The life path and scientific heritage of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky

Contents An example of enlightened religiosity and humble learning Introduction Chapter I. Childhood and youth 1. “The hut is not red in its corners...” 2. In the sanctuary of Russian theological science 3. Paper is a faithful friend, letters are the history of the heart Chapter II. Scientific and pedagogical activities 1. All-night vigil in honor of truth 2. Teacher who teaches by word and life 3. Ideal librarian Chapter III. Scientific guidance by Professor A.V. Gorsky 1. For the glory of God and brotherly good 2. Russian Oxford 3. Helmsman of scientists 4. The pride of Russian science Chapter IV. Giant of knowledge 1. Lecture courses by A. V. Gorsky. Methodology of church history 2. Description of the Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library Chapter V. A. V. Gorsky - Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy 1. At the Throne of Grace 2. Work in the Committee for the Transformation of Theological Schools 3. The most durable boss for the Academy 4. Dad 5. “I want to go home soon” Conclusion Appendix I. Problems of historiography and sources for studying the activities of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky II. Printed works of Professor Archpriest A.V. Gorsky Separately published Articles in periodicals Sources and literature Archival sources Published sources Literature The publication is dedicated to the personality of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky (1812–1875) - rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, an outstanding church historian, archaeographer and teacher. For the first time in Russian historiography, the image of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky appears in its entirety. The book sets out in detail the biography of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, examines his scientific methods, evaluates the scientist’s contribution to the development of theology, church-historical and philological knowledge in Russia, and introduces archival sources stored in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian State Library into scientific circulation. The reader will discover little-studied pages from the history of the Russian theological school and learn new facts related to the development of Russian science in the 19th century. The book is intended for researchers of the history of the Russian Church, students of theological schools, students of history and philology faculties, as well as anyone interested in the history of Russian theological education. An example of enlightened religiosity and humble learning The holy Apostle Paul once said: “Remember your teachers who spoke the word of God to you: and as you look to the end of your life, imitate [their] faith.” (Heb. 13:7). A wonderful covenant! The soul of a deceased person is alive on earth as long as the people left by it remember it, for it is disastrous to build one’s own life based only on personal conceit, without relating oneself to other people, without knowing in oneself the respectful imperative about the ideal: A glorious event! Great man! A most worthy deed! That is why it is with such pleasure and joy that I present to the reader a new book. This is the biography of one of the most remarkable people in Russia, who belonged to the brilliant galaxy of Russian scientists - Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky (1812–1875), whose name, however, for almost the entire twentieth century was known only to a very narrow circle of specialists. Alexander Vasilyevich devoted more than 40 years to obedience in the field of pedagogy and science within the walls of the Moscow Theological Academy. The facets of his activities are diverse. Archaeographer, discoverer of a number of the most important medieval Slavic-Russian literary and historical monuments and compiler of exemplary descriptions of ancient manuscripts; librarian, under whose care one of the best Russian book collections of the 19th century was compiled; church historian from among the founders of the critical method in the development of early Christian and ancient Russian history; theologian who laid the foundation for the development of historical principles for the presentation of Christian dogma; teacher who educated several generations of ministers of the Russian Church; rector, who contributed to the flourishing of the oldest Russian theological school; a devoted friend, a selfless helper, a “good Samaritan” for many of his contemporaries - scientists, students, employees, an unpretentious example of learned religiosity and humble scholarship; a meek servant of the altar of the Lord and a quiet sower of goodness in the souls of God's servants. All this, dear reader, is described in the book in front of you. The story is told lightly, clearly, interestingly, with deep respect and sincere love. Simply, without contrived pathos, the amazing personality and exemplary life of Alexander Vasilyevich are revealed here. And at the same time, on the pages of the book a noble and pure picture of the existence of the Russian scientific and church society, to which the scientist glorified by him, but modestly fled from glory, was related. The author of the book is a very young man. However, what he did is significant and valuable. This fulfills the covenant of the Apostle Paul! This is gratifying evidence that our land has not yet perished and is fertile, that from the darkness of unconsciousness, recklessness and soullessness that we have so difficult to overcome, despite death, new people are already decisively emerging, capable of remembering, and therefore creating, recreating life! Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy The name of Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, who was a teacher of church history at the same Academy for thirty years and possessed extensive scientific erudition, is little known in our time. To continue to remain silent about the activities of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky as a talented worker of science, as a good shepherd and an experienced teacher will be the greatest injustice both for the blessed memory of this wonderful man, and for the history of our Church, and for all of Russian science. That is why the life of this interesting and strong personality can and should be the subject of the most careful study. The name of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky is inextricably linked with the history of the Moscow Theological Academy. It owes much to him for its flourishing and primacy among other Russian Academies, which it retained until the very end of the synodal period. The personality of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky had a decisive influence on the widest range of phenomena in Russian church-historical, philological and theological sciences, which were the result of his comprehensive scientific and church activities. The radical changes that have been taking place in recent years both in Russia itself and in domestic historical science - a gradual departure from the dictates of Marxism and theories of historical materialism that have prevailed for many decades, a change in attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church and its institutions - make it possible to turn in a new way, and often for the first time, to many problems of church history, as well as to the study of the creative and scientific heritage of a large number of highly gifted devotees of theological science of the pre-revolutionary period. It is especially necessary to understand and comprehend the enduring role and significance of the personality of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky in the history of the Russian theological school, to study his scientific experience and pedagogical heritage now that the modernization of spiritual and church education is being carried out in Russia, along with educational reforms on an all-Russian, state scale. Such research should contribute to understanding the specifics of domestic education, including spiritual education, as well as identifying patterns in the development of historical and church-historical science in Russia. The theme “Archpriest A.V. Gorsky” covers many general issues of the development of both church history and philology, as well as historical science itself in Russia in the 19th century, many of which are still very little studied. It also traces the relationship between secular scientists and church theologians, the mutual influence of the secular and church communities. In our time, this topic sincerely and truthfully raises the image of the Russian theological school, expressed differently than before - with official, censored views on the one hand, or clearly biased, tendentious views on the other. It is impossible to consider the development of Russian church historical science, the struggle of ideas and opinions in educated Moscow and St. Petersburg society, the content of the reforms carried out in the Russian Church in the mid-late 19th century without the personality of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, this is another reason for the need for this work. It is possible to understand the enduring significance of the activities of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky in the history of our Church and science only through a comprehensive study of his personality as a scientist, teacher, and clergyman. Therefore, it is necessary to analyze his historical and theological views, characterize his pedagogical intuitions and philosophical constructs, and evaluate his contribution to the development of the Russian theological school, church historical science and Slavic philology. To correctly solve the above problems, it became necessary to create a psychological portrait of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, to identify the specifics of his character and views on various areas of multifaceted creative activity. A few years after Gorsky’s death, his student N. Troitsky said: “To write a biography of Gorsky, you have to be a great master” 1 . Following such a high requirement, we tried in this work to come as close to this ideal as possible. Chapter I. Childhood and youth I was brought up under the threatening rod of modesty... 1. “The hut is not red in its corners...” The parents of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky - Vasily Sergeevich and Olga Kosminichna, native Kostroma residents, came from the clergy. Vasily Sergeevich is the son of the psalm-reader, or simply sexton, of the Assumption City Cathedral of Kostroma. Olga Kosminichna, nee Sokolova, is the daughter of an archpriest at the St. John Chrysostom Church. In Kostroma, A.V. Gorsky’s parents received their primary education. So Vasily Sergeevich Gorsky first studied at a theological school, then continued his studies at the Kostroma Theological Seminary, where he completed a very successful philosophical class. Soon, as someone who showed great promise, by appointment of the seminary authorities and with the approval of the ruling bishop of the Kostroma diocese, His Eminence Evgeniy (Romanov), he went “to improve his knowledge of higher sciences and education for teaching positions” at the Trinity Lavra Seminary 2. After studying there for four years, having completed a full course of science, the young teacher returned to Kostroma in 1807, where he occupied the department of Russian literature and eloquence at the seminary. And about three years later, probably in 1810, Vasily Sergeevich Gorsky married Olga Kosminichnaya Sokolova, the daughter of a prominent Kostroma archpriest. For the first two years of their marriage, the couple lived in the apartment of Vasily Sergeevich’s father-in-law. When the place of priest became vacant in the Assumption Cathedral of Kostroma, V.S. Gorsky got a job as a clergyman and moved to his own apartment in the church building, where all the clergy of the cathedral lived. At the same time, he left his teaching position at the seminary and became a caretaker at the theological school, which was located not far from the cathedral. Alexander Vasilyevich became the first child in the Gorsky family. He was born on August 16, 1812, 3 at the height of the Napoleonic War. Then a daughter, Yulia, and a son, Vladimir, were born. All three were not much older than each other, with a difference of two years. With such a small family, by the standards of that time, the Gorskys lived in quiet Kostroma. The remuneration received by the head of the family, who combined the position of caretaker of a religious school with teaching lessons in the governor's family and noble houses, made it possible to live comfortably, and with the ability of such owners as Vasily Sergeevich and Olga Kosminichna, sometimes it was even easy to limit themselves, observing proper economy. Vasily Sergeevich’s words sound like wise advice: remember and adhere to the rule in life that “prudent economic management, alien to stinginess and unfamiliar with extravagance, can provide the richest contentment even with mediocre incomes” 4 . This valuable conviction did not appear through arithmetic considerations and calculations, but was taken directly from reality itself, tested by life itself. Vasily Sergeevich did not hold the position of caretaker of the religious school for long: in 1815 he was ordained a priest and was assigned to the Assumption Cathedral of Kostroma, which at that time was not yet a cathedral. After this joyful event for the whole family, the life of the Gorskys became even more calm and measured. Their house was located on the very edge of the high bank of the Volga. It was a two-story white building with a green lawn next to it. In the mezzanine there is a bright, spacious apartment of the cathedral priest, and then archpriest Vasily Gorsky. Three large rooms, clean wallpaper, pine, scraped floors, covered with various rugs and rugs, along the walls there is antique furniture - heavy wooden chairs, massive armchairs, a sofa, in front of it is a round table with a patterned linen napkin of Olga Kosminichna’s own choice, on the windows there are pots of flowers 5. Everything is tidy everywhere, everything is in its place. It's nice to be in such an apartment. In the wide yard of Archpriest Vasily there is a complete household inventory: a barn, a cellar. Everything testified to the well-being of the house and its owners. As we can see, according to the proverb “a hut is not red in its corners, but red in its pies,” everything was fine in the house of Vasily Sergeevich Gorsky. First of all, the owners themselves were good. Both are deeply religious people, especially Vasily Sergeevich. He never missed a church service and was very sad if, for various reasons, he was unable to attend the service. Another feature of his religiosity was his complete trust in God and complete submission to His will. From the mouth of the father of the Gorsky family come words that testify to his true piety: “It is so willed by Providence,” “everything is from God,” “God’s blessing,” “The Lord knows,” “The Lord will prosper” 6 . The Gorsky couple always knew how to sympathize with a person’s grief and joy and were always ready to help and serve anyone. Both had a remarkable mind, not some bookish, pharisaical one, but a natural one, with elements of common sense, which was the pinnacle of the positive qualities of their kind and sincere characters. It was not for nothing that many in Kostroma usually turned to Vasily Sergeevich for advice on family matters and problems. In the Gorsky household, everything was patriarchal and simple. Archpriest Vasily was naturally the head of the house, the person around whom the family members themselves and all their interests were grouped. Everything went with the permission of Father Vasily, with his blessing and unquestioned authority. He never imposed his dominant position on anyone, but in the family everyone felt and understood him equally well. With all this, the attitude of the head of the family towards his wife and children did not resemble those of Domostroev. And such a relationship was impossible with the kindness and gentleness of Father Vasily and the firmness of Olga Kosminichna’s character. Harmony in the relationship between the spouses was achieved by the fact that they looked at family life as a special work of God, affirmed by each of them for the good of their neighbors. Therefore, in the atmosphere of family life, they showed simplicity, orderliness and solemnity in everything. And if we consider their family holidays, these will be memorable days of the church calendar: March 14 - the day of celebration of the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God, July 8 - the memory of Fedor Stratilates, the Dormition, Christmas, Easter, the name day of parents and children. And these are not ordinary holidays like other holidays - feasts