work of Polybius and all ancient historiography. Eusebius’s spatial, geographical horizons are much broader. It concerns not only the peoples subject to Rome and included in the empire, but inhabiting the entire then-known ecumene. In the third book of his “History,” polemicizing with Josephus, he writes, “In the Holy Scriptures there is a prediction that just at this time a certain fellow countryman of theirs will rule the world. He himself believes that it was fulfilled on Vespasian, but Vespasian did not rule the whole world, but only that part that was owned by the Romans. It would be more correct to attribute this prophecy to Christ.” Thus, Eusebius is well aware that the world is not limited only to the borders of the Roman Empire. However, the novelty of Eusebius’s idea and its fundamental difference from the approach of ancient authors lies not only and not so much in the breadth of geographical coverage, although this in itself is important, but in his theoretical understanding of the unity of this space. Polybius at the very beginning of his work defines the purpose of his work to show “how and under what social institutions almost the entire known world fell under the unified rule of the Romans for less than 53 years (III, 1, 5), as The Romans conquered almost the entire known world and raised their power to such a height that was unthinkable for their ancestors and will not be surpassed by their descendants” (I, 2, 7). The main idea that permeates the entire work of Polybius is Roman dominance and exclusivity. Other countries and peoples are only a background against which the superiority and power of the Romans is more clearly demonstrated. Eusebius considers the whole world as a whole, all peoples of the ecumene. He breaks the polis isolation of the Greeks, abandons the idea of ​​Roman exclusivity inherent in ancient historical thought 220. He puts the Romans, Hellenes, and barbarians on the same level and repeatedly emphasizes the equality of “all earthly tribes.” He divides humanity not according to territorial or ethnic principles, which was typical of the ideas of antiquity, but according to religious (confessional) affiliation. Instead of the traditional ancient division of people into Hellenes and Romans, on the one hand, and “barbarians”, on the other, he formulates a new principle of contrasting peoples - depending on religion - and accordingly divides humanity into Christians and non-Christians. Accordingly, Eusebius, following tradition, changes the meaning of the concept of “barbarians”, “barbarian”, which previously had an exclusively negative connotation, and uses these familiar ancient categories several times. Thus, in the sixth book of “Ecclesiastical History” Eusebius mentions “barbarian Saracens on the Arabian Mountain” (VI, 42, 3). In the seventh book he reports that “Emperor Valerian was enslaved by the barbarians” 221 (VII, 13, 1). Then, characterizing the heretic Manes and painting his image in black colors, Eusebius calls him “a barbarian in language and disposition” (VII, 31.1). And finally, describing the reign of Emperor Maxentius, he reports that “thousands of Romans were killed not by Scythians and barbarians, but by the spears and weapons of their own fellow citizens” (VIII, 14, 3). It is interesting that in this passage the barbarians are contrasted not only with the Romans; this category (barbarians) also does not include the Scythians. The principle of contrasting the barbarians with the Romans, obviously, was firmly rooted in the consciousness of the people of that era, and Eusebius, by inertia, continues to use these categories. However, new shades appear in the meaning of familiar words. The concept of “barbarian” no longer indicates, as clearly as before, ethnicity or geography of settlement. It acquires rather an emotional connotation, receives an evaluative meaning close to the modern one, and becomes synonymous with the concepts of “ignorant”, “rude”, “wild”, “cruel”. Thus, the execution scene, carried out by order of the Roman emperor Licinius, when the bodies were cut with a sword, is called a “barbaric spectacle” (X, 8, 17). Finally, praising Christ, Eusebius asks a rhetorical question: “What king, having given such wise and pious laws, was able to sufficiently familiarize all people with them so that they were heard from the ends of the earth to the ends of the universe? Whose meek and philanthropic laws changed the barbaric and rude customs of savage peoples? Who placed not in some forgotten corner of the earth, but throughout the entire sunflower, a people that had not been heard of for centuries? (X, 4, 17–19). Thus, the “barbaric and rude morals of savage peoples” apparently also include the acts of the Roman emperors: persecution against Christians, persecution, executions, etc. Accordingly, “barbaric and rude morals” are contrasted with “meek and philanthropic laws.” It is obvious that the concept of “barbaric” becomes not so much an ethnocultural category as an ethical category. In addition, while continuing to use the categories “Hellenes”, “Romans” and “barbarians”, which were familiar to ancient historiography, Eusebius does not contrast them with each other, as tradition required, but, on the contrary, puts them side by side, together, thereby uniting them into one whole. Very often, wanting to show the prevalence of a phenomenon throughout the earth, among all peoples, Eusebius uses the cliche “to all people, Hellenes and barbarians” (VIII, 1, 1), “and Hellas and barbarians” (II, 17, 7), “and Hellenes and barbarians” (I, 3, 19, III, 6, 20, VI, 13, 5, VIII, 6, 1, X, 4, 20). Both those and others are completely equal in rights for Eusebius. Speaking about the peoples of the earth, Eusebius especially singles out, in our opinion, not so much the Hellenes or barbarians, but the Jews (II, 23, 18–19 et seq.). The historian’s attitude towards them is ambivalent. On the one hand, he emphasizes that many of the ascetics revered by Christians were “from the Jews” (II, 17, 2 et seq.), that some of the Jews “became real zealots of the new faith and, after testing, were able to become shepherds of the churches founded by them” (III, 4, 3), or even, speaking about all the peoples of the earth, uses the expression “all the tribes [of Israel - I B], and with them the pagans” (II, 23, 11) and thereby especially distinguishes Orthodox Jews from other tribes and peoples - pagans. He notes with respect that “Moses and the Jewish people are older than the ancient Hellenes” (VI, 13, 7) and “the whole people descends from the ancient Jews” (I, introduction, 21). Characterizing the Jewish people as a whole, Eusebius writes: “There is not a new people, revered by everyone for their antiquity and known to everyone - these are the Jews. Their stories and books tell about men, although rare and few in number, but distinguished by piety, justice and all other virtues” (1, 4, 5). In general, Eusebius speaks with great respect about the ancient Jews, and even cites some of them, especially the righteous ones, as examples. However, as Eusebius’s story approaches contemporary events, especially when describing the suffering of Christ, the author’s attitude towards the Jews becomes sharply negative. Eusebius directly accuses “the entire Jewish tribe” of “conspiracy against our Savior” (I, introduction, 2, I, 3, 6), in the execution of the brother of the Lord James the Righteous (II, 9, 4, I, 23, 19), in the plans and intrigues against the Apostle Paul (II, 23, 1), dishonors and iniquities committed against the Anointed of