and fun, but days of quiet joy, spending time in the company of relatives and friends, rather for the glory of God than for the sake of revelry and immeasurable pleasure. Such spiritual celebrations were always celebrated with special tenderness. The church holiday of the Fedorov Icon of the Mother of God began with a solemn service in the cathedral, the rector of which was Archpriest Vasily Gorsky. In the morning, the ruling bishop, who was always invited to this day, came to Father Vasily, and with a solemn farewell, the bishop and the rector went to serve the liturgy in the cathedral 7 . After the service, a hearty meal was usually arranged for the honored guests in the Gorskys' house 8 . Present were the bishop, the governor, the leader of the nobility, the merchant head and representatives of the clergy. When the official part ended, the home, family celebration began. All the relatives, of whom Vasily Sergeevich had many in Kostroma, showed up and stayed until the evening. The days of fasting came, and nothing violated their holiness. All members of the Gorsky family immediately attended services, treating prayers with special zeal. Extraneous matters were put aside; one could not disturb oneself with anything, not even letters and visits from relatives. In a word, order in everything - it was in this spirit that life was built in the family of Archpriest Vasily Gorsky, who rightly believed that without proper orderliness, not a single family or home could exist happily. In such family conditions and surroundings, the childhood years of the future historian Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky passed - Sashenka, as his parents always called him. He was brought up “under the threatening rod of modesty”; the hand of fatherly care, “always cautious,” cherished him and at the same time, in his own estimation, forged heavy fetters, which then grew deep into his soul 9 . Regarding his primary education, Gorsky wrote in his diary: “My home education was short-lived; I soon understood what was being handed to me, but, without condemning my teachers, I will say that they gave me food not in the form required by my abilities; they adhered to that long-standing rule: learn what is given to you, then you will think about what you have learned” 10. The teachers did not understand Sasha, apparently not understanding the very difficult science of education. Subsequently, Gorsky lamented the thought that the mentors did not try to base his morality on his own feelings, did not try to reveal to him faith in God and His holy religion - a faith that should have become the fruit of his personal experiences, and not the mechanical result of tireless cramming taken from outside 11. Gorsky subsequently spoke of his childhood as an unremarkable time, devoid of any pleasures: “Thus, the summers of my childhood flowed quietly, modestly, deadly, I was not taken into any society, and at home I always lived with adults, and being distant from naughty people, I played little pranks, it seems I never frolicked; in a word, before entering the school, I lived like a monastery in my cell” 12. At the age of eight, Sasha was sent to the Kostroma Theological School, where, with the help of his father, he studied quite well. He was highly regarded by his comrades and especially praised for his modesty. Then, after completing a six-year course at the school, Gorsky moved to the Kostroma Theological Seminary. 2. In the sanctuary of Russian theological science A new era of my life - entering whether one after another years. Gorsky was already in the philosophy department of the Kostroma Seminary and was taking an exam before the summer vacation, preparing to transfer to the theological course. But in the spring of 1828, the life of the young philosopher Alexander Gorsky took a completely different turn, to the complete surprise of him and his parents. Contrary to seminary rules, he was appointed straight from the philosophical class, bypassing the theological class, to continue his education at the Moscow Theological Academy. The fact was that 1828 at the Moscow Academy was a “course year,” that is, one when students, having completed their studies, left the theological school, while others entered it. The Academic Board, showing concern for the recruitment of new students, at its meeting decided to “request fifty students from the seminaries of the Moscow and Kazan districts” and “when requesting students from the mentioned seminaries, allow the seminary boards to elect students from the middle department for this subject, if there are no students capable of this in the higher one” 13. On July 7, 1828, the Commission of Theological Schools gave the Academy its consent to the resolution of the Board, whereby the Academy made a corresponding order for the seminaries and determined that the selection of students for the academic course in the seminaries: Ryazan, Tula, Yaroslavl and Kostroma should be entrusted to the auditors appointed there. Bachelor of the Academy, Hieromonk Afanasy (Drozdov) (later Archbishop of Astrakhan and Enotaevsky) was appointed auditor of the Kostroma Theological Seminary. Arriving at the seminary on July 11, the auditor completed his main task during the week before the 18th. He reported to the Academy that he had tested the students, examined their essays, familiarized himself with the educational and economic parts of the seminary, making the necessary comments and orders. It was during these exams that Hieromonk Afanasy noticed the outstanding abilities of the student Alexander Gorsky. Gorsky answered to the auditor himself four times: on July 11 in Greek, on July 12 in philosophy, on July 13 in mathematics, and on July 14 in a public exam. He always answered so successfully that after the end of the exams he was listed first on the rank list. When there were no students in the theological class worthy of transfer to the Academy, the choice of auditor fell on Gorsky. True, in August the Seminary Board proposed that two more students from the previous graduating class be transferred to the Academy, but this request was rejected by the Academy. Thus, Alexander Vasilyevich had the lucky lot to represent the Kostroma Seminary alone at the entrance exams at the Moscow Theological Academy. Having learned about his enrollment, Gorsky, being a 16-year-old boy, did not fully understand the importance of what had happened and took this news frivolously and arrogantly. He indulged in dreams about academic life, about how he would be accepted into the Academy. But there was no end to the surprise and emotional experiences of Gorsky’s parents. After all, their son was still too young, his spiritual strength and moral qualities were not yet fully formed, and here he was sent to the Moscow Academy, to the sanctuary of Russian theological science, where he would have to pass entrance exams and not the same as in his native seminary - in the presence of familiar teachers, but a serious test of his acquired knowledge in front of a whole host of venerable learned professors according to all the rules of rigor. And the parents were not as worried about Sashenka’s departure hundreds of miles from home (he had never traveled further than Kostroma) as they were about their son’s upcoming life in a new environment, in a new environment. The month of summer vacation, which was due to seminarians, passed by for Alexander’s parents in worries. And so, in mid-August, having prepared all the necessary documents, dressed in a new suit issued by the seminary: a cloth frock coat, Casinet trousers, a white scarf around the neck, boots and a cap, Alexander Vasilyevich set off on his journey. Gorsky arrived at the Academy alone. We didn't have to wait long for the exams. By August 15, all applicants, by order of the Academic Board, were supposed to be in place, and on August 18, entrance exams began. The first exam was in Latin, the topic of the argument was: “Num racio, quae Lux veritatis et dux vitae nuncupari solet, hominem ad veram sui destinationem perducere que[r]at?” 14. On the 20th, an exam in theology was passed (which Gorsky did not have time to study at the seminary); on the 21st, an essay on the Russian language was written on the topic “What do carnal, spiritual and spiritual people mean and how do they differ from each other?” 15. The next three days included tests in philosophy, Greek and Hebrew. All seven Board members attended all exams. Young Alexander Gorsky passed these serious tests with honor and was among the students admitted to the Moscow Theological Academy. A fellow countryman of Archpriest Vasily Gorsky, professor of philosophy Fyodor Aleksandrovich Golubinsky, taught at the Academy. The caring father of his sixteen-year-old son entrusted him to his kind attention and supervision. Vasily Sergeevich writes to a professor friend: “Most Reverend Father, constant benefactor! Fedor Alexandrovich! Twenty-one years later, I went to the Lavra alone to personally entrust my immature son to your paternal protection: meanwhile, you see him without me: - and your first glance clearly penetrates how early a young tree is transplanted from domestic soil into a garden that requires both maturity and strength. This is how it was destined by the authorities, this is how Providence wants it! I don’t dare argue with either one or the other. But until then I was afraid for my son of the field set before him, until I calmed myself with the thought that in Your Reverence I would have a guide who had been much tempted. With the kindness of your heart, I beg you to accept inexperience into your most experienced leadership. Entrusting the fate of my son to your complete will, I have no doubt about his happiness and my peace of mind. I do not count the needs awaiting him, because I leave him in his unconditional devotion to you. Your word, your gaze, your desire, your thought are the rule for him. Among your many activities, do not refuse to make him happy with your invaluable attention. I recognize all that is useful and necessary and sacred for him, that you assign to him, that you demand from him. This is what I limit my most humble request to you. I dared not desire more from you or disturb you during my personal meeting” 16. This letter is very important as a document that established the future relationship of the student Gorsky with the famous professor. And Fyodor Alekseevich, throughout Gorsky’s studies at the Academy, was so kind to him that he always helped him in his studies with advice and instructions, welcomed him into his home and introduced him to the right people. Seeing such a warm, paternal disposition towards their son, Gorsky’s parents deeply thanked Golubinsky for this attention in letters, and Olga Kosminichna even sent his wife sweet gifts. The first days of Gorsky's life at the Academy passed quickly and unnoticed. But the young student did not immediately get used to his new surroundings. “At first, here too, I held on to that thread, the end of which was firmly tied to Kostroma; quite some time passed until I was taken to a more spacious circle and freer activity; I took every step with timidity; I was somewhat encouraged by the fact that I had people here who were well disposed toward me, both among the bosses and among the students,” 17 Gorsky wrote in his diary about the time of his initial stay at the Academy. As a diligent student, Gorsky began his academic education with a zealous study of science. He listened attentively to professors and “almost never stayed in the room during lectures” 18. At that time, academic science was just beginning to develop independently 19, and mentors were still constrained by the textbooks recommended to them and often by the strict censorship of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow. But many teachers tried to interest students by writing their own notes, using the best, recently released manuals. Students were especially willing to listen to F. A. Golubinsky’s lectures. Gorsky loved the history of philosophy so much that he literally wrote down the professor word for word. His other favorite subject was general civil history. It was read by bachelor F.A. Ternovsky-Platonov, who presented his subject in a fascinating and eloquent manner 20 . He tried to take a deeper look at the problem under consideration and to more thoroughly reveal the causes of various historical events. It was this feature that Gorsky noticed and became interested in the lectures of the talented bachelor. Alexander Vasilyevich not only carefully took notes on them, but also repeated the views of Ternovsky-Platonov in his student essays. The young student worked zealously. But early, two years earlier than usual, having entered the Academy, with even an incomplete supply of seminary knowledge, Gorsky did not immediately prove himself. And at first it was not easy for Gorsky to study at the Academy. After all, he did not study theology at all in the seminary and had to study for the first time what others taught for the second time. The grades awarded to Gorsky for his exams in the first year of his studies at the Moscow Theological Academy are also characteristic. At the December impromptu (1828) on logic, the bachelor D. Novsky wrote only: “There is something that is relevant,” and the professor, who read a semester essay on philosophy submitted in the same year, noted: “There is hope.” Gorsky was especially successful in his May (1829) essay on civil history, written on the topic “Which of the known forms of government is closer to nature, and therefore better and more commonly used?” 21. Ternovsky-Platonov, who checked the work, praised the author and gave him the highest score: “In terms of the thoroughness of thoughts, the correctness of arrangement and the satisfied elaboration of the syllable, the reasoning is very good” 22 . Despite the difficulties, Gorsky's first year of study ended relatively successfully. Then each professor compiled a rank list in his subject, and after the summer (June) exams, Alexander Gorsky was recorded as: bachelor of civil history - the eighth student with the mark “excellent”; for the professor of Greek - second; in the rank list for the German language - eleventh; in private tests - sixth; in public – fifth 23 . The following academic year, Gorsky achieved better results. The December (1829) essay on logic “On the Judgments of the Common Mind,” although it received a certain number of comments, was noted as being written quite “thoroughly” 24 . An essay on philosophy on the topic “From philosophical principles, what can be derived a fair conclusion about the internal after death state of that soul, which during the present life has acquired evil inclinations” was liked by Gorsky’s guardian F.A. Golubinsky, who found here “a pure and living style” 25 . The essays on civil history again turned out to be the best. To interest students in the subject, Ternovsky-Platonov in the fall of 1829 gave them the topic “What is the use of knowledge of general civil history for ministers of the Church?” Gorsky became interested in the question, expressed in his essay his youthful views on the meaning of history, and his work was highly appreciated by the teacher: “Both thoughts and style are blooming; fruit can certainly be expected. Quite a fair argument." 26 Gorsky also succeeded in his “Discourse on the reasons why the Romans turned from republican rule to monarchical rule?”, submitted in March 1830. “Reasoning based on the thoroughness of thoughts, the correctness of their arrangement and the processing of syllables is very good. From the many historical details, one can see the writer’s desire to read historical books,” wrote Ternovsky-Platonov and rated the work with the highest score. This essay drew the attention of the rector, who noted: “There are often expressions more characteristic of eloquence than history” 27. After the spring tests of 1830, for his success in essays and sciences, Gorsky, fourth in academic performance, was transferred from the lowest department of the Academy to the highest 28. At that time, the Academy paid special attention to the teaching of theological subjects. Gorsky listened to dogmatic theology from the rector, Archimandrite Polycarp (Gaitannikov), who compiled a kind of outline on his subject. In them, the theological provisions were supported by the rector with the testimonies of the holy fathers of the Eastern Church, and senior students took turns doing these extracts 29 . Moral, polemical and pastoral theology was read by the inspector of the Academy, Father Evlampius. His notes, drawn out and written in a heavy style, did not please either the students or Metropolitan Philaret himself, from whom the teacher constantly received reprimands. In interpretative theology, bachelors often changed: Father Platon of Kazan, Father Filaret (Gumilevsky), and teaching was carried out unsystematically; Church literature was read by Andrei (Theognost) Lebedev. But the situation in church history was especially unenviable. Bachelors changed twice a year (among them were F.A. Ternovsky-Platonov and Father Filaret (Gumilevsky)). Feedback from contemporaries about their teaching varies. So P.S. Kazansky said that Ternovsky-Platonov was transferred to civil history for poor teaching of church history 30 . But the talented Father Platon of Kazan, for “his own reasons”, for which he suffered, instead of church history, read the works of Mrs. Gion, Jung, Schilling and others like them. And the future famous historian of the Church, Father Filaret (Gumilyovsky) (later Archbishop of Chernigov), at the beginning of his academic career, could not do anything important for the study of history, since he did not yet have the necessary knowledge and erudition 31. The first year (1830) of Gorsky's tenure at the top department was the year of cholera, the epidemic of which swept even Moscow. Classes at the Academy were shortened, many students went home, and those who remained were accommodated more spaciously, many confessed and received communion. Taking advantage of his free time, Gorsky worked hard on his compositions, but these activities caused deep concern in Kostroma. “From your previous letter,” his father wrote to him on April 21, 1831, “it is noticeable that you have no free hours, not just days. How and what can you do to ease your troubles? The propositions given for reasoning do not seem to be so dry as to require too much for a brainiac. My advice is old and ordinary - you won’t be surprised by the bulk, you won’t dig everything up” 32 . Usually obedient to the will of his parents, Gorsky disobeyed this time. He continued to study hard. Two sermons were especially good, which made the father in Kostroma heartily rejoice. And the essays “On the universality of Providence”, “Analysis of Psalm 103”, “Discourse on whether preachers of the Word of God need to take care of the beauty of their teachings, and if necessary, then to what extent” and “Discourse on the signs of the time of the end of the age” 33 are extensive, demonstrative, written in good language and received praise from the professors and the rector. The works of the future historian on history itself turned out to be weaker than others. Reasoning “How did it happen that Christian writers began to use pagan deities in their writings and is it possible to use this?” and “Why were there more demon-possessed people in the times of Jesus Christ and the apostles than before and after?” (this last essay was submitted on June 5, 1832) - rigoristic, written not entirely clearly and definitely 34. These works ended the academic work of the student Gorsky. Term papers, that is, graduation papers, were not yet written, but the best ones were selected from the semester essays by the authorities and sent to the Synod. Thus, Alexander Vasilyevich’s studies at the Academy ended. Gorsky’s final certificate contains the following notes: “In the theological and philosophical sciences, in ecclesiastical and general literature, in ecclesiastical and civil history, at the final test I turned out to do excellently well; in languages: Hebrew, Greek, German and French - very good, - with excellent abilities, constant diligence and diligent behavior" 35. Thus, despite certain failures of Gorsky in written works on history, in total for his essays and oral answers in exams he was awarded a master's degree and took third place in the rank list of those graduating from the Academy. The first two masters: Timofey (in monasticism Philotheus) Uspensky and Stefan Protopopov were left as bachelors at the Academy. Gorsky, at the request of F.A. Golubinsky, was given the vacant position of professor of church and civil history at the Moscow Theological Seminary, where his career began on August 29, 1832. Alexander Vasilyevich was a zealous student. He diligently attended lectures and carefully listened to the full course of academic sciences. From the Academy he took away a significant stock of knowledge and a habit of work, the ability to work, use knowledge, reach for it, think, observe, analyze. But what is especially important is that at the Academy Gorsky fell in love with science and was imbued with a special respect for knowledge. He expressed his views in a letter to Eusebius of Orlinsky, his friend at the Academy, later Archbishop of Mogilev. This letter was written when Gorsky was already a professor at the Academy: “Besides the monastics in seminaries, really, very few have the means and desire to further expand the scope of their knowledge than the limits to which it was brought at the Academy. How many expensive flowers are carried away from this field by the whirlwinds of life? How many who left here with rich hopes remained unsatisfied when they came out from under the powerful influence of the spirit of competition, which has no place to develop in the close circle of the seminary. Really, my friend, I don’t know if I’m deceiving myself, but it seems to me that our Academy works a lot and encourages us to work a lot, it seems, much more than a seminary, no matter what it is. If you yourself were an ardent zealot for the works of enlightenment, if you were here yourself, I am sure that your heart would expand even more into activity. What kind of work will you feel sorry for when you know that you will find not one, but several people with a soul who will understand these works, take advantage of this acquisition, pass it on to others, will themselves follow these discoveries to new ones and report them to us, when we may no longer be able to continue our research further? Comforted by this thought, the tired head is once again cheered up, the tired hand once again wets the pen, and the worker of enlightenment celebrates an all-night vigil in honor of the truth. Because of this advantage of the Academy’s influence on the jealousy of the working people, I would like promising people to take refuge under its roof as soon as possible.”36 3. Paper is a faithful friend, letters are the story of the heart At the Theological Academy, Gorsky began to develop serious views on life, demands, and moral character, which largely determined his future path in life. As a young sixteen-year-old seminarian living in quiet, “monastic” Kostroma, he entered the Moscow Theological Academy, located within the walls of the Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. Meeting new people and their influence on his inner world and the outer, church world deeply disturbed and excited the soul of the young student. “The soul, like air, is forever in motion; like the sea, it is forever unsteady; Every day has its own ebb and flow of feelings. Every morning, as soon as I open my eyes, a multitude of objects, close to me and distant, related to my duty or benefit, important and insignificant, are pressed uncontrollably into my soul: this is the beginning of the tide! It increases as the day progresses; finally all the emptiness of the soul is filled; every strength of it - willy-nilly - is filled with this salty sea water to its full; the soul feels its burden, heaviness and fatigue; the ebb begins - the opposite desire, a return to the previous point of one’s existence; forces are drawn to their center, the reserve is collected and decomposed, the soul is at peace from the outside, but is active within” 37, as Gorsky wrote in his diary in the summer of 1833. A dangerous time was coming for him, self-awareness was awakening, the young man needed support, sympathy and spiritual guidance. F. A. Golubinsky took a great part in Gorsky’s development, “giving advice and instructions regarding studies and written works, showing him the way, leading him along the way and supporting him along the way” 38 . But this care was not enough for Gorsky’s sensitive soul. He had friends among the students, although very few. Even student Dmitry Gumilevsky (in monasticism Filaret), recommended by F.A. Golubinsky, did not immediately become Gorsky’s friend. “The vague, indefinite features of his soul did not make a living impression on me, so I could soon get behind him,” 39 and only later did Alexander Vasilyevich become close friends and became friends with Father Philaret. Gorsky shared all his free time from classes with classmate Ivan Ivanovich Smirnov. There were quarrels between friends, but they immediately made up and continued to frolic childishly. It was with this friend that Gorsky spent his first two years at the Academy. Then I. I. Smirnov graduated from the course, and he was left alone, as he wrote in his diary, and, moreover, among people who were far from him in spirit, which is why he was often overcome by boredom. “The insatiable fire burned, there was no food” 40. From these personal testimonies of Gorsky it is clear that there was fermentation in his soul. He was looking for love, sympathy, friendship. “It’s boring to be alone: ​​I would like to have a person closer who could fill the emptiness of my soul. I want nothing more from him than for him to revive me in hours of despondency and mental inactivity, to be a guide to me in all cases of my mental life, to excite, moderate, warm up, cool, when I need both. I don’t need his wit, his desire to talk a lot; You need a kind heart and experience in matters of the heart, simplicity, sincerity. I would come to him to relax, to freshen up after dusty work. Dead friends don't always answer questions." 41 And indeed, parting with living friends, Gorsky turns to the “dead” - to books and academic pursuits. Unable to retell his feelings in conversations with loved ones, he wants to pour them out “at least through pen, through paper. Paper is now my true friend. Letters are the story of my heart; and just as the activity of the latter is continuous, so let my outline of myself be continuous; I want to experience and notice myself at all points” 42. For this purpose, Gorsky began to keep a diary, where he wrote down important thoughts and experiences; he completely trusted his personal joys and sorrows to his diary. This can be called the confession of a poor, beautiful, yearning heart. Mental fermentation, moral dissatisfaction - this is what Gorsky experienced and felt during his student years and at the beginning of his professorial career. He was looking for the guiding star of his life, trying to determine its purpose. “Having already begun the course of my destiny, can I not say to myself, should I not say to myself: work, observe the observations and lessons for the title destined for you by God; compare examples of those already operating where you want to act; learn instructions for yourself, transfer yourself more often to this area of ​​the future; find out more carefully what he demands from you; prepare little by little, from afar, in advance, to satisfy them; arm yourself against dangers; prevent the severity of poverty and impoverishment that can befall you by thrifty collection and accumulation of the treasures of your inner wealth that you need: good rules, useful experiences, prudent plans for all cases” 43. These lines clearly show what high principles Gorsky decided to adhere to in his studies of history, in his pedagogical aspirations and personal views on the reality around him. “It was in these thoughts that I took up a pen to write in the title of a deliberately sewn notebook: My phantasms. He called these desires and dreams of transformations and these plans and instructions for himself in the future phantasms, because the truth of the future and the plans for transformations that are sure to take place can only be in the mind of the One who acts higher than human power. So, viva, my fantasies!” 44 At the Academy, the young Gorsky developed an interest in the “mystical” side of Christianity. “His religious appearance had many features of Alexander’s time: attentiveness to dreams and omens. On top of this Western mystical influence lies a paternal wave. And she was stronger" 45. This was the influence of Father Filaret (Gumilevsky), with whom Gorsky became friends again several years after his first acquaintance. And now, for many years, they were united by a tender friendship and a common passion for historical science. And when friends began to serve science together, history became their daily food. At first they became close on an academic basis, later recalling long conversations on historical topics, hours spent together over manuscripts or old printed books. But the rapprochement went deeper. It was Father Filaret who introduced Gorsky into the world of fatherly wisdom and asceticism, when he taught him spiritual wisdom and work on himself, saying that “in scientific reasoning, what is most needed is calmness of the soul, a natural train of thought left to the control of the reflective mind... And in scientific reasoning about a subject dear not only to the mind, but to the whole soul, it is unnatural to leave feeling inactive” 46 . After all, it was impossible to forget that “the work of salvation begins in us... precisely with contrition of heart, strong self-immersion and constraint of will, thoughts and feelings” 47. Filaret constantly warned his dreamy friend against speculative hobbies, against that almost Gnostic spirit that could so easily be infected from German books. Filaret taught Gorsky precisely “the spirit of practical churchliness and canonical obedience. He warned him against subordinating his faith to the arguments of science, and he also warned him against the passion for books itself - dangerous, like any passion. “Taste and see” (Ps. 33:9) - this is the way of knowing the Christian religion: sacraments and prayer. And Gorsky firmly remembered this lesson” 48. Outlining his life's work, Gorsky thought about the means to accomplish it. Another leaf from his diary introduces us to these innermost thoughts, filled with deep self-criticism and the most attentive attitude towards oneself: “The science that I do has led me to many things. The people around me, intentionally or unintentionally, communicated good wishes to me. My prayer at home was very insufficient. Quite often I went to bed and got up without proper prayer. It also happened that sometimes for a few minutes in the morning or evening, walking alone, I turned to the Lord within myself, asking for His light, reinforcement, and cleansing of my sins. It even seemed to me that there was no particular need to observe the accepted forms of prayer, for example, reading well-known prayers, standing, and bowing. There was no fasting or special abstinence from food either... Prayer in church is often cold and entertaining. If it happened that there were zealous agitations, then vanity tried to suppress them. It took possession of my soul, as soon as the prayer stopped, and suggested that I was doing little for my soul; I tried to limit it, but no more by thought than by deed itself. The pleasure of doing a good deed was pleasant to my proud heart... Is this how it is necessary to live with God? Is this how to remember Him? Is this how to serve him? If I start sorting out my affairs based on public duties, I will find them in no better position. Their root is not the desire to please God, to glorify Him, but sometimes a dead sense of duty, sometimes even worse - motivations of curiosity. How often does the desire in one way or another lead to a clear knowledge of God, the All-Ruler, the Most Good and the Holy? Wasn’t your own pride always and in every case mixed in? Moreover, how many violations of duty are there due to various circumstances, which are often in our hands and the favorable or unfavorable disposition for our good depends a lot on ourselves? Slowness in business, lax fulfillment of the requirements of duties, evasion from matters of duty to matters of pleasure - aren’t these the vices of which my conscience convicts me? In relations with others, is it always remembered in my memory that not a single rotten word should come out of my mouth? Inappropriate jokes, empty talk, unfavorable comments about others, don't they leave you with the best time spent in society? How is the tongue not garrulous in conversation that is beneficial to the soul? What about insincerity? What about in the heart? How many feelings of envy, jealousy, pride, self-dreaming, whims, perseverance, self-will!” 49 These lines of a kind of confession convincingly show that Alexander Vasilyevich carefully looked after himself, thought a lot about how best to arrange his life, to please God and people, and was often dissatisfied with his own inner state of mind. Gorsky talks a lot about how best to direct his spiritual strength so that his life is a service to God, an active, joyful, fruitful service. He thought a lot about what kind of activity would give him the opportunity to better serve God. “The only title to which birth, upbringing, education, love, and dignity disposes me is a spiritual title,” he wrote in his diary, where he discussed three types of service: scientist, white clergy and monastic. “The first, known