God (III, 7, 1). He brands them as a “godless generation” (III, 6, 16), as “wicked” who suffered God’s judgment (III, 5, 3), as criminals who “revolted against Christ” (III, 5, 2), etc. Eusebius paints a terrifying picture of the slaughter of the Jews (II, 26), persecution, death, destruction and other disasters that befell them (III, 12). This evokes a certain pity in the author, but not sympathy or compassion. They “accepted death according to God’s Judgment” (III, 5, 6, II, 6, 3–4) as a just punishment for their atrocities. Moreover, Eusebius, following Josephus, completely removes the blame for such a sad fate of the Jews from the Romans. The Romans in this case are only executors of God’s will. “If the Romans had slowed down in punishing the criminals, the city would either have been swallowed up by an opening abyss, or it would have been flooded with a torrent, or struck by the thunders of Sodom. After all, this was a generation much more godless than the one who accepted that execution, for the entire nation perished from the madness of these people” (III, 6, 16). “God’s judgment finally came upon the Jews, for their iniquity before Christ and His apostles was great, and the race of these wicked people was wiped out from the face of the earth” (III, 5, 3-4). Some of the author’s inconsistency on this issue is apparently explained by the inconsistency and inconsistency of the biblical tradition itself. In the Old Testament, and in many texts of the New Testament, the motif of the chosenness and exclusivity of Israel among other nations of the world sounds quite strongly. At the same time, already in the epistles of Paul, the Hellenes, Jews and other peoples are equalized in their chosenness of God, and later the attitude of the Paulinists towards the Jews becomes intolerant; the Jews are blamed for the death of Jesus, the prophets, the expulsion of Paul, etc. 223 The influence of Paulinism was especially strong in the territory of Syria 224, in Antioch, where Eusebius lived and studied at one time. This probably also had an impact on the formation of the ideas of the Bishop of Caesarea. Eusebius singles out Christians as a separate category, as a special people. If barbarians appear on the pages of “Ecclesiastical History” only 3-4 times and Hellenes no more often than other peoples (and without any hint of their exclusivity), then Christians are the subject of special attention of the author. Eusebius contrasts not so much Hellenes and barbarians as Christians, martyrs, saints, on the one hand, and pagans, heretics, “God-haters,” apostates, on the other. However, these categories are only just being formed in Eusebius. The introduction and use of these categories by Eusebius appears to reflect the influence of different traditions. Initially, the pagans were apparently opposed to the Jews (II, 1, 8, II, 23, 11, V, 12, 1, VI, 14, 4, VI, 25, 4). Christians acted as successors to the Jews. Eusebius speaks more than once about “the antiquity of the Jewish-Christian way of life” (II, introduction). “Although, obviously, we are a new people and the name of Christians is really recent, just recognized by all peoples, our life and our entire way of behavior, consistent with the dogmas of piety, were not recently invented by us, but were observed from the very beginning of mankind, the ancient God-loving people, by natural impulse, lived this way” (1, 4, 4, 1, 4, 10). But then another tradition takes over, according to which Christians, on the contrary, are separated from the Jews and opposed to them. It is no coincidence that Eusebius emphasizes that “Our Savior is sworn to be called Christ and a priest according to His rank, and not according to the rank of others who received symbols and images. He was not physically anointed by the Jews and did not come from the priestly generation, but received. His essence from God Himself before the creation of the world” (1:3,17–18). Eusebius connects Christianity with “the faith that Abraham and the friends of God acquired” (I, 4, 10). Moreover, it is contrasted with the veneration of the Law given by Moses and the adherence to Jewish customs of observing the Sabbath, circumcision, etc. (I, 4, 7–8, 1, 4, 12–14, IV, 18,7). As a result, Jews, along with pagans, begin to be opposed to Christians (V, 16, 12, VI, 12, 1, IV, 15, 26). The design of the categories “Christians” and “non-Christians”, naturally, is not the sole merit of Eusebius of Caesarea. The formation of these ideas was preceded by a long evolution, the consideration of which is beyond the scope of this work. For Eusebius, Christians are “a truly new people, not small, not weak and settled not in some corner of the earth, but of all peoples the most numerous and pious, indestructible and invincible, for God always gives them help” (I, 4, 2). Christians stand out from all other people with their moral qualities and their entire way of life: “Rising at dawn, they sing of Christ as God and, observing their teaching, forbid killing, adultery, getting drunk, stealing and generally doing anything like that” (III, 33, 3). “This name means the following Christian, having known Christ and his teaching, is distinguished by prudence, justice, patience in life, virtue, courage in piety and confession of the one God Almighty” (I, 4, 7, V, 2, 4). They compare favorably with pagans, heretics and others by their devotion to faith, steadfastness and courage even in the face of death (IV, 8, 5, VIII, 4, 1). “I don’t know,” writes Eusebius, “whether there has yet been a person [among the Christians – I B] who, having fallen into their hands, has renounced the Lord, perhaps the only one” (VI, 41.7). “They despised death and did not value such tyranny. They burned men, stabbed them, crucified them, threw them to wild animals and drowned them in the depths of the sea, cut off parts of their bodies and burned them with a red-hot with iron, they gouged out their eyes and tore them out, made them completely crippled and also starved them and, having chained them, sent them to the mines - they endured everything for the faith, just to worship not idols, but God. The Divine word made women courageous, like men" (VIII, 14, 13-15). "Our time has placed above all the heroes glorified by the Hellenes and barbarians for their amazing courage, the remarkable martyrs. They died, considering reproach, suffering for the faith and death to be true wealth, greater than worldly glory and luxury” (IV, 15, 25, VI, 41, 23, VIII, 6, 1, V, 1,25–26). The pagans in the depiction of Eusebius appear cruel (V, 1, 39, V, I, 43, VI, 3, 4, VI, 42, 1), inhuman (V, 1, 37), and cowardly. Many of the pagans, “frightened by the torture that the saints suffered before their eyes and succumbing to the persuasion of the soldiers,” slandered Christians and gave false testimony against them (IV, 7, 10–11 V, 1, 14, VI, 8,2, IX, 5, 2). They subjected Christians to the most severe tortures. “The pagans themselves admitted that not a single woman among them could withstand so much such torment. Their madness and cruelty towards the saints were not satisfied here either; the ferocious barbarian tribes, disturbed by the fierce beast, had difficulty calming down” (V, 1, 56–57). Sometimes Eusebius directly contrasts the behavior of Christians and pagans in critical situations. So, after persecution and persecution, “war and famine came,” Eusebius describes, “We endured them together with the pagans, but we also endured their bullying and did not remain indifferent to their behavior with each other and to their suffering, we