to me from my own experience, has the disadvantage that it gives work to almost only the head. Academic studies, instead of being a means to complete mental education, are set as an end in themselves... No matter how highly the education of the mind is valued, even according to Christian rules and the judgment of common sense, this is not the whole purpose of man. The service of the white clergy is high in itself, bears the special stamp of God’s blessing... I would ask God to deign me to be among such ministers, if it were not connected with this, according to our church institutions, the requirement to first enter into marriage... But such a requirement is incompatible with the gloomy habits of a lonely life, already ingrained in me, and in general with a dislike for married life” 50. But there was a time when Gorsky also thought about marriage and touched on this issue in his correspondence with friends. After graduating from the Theological Academy, he even outlined his ideal wife, and shared his thoughts with a friend who was about to get married. This ideal was sublime. “Yes, my friend,” the comrade answered Gorsky, “when I read your letter, I did not remember whether I was on earth, for the advice that you offered me in this choice of a friend is unearthly, or, at least, cannot be implemented on earth. According to your description, your girlfriend should be an angel; life with her is angelic pleasures, angelic; but, my friend, we are people covered with flesh... My friend, tell me where such a friend lives, or is it half as good as you describe? Now I’m walking, running, flying, floating towards her.” Alexander Vasilyevich thought to find support and consolation from his wife. The same friend vigorously called Gorsky to Moscow: “Well, dear, with God’s blessing, go quickly to Moscow, look for the one that Providence has assigned to you. Together, it will be easier to bear the flour” 51. But, having not found a friend after his heart during his student years, Gorsky did not find a wife who corresponded to his dreams and ideals. Most of all, at that time, he gravitated towards monastic life, in which he saw the ideal of true service to God and people and an excellent opportunity for revealing his inner world. The tonsure of student Dmitry Gumilyovsky, who later became the famous scientist and hierarch Archbishop Philaret, had a strong effect on the young Gorsky. Under the influence of living impressions, he immediately wrote a letter to his parents in which he asked them to bless him to accept monasticism. The days of anxious anticipation and internal struggle have arrived. Finally, on January 28, an angry and rather sharp answer came: “Our dear friend, dear son Alexander Vasilyevich! Your reverent feelings for equal-angelic monasticism have left me in such bewilderment that I don’t know what to attribute them to or what to call them. Happy journey to heaven to young Filaret! But is it really only on the wings of monks that they fly into the mountain regions? And behind us and in front of us and around us, thousands, not hundreds of experiments have proven and will continue to prove how slippery and how dangerous the monastic path is. If it were not for the brilliance of the miter and panagia that deceived the ardent and impetuous youth with their radiance, then the deserts would certainly be empty. Direct self-sacrifice is not in words, and therefore not in repeating oaths and vows, both given and accepted by me and you. Do me a favor, if in the future you happen to be a spectator of the tonsure ceremony of any employee, then look at it without heat, much more indifferently, with complete composure, without any envy. In general, everything charming and charming should be looked at from the unfavorable side; otherwise you will mistake tinsel for gold, or an empty shadow for a body. Hasty, thoughtless haste in my eyes promises nothing more than a minute meteor that will fade and disappear. Your mother listened to all this and says: give him a good time!” 52. Gorsky did not dare to disobey, but continued to hesitate, not knowing which service to choose in order to completely devote himself to serving God and his neighbors. “My inner part of being has not yet found either a clean channel or a strong vessel. It becomes fuller and thickens in itself, and this fullness destroys me” 53. This hesitation continued until 1840, when Gorsky made his last attempt to become a monk. He again asked his parents' opinions and advice on this matter. This time the response was not so harsh. In a letter dated September 2 of the same year, 54 the father tries to prove to his son that learned monasticism with its administrative rights does not correspond to the desire to combine academic pursuits, which require a quiet, serene refuge, with serving God in the priesthood. The father also said wisely that, meanwhile, the path to heaven is from every rank. The mother, with tears and on her knees, begged her son to take pity on his parents. The father’s arguments coincided with the thoughts of Gorsky himself. He no longer touched on the issue of monasticism and calmed down spiritually, devoting himself entirely to scientific studies, seeing in this service to God and his neighbors. In science, especially church history, in communicating the acquired knowledge to others, he found joy and consolation, the meaning and purpose of his life. A. F. Gorsky rightly and correctly noted this meaning of life. Lavrov-Platonov: “Alexander Vasilyevich’s message of knowledge to others was imbued with the thought of God. Our father considered the act of communicating his knowledge to those who need it a sacred act, which requires preparation not only mental, but also moral... Knowledge of it was a service instrument of love for God and neighbors” 55. Chapter II. Scientific and pedagogical activity His science “was highly humble, patient, accessible to everyone, life-giving and loving... he never became arrogant with his comprehensive knowledge.” To the memories of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky who died in Bose 1. All-night vigil in honor of the truth Gorsky's professorial activity began at the Moscow Theological Seminary, where he was appointed professor of church and civil history on August 29, 1832. Here a wide scope opened up for him for scientific thought and the implementation of his pedagogical plans. The seminary professors themselves followed the development of science and tried to introduce their students to its latest achievements. Since 1823, the seminary was located in Moscow, in the very center of the city, near the Kremlin in the Zaikonospassky Monastery. After several months of service, Gorsky was appointed librarian of the seminary and began to get acquainted with books and manuscripts. But the position of a seminary teacher did not satisfy the young teacher. Summoned from the quiet Lavra refuge to stormy Moscow, Gorsky was very burdened by the new and vain environment for him. Desiring with all his soul to return to his native alma mater, he dreamed of the space for flight of thought that the Academy provides. “Freedom of mind in the highest circles and the spirit of competition that encourages work” 56 - that’s what attracted him to his native Academy. Professor Archpriest F.A. Golubinsky again helped Gorsky. At his insistence, on August 19, 1833, Gorsky was transferred to the Moscow Theological Academy as a bachelor of church history in place of the deceased Ternovsky-Platonov. A vast and difficult field of activity opened up for Gorsky at the Academy. History was then studied from textbooks, which were only a collection of church-historical facts and had little to do with the causes and consequences of the processes taking place and ways to solve the problems that arose 57. Therefore, the teacher himself had to find the necessary material, bringing it into the system. This took a lot of time and effort. In August, Gorsky was elected bachelor and was supposed to begin lecturing in September. He zealously set to work and during the first third of the academic year managed to read to students the first four centuries of New Testament history, what later became known as the history of the Ancient Church. Gorsky considered all four centuries separately, dividing them into two periods. The first included the first three centuries, and the second included the fourth century. In each century, he examined church-historical phenomena in their main directions: how the Church spread, how it was subjected to persecution, what was the state of spiritual enlightenment, worship, how the administration of the Church was structured, and the fight against heresies 58. Gorsky studied intensely, immersing himself in reading books and composing lectures. He loved his family dearly, but not only did he not have time to go on vacation to his native Kostroma, but he did not even write a few lines there. In vain did Archpriest Vasily call his son for Christmas in 1833; in vain did he write: “During Christmas time, in any fifteen days you hope to squeeze a thirty-hundred-year-old giant. See if your strength becomes, strength without hesitation, tired, exhausted, exhausted” 59. Gorsky did not go home. He didn't have enough time and energy. He studied even on days that were especially significant for him. In his diary on August 30, 1834, on the day of the Angel, he wrote: “Today I was alone at home and instead of celebrating, I was busy compiling the first lesson for the beginning course for tomorrow” 60. But, despite the plentiful classes, Gorsky at first could not prepare all the lectures in advance, read impromptu, and used textbooks. The whole body was tired from intense stress and refused to work, claiming its rights to rest. “The arm is tired, the head is tired, the eyes are closing, the day is spent working, the night is resting.” This state of Gorsky is quite understandable, for, without sparing himself, he studied even at night. “Yesterday was like not my day. At first I let myself feel the lack of sleep for a long time last night, then until late after midnight - things are classic” 61 . From that time on, staying up at work past midnight became Gorsky’s regular habit, but such an “all-night vigil in honor of the truth” did not help. There was no shortage of work. Alexander Vasilyevich even forgot to write to his relatives, which greatly saddened and worried his parents. His father writes to him with alarm: “Let it be an undeniable truth that you have no free time, that you value even your minutes, but we do not demand any extraneous attention from you, we do not demand extensive news from you; “I am healthy,” this is the beginning, this is the middle, this is the conclusion of your letter to us. I’ll tell you, even in our post office they are surprised at your silence. If you write, don’t waste your time on empty tales, don’t waste it on your excuses - you’ll pay it off in July, an eye for an eye. And this is why I don’t want to write anymore, in order to save your treasure” 62. The mother was especially worried and worried about her son: “Like mail, so is waiting; like mail, it’s a new boredom: not knowing about you for four weeks is not easy to say, but what is it like for the heart to endure?” 63 Meanwhile, Gorsky was adding more and more cases to his incredible number of cases. Having become in September 1834 an assistant to the librarian of the Academy - his friend Filaret (Gumilevsky), he participated in compiling a register of old books. In November 1835, Gorsky became secretary of the external Academic Board for the Kazan district and had to put neglected affairs in order, which was very burdensome. The news of such a busy lifestyle for the young teacher even penetrated beyond the walls of the Academy, among his acquaintances. “This eccentric Alexander Vasilyevich, he’s on his way home - he’s in a hurry, and he’s in a hurry from home too. What a fiery one. Yes, good - God be with you - Fever. If God brings it, I’ll come to the Lavra and climb into your historical laboratory and make some noise,” 64, Nikolai Palmin, a fellow member of the Academy who was at that time the caretaker of the Borisoglebsk Theological School, wrote to Gorsky on September 29, 1836. From such a busy pace of life, Gorsky’s health naturally began to weaken. Already at the end of the first year of academic service, on July 8, 1834, his father wrote with bitterness: “We had a living witness of your life. He did not hide from us that you are excessively, unnecessarily, sacrificing yourself to academic work. He is surprised at your colorlessness and thinness, and at your 25-year old age. This means that things have exhausted you. You are drying up on yourself, and we are drying up on you and for you.” Probably it was this acquaintance who told Gorsky’s parents in Kostroma about their son’s lifestyle, a certain Mayevsky, who wrote admonishingly to Alexander Vasilyevich himself: “I regret that you, while loving wisdom, do not love yourself; I was told that you are no longer the same Alexander Vasilyevich, cheerful, strong, powerful, ruddy, as you were before, but deserted and with a grave-like face. I sincerely regret that you spoiled yourself. You are working in a way that no one else in Europe has been doing; even a German has given in to your work! What did you do with your father and mother, who were already saddened? I really am afraid for you” 65. Gorsky did not spare himself. And when at the age of 22 he took the chair of church history at the academy, he had to read too much alone: ​​from biblical history to later times. And although, as part of his service duties, he was engaged in biblical and general church history, he very early discovered and began to develop a penchant for studying Russian antiquities and manuscripts. The academic library of that time contained many manuscripts, and the librarian, Gorsky’s friend Filaret (Gumilevsky), himself studied them with great interest. Together with Filaret, Alexander Vasilyevich examined handwritten texts very carefully and with great enthusiasm. This is evidenced by a curious letter from priest Pavel Petrovich Ptitsyn, the husband of Gorsky’s sister Yulia Vasilievna, who invited Gorsky to Moscow for Easter 1834. “Aren’t you tired of the desert and loneliness, dusty tomes and half-rotten manuscripts? Give rest to at least your brain, if not your mind and imagination. And what is the celebration of Easter in the midst of a struggle with such boring interlocutors as Nestor and Amartolos? Doesn’t this mean, in the proper sense, to celebrate in kvass Vetse, since in our language there is no manuscript older than Nestor? So, we ask you to welcome us to celebrate Easter in the absence of leaven, purity and truth; We have neither disputes with dumb historians, nor errors from the path of truth! If you want to take books with you, then I have them in a large chest, in which they have hardly ever been able to lie? Be that as it may, it is incomparably better to spend a Bright Holiday in the capital than in the desert. You can do business with us and visit your friends in your free time. And this will revive you and give you greater strength for the feats ahead. Let’s assume that you skip half of your classes, but after a rest you can reschedule and do twice as much…” 66 Thus, from the early days of his professorship until the end of his life, the study of manuscripts and Russian church history became Gorsky’s favorite pastime. “Russian church history is for me the main subject of study out of duty and love,” 67 he wrote to the famous historian Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin in 1843. “It was a pleasure for me,” wrote Gorsky to Alexei Ivanovich Khludov, a famous collector of ancient manuscripts and books, “to walk through familiar articles and books in your collection of manuscripts... How my soul was inflamed, encountering in the clear description of your ancient written treasures a lot of completely unknown or little-studied things. Oh, holy antiquity, how much sense there is in it!” 68 Gorsky's theoretical studies of Russian church history found their practical expression. In 1842, in view of the five-hundredth anniversary of the death of St. Sergius of Radonezh, Gorsky compiled a “Historical Description of the Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius,” 69 which went through several editions and to this day serves as the best guide for any educated person who wants to get a clear idea of ​​the historical destinies of this dear Russian shrine. 