rejoiced in the peace of Christ, which. He gave us one. After a short respite, this disease struck us - for them the worst of all the worst, the most cruel of all troubles. For us it was not like that, as in other cases, the Lord tested and tempered us. The disease did not bypass us either, but it affected more pagans. Christians accepted the bodies of saints with open arms. Many, while caring for the sick and strengthening others, died themselves, accepting death in their place. The pagans behaved completely differently: those who were sick were kicked out of the house, abandoned those closest to them, thrown out into the street half-dead, leaving the corpses without burial - they were afraid of death, which was not easy to evade despite all the tricks” (VII 22, 5-10). Christians, as portrayed by Eusebius, sympathized and helped all people in need (VII, 32, 23). “All pagans saw clear evidence of the piety of Christians and their active care for everyone. In the midst of these hopeless disasters, they alone actually revealed their compassion and love for mankind every day and without fail, they buried the dead in a dignified manner (there was no one to take care of many), in every city they gathered together hungry people and distributed bread to them, so that everyone recognized the God of Christians and began to say that only Christians are pious people and lovers of God and that they testified to this with their deeds” (IX, 8, 13-14). In general, Christians are portrayed by Eusebius as a special people, distinguished from all others by their moral qualities, special piety and courage, a people marked by Divine grace. Others, “the wicked enemies of the faith,” according to Eusebius (IX, 11, 1), “the whole race of God-haters” (X, 1, 7), are covered with extreme dishonor and shame. Thus, Eusebius introduces new categories into the historical narrative; Christians are especially distinguished, and they are opposed by all others, united in the category of “non-Christians.” Their destinies are also different: pagans, heretics, “apostates” will perish, but true Christians – “God’s people” – await salvation and eternal life beyond the grave. But there is no hard line between these two worlds. In real life they exist side by side with each other. In addition, all peoples, regardless of the ethnic, social characteristics of their lives, the place of their settlement, etc., are actually recognized as equal; all can accept Christianity (VI, 3, 13, VII, 11, 13, IX, 10) and hope for salvation. At the same time, Eusebius identifies certain centers around which all political, spiritual or church life revolves. In this regard, Eusebius again acts as both a continuator of ancient traditions and an innovator. The main feature of the historical works of the ancient era was their focus on any one center; for Greek historians it was any of the city policies or all of Hellas as a whole, for the Romans it was the city of Rome, and other peoples and countries were mentioned only as the background against which the history of this world center unfolds. Eusebius, as mentioned above, in his work deviates from the traditions of ancient historiography. For him, all peoples are equal in their wisdom, significance, chosenness, etc. Rethinking and revaluation of these categories entailed a reorientation to new centers. As, probably, one would expect, the capital of the empire, Rome, appears most often in Eusebius’s story. According to tradition, he calls it a “royal city” (II, 13, 1, II, 13.3), he always indicates who ruled in Rome and when, and builds lines of episcopal succession. However, he does not dwell in such detail on the events (especially political ones) that took place in Rome. The author talks in much more detail about the events that took place in the eastern cities or cities of Asia Minor. The center of gravity seems to be gradually moving east. Eusebius's attitude towards the city itself and Roman traditions is ambiguous. On the one hand, this is a “royal city” (II, 13, 1, II, 13, 3), Eusebius even notes the “commendable Roman custom” (IV, 23.9), the “just and wise” ancient Roman laws (X, 8, 12), etc. But, on the other hand, from the descriptions of Eusebius, Rome appears as the residence of wicked rulers and tyrants (VIII, 14, 1, etc.), the place from which persecutions began, the city that became the site of numerous executions (III, 17, 1), where the Apostle Paul was beheaded (II, 25), the place where countless heresies spread (II, 14, 5, V, 15, V, 20, 1), etc. All the positive things that Eusebius finds in Rome are the few noble and pious Christians performing deeds. But this is the exception rather than the rule. Thus, in the understanding of the Christian historian, Rome is gradually losing its position as the center of the world, the center of the sacred and political. Another city that could lay claim to the role of a world center is Jerusalem, the chief city of ancient Palestine, the birthplace of Christianity, a city sanctified by the life, teaching, suffering, death, resurrection and ascension of its Founder 226 . However, Eusebius has an ambiguous attitude towards him, which is apparently connected with the author’s attitude towards Jews (Jews) in general. Both the holy city and its main shrine, the Church of the Lord, were punished for the crimes of the Jews against Christ. Christians and respectable people, obeying the revelation, left Jerusalem, “in general, all the saints left the capital of Judea and the entire land of Judea.” The city was completely destroyed in 1973. “The abomination of desolation [reigned] in the anciently glorified church of God, destroyed and burned to the ground!” (III, 5, 3–4). Eusebius also notes that, due to the philanthropy of the all-good Providence, “their death was postponed for as much as 40 years after the crime committed against Christ. During these years, many of the apostles and disciples and James himself, the first bishop there, revered as the brother of the Lord, were still alive; the city of Jerusalem was their place of residence, and they were an insurmountable wall for him (III, 7, 8). Thus, although Eusebius still sometimes calls Jerusalem the “holy city” (I, 6, 6, II, 6, 2), nevertheless, for the Bishop of Caesarea it is no longer the center of world history. This city is now deprived of Divine grace. And here Eusebius gradually moves away from previous traditions; Jerusalem and Rome for him cease to play the role of centers of political and spiritual orientation. He is looking for a new world center. His main attention is attracted to the eastern cities and provinces of Alexandria, Antioch, etc. He addresses them much more often and talks in much more detail about the events that took place in the East than in the West. At the time of writing “Ecclesiastical History,” Constantinople had not yet been rebuilt, and Eusebius could not talk about it as a center, although the author’s interest was already quite clearly transferred approximately to these areas, to the east of the Roman Empire. It is here that Constantine acts, serving as the ideal ruler for Eusebius - a pious emperor enjoying divine protection. Later, this line will be continued, developed and expressed even more clearly by the followers of Eusebius Socrates Scholasticus, Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Theodore Anagnost, Evagrius and others. If Eusebius paid attention not only to the history of the eastern, but also the western churches and the city of Rome, then the student and successor of Eusebius, Socrates Scholasticus, clearly puts “New Rome” - Constantinople and the Church of Constantinople - at the center of his narrative 227. Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret of Cyrrhus promote the idea of ​​​​the divine chosenness of the Eastern Roman Empire. God provides special protection to it and Constantinople. The fate of the Western Roman Empire worried them much less than the fate of Byzantium. Moreover, having survived the fall of Rome, captured by the hordes of Alaric, they saw in this God's punishment, the Lord's punishment, falling upon Rome, mired in sins and immorality 228. The historical and geographical horizons of Theodore Anagnost (end of the 5th - first quarter of the 6th century) are even narrower. He is mainly interested in events in the capital and partly in Asia Minor. Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem are clearly in the background, and news about the West is extremely scarce and fragmentary. The main interests of another outstanding church historian, even later, Evagrius (VI century) are concentrated in the eastern provinces of the empire Thus, Eusebius, being the founder of a new genre of Byzantine historiography - the genre of church history - laid the foundation for a new historiographic tradition. In fact, he is already transferring his attention and interest from the western regions to the eastern ones. Rome, as well as Jerusalem, ceases to play the role of a world center. For objective and subjective reasons, he is looking for a new center in the East. In addition, Eusebius reveals another tendency. In some places of his work, he seems to transfer the world center from the real, earthly sphere to another plane. Several times (X, 4, 6–7), referring to Holy Scripture, he speaks of the city of God. However, Eusebius puts a completely new meaning into this Old Testament concept. In the Old Testament (Ps. 47.2, Ps. 47.9, Ps. 86.3, etc.), it is generally believed to mean Jerusalem with its main shrine - the church. Eusebius places emphasis in a new way. Referring to the first letter to Timothy (3:15), he writes: “In what city, if not in this newly built, God-created one, “which is the Church of the Living God, the pillar and ground of the truth,” did we see exactly what was being told from memory come true?” (X, 4, 7). Apparently, by “city of God” he does not mean any specific city on earth with its geographical features (such as “a city on the holy mountain” (Ps. 47:2)), but the church in general, the Christian church, the union of all Christians, the righteous. It is in this understanding that the church is the main focus of Eusebius’ attention. Elsewhere, Eusebius associates the church with a great church. “Such is this great church, embracing the entire universe, erected by its great Builder - the Word and existing on earth as a mental likeness of that which is above the vault of heaven, so that all rational creatures on earth would honor the Father and worship Him” (X, 4, 69). It is a kind of Heavenly City. Eusebius presents the Kingdom of Heaven itself as “Jerusalem, called on high, the heavenly Mount Zion and the city of the Living God located above this whole world, in which are ten thousand angels and the Church of the firstborn written in heaven,” who “magnify their Creator and Ruler of all with ineffable and incomprehensible to us songs of theology” (X, 4, 70). Thus, the city of God is transferred by Eusebius to heaven, while on earth the church represents a certain semblance of it and an association of the righteous who will enter it. In Eusebius, this idea is still presented in a rudimentary, unformed form. It is not the main thing in his work and does not form a comprehensive concept. After 100 years, this idea will be developed and presented in a completed, formalized form in a special work by Augustine the Blessed. In general, an analysis of the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea (late 3rd - early 4th centuries) shows that the early medieval worldview, in comparison with the ancient one, was characterized by stability and external identity, but at the same time the entire system of concepts was significantly different from the traditional one - both ancient and Middle Eastern. Thus, the ancient category κόσμος is used in the work of Eusebius in a completely different meaning. Instead of a beautiful and harmonious universe, including heaven and earth, nature and man, it now denotes the world of people, imperfect and sinful, which is associated with the devil and is opposed to heavenly life. The concept of κόσμος acquires an evaluative, religious and moral meaning. The world itself, once integral and united, in the view of the early medieval writer, falls into two parts: heaven and earth. The kingdom of Christ and the kingdom of sinners. The same dualism manifests itself in ideas about the human world. Eusebius divides people not into Hellenes, barbarians, Romans and Jews, but into Christians and non-Christians (this category includes pagans, apostates, heretics, etc.). Thus, Eusebius changes the principle of division of humanity: now people are divided not according to ethnicity or territoriality, but according to religious affiliation, according to religion. Accordingly, the view of human history is changing. The idea of ​​Roman, Hellenic or Jewish exclusivity is replaced by the concept of universalism. Eusebius already thinks in world-historical categories. He considers “all the peoples and families of the earth.” Eusebius’s “Ecclesiastical History” is probably the first attempt to describe the history of all mankind from the creation of the world to contemporary events. The maximum expansion of geographical horizons occurred in parallel with a revaluation of previous values. The former world centers (Rome, Jerusalem) are losing their importance, and the new center lies somewhere in the east. In the future, the role of this world center for Byzantine historians will be played by Constantinople, a city founded by the pious Emperor Constantine and overshadowed by Divine grace. Thus, although Eusebius continues to use familiar concepts and categories and does not loudly declare his departure from previous traditions, his writings, the very language of Eusebius testifies to the beginning of a new era, the formation of a different system of values ​​compared to antiquity, the formation of a new picture of the world, already medieval in content. Barg M. A. Epochs... P. 3. Averintsev S. S. Poetics C 237 Other researchers also speak about fundamental shifts in all spheres of spiritual life Hunger N. The Classical Tradition in Byzantine Literature The Importance of Rhetoric in Byzantium // Byzantium and the Classical Tradition P 35–47 Idem On the Imitation (Mimesis) of Antiquity in Byzantine Literature // DOP Vol 23/24 1969–1970 P 15–38 Udaltsova Z. V. Historical and philosophical views of secular authors of early Byzantium // Byzantine essays M, 1982 P 8 Zhurenko N B Rhetoric in early Byzantine poetry // Antique poetics M, 1991 P 216 Udaltsova Z. V. Evolution of the concepts of “historical time” and “space” during the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages // Formations and social-class structures M “Science”, 1985 P 27 Dempf A. Christhsche Philosophie Der Mensch zwichen Gott und der Welt Bonn, 1952 Idem Geistgeschichte der frühchristlichen Kultur Wien, 1960 Schneider S. Geistgeschichte des antiken Christentums München, 1954 Bd 1.2 Christ K. Der Untergang der antiken Welt Darmstadt, 1970 Gilson T. History of Christian Philosophy in the Middle Ages L, 1972 Udaltsova Z. V. Evolution