2. A teacher who teaches by word and life At the beginning of his teaching and scientific career, Gorsky was not only a researcher, not only a master, but also a teacher. He was an incomparable teacher, he taught both in word and in life. His attitude towards his pets was always paternal and caring, especially towards his fellow Kostroma residents. Students of the Kostroma Seminary who came to take exams at the Academy, according to established custom, after being introduced to the authorities, always came to Gorsky’s apartment. This is how it happened: “Not without timidity and inner excitement, we entered his small reception hall, expecting to meet the stern and important figure of the famous scientist. What will we say to him, what will we, poor seminarians, answer to him? But all our fears were dispelled. A man came out to us, or, more correctly, ran out of his office alive, dressed extremely simply, already gray-haired (this was in 1859), but with an extremely friendly smile, and with the words “ah, fellow countrymen,” he offered his hand, kissed it and sat us down next to him. This was the unforgettable Alexander Vasilyevich! Extraordinary kindness and friendliness shone in his face, in his eyes... I don’t remember well what we talked about; only our visit did not last very long, and we left Alexander Vasilyevich completely enchanted by him” 70. As an experienced teacher, Gorsky closely monitored his own and other students, helping them with advice and warning them if necessary. At the same time, Gorsky’s attitude towards students did not change at all when he became rector of the Academy. He greeted them kindly and kindly. Introducing himself to the rector, famous throughout the church world, the newcomer did not notice the piercing gaze. A conversation ensued, during which Gorsky tried to get to know the student, find out the degree of his education, views, and intentions. The young interlocutor soon realized that he was being subjected to subtle analysis and began to feel embarrassed, but affectionate treatment brought him out of his embarrassment, and the communication itself was not in vain. Such a meeting was dear and memorable for all the students 71. Gorsky always met with applicants during the entrance exams. This is how N. Kalinnikov describes these tests: “He examined as a specialist in church history. Among the features of his examination should be attributed special delicacy and, so to speak, caution in proposing questions to students; Alexander Vasilyevich had nothing like intimidation or affection. In response to unclear, imprecise questions, he usually said: “No, sir, that’s not so,” or “not quite so,” and generally something like that. During the entrance exams, he asked questions from his science in order, but the students called were confused. Whatever he had to answer according to the order of the system, he was content with that. For example, I had to answer about fasting in the Old Russian Church; I did not answer quite satisfactorily, but Alexander Vasilyevich did not ask me or anyone else any other questions, as far as I can remember” 72 . Over time, Gorsky changed the method of surveying students. “The person asked had barely begun to speak on one issue from dogmatic theology when Fr. the rector began his colloquium with him and dialectically quickly moved from one science to another, finding the opportunity for such transitions in the analytical analysis of the answers given to questions. It happened that the person answering sometimes became, as they say, at a dead end; nevertheless, beyond all his expectations, he left the examiner with such a gratifying remark: “Now you don’t know, but here, God willing, you will.” This made it clear that in general the answer was considered satisfactory. A caustic remark about the respondent’s ignorance of “such and such articles,” witty and self-satisfied ridicule of students, etc. were by no means allowed in Gorsky’s remarks on the respondent’s mistakes. The answer was recognized as the best if each precise expression in it had a basis for itself, critically comprehended by the answerer” 73. Having entered the Academy, finding themselves in an unfamiliar environment, the students gradually looked closely at the new orders and faces. And Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky was very noticeable among the professors. Most often, students saw him in the library, classroom and at his apartment. Having settled down a bit and looked around, all the students who entered the Academy went to the library to get books. This is how N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov describes the process of issuing textbooks to students: “They are called to the library to receive the books we want for self-education, but textbooks are a must. Of the latter, some enjoy the unenviable privilege of not being opened even once before the end of the course, but the librarian, Alexander Vasilyevich, put them aside for everyone, with a smile, however, that said: “Of course, you won’t open the books, but you must take them.” 74 Students often saw Gorsky praying during the service in the academic hall, where the all-night vigil and some other services during Great Lent were held, or in the Refectory Church of the Lavra during the Divine Liturgy. Gorsky attended all church services relentlessly. He prayed reverently, performing the prescribed rituals. Thus, the procession of professors to kiss the Gospel at the All-Night Vigil “was usually opened by Alexander Vasilyevich with a quick step, with his hands folded on his chest (his favorite way to walk and stand in church). His example undoubtedly had a beneficial effect on the majority of students” 75. At Gorsky's apartment, where students went for advice on problems that worried them, one was always amazed by the mass of books 76 among which it was impossible to turn around. This situation, together with the news of Gorsky’s intensive studies in history, had an extremely beneficial effect on the students and encouraged them to cover themselves with tomes, following the example of their teacher, to sit up over books at night. In the senior year of the Academy, students had already become Gorsky's students, listened to his lectures on church history and wrote essays for him. Gorsky was one of the zealous and experienced professors. Obliged, especially in the first years of his teaching career, to teach a mass of disciplines united under the name of church history, he tried to acquaint his listeners with the most important and essential. “Despite the awareness of the high importance and obvious benefits of studying church history, Gorsky, however, well understood that achieving the goal - serious knowledge of this science - is a very difficult matter. The thought of the difficulty of studying the subject prompts him to address various comments regarding this subject to his listeners. He either explains what this difficulty is and what it depends on, or declares what can and cannot be achieved in the study of science with zealous pursuit of it at the Academy" 77 . Realizing the breadth and immensity of church historical science, how much time and work is needed to thoroughly familiarize yourself with it, Gorsky did not think of demanding the impossible from his listeners. “The highest desire for a mentor is if he manages to arouse in his students a love for science and a desire to study it thoroughly himself” 78 . These are the words of a truly experienced mentor, which Gorsky was. Our scientist addresses his listeners with them, and with what sincerity, what warmth and friendliness they resonate in the hearts of his students. For the sake of them, his pupils, the tireless lecturer came to the classroom earlier than other professors, “while darkness still exists,” as they put it then. He read his lectures loudly, clearly, and in some places, when presenting especially touching passages from Sacred history, for example, the life of Jesus Christ, his voice sounded with lyrical inspiration, and the listeners always especially liked them 79 . “Gorsky was one of those higher school teachers who commanded the attention of the audience and knew how to captivate their listeners; at the same time, he was an outstanding educator who enjoyed enormous moral influence on students” 80. Some students carefully and clearly recorded these lectures and read them outside the Academy in order to “awaken and warm up religious feelings” 81 . The topics of the essays that Gorsky gave to students for scientific research concerned issues of general church history, and only some of them had the task of introducing students to Russian history. Gorsky himself took this research seriously and demanded work and attentive attention from students. He indicated manuals, gave a lot of books, forced them to redo the work several times, helped himself and often supplemented and corrected student work with his own hand. For exams before Christmas or the summer vacation, Gorsky represented one department of history and often gave his own notes or indicated the necessary books. Archbishop Alexy (Lavrov-Platonov), one of Gorsky’s students, who became a professor of church law at the Academy, paints the following image of his famous teacher: “He taught us in three ways: everyone in general at the department, captivating us with his deep research, historical paintings, brilliant characteristics of the fathers and teachers of the Church, then he taught us all at his other department - in the library. These are also his most precious lectures for us, with which he introduced us to full mastery of the literature of the subject. But there were also his lectures - lectiones privatissimae (purely private lectures - lat.) - at home. Sometimes he called us to these lectures one by one, regarding our arguments that he had read or to communicate his thoughts on a given topic” 82. As a professor, Gorsky was subordinate to the rector, the Academy conference and the authority of the ruling bishop. This censorship was not a formality. Both the rector and the Metropolitan of Moscow reviewed the lectures, notes and topics. Even personal connections couldn’t save me. So Gorsky’s friend, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky), directly wrote to him: “I received and read your notes. I confess to you that I want to take advantage of the right you have given me - to correct what needs to be corrected. My amendments will relate specifically to comments about church and biblical history. When we meet, I’ll explain the reason why and what I would like to change in your notes” 83. In addition to the censorship of the rector, the most responsible was the censorship of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, to whom the Academy teachers each year, through a conference, provided brief notes on what they had read to the students during that time. In addition, Saint Philaret often demanded the lecture notebooks themselves for viewing. So, at one time, Archimandrite Alexy (Rzhanitsyn), rector of the Academy, wrote to Gorsky: “I stole your notes and others from Moscow. Vladyka was going to look at them, but didn’t look at anything, and I, in order to avoid anything new, thought it best to take them where they should go without saying a word.”84 From the letters of Archimandrite Philaret (Gumilevsky) it is clear that he gave advice to Gorsky on how to correctly express his thoughts in notes submitted to censorship, and how to conduct a conversation with the Metropolitan during exams, which at that time were exams not only for students, but mostly for the professors themselves. “It seems to me,” wrote the rector, Archimandrite Filaret, to Alexander Vasilyevich, “that if unfortunately your experience is not compiled according to his thoughts, then you will challenge him to open battle and unnecessarily touch his hot-tempered character. We need to know his thoughts in advance... There is no need to forcefully insist. This will be considered stubbornness, an act of self-will - and they will consider it, perhaps, rightly. Then (which God forbid) even the good will be called bad. Why insist on your own in front of him? I can do the same thing later that I defend lightly now, when, that is, my thought is holy. And no one will reproach me for this. I act according to the convictions of my conscience” 85. However, the advice and instructions of a friend did not prevent an “open battle” between Gorsky and Metropolitan Philaret at the public exam on July 2, 1837, when they had a lively dispute about the correctness of some provisions on the subject of the lectures, which Alexander Vasilyevich presented to the Bishop. A detailed description of this incident is recorded in Gorsky's diary 86. This clash confirms the idea that Metropolitan Philaret’s control over professors and their activities was very strict 87. But the demanding and strict Saint Philaret already respected Gorsky, trusted him, valued his works and knowledge, distinguishing him from other teachers. On January 19, 1837, Gorsky was elevated to extraordinary professor, and on September 9, 1839, he became an ordinary professor at the Moscow Theological Academy. 3. The Ideal Librarian Every year the gifted professor received more and more responsible positions, combining them with his previous responsibilities. So on October 11, 1842, the authorities appointed him librarian of the Academy. He worked in this rank for twenty years, putting in a lot of work for the prosperity of the library. Being well acquainted with the needs of the library, Gorsky, as its head, took special zeal in replenishing the collections. He ordered a lot of books, the most necessary and rare. Thanks to Gorsky, the academic library increased significantly with the acquisition of books of theological and historical content. All the best that came out on history abroad, all that was published in Russia, was sure to go to the library. Therefore, the richest collections in the library were the collections of theological and historical books. Moreover, each of the newly received books, not only historical, but also on other sciences, was always carefully read by Gorsky. He even had the custom of leaving critical remarks on these books, with which the books of his own library were also marked 88 . Under Gorsky, the academic library was constantly enriched with new contributions from collections donated to it from private libraries. For example, on his instructions, in 1847 the most valuable part of the library of Archbishop Afanasy (Protopopov) of Tobolsk, who died in 1842, was purchased cheaply 89. A precious acquisition for the Academy was the transfer of the most important manuscripts from the collection of the Joseph-Volokolamsk Monastery, which came to the library at the request of Gorsky. In March 1859, he turned to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow with a proposal in which, pointing to examples of the transfer of the library of the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and the library of the Solovetsky Monastery to the Kazan Academy, “he asked the Metropolitan, in the form of “benefits for spiritual learning,” to transfer into the ownership of the Academy the collection of manuscripts of the Joseph Monastery, “for The monastery is currently unnecessary and can be used for the benefit of the Church and science, due to the remoteness of the place, it is inaccessible.” The Metropolitan wrote at the presentation: “in order to achieve the useful use of the manuscripts of the Joseph Monastery, take the following measures: 1) form a committee from the abbot of the Joseph Monastery, from one person from the Academy and from the same person from the diocesan department; 2) this committee will extract from the list of manuscripts of the Joseph Library those that can usefully be transferred to the academic library, without touching the manuscripts that, for special reasons, are better left in the monastery (meaning those written by St. Joseph in his own hand) and without unnecessarily assigning for transfer such manuscripts that are insignificant for the Academy, but in the monastery can have edifying use; 3) the consistory will give an opinion on the concession, and the conference on acceptance; 4) to fulfill this, take advantage of the vacation time at the Academy" 90. Gorsky himself was appointed a member of the committee from the Academy, who spent the entire vacation of 1859 in the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery and selected 236 items from among the manuscripts for the academic library, which were accepted into the Academy at the end of September of the same year. Among them, three manuscripts on parchment were received: the Gospel on folio of the 14th century, the Octoechos of the 14th century and the Stichirarion. From the manuscripts written on paper, we received, among others: the Pentateuch of 1494, 4 copies of the Gospel of the 15th century and 9 copies of the 16th century, 6 copies of the Apostle, one of them from the 15th century, the rest from the 16th century: 7 Service Books, several Service Menaions, the Followed Psalter, Irmologion, Canon, Church Rules (Typikon), services to the saints, Book of Hours; three Trebniks of the 15th century, patristic writings in collections (59 copies), of which three are from the 15th century, the rest from the 16th century, Sunday and holiday teachings from the 14th century, several copies of the Four Menaions and the lives of Russian saints from the 16th