C 28 Gurevich A. Ya. Categories Aka Culture and society of medieval Europe through the eyes of contemporaries M, 1989 Karsavin L. Culture of the Middle Ages Kiev, 1994 Le Goff J. Civilization of the medieval West M. 1992 Aries F. Man in the face of death M. 1992 Bitsilli P. M. Elements of medieval culture St. Petersburg, 1995, etc. Nietzshe F. Vom Nutzen und Nacteile der Historie für das Leben Geschichtlische Werke Bd 19 München, 1936 Spengler O Der Untergang des Abendlandes München, 1956 See, for example, Croce V. Teoria e storia della storiografia Bari, 1927 Collingwood R. The Idea of History NewYork, 1956 Carr E. What is History NewYork, 1962 Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of Philo of Alexandria // VDI 1975 No. 3 C 59 et seq. Boman G. Das Hebräische Denken im Vergleich mit den Griechischen Gottingen, 1959 Widgery A. G. Interpretations of History from Confucius to Toynbee London, 1961 P 98 Boman G. Op cit His conclusions, without going into reasoning, are generally shared by other researchers. It is indicated, for example, that “Christianity was directly related to biblical temporal concepts that were unusual for the ancient consciousness and did not imply the circular circulation of time” See Borodino R. Man and Time M, 1991 C 14 Cohen M. R. The Meaning of Human History LaSalle, 1961 P 11, etc. Mazzarino S. II Pensiero storico classico Roma, 1975 P 3 Cited. according to Nemirovsky A.I. At the Origins of Historical Thought Voronezh, 1979 C 13 Other researchers Caiser K. Platon und die Geschichte Stuttgart, 1962 Schadewaldt W. Hellas und Hesperie Zürich, 1945, etc. also oppose the thesis about the ahistoricity of the ancient era. Irwin W. A. The Hebrews // The Intellectual Adventual Adventure of Ancient Man Chicago, 1946 P 318 Weinberg I. P. On the question of the peculiarities of historical thinking in the Ancient Near East // Questions of ancient history Caucasian-Middle Eastern collection Tbilisi, 1977 P 80 Also Materials for the study of Ancient Near Eastern historical thought // Ancient East Yerevan, 1978 No. 3 P 280 et seq. Nemirovsky A.I. Decree op. C 13 et seq. Averintsev S. S. Poetics pp. 87–88 Weinberg I.P. Space and time in the model of the world of the Old Testament historian // Peoples of Asia and Africa 1990, No. 6 P 75–76 Averintsev S.S. Greek literature and Middle Eastern literature (two creative principles) // VL No. 8 1972 P 40–68 AKA Poetics P 88 Weinberg I.P. Man in the culture of the ancient Middle East M, 1986 P 59 He is also Cosmos and Olam on the legitimacy of co- and opposition // Questions of ancient Eastern culture Daugavpils, 1982 P 41–42 Cassidy F. X. Did the ancient Greeks have an idea of history? // VF 1987 No. 1 C 143 Weinberg I. P. Man C 59 He is also Space C 84 Kozarzhevsky A. I. Source study problems of early Christian literature M, 1985 C 111 Shtaerman E. M. Crisis of ancient culture M, 1975 P 58 Gurevich A. Ya. What is time? // Questions of literature 1968 No. 1 P 160 Toporov V. N. On the cosmological sources of early historical descriptions // Works on sign systems VI Tartu, 1973 P 145 Neretina S. S. Word and text in medieval culture History, myth, time, riddle M, 1994 P 103 Brandon S. G. F. Time and Mankind London-New York-Melbourn-Sydney – Capetown, 1951 P 16 et seq. Idem History, Time and Deity A Historical and Comparative Study of the Conception of Time and Religious Thought and Practice New York, 1965 P 13 et seq. Frankfort H., Frankfort H. A., Wilson J. A., Jacobsen Th., Irvin W. The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man Chicago, 1946 P 23–26 Cairns G. E. Philosophers of History Meeting of East and West in Cycle-Pattern Theories of History NewYork, 1962 P XIII-XV, etc. Akhundov M. D. Concepts of space and time, origins, evolution, prospects M, 1982 P 62 Gurevich A. Ya. Category C 29–30 Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz Time in the Jewish tradition // www.ludaicaru.org/steinsalz/time.htm See also www.home.ural.ru/v_irkhin/book/plava7.htm, www.imp.uran.ru/ktm_lab/irkhin/bookall/ /15.htm For more details on Plato's philosophy of history, see Plato's State Book V40; III-IX Comments Losev A. F. Ancient philosophy of history St. Petersburg, 2001 P 152–163 Thucydides History Translated from Greek by F. G. Mishchenko and S. A. Zhebelev Edited by D. Frolova St. Petersburg “Science”, “Iuventa”, 1999 From 41 Wed also Thucydides History Trans. G. A. Stratanovsky M “Ladomir”, ACT, 1999 P 17 Polybius General history in forty books Translation from Greek F. G. Mishchenko St. Petersburg “Science”, “Iuventa”, 1995 Vol. 1–3 A.F. Losev notes the duality characteristic of ancient historicism. He emphasizes the incorrectness and insufficiency of traditional ideas about classical historicism as necessarily cyclic and about the absence in Greece of any sense of historical progress. In this idea of ​​the circular rotation of the universe, the idea of ​​progress (as well as the idea of ​​regression) is a direct necessity (See A. F. Losev, Ancient Philosophy of History, pp. 242–243). He notes: “It is interesting, however, that the ancients not only were not bothered by this eternal cyclism, but, on the contrary, instilled in them peace of mind and an inherent deep joy. This eternal cyclism of the heavens either did not touch at all, or had very little to do with the events occurring inside the cosmos” (Ibid. C 231). He explains this duality by “elementary dialectics”: “the ancients understood any rectilinear movement and, in general, any straight line with the condition of infinite length of such a straight line and intuitively imagined any circle, especially when applied to various kinds of cosmic phenomena, as having a radius of infinite length. But the more the radius lengthened, the more the circle itself unbent. And when the radius took on an infinite length, the circle simply turned into a straight line” (Ibid. C 236–237). Gurevich A. Ya. Time as a problem in the history of culture // VF 1969 No. 3 C 108 Bernheim E. Philosophy of history Its history and tasks M.1910 P 7–10 Guerrier V. Philosophy of history from Augustine to Hegel M, 1915 P 5–6 Barg M. A. Decree op. C 77 Gurevich A. Ya. Categories C 102 Mayorov G. G. Formation C 330–331 Sokolov V. V. Medieval philosophy M 1979 C 78 Christianity Encyclopedic Dictionary edited by S. S. Averintsev T 1 M, 1993 P 23–26 Mayorov G. G. Decree op. C 183 Researchers point to the direct influence on the formation of Augustine’s worldview by Basil the Great and, in many ways, the entire Byzantine tradition (See Callahan J New Source of Augustine’s Theory of Time // Harvard studies in classical Philology V 63 (1958) P 437–454) Cp also B. Genet Decree op. C 176 A. Dempf Eusebios als Historiker S 4 Cassiodorus, in his Institutes, listed the works of Christian historians, the knowledge of which he considered necessary. Among the ten works he named were “Ecclesiastical History” by Eusebius of Caesarea and his “Chronicle”. The choice of Cassiodorus determined Western historical culture for a thousand years to come. The works he selected spread very widely throughout the Western world and remained constantly known throughout the Middle Ages (Gene B Decree op. C 344–345). In the Byzantine tradition, Eusebius was considered an indisputable authority. Subsequent church historians began their stories from the moment where Eusebius left off (For more details, see Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine) Filaret (Gumilevsky) Teaching about the Fathers and Teachers of the Church St. Petersburg, 1882 T 2 S 4 Cyprian (Kern) Patrology P I Paris - Moscow, 1996 P 1–14 Sidorov A. I. Patrolology Course M. 1996 P 19 The Fathers of the Church Ed by Shopp L NewYork, 1946 Kelly J. N. D. Early Christianity Doctrines London, 1977 Lexikon fur Theologie und Kirche Hrsg von Hofer J und Rahner K Freiburg, 1959 Vol 3 S 1195– 1197 Wand J. W. S. A History of the Eariy Church Norwich, 1965 The Early Christian Fathers Ed by BettensonH Oxford, 1969 Fischer G. P. History of Christian Doctrine Edinburgh, 1896 Prestige G. L. God in Patristic Thought London, 1952 (Eusebius is mentioned several times in this work, but is not considered in his own right as a “father of the church”) Amman A. The Way of the Fathers A short introduction to patristics Milan-M, 1994 Huberts R. Drobner Lehrbuch dei Patrologie Freiburg im Breisgau, 1994 S 186–197 (in this work Eusebius is mentioned more often as a source of information about other church figures, and an article about Eusebius himself is placed in the section “The Beginnings of Arianism”) Theologische Realenzyklopadie Hrsg von dr WolterM Berlin. 