century 91. In 1861–1863, at the request of Metropolitan Philaret, with the permission of the Synod, doublets of some early printed books from the library of the Moscow Synodal Printing House entered the Moscow Theological Academy. The case was also started by Professor Gorsky regarding the proposal that arose to transfer these doublets to the Moscow Public Library, which was then opening. From the old printed books, Gorsky selected and presented to the Academy 151, in addition, 6 books of the civil press and 18 small brochures containing various manifestos, announcements, exhortations and decrees. The books are predominantly liturgical and almost all date back to the 17th century, with the exception of the first printed book in Russia - the Moscow Apostle of 1564, the Gospel published in Ugrovlahia in 1512, the Skorinnin Book of Kings of 1518, the Octoechos of 1594, the Lenten Triodion of 1590, the Tsvetnaya Triodion of 1594, Margarita (contains selected teachings of St. John Chrysostom) Ostrog edition of 1596 and the Catechism in Polish of 1562 92. After the opening of a missionary department at the Moscow Theological Academy in 1854 to teach the history of the Russian schism and polemics against it, the academic library, by order of Metropolitan Philaret, began to receive old printed books and handwritten works of Old Believers as aids. In 1854, on the initiative of Gorsky, as a result of the petition of Metropolitan Philaret to the Synod, old printed books in the amount of 224 units and 240 manuscripts confiscated from the Old Believers were transferred to the academic library from the Moscow Synodal Library and the Moscow Spiritual Consistory. Of the books, the most valuable are: the Gospel, printed in Moscow in the 16th century, apparently by Ivan Fedorov, the Kuteinsky Gospel of 1561, the Vilna Yusa Gospel of 1600, two Vilna Apostles of 1575 and 1576, two Psalms of the 16th century, the Vilna Missal of the 16th century, Breviaries, Books of Hours, Church Rules, Octoechos, Triodion, Canons, Prologues, Fatherland, Service Menaions - most of the 18th century, the Great Catechism, reprinted in Grodno from the 1627 edition, “Cyril’s Book”, “Book of Faith”, “A Brief Collection of Science on the Articles of Faith”, “The History of the Fathers and Sufferers of Solovetsky” and others. Among the manuscripts, the following are especially important: liturgical books of the 16th and 17th centuries; “Ranting of Nikon the Patriarch with Pavel Kolomensky” - a new letter, “Russian Grapes”, “Pomeranian Answers”, “Discourse on Marriage”, non-priest Brebniks with the rite of baptism and confession, “Discourse on the Sacraments”, “The Tale of Potatoes”, “The Tale of the Lestovka”, a significant number of collections of the 17th and 18th centuries of predominantly polemical content, poems by Old Believers, letters, paintings and etc. 93 As can be seen, with his labors and concerns Gorsky greatly contributed to the enrichment of the academic library. Alexander Vasilyevich not only collected books, but knew and loved them. It is not for nothing that most of the books in the academic library are filled with his notes. And when Gorsky was asked for one book on some issue, he took out dozens and laid out dozens for the amazed reader, indicating the necessary sheets and pages. This was the ideal librarian. At that time, the academic library had neither printed nor card catalogs and was very poor in reference materials. The librarian replaced these manuals and catalogs because he knew the books not only by title, but also by content. The responsibility of a librarian sometimes spoils one’s nerves and mood, and accordingly, communication with visitors occurs. Alexander Vasilyevich was an extremely complacent and helpful librarian. He did not refuse to go for books either day or night. And even in the evening and at night, Gorsky went to the library as a precaution without fire and found the necessary books by touch. He understood his librarian duties very broadly. He not only looked for the required books, but also recommended them on topics in all subjects. In addition to the academic, Lavra, and Synodal libraries, Gorsky was familiar with other libraries and archives in Moscow and the surrounding area, drawing new knowledge from everywhere. The following circumstance is curious and deserves attention. Gorsky rarely and little traveled outside the Moscow province, but he knew and was interested in what was happening in remote corners of Russia and throughout the Orthodox world. He took advantage of every opportunity to replenish and refresh his knowledge, and for this he constantly corresponded with scientists who had previously been his students. The origin of such communication always began at the Academy. When giving a lecture in the classroom on some interesting but little-researched issue, Gorsky expressed a desire to subsequently receive more detailed information about it, and the students always remembered this. At the end of the year and the course, Alexander Vasilyevich made several comments about independent study of church history and asked students to tell him everything interesting on this subject that they learned. And grateful students tried to help their professor. For example, on July 26, 1850, Gorsky’s former student Nikolai Nevodchikov wrote to him from Odessa about the reconciliation of the Church of Constantinople with the Church of the Greek Kingdom and added: “I hope to please you with this news, and at the same time partially fulfill the obligation I gave you at the end of the course and which still rests on my conscience. God willing, over time I will be more justified before my unforgettable mentor” 94. Extensive correspondence shows that Gorsky received similar information from all over Russia. At their places of service, his students looked through books and manuscripts that interested their mentor. They collected local legends, described the appearance of cities and towns, the character and customs of the inhabitants. They reported their observations to Alexander Vasilyevich at the Academy. Gorsky's former students took advantage of every opportunity to share their observations and research with him. Through scientific correspondence, Gorsky, living in the monastery, knew what was happening in different cities of Russia, and made inquiries in distant provincial and consistory archives. From everywhere: from Tobolsk, from Vyatka, from Vologda, Perm, Kazan, Mogilev, Suzdal - from all the expanses of vast Russia, news about Orthodoxy in Rus' and the East, valuable materials from local archives, descriptions of rare manuscripts and much, much more, so necessary for a talented historian in his daily work, flew to the Lavra. Gorsky's students were modest scientists, although with strong scientific training and experience, which they received over the years of study at the Moscow Theological Academy with their spiritual and highly gifted mentor. With their help, Alexander Vasilyevich gradually expanded the circle of his knowledge. But conversation with only “dead friends”, that is, books, manuscripts, extracts, could not quench his thirst for knowledge. Gorsky loved and knew how to conduct entertaining conversations with scientists and thereby refreshed himself after tedious and dusty work on sources. So he constantly collected knowledge so that he could then distribute it to others with his full hand. Chapter III. Scientific guidance of Professor A.V. Gorsky This ascetic professor, this lay monk, who combined sociable humanity and a willingness to serve everyone with his knowledge and labors with an ascetic life, was an extraordinary phenomenon. It is unlikely to happen again. 1. For the glory of God and brotherly good The first years of his professorship were a mining time for A.V. Gorsky. He put a lot of effort into organizing the teaching of church history at the Academy at a high level. This way of life captivated and completely absorbed him. But difficult mental work could not fully satisfy him. This is what he wrote in his diary: “Today in the evening, bringing to mind what I did during the day, I felt something unpleasant, remembering that this day I worked only for myself, without having the opportunity to do good to anyone.” The young bachelor lacked something to achieve spiritual harmony. Gorsky himself explains the reason for this discomfort a few lines below. “Half a day has passed; I talked non-stop for an hour in class; that others will give birth in half a day! Will there be any benefit from sowing? How I would like, having first rooted in myself the idea that all knowledge of reason should be directed towards the subsequent essential goal - the elevation of the dignity of my moral being, to promote, with the help of God, its development in others. What a blessed work - to work for the glory of God, for the good of our brothers! for your own Bliss! And all this can be easily achieved by anyone, whatever Providence puts into our hands!” 95 From this confession of a tired worker of science, it becomes clear what his soul was looking for, what he comprehended the meaning of his life. This is not the acquisition of knowledge only for oneself, but feasible, in accordance with the circumstances, help to others, the implementation of active love. Such a desire was not the whim of a person exhausted by monotonous activities, but stemmed from the natural properties of Gorsky’s soul. When Gorsky studied at theological school, close comrades, although they noticed his ardent young heart, open to everything good and beautiful, did not understand him. And Alexander Vasilyevich closed himself off. It is quite logical that to many from the outside Gorsky could seem like an intimidated person. It is no coincidence that the historian S. M. Solovyov directly accused Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow of drowning out Gorsky’s enormous talent with his despotism. “The Theological Academy and Seminary were in a terrible state... He made a mummy from Gorsky, one of the most gifted and learned among the professors of the Theological Academy” 96. This review is often repeated without verification. But such an accusation is false. Another thing is true - that in Gorsky’s character and in his thinking one always feels some kind of internal coherence and indecision. But this was not fear of someone’s condemnation or opinion, even the opinion of a bishop, it was a kind of spiritual suspiciousness. And it was not Saint Philaret who “dried up” Gorsky. He stops himself at every step out of some kind of inner timidity. Contemporaries rightly wrote about Gorsky that “the more extensive his knowledge becomes, the more, apparently, his distrust of himself increases” 97 . It was then that Gorsky transferred the fullness of his love to scientific activity, completely devoting himself to books. But such learned desk studies could not extinguish the “insatiable fire.” Misunderstood by people, he continued to love them, trying to show his love by always being ready to help everyone. Hence his scientific leadership or leadership. In addition to this psychological basis, there were also religious motives for scientific leadership. Deeply religious, Alexander Vasilyevich wanted to devote not only his mind, but also his whole soul to serving God. He sought not only to know God, but also to serve him; he was not satisfied with the thought of God alone, with the accumulation of knowledge alone, but sought to serve God and people through deeds and his labors. This is where the desire for monasticism arose. In the feats of asceticism, Gorsky thought to find the realization of his ideals, but he was afraid that there would be a lot of food for the will and heart and little for the mind. After much searching and reflection, he decided that science also provides scope for active service to God, and he developed a special form of active, scientific service to God - scientific leadership. Gorsky was motivated in this case not by a selfish display of scholarship, not even by “passionate love for the acquisition and dissemination of thorough, accurate knowledge” 98; he looked at this type of activity as serving God and his neighbors. That is why he, without regret or murmur, sacrificed his precious time, knowledge collected with great difficulty, discoveries that he recognized as “ingots of gold”, for the sake of helping others in their studies of history. Gorsky showed an early desire to help others in their pursuits of science. While still a student at the Academy, he corrected the works of his brother Vladimir and helped younger students translate from foreign languages. Mainly, his scientific leadership began to be carried out when Gorsky became a professor. Most of all it manifested itself at the Academy in relation to his students. It was “from this bottomless and unenviably opened well of wisdom that entire generations of Alexander Vasilyevich’s students, scattered across the Russian land, drew from and retained a grateful memory of their mentor for the rest of their lives” 99 . A talented professor, who had studied his subject well, provided students with a lot of valuable historical information during his lectures. They were obtained by him from primary sources, scientifically verified, harmoniously presented in a living, concise, artistic language, sank deeply into the minds and hearts of listeners, awakening in them a love for studying history. In addition to lectures, Gorsky had an excellent knowledge of literature not only in his subject, but also in other disciplines that were studied at the Academy. As an ideal librarian, he, while issuing books, shared knowledge with students, gave instructions on choosing books to read and aids for writing essays. Here’s how one of Gorsky’s students says about it: “Once I had to write a philosophical essay: “On the religious and moral ideas of the ancient Greeks based on the writings of Homer.” Among other aids, I remembered one good article about Greek life that I once read in Plyuchard’s “Picturesque Review.” I asked Alexander Vasilyevich for this book. He quite seriously noted that more serious works should be read at the Academy, nevertheless, the journal was immediately found and issued” 100. At the Academy, it became a rule for students to consult Gorsky on various issues, especially regarding essays, and turn to him before the professors who gave topics; and Alexander Vasilyevich willingly directed and suggested. “For students, he himself was a walking and quite accessible library. It happened that as soon as they received topics for essays, they rushed to the library halls and surrounded them with requests to indicate books where they could read on this topic, and no one would leave empty-handed. He paid special attention to students who studied more diligently and provided them with books more abundantly. He had a passion for German books, which he mostly subscribed to the library: he generously endowed them with the best students” 101. Here in the library building, between the bookcases, a lively exchange of thoughts often took place. The conversation concerned some specific problem; professors and students asked Gorsky for advice and received “detailed and precise instructions on the entire literature of the subject, from the most ancient works to the latest books of German journals, with a thorough assessment of what has been done on a well-known issue, and with a definition of what remains to be done” 102. But if it turned out that the academic library did not have the necessary books, the librarian immediately decided to write out the best of them, according to the reviews 103. Private conversations were no less memorable and beneficial for Gorsky’s students. With their academic and other problems, students went to Gorsky’s apartment and received a warm welcome there. “During my student studies,” says his fellow countryman N. Kalinnikov, “in the last years of my academic life I had to turn to him quite often for advice and various kinds of aids. All these visits are especially memorable to me because Alexander Vasilyevich almost never limited himself to just, so to speak, official professorial relations. Having asked what I needed, he usually took me by the arm, and we began to walk around his modest office. Here he asked me in general about the progress of my studies, suggested some private questions regarding issues that interested me, and resolved any confusion” 104 . Later, when A.V. Gorsky became rector, such “walkings” especially intensified and were for him a colossal means of influencing students. Alexander Vasilyevich’s student N. describes this poetically and with enthusiasm. Troitsky: “Yes, there was a special, irreplaceable charm in visiting dear Fr. rector during hours of hopelessly difficult academic studies. Sometimes, surrounded by a mass of books placed on tables, chairs, sofas and under tables, chairs, sofas placed in cabinets, bookcases and even on the floor, the constantly studying Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky always received a student who came to him for advice or assistance, asked about the progress of his studies, and provided necessary or useful books immediately or after a few hours, sometimes a few days. Sometimes he himself was curious to take a closer look at the matter in which the student was interested. Sometimes an interesting question required many references from specialized literature in different languages. Gorsky reviewed everything relevant to the matter from various publications, and led the inquisitive student along with him, inviting him to read a German book, and a modern Greek, and a Serbian manuscript, written in Glagolitic alphabet, published with all the learned accessories, and sometimes recommended that he look into the Syriac text of some publication” 105. All this had a huge encouraging effect on the students. Sometimes Gorsky himself went to the student rooms in the evening, when the students were preparing classes for the next school day. “Moving from desk to desk, from desk to desk, from room to room, Alexander Vasilyevich stopped with each student and talked with him about his work” 106. Thus, with considerable success, he awakened and directed young scientific thought. But Gorsky’s main work and the subject of influence on students was his scientific guidance in writing written works with subsequent critical analysis. As a professor, Gorsky gave one or more monthly essays on church history during his senior year. When so-called term papers were introduced in 1842, the subject became especially popular, and students wrote many term papers on it. “In the third year of the academic course, one of the essays was always written on a topic from church history, as directed by Alexander Vasilyevich,” 107 recalled N. I. Subbotin. Students always studied these essays with special attention, and here they fully experienced how readily Gorsky gave the necessary advice, aids and instructions for scientific work. He had the custom of later inviting students who had written an essay with particular success and talking with them about their work. Here it was determined who would write him a “course” essay, as the final written work for a master’s degree was then called. This was a difficult matter. The essay topics themselves, proposed by Gorsky, were not easy; they dealt with new, unexplored issues. At the same time, the caring professor knew how to awaken students’ enthusiasm for learning, interest in history, and attract them to historical work, always connected with sources. And invariably, Gorsky not only provided the student who wrote his essay with sources (especially often manuscripts with which he himself worked), but literally overwhelmed him with books. If a student rarely met with his strict and demanding supervisor, the latter often called him to him: “Come see Fr. rector,” as A.P. Smirnov later recalled. “Whoever showed up was usually greeted with the question: “Did they have such and such an author in mind,” and left laden with books.” Gorsky did not immediately give the student everything he needed for his scientific research, but tried to make him want to work, gradually introducing him to an understanding of the issue. “While generously supplying the student with all kinds of aids for scientific work, the “father” was at the same time a kind of original miser. Wanting to force the worker to examine the subject as fully as possible and from various sides, he forced the student to read thick books in order to better use a few lines from them,” and when, finally, the student “had already finished the essay, and the time was approaching to present it, he sent the book that was most necessary, the most important in solving the problem. But our strength was exhausted and there was not enough time. We didn’t quite like this kind of scientific torment” 108. When a student was just beginning to get acquainted with the problems of his research, he “had to first develop the topic given to him into a detailed plan and submit it to Alexander Vasilyevich for approval. Gorsky examined these notes carefully and strictly, often disagreed with the author, crossed out his plan, corrected it and returned it to the student. Without this, the latter could not set to work with a calm heart, because correcting the plan often led to the fact that it was necessary to change it, throwing the already written part of the work into the fire. But the revised plan was not always followed. By the end of the year, it usually turned out to be necessary to change it, and the mentor himself tried to make this matter easier for the student, working as hard as he could. This, of course, made it difficult for the students, but at the same time it excited them and aroused a strictly serious attitude to the matter” 109. Such assistance, especially in essays intended for readings at various conferences, presentation to the metropolitan and for publication, was very significant and often greatly changed the work of the student himself. It can be said with a high degree of probability that some studies published under the names of various authors were written almost entirely by Gorsky. Thus, the pamphlet of Pavel of Thebes (later Plato, Archbishop of Kostroma), published in 1834: “A Look at the History of the Russian Church” 110 according to the testimony of P. S. Kazansky 111, was written under the “strong” leadership of Gorsky. This is confirmed by the very content and style of this book. Under the leadership of Gorsky and the Right Reverend Philaret (Gumilevsky), the following works were written: A. Mukhin “On the holidays celebrated in honor of the Mother of God” and N. Rudnev “On heresies and schisms” 112. About the last work, Alexander Vasilyevich himself wrote to his friend Eusebius Orlinsky: “For my part, I need to finish with a student an essay on the Rumyantsevskaya problem, large, curious in many parts, but on the whole wide-ranging, mixing the old with the new, not always firm in its assumptions. If I were in Moscow, I would go to Pogodin or not, preferably to Polevoy, I would talk with him, I would consult with him on how to resolve some issues related to this subject” 113. With the significant participation of Gorsky, the following books were written: “Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov” by V.P. Nechaev and “The History of the Florence Cathedral” by I. Ostroumov, published in 1847 114. The essay “Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov” is based on the study of primary sources, and the works of the saint are especially fully studied. Eminence Filaret (Gumilevsky) and M.P. Pogodin considered it the work of Gorsky 115. It is also curious that several researchers at once: P. S. Kazansky, Professor N. S. Tikhonravov and the Eminence Filaret (Gumilevsky) attribute “The History of the Florence Cathedral” to the pen of Gorsky 116. So Bishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) wrote to Alexander Vasilyevich on March 28, 1847: “I received it yesterday and read with pleasure about the Florence Cathedral. The article is very good, the subject is analyzed efficiently and clearly. There is no shame in appearing in public with this article. Am I mistaken in thinking that this is the work of my friend, who is so modest even before a friend? The high merits of this work attracted attention not only in Russia, but also abroad. On March 3, 1864, Vasily Popov wrote to Alexander Vasilyevich from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: “You, in all likelihood, are not unaware that Prince Urusov was pleased to entrust me with translating into English the “History of the Council of Florence” compiled by you. My work, completed some time ago, came out of the London press at Christmas and very recently I received one of several copies... Your story has received flattering reviews from the London press, which finds it interesting in the sense that it expresses the impartial and strictly logical view of an Orthodox Russian writer. The book is written with such faith and sincerity that it is always refreshing; its pages are useful and instructive" 118. Even earlier, when the book had just been published in London, Gorsky’s relative N.K. Sokolov, who was there, told him on January 20, 1862 that the British had mixed up the author’s name at the beginning of the book, and cited the following review about it from the Union magazine. “This work came from the pen of a student at the Moscow Theological Academy and was translated by the son of a priest at the embassy church in London (mentioned by Vasily Popov). It serves as a convincing proof of the learning of that Church and that nation in which a student unknown to anyone could write an essay of merit that far surpasses our Oxford prize essays. It should be noted that essays for the prize are awarded here to people who have not only an academic degree, but also an academic reputation. Thus, Russian Oxford outdid English” 119. But it was not only students or candidates who wrote coursework for their degree that Gorsky helped. “After the students, teachers, especially young ones, who had just left the service as bachelors, as they were then called, came for advice and guidance in their works. Until now, I remember with gratitude the lively participation with which he accepted any request of this kind, writes N. I. Subbotin. It happened that someone in the neighborhood would come to him at night for some information, for a solution to a difficulty encountered, and if he didn’t have the book he needed at hand, he immediately threw his overcoat over his shoulder, took a lantern (or even without a lantern), ran to the library, took it out of the closet (sometimes groping) and brought the required book" 120. Having become rector, Gorsky attended professors' lectures and attended exams, at which, following the example of Metropolitan Philaret, he sometimes did not consider it inappropriate to admonish the mentor himself. Without his advice and blessing, the teachers of the Academy, even the oldest of them, did not publish their works. Thus, Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky had a colossal and beneficial influence on students and professors within the walls of the Academy. For more than forty years he worked in it, devoting all his strength and knowledge to his native Academy. The best of her students rightly recognized and were proud of the fact that they had the great joy of going through the “Gorsky school”, from which not only wonderful church historians emerged, but also excellent specialists in patristics, dogmatics, church law, etc. Already in the first years of Gorsky’s service at the Academy, its then rector, Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky), wrote to him: “You have an important responsibility for the direction of the entire Academy. Your influence should be stronger because you are stronger than all of us (I don’t like to flatter anyone, but you don’t need to)” 121. This influence of Gorsky very soon affected the life of the Academy, where until the 30s of the 19th century philosophy and a formal theological direction, not devoid of a scholastic spirit, were in use. But Archimandrite Filaret (Gumilevsky), and especially Gorsky, made a revolution in the organization of educational and scientific work at the Academy, drawing the attention of students to the study of the history of the Church. This important circumstance was already understood by Gorsky’s contemporaries. Thus, his friend Bishop of Kostroma Platon (Fiveysky), rightly dissatisfied with the fact that in the historical note on the fiftieth anniversary of the Academy 122 there was no mention of the Right Reverend Philaret (Gumilevsky) and Gorsky, wrote on October 17, 1864 to Alexander Vasilyevich: “About the first one can say without shyness that a new era for the Academy began with him, but about you it was possible and should have been said secretly, without naming a name, but outlining the circumstances and the course and disclosure of the historical direction in the Academy" 123. Indeed, with his sacrificial feat, Gorsky managed to create a powerful scientific movement at the Academy. By his personal living example, he testified that science is a feat and service. Therefore, largely thanks to him, a real school of strong historians was created at the Moscow Theological Academy. And the Academy itself during Gorsky’s time “according to the prevailing scientific spirit in it, can rightfully be called the Academy of Church Historical Science” 124. But Gorsky’s influence on students who became teachers of theological schools scattered throughout different parts of Russia was not limited to the walls of the Moscow Theological Academy. According to the Charter of Academies and Seminaries of 1814, the appointment of mentors in the seminaries and the recommendations of candidates for the highest seminary positions depended on the Academic Board. Gorsky's voice often had special significance in these cases, and grateful seminary mentors constantly expressed gratitude to their patron for his care in arranging their careers. But not only that, Gorsky’s example, his instructions and advice for his former students served as a guiding principle in their lives, in their scientific and pedagogical activities. “While holding the position of mentor at the seminary, I preserve, like a shrine, all your dear instructions, turning them into unchangeable rules of life,” 125 wrote to Alexander Vasilyevich, teacher of the Penza Theological Seminary A. Uspensky. At their places of service, Gorsky’s students tried to conduct scientific work and teach their students the way Gorsky did and taught them. And so, through teachers, the views, techniques and methods of teaching disciplines that Alexander Vasilyevich applied within the walls of the Academy spread throughout educational institutions in Russia. Gorsky's scientific guidance to his former students did not end with a master's thesis. And in the future Gorsky provided them with very significant assistance. Accustomed at the Academy to turning to him for help in all difficulties, Gorsky’s students maintained this habit even after completing the course. There were many reasons for this. A young candidate or master, a seminary professor, often found himself in a critical situation. He had to teach others, but due to the meager funds of the local library, he did not have the necessary aids. Science, especially church history, was not developed locally, there was no continuity in teaching, the necessary books were not available, and the demands of the curriculum and the authorities were high. And the young teacher sends a bitter, tearful letter to Gorsky at the Lavra. A lively correspondence begins regarding various perplexities, disappointments, and instructions on what to do in certain situations. Gorsky sent to help teachers in need the teaching aids they needed, which consisted of various kinds of “sheets” and “notebooks” written by him himself. In addition, Gorsky’s students themselves recorded his lectures while still in the academic classroom, copied them from others, or took copies from their comrades. The famous Russian historian V. O. Klyuchevsky, who began his professorial career within the walls of the Moscow Theological Academy under the rectorship of Alexander Vasilyevich, writes that “in the early 40s, several students, having compared the notes of each, compiled a complete course of Gorsky’s lectures. By rewriting this huge course, 400 sheets of neat writing, which can only be written in theological educational institutions, it was distributed throughout Russia and for a long time served as a fundamental guide in the teaching of church history in many seminaries” 126. And Professor P. S. Kazansky, a former student of Gorsky, talks about it this way: “In our time, his lectures went from hand to hand, and many of them spread throughout Russia. You will recognize the merit of these lectures only when you thoroughly study the subject... If someone else’s work is accepted as a basis, then out of the conviction that it correctly conveys the original sources... for almost everyone, it serves as a kind of reference lexicon for us” 127 . Gorsky’s lectures were distributed so widely throughout Russia that they were used not only by mentors and students, but some of them went abroad. Philip Ternovsky, who visited Athos, wrote to Gorsky from Kyiv on August 17, 1870, that the elders of the Russian Athos monastery, out of concern for the welfare of the monastery, published a legend about the life of the Mother of God and were thinking of publishing a book about the life of the Savior. “When asked about the sources for this work, I spoke about your lectures on New Testament biblical history, and the elders urgently asked me to earnestly beg you to send your lectures for making copies. So, if the request of the Athonite elders is acceptable in your eyes, then deign to send to Kyiv, in the name of your humble servant, lectures on the