1981 Kelly N. D. Early Christian Creeds NewYork, 1972 Wörterbuch des Christentums / Hrsg von Volker Drehsen Zürich, 1988 New Dictionary of Theology / Ed by Ferguson S. V., Wright D F Leicester, 1988 The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church / Ed by Douglas J. D. Grant Rapidos, Michigan, 1974 Vallin P. Les Chretiens et leur Histoire Desclée, Pans, 1985 Histoire du Christianisme des origines a nos jours Sous la direction de Mayeur J-M, Pietri Ch., Vaucher A., Venard M. T. I. Desclée, Paris, 1990 Baker R. A. Summary of Christian History Nashwill, 1959 Rodwell W, Bentley J Our Christian Heritage London, 1984 Early Christianity Origins and Evolution to 600 A D / Ed by Haz'ett I London, 1991. True, some researchers still call Eusebius “the father of the church” (See, for example, Heizinga, Johan Men and Ideas History, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance Princeton, 1959 P 55). Other foreign authors classify Eusebius as an apologist (Dictionary of Philosophy and Religion Eastern and Western Thought/Ed by Reese W. L. New Jersey, 1980). In general, Eusebius’s certain loyalty to Arianism most likely causes concern among representatives of the church. Apparently, this circumstance prevented Eusebius from becoming one of the authoritative authors recognized by the church. Cullman O. Christ and Time Philadelphia, 1950 Momighano A. Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century AD // The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century Oxford, 1964 P 117 Kotug-Ockenfels D. Chnsthshe Deutung der Weltgeschihte bei Euseb von Casarea // Saeculum 1976 27 P 362 Udalschova Z. V. Development of historical thought // Culture of Byzantium IV - first half of the VII century M. 1984 C 188 Bibikov M. V. Byzantine C 34 Also Historical C 50 Sirinelli J. Les vues historiques d’Eusebe de Cesarée durant la période prenicéenne Dakar, 1961 P 223–226 Chesnut G. F. The First Christian Histories P 94 Braginskaya N.V. Aeon in “Eulogy to Constantine” by Eusebius of Caesarea // Antiquity and Byzantium M, 1975 P 298 Heussi K. Zum Geschichtsverstandnis des Eusebius von Casarea // Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Friedrich-Schiller-Universitat Jena Geselschafts- und sprachwissenschaftliche Reiche Bd 7 1957/1958 S 89 Vedyushkina I. V. Biblical legend about the division of the earth in the early Christian and Byzantine traditions // Dialogue with time Almanac of intellectual history Edited by L. P. Repina, V. I. Ukolova 1/99 M, IVI RAS, 1999 P 60 Heussi K. Zum Geschichtsverstandnis S 89 Averintsev S. S. Order C 275 Onge Poetics C 103 Krivushin I. V. The Birth of Church Historiography Eusebius of Caesarea Ivanovo, 1995 C 61 Onge Early Byzantine Podskalsky D. Byzantinische Reichseschatologie Die Periodisierung der Weltgeschichte in der vier Grossenreichen (Daniel 2 und 7) und dem Tausen- Jahrigen Friedensreiche (Apoc 20) Eine motivgeschichtliche Untersuchung München, 1972 S 35 Trompf G. W. The Idea of Historical Recurrence in Western Thought P 224–225 Wallace-Hadrill D. S. Eusebius of Caesarea P 183, 169, 173–178, 182–184 Krivushin I. V. Birth From 13–21 Konig-Ockenfels D Op cit P 353 Eusev Chronik (GCS 20 36–37 Karst) Cited. no König Ockenfels D Op cit P 353 Komg-Ockenfels D Op cit P 349 Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine. From 62. Krivushin I.V. Decree op. From 62–63 Krivushin I. V. Birth Since 19 The Ecclesiastical History was completed around 325. Researchers date the beginning of its creation in different ways to Momigliano, Winckelmann, Lawlor and Aulton - 311 - 312 years, Laqueur, Chesnut, Barnes - to the very beginning of the 4th century, perhaps even earlier than 303. For more on this, see Barnes T. D. Constantine and Eusebius Camb. (Mass), 1981 P 191–201 Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 18 Laquer R. Eusebs als Historiker seinerzeit Berlin, 1929 P 33–34,210–212 Lawlor H. J, Oulton J. E. L Eusebius Krivushin I. V. Early Byzantine S 67–68 The concept of restoration and return, as well as the concept of degradation, was widespread in ancient historical thought and was present in a slightly modified form in the writings of representatives of the Alexandrian school, the concept of prototypes was developed by Origen, whose student Eusebius considered himself to be, and the concept of succession and the embryo of the concept of linear movement were characteristic of the Jewish tradition Sinnelli J. Les Vues historiques P 225 Sinnelli J. Les Vues historiques P 225 Gurevich A. Ya. Time S 110–111 Aka Ideas about time in medieval Europe // History and Psychology M, 1971 C 182 Aka Time C 105 Press G. A. History and Development of the Idea of History in Antiquity // History and Theory 1977 V 16 No. 3 P 288 Kazhdan A.P. notes that this message is not an authentic document compiled by contemporaries (that is, in the middle of the 2nd century), but a literary work written later. But in any case, its creation dates back no later than the 3rd century (Kazhdan A. Ya. From Christ to Constantine M, 1965, pp. 42–43) In the New Testament αίών (“eternity”) receives a slightly different sound αίών now means not so much “age” as “world”, “light”, and the concept of “age” is conveyed by the word ήμέρα. However, in Eusebius these words are perhaps never found in this meaning. Myths of the peoples of the world M, 1982 T 2 S 663 Braginskaya N.V. “Eon” P. 286–293 Udaltsova Z.V. Development of historical thought // Culture of Byzantium T 1 P. 189 In Plato’s dialogue, the eternal and divine mind forms everything temporary and material “He (the demiurge) planned to create some kind of moving likeness of eternity, at the same time arranging the sky, despite the fact that he abides in the One, he creates an eternal image walking according to the numerical order, to which we give the name time” (Timaeus, 37d) Quoted from Losev A.F. Ancient cosmos and modern science M ,1927 For more details, see Gnostics, or “false knowledge” Kiev, 1997 Sventsitskaya I. S. Early Christianity pages of history M, 1987 P 264–274 Trofimova M. K. Historical and philosophical issues of Gnosticism M, 1979 Braginskaya N.V. Decree op. C 288 Cassidy F. X. Did the ancient Greeks have an idea of history? // VF 1987 No. 1 C 144 Khvostova K.V. Socio-economic processes in Byzantium and their understanding by Byzantine contemporaries (XIV40;-XV40; centuries) M, 1992 P 132 Many examples and confirmations from Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius, Sallust and others are given in his work by G. Chesnut See Chesnut G. F. The first Christian Histories P 15–16 In the “Church History” the concept of καιρός appears in various combinations 84 times I, 1, 2, 1, 2, 15, 1, 3, 1, 1, 6, 6, 1, 6, 11, I, 12, 4, I, 13, 22, II, introduction, 2, II, 1, 11, II, 9, 1, I, 13, 2, II, 14, 1, II, 17, 5, II, 22, 5. II, 23, 2, II, 23, 22, II, 25, 8, III, 111, 4, 11, 111, 7, 5, 111, 8, 10, 111, 8, 11, 111, 9, 2, III, 18, 3, III, 18.4, 111, 24, 16. III, 24, 18, 111, 25, 2, 111, 30, 2, 111, 36, 14 IV, 7, 5, IV, 7, 7, IV, 11, 8, IV, 22, 8, IV, 26.3, V, 1, 6, V, 1, 15, V, 1.33, V, 1.45, V, 8, 1 V, 8.6, V, 10, 1 V, 16.8 V, 16, 13, V, 20, 7 V, 21, 3, V, 28, 8, VI, 6, 1 VI, 11.5, VI, 12, 1, VI, 28, 1, VI, 31.3, VI, 37, 1, VI, 42, 6, VI, 43, 7, VI, 43, 16, VII, 11.21 VII, 11, 26, VII, 12, 1, VII, 22, 2, VII, 28, 2, VII, 30, 21, VII, 32, 22, VII, 32, 28. VIII, 6, 1, VIII, 13, 6, VIII, 14, 8, VIII, 15, 2, VIII, 16, 2. VIII, 17, 11, IX, 8, 3, IX, 8, 15, X, 2, 2, X, 4, 8, X, 5, 8 In some cases, καιρός is associated not only with a time moment, but also with space (“here”, “in its place”, etc.), and, thus, is a chronotope See Khvostova K. V. Decree op. C 133 In the story of the martyrdom of Bishop Polycarp, the traditional ancient formula of the oath is given: “Όμοσον τήν Καίσαρος τύχην!” (“Swear by the fortune of Caesar!”) Chesnut G. F. Op cit P 17 1967 Euseb Hist Eccles, II, 20, 6, II, 8, 2, II, 8, 4, III, 23, 9, IV, 15, 12, IV, 15, 14–15, IV, 15,24, V, 24, 12, VI, 40, 2, VI, 43, 9, VII, 15,3, VIII, 12.3, VIII, 12.5, IX, 8, 1, X, 4, 72 Irmscher I. Main features of the idea of progress in Byzantium // VV T 49 1988 C 50 Thraede K. Fortschritt // Reallexikon fur Antike und Christentum Hrsg von T Klauser Stuttgart 1969 Bd 8 S 141 f Zorn W. Geschichte des Wortes und Begriffes “Fortschritt” // Saeculum, 1953 Bd 4 S 340 Irmsher I. Decree op. C 50–51 Irmscher I. Decree op C 51 Thraede K. Op eit S 162 Irmscher I. Decree op. C 52 Friese J. Die Denkform von Kreislauf und Fortschritt und die Weltgeschichte // Studium generale 1958 Jg 11 H 4 S 223 Similar ideas, at least with regard to the idea of the Roman Empire as bringing peace and the relationship between Civitas Romana and Civitas Christiana, were developed in the Latin West of the empire by Augustine (354–430 AD), by his contemporary Prudentius from Spain (ca. 348–ca. 405 AD), by Paul (Erosia, who at the beginning of the 5th century in his “Historia adversus paganos" gave, albeit in passing, a brief outline of world history. For more on this, see Irmscher I. Decree op. C 53 Straub J. Christliche Geschichtsapologetik in der Krisis des Römischen Reiches // Historia 1950 Jg 1 H 1 S 62 Peterson E. Der Monotheismus als politisches Problem Leipzig, 1935 S 75 Winkelmann F. Die Kirchengeschichtswerke P 9 literally like the thousand-year Kingdom of God on earth. He throws a similar reproach at Cerinthus, Nepos and their followers. Chiliasm for Eusebius is a “Jewish falsification of Scripture” and an absolute heresy (VII, 24, 1–2, VII, 25, 3, III, 28, 1–6) For more details, see Guerrier N. Blessed Augustine M, 2003 C 396–397 Mayorov G. G. Decree op. C 332 Gurevich A. Ya. Categories C 114 Le Goff J. Decree op. From 157 Mayorov G. G. Decree op. C 338 Trompf G. W. The Logic of Retribution in Eusebius of Caesarea // History and Historians in Late Antiquity Ed by Br Croke and A H Emmeth Pergamon Press Sydney, 1983 P 138 Grant R. M. The Case against Eusebius, or Did the Father of Church History write History? // St P 1975 Vol 12 P 413 Momigliano A. Op cit P 88 For example, the most prominent representatives of early Byzantine church historiography were secular people who received a classical education. Socrates Scholasticus, for example, according to most researchers, was a lawyer, not a priest (For more details, see Krivushin I.V. Early Byzantine S 16). Ermiy Sozomen also practiced law and, in all likelihood, was a secular man (Ibid. C 19–20). However, despite their classical ancient education and occupation, both of them devoted their creative lives to writing “Ecclesiastical History.” Dostalova R. Byzantine historiography (character and forms) // VV Vol. 43, 1982 C 30 Krivushin I.V. Time in the “History” of Theophylact Simokatta // Bulletin of Leningrad State University, Series 2, 1991 Issue 4 (No. 23) For more information on this, see Rousset P. La conception de l'histoire à l'époque feodale // Mélanges d'histoire du Moyen Age dedies à la memoire de Lowis Halphen Pans, 1951 P 629 Udaltsova 3. V. Development C 122 Illustration βαρβάρων (Chronicorum libn duo) // Patrologie cursus completus Series Graeca T XIX Col 99–600 Momighano A. Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century AD // The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century Oxford, 1963 P 85 Eusebius was quite often accused of concealing his sources and plagiarism. Although the “Chronography” of Julius Africanus survived only in fragments and was restored only in the 19th century by G. Gelzer, for a long time the opinion was stubbornly held that it was from it that Eusebius “copied” his “Chronicle”. However, G. Geltser, who initially held the same opinion, restored in 1898 and for the first time published the work of Julius Africanus and, comparing it with the “Chronicle” of the Bishop of Caesarea, came to the conclusion that “Eusebius is an even more significant historian, who independently checked and critically examined Africanus’ sources. He correlated the Babylonian chronology of Berossus, the Egyptian chronicle of Manetho and the Greek list of rulers of Castor of Rhodes with the Jewish chronology" (Gelzer N. Sextus Julius Africanus und die Byzantinische Chronographie Leipzig, 1880–1885 Quoted from Dempf A. Eusebios als Historiker S 6) Patrologie cursus completes Series Latina Ed by J -P Migne Pans, 1857 T LXV11 of their chronological calculations (For more information about this, see Tsyb S. In 2000 years from the Nativity of Christ, the history of our chronology Barnaul, 1999 C 28–31). Dionysius himself described the date and circumstances of the appearance of this work in a brief author's commentary on the table. In the year of the consulate in Rome of Probus the Younger (525), Pope John 1 ordered his archivist to compile new Easter tables. It was necessary to know the date of Easter in advance because the entire annual cycle of traveling religious holidays and church services was calculated from it. The Pope did not set Dionysius the task of developing a new calendar; it appeared as a “by-product” of Easter calculations. In the Roman Church, for many years they have been using Easter tables compiled back in the 5th century by the Alexandrian Patriarch Cyril. Cyril began his tables from the 153rd year of the era of Diocletian (i.e., from August 23, 473 AD) and completed the 247th year of the same era (i.e., August 28, 531). Therefore, it is clear why Pope John I instructed Dionysius to compile new Easter tables before the end of Cyril’s tables, there were only 6 years left. Without further ado, Dionysius decided to simply continue Cyril’s tables. However, after the 247th year of the era of Diocletian, he wrote "532 anno ab mcarnatione Dommi", i.e. from the Incarnation of the Lord, then the 533rd year from the Incarnation and so on until the 626th year. Thus, he began to count years according to a new era, unknown to anyone, taking the appearance of the Son of God in human flesh as the beginning of the countdown. But how did the Roman Paschalist determine that the 532nd year of Christ follows the 247th year of the era of Diocletian? How did he establish that the year of the Incarnation of Christ was 283 years and almost 8 months earlier than the accession of Diocletian? Unfortunately, Dionysius did not write a word about this in his Easter work, leaving us in the dark about his chronological calculations (For more information about this, see Tsyb S. In 2000 years from the Nativity of Christ, the history of our chronology Barnaul, 1999 C 28–31). Konig-Ockenfels D. Chnstlische Deutung S 350 Winkelmann F. Die Kirchengeschichtswerke S 2 Momighano A Op sD P 83 Momighano A. Op cit P 83–84 The Easter Chronicle is a work by an anonymous author from the 7th century. Do you traditionally evaluate Chronicle in scientific literature? as a very mediocre work of a compilation nature, and the author’s own work, with the exception of the description of contemporary events, seems extremely insignificant. Until recently, it was believed that the chronicler was limited to random reduction and combination of sources. The misunderstandings and errors found in his writing usually serve as proof of his ignorance. It has already become a textbook opinion that the prominent place that the “Easter Chronicle” occupied in early Byzantine chronography allegedly did not rightfully belong to it (For more details, see Krumbacher K. Geschichte der Byzantinischer Literatur von Justinian bis zum Ende des ostromischen Reiches (527–1453) München, 1897 (202) 337 ff Windstedt O. A Note of Cosmas and the Chronicon Paschale // Journal of Theological Studies V 8 1907 P 101–103 Hunger H. Die Hochsprachhsche profane Literatur der Byzantiner München, 1978 Bd I S 328 ) Only relatively recently due to increasing interest in the scientific literature in problems of understanding historical time began a gradual reassessment of Byzantine chronography in general and the Easter Chronicle in particular (For more details, see Beaucamp J. Temps et Histoire 1 Le prologue de ia Chronique pascale Travaux et Mémoires 1979 V 7 P 223–301 Udaltsova Z. V. From the Byzantine chronography of the 7th century John Laurentius Lid Easter Chronicle // VV Issue 45 1984 P 60–66 Udaltsova Z. V. Development P 268) Tsyb S.V. Decree op. From 6–19 Spassky A. Study of biblical chronology Kyiv, 1857 P 143–148 Many works have been written about the origin and evolution of the meanings of the term “cosmos”, among them the following are especially important Kranz W. Kosmos als philosophisher Begriff in fruhgriechischer Zeit // Philologus 1938–1939 Bd 93 S 430–448 Kranz W. Kosmos // Archiv fur Begriffsgeschichte Bonn, 1955 Bd 11 Diller H. Der philosophische Gebrauch von κοσμος und κοσμειν // Festschrift In Shell München, 1956 S 47–60 Kerschensteiner J. Kosmos quellenkritische Untersuchung zu den Vorsokratikern München, 1962. It is interesting that the world’s abstract existence in time and space, conceptualized in the concept of “cosmos” (order), was initially formed, in all likelihood, on the basis of the structure of human affairs - political, military, etc. - the institutionalized orderliness of social forms and then was transferred to the universe, which later became the “standard” of harmony and lawfulness. The original meaning of the term “cosmein” is the activity of a ruler, a commander, then - a military and political structure, a living, visual, sacred order. It is possible that the normatively regulated behavior of the citizens of the polis, as the complete opposite of the irrational-impulsive behavior of the gods of Olympus, served as a prototype for the first anthropomorphic picture of the world associated with the name of Anaximander. Thus, initially the cosmos was conceived in the image and likeness of the legal community-polis (Diels N., Kranz W. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker Bd 1 Berlin, 1935 S 12 Barg M A Decree op. C 30). Averintsev S. S. Greek literature P 261 Note 58 Aka Poetics P 88 Dictionary of Antiquity M, 1989 C 288 The ways of penetration of the term “cosmos” into the philosophical lexicon remain unclear. According to the Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary, the term “cosmos” was used in a cosmological context already by the Milesian philosophers (undoubtedly by Anaximander). For the first time, “cosmos” as a “world structure”, “world” was indisputably attested around 500 BC. e. in fragments of Heraclitus and then firmly enters the natural philosophical lexicon of the Pre-Socratics (Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary M.1983 C 281) Losev A. F. Ancient space and modern science M. 1927 Eusebius Historia Ecclesiastica I, 2, I, 5, I,3 10, I, 3, 19, I, 4, 14 II 13, II, 3, 1, II, 8, 1, II, 17, 7, III, 1, 1,III, 8,10–11, III, 24, 3, III, 37, 1, III, 37, 4, IV 15, 9, IV, 15, 15, V, 21, 1 V, 23, 1, V, 24, 7 VI, 8, 4, VII, 31, 2, VIII, 10, 12, VIII, 12, 11, VIII, 13, 7, IX, 7,9 X, 1, 8, X, 4, 17, X, 4, 60 X, 4, 69, X, 9, 6. Gurevich A. Ya. Category C 53 Lotman Yu.M. On the concept of geographical space in Russian medieval texts // TPZS Vol. 181 Tartu, 1965 P 210–216 Gurevich A. Ya. Decree op. From 53–54 Nemirovsky A. I. At the origins of historical thought Voronezh, 1979 P 54–56 About Herodotus, see also Dovatur A. I. Narrative and scientific style of Herodotus L, 1957 Kuznetsova T. I., Miller T. A. Ancient epic historiography Herodotus, Titus Livius M, 1984 Ancient Greece Ed. Struve V. V., Kallistova D. P. M, 1956 Lurie S. Ya. Herodotus M. -L., 1947 Sergeev V.S. History of Ancient Greece M, 1963 C 34 Barg M.A. Decree op. C 68 Barg M.A. Decree op. P 67–69 Aka Categories and Methods of Historical Science M, 1984 P 26–27 Nemirovsky A.I. Decree op. From 126–127 He is also Polybius as a historian // VI 1974 No. 6 Konrad N. I. West and East M, 1966 Sergeev V. S. Decree op. C 36 Polybius General History Trans. F. G. Mishchenko T 1 St. Petersburg, 1994 P 148 In addition, the expansion of the geographical horizon is accompanied by Eusebius with a slight decrease in attention to detail, to the details of the description of the area. He does not describe the countries and their attractions, does not try to show the deployment of troops and terrain features, and does not leave any everyday descriptions. The reason for such brevity is, in our opinion, not the negligence or dishonesty of the author, but a change in the entire worldview system, the entire value system. Details of this kind, apparently, do not have much meaning for him. A. Ya. Gurevich considers such indifference to the details and details of geographical descriptions to be a common feature generally characteristic of medieval consciousness. The extent of earthly things, their location, the distance between them lose their definition over time, since the center of gravity moves away from them into the “world of essences” (Gurevich A. Ya. Categories C 77). In this case, barbarians apparently mean Persians. In 260, during the Persian campaign, Valerian was captured by the Persian king Sapor, tortured and killed. For more information about this, see Kryvelev I.A. Bible historical-critical analysis Μ, 1985 C 113 et seq. Kazhdan A.P. From Christ S 223 Shifman I. Sh. Syrian society of the era of the Principate (I-III centuries AD) Μ, 1977 C 260–262 However, some researchers believe that in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea no influence of the Antiochian school is visible (See, for example, Yastrebov A. Decree op. C 139). Rome is mentioned 78 times in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History Christianity Encyclopedic Dictionary M, 1996 T 1 C 585 Socrat Historia Ecclesiastica I, 16, V, 8, etc. Udaltsova Z. V. Development S 191–212