life of the Savior and everything that may relate here, for example, about the Image Not Made by Hands, about the New Testament Apocrypha, etc. Upon receipt of the lectures, I will not hesitate to make copies of them to send them to Athos, and return the original to yours Reverend. The Athonite elders will include you among their benefactors and will remember you as long as the world stands.”128 In scientific leadership, Gorsky helped not only his students. Both beginning scientists and famous academicians drew the information they needed from the treasury of his knowledge; his influence extended to the development of historical and philological sciences. Gorsky lived and worked in an era of rapid development of domestic historical and philological knowledge; it was a time of intensive study of sources and accumulation of historical materials about Russian antiquities. People of science got used to valuing ancient monuments, studying them carefully. The scientific description of the manuscripts was just beginning, and scientific researchers had to personally examine and study them, visiting the necessary cities and monasteries, which were famous for their library collections. Many famous scientists often came to study at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, where they immediately came under the care of Gorsky. For such researchers, as well as for academic professors and students, Gorsky remained an all-knowing and helpful assistant and patron in their scientific works. Thus, during the study of manuscripts and ancient monuments, the acquaintance of learned historians and philologists with Alexander Vasilyevich began, which continued in the future, often developing into real friendship. The head of the Moscow Main Archive of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Prince Mikhail Andreevich Obolensky, having visited the Lavra on November 25, 1846, thanked Gorsky for his cordiality and the opportunity to examine the manuscripts of the academic library. “Your intelligent conversations, filled with love for their subject, will remain in my memory for a long time,” 129 wrote Obolensky and asked to send books from the Lavra for reprinting with his comments. And on February 7, 1851, the same grateful researcher, knowing Gorsky’s love for Russian history, donated to him a copy of his recently published label of Khan Tokhtamysh to the Polish-Lithuanian ruler Jagiello and the “Conciliar Charter of the Orthodox Eastern Church, blessing John IV to the rank of king” 130. Prince Obolensky asked to accept the gifts as an expression of sincere respect for Gorsky’s activities. Izmail Ivanovich Sreznevsky, a famous Slavic philologist and ethnographer, who was very close to Gorsky, often and in detail informed Alexander Vasilyevich about his historical research and asked for the necessary advice. One day, while working in the St. Petersburg Public Library, Sreznevsky found a piece of parchment with Cyrillic words mixed with Glagolitic. He sent a copy of the sheet to Gorsky, who deciphered the inscription. Sreznevsky thanked his friend and explained that “with your help, my consolidated Glagolitic alphabet has grown significantly and continues to grow” 131. While engaged in compiling a general paleographic survey of ancient Russian monuments, Sreznevsky needed some information about those monuments that were at hand at Gorsky, and asked him to make copies of the life of St. Niphon of the Lavra Library, Trefology (Color Triodion) of the Synodal Library of 6737 (1228/29) and others previously unknown to historical and philological science 132 . In May 1858, Sreznevsky informed Gorsky that the famous Czech philologist and Slavic historian Pavel Josef Safarik published a brochure in which he argued that the Glagolitic alphabet was compiled by the first teacher of the Slavs, Cyril 133 (Constantine the Philosopher), while referring to one Lavra manuscript of Explanatory Prophecies. Sreznevsky himself was not inclined to believe this, but he could not scientifically refute Safarik. To better understand this issue, he asked Gorsky to send him a copy of the Cyrillic words of the manuscript, where Glagolitic letters are found 134. Then Alexander Vasilyevich himself began to rummage through the manuscripts, looking for the necessary words, letters, noting features, and sent the results of his work to the petitioner. I. I. Sreznevsky sent the prominent historian and writer Nikolai Ivanovich Kostomarov to the Academy to Gorsky, who wanted to get acquainted with the manuscripts of the Volokolamsk Monastery, and wrote on September 12, 1860: “Who better than you can guide Nikolai Ivanovich in closely familiarizing himself with the contents of the manuscripts, which are especially important for him. With the help of your instructions, he will take advantage of the manuscripts of the Academy and the Trinity Lavra. And, of course, he can hope for your kind assistance” 135. But the one-time visits of scientists to the Lavra under the tutelage of Gorsky did not immediately bear abundant fruit; this was only the beginning of the work. During the short time spent there, a serious researcher could only begin to get acquainted with the manuscripts. After leaving, the scientists again needed the necessary certificates. Many, especially foreign historians and philologists, could not personally visit the Academy. They had only read and heard about its vast holdings, but had not had the opportunity to study them personally. Therefore, very often they turned to Gorsky for help. It would be good if they specifically indicated which manuscript they needed which extract from. Often the researcher himself did not remember exactly what he needed, he simply asked to look for it, make the necessary information and instructions during the course of the study. Thus, additional work fell on Gorsky’s shoulders, which caused Alexander Vasilyevich a lot of trouble. The censorship did not allow him to make extracts from manuscripts without appropriate permission, sending them to others, much less publish them without proper explanation to the spiritual and civil authorities. But, despite certain barriers and enormous workload, Gorsky provided assistance as best he could. In such cases, Alexander Vasilyevich either received the necessary permission from the censorship by sending lists of manuscripts, or he himself indicated that the petitioner needed to be written out. Students were often involved in the extracts. Nikolai Kalinnikov, who graduated from the Academy in 1862, testifies that, on Gorsky’s instructions, he made similar extracts for N.I. Kostomarov, O.M. Bodyansky, and even for the Anglican missionary William Palmer, who was working on the history of the Patriarchate of Nikon 136. Secular high-ranking officials who were interested in issues of church life also turned to Gorsky for advice. One such case is curious, which happened to the philosopher and theologian Viktor Dmitrievich Kudryavtsev. A certain secular lady turned to Kudryavtsev, who was at that time the Tsarevich’s mentor, on a church issue. The famous philosopher turned out to be not strong in history and rather hurried to Gorsky for help. “From distant St. Petersburg, just like the Trinity, we have to resort to the help of your knowledge in order to make up for our ignorance, help that you probably will not refuse now, as you did not refuse before,” he wrote, adding that Countess Antonina Dmitrievna Bludova, interested in the situation of Christians in Turkey, asked him to find the acts of the Iasi Council of 1640 and the Jerusalem Council regarding the case of Patriarch Kirill Lukaris 137. Kudryavtsev knew nothing about this and asked Gorsky for the necessary information and even lists of documents, which he received from Alexander Vasilyevich soon. So Gorsky gave answers to fragmentary questions, other researchers conducted a long correspondence of a scientific nature with him, offered him a number of questions, and he had to work and work together with them, solving problems that interested his correspondents. Such cases occurred frequently, and scientists were persistent. Gorsky's comrade at the Academy, Andrei Smelovsky, who served in St. Petersburg, worked on a study about the Likhud brothers, the founders of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. First, he asked Gorsky to provide brief historical information about the Likhuds themselves and their works, especially about the “Rhetoric” of Sophronius, written in Greek, also about the Holy Mountainer Cosmas and his translation of the “Rhetoric” of Likhud. Gorsky fulfilled the request. A little later, A. Smelovsky asked for a detailed table of contents of this “Rhetoric” and information with sources on the history of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Needing further information, he asked Gorsky to read some books that set out the essence of the dispute about the transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts at the liturgy, to resolve some confusion about proper names, and to inquire about the inscription over the tomb of Ioaniki Likhuda in the Zaikonospassky Monastery. Gorsky certainly made these necessary certificates and sent them to St. Petersburg. Gorsky maintained correspondence with the famous expert on Russian antiquity, Mikhail Petrovich Pogodin, who highly valued Alexander Vasilyevich’s scholarship and turned to him for advice and guidance. Pogodin published the popular magazine “Moskvityanin” and in this magazine, yielding to Pogodin’s convictions, Gorsky published some articles on the condition that his name was known only to the editor. “For the truth, it doesn’t matter what letter is placed under the article written to explain it, A, or B, or N,” wrote Alexander Vasilyevich 138. This custom of Gorsky, according to Professor S.P. Shevyrev, was “an example of combining hard work with humility, which does not recognize one’s own personality; here a face is hidden behind conscientious work... this selflessness is a great feat, explained by the best side of our people” 139. One of the first articles that Gorsky sent to Pogodin was an article about Saints Cyril and Methodius, their so-called Pannonian Lives, which the author provided with thorough research. The article was published and aroused great interest among scientists 140. The history of Cyril and Methodius, after the research of the Czech scientist I. Dobrovsky 141, was revealed mainly on the basis of Latin sources, a prominent place among which was occupied by the so-called “Italian” legend about the transfer of the relics of St. Clement to Rome. Gorsky revealed the deep antiquity of the Pannonian Slavic Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius and their paramount importance for the correct presentation of the life and work of the enlighteners. Alexander Vasilyevich found lists of both lives in the library of the Moscow Theological Academy. Pannonian Lives were known to scientists before Gorsky. They were used, for example, by St. Dmitry of Rostov for his “Four Menaions”; Schletser treated them with contempt 142 . Gorsky, in his article, strictly adhering to the text of the Lives, sets out in detail the biography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, providing it with thorough critical comments, chronological and historical, using Byzantine and Western sources for this. “This study by Gorsky formed the basis for most of the later research on the first Slavic teachers, and the lengthy Slavic lives discovered by him pushed previous sources into the background and themselves took a leading place in Cyril and Methodius literature” 143. The conclusions that Gorsky came to regarding the texts of the lives remain relevant to this day. They are as follows: both lives were preserved in their original form, without any special distortions of the text or later insertions; written by the closest disciples of the saints immediately after the death of each of the brothers. Thus, Gorsky concluded that the Pannonian Lives are one of the most complete sources of information about the works and lives of the Equal-to-the-Apostles brothers, compiled immediately after their death, in the environment in which they worked 144. Gorsky's research was soon used by the Right Reverend Philaret (Gumilevsky) in his articles on Cyril and Methodius 145, Archimandrite (later Metropolitan) Macarius (Bulgakov) in his “History of Christianity in Russia before St. Vladimir" 146 and Professor S.P. Shevyrev in "History of Russian Literature" 147. This research by Gorski was translated into Czech 148 and became known to Czech and German scientists. The antiquity researcher Dumler published Gorsky's article in his commentary on the Pannonian life of St. Methodius, translated at his request by F. Miklosic into Latin. Dumler accepted almost all of Gorsky's arguments and comments 149. Having read the life of Saint Constantine the Philosopher (Cyril), the famous Czech philologist P. Safarik wrote with delight to Gorsky: “The Life of Constantine sent by you is a treasure, a pearl” 150 . In the edition of the Pannonian Lives of P. Safarik, 151 lives of St. Methodius are printed according to the list found by Gorsky in one of the manuscripts of the Moscow Theological Academy. Subsequently, Pogodin often turned to Gorsky on issues relating to the time of Saints Cyril and Methodius and the beginning of ancient Slavic writing. “This is the praise of St. Kirill in two editions; what do you think about them? Should we publish both of them in our collection or one, indicating their differences? I am enclosing blank pages of the collection: would you make any comments that can be attached to the end of the book? Should I reveal the title? The late Safarik strongly rebelled against printing with titles. I bow earnestly, what are you doing now?” 152 M.P. Pogodin asked Gorsky to take part in the celebration of the Millennium of Slavic Literature and to make a special report at the solemn meeting of the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature on May 11, 1865. How highly Gorsky was valued in the scientific world is also evidenced by the fact that the special anniversary Cyril and Methodius collection begins with his article on the Slavic first teachers, reprinted from “Moskvityanin” 153. In the Moscow Synodal Library, Gorsky found the best list of canons or services to the Slavic enlighteners, thanks to which the scientist’s article “On the ancient canons of Saints Cyril and Methodius, according to the synodal list” also appeared in the anniversary collection. In the same collection, Gorsky’s sermon “A Sermon on the Day of Remembrance of St. Cyril and Methodius,” said to the students of the Academy 154. When Pogodin compiled and published his “History” 155, he often turned to Gorsky for assistance, taking into account various instructions and additions from Alexander Vasilyevich. He often sent Gorsky his “leaves”, “stacks of papers”, “reserved notebooks”, asking for corrections, exceptions, comments, objections. There was a lively exchange of thoughts between the two scientists. At the end of his work, Pogodin thanked Gorsky: “Finally, I finished printing. For all your comments, dear and most kind Alexander Vasilyevich, I offer my sincere gratitude.” 156 Gorsky helped not only his students and famous scientists. His scientific leadership was needed by entire scientific societies that had grandiose plans for their activities, but faced serious difficulties in achieving them. At the end of 1874, in the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, the idea arose of publishing a special work “Rules of St. apostle, St. Ecumenical and Local Councils and St. father with interpretations,” a book extremely necessary for Orthodox theology and pastoral practice of the Church. The “Rules” themselves, together with the interpretations given to them by the outstanding Byzantine canonists - Aristinus, Zonara and Balsamon, form the core of Orthodox church law, the norms and rules of which regulate both the internal and external life of the Church. “With these norms, rules, laws, the Church finds its God-created order” 158. Beginning in 1875, the Society began printing the “Rules” 159. Gorsky took the most active part in this event, fully helping the editors in editing the text, making valuable comments 160. In the explanatory article to the publication, published after Gorsky’s death, it was noted that “The Society considers itself obliged to testify with deep gratitude to the warm sympathy for this enterprise and assistance that the late, ever-memorable honorary member of the Society, the father of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, provided to Bose. The great guardian of every holy cause useful for the Church, Alexander Vasilyevich, before starting this difficult task, promised the editors his assistance in all difficult cases. When the first pages of the translation then appeared, he, already in a painful state, read the translation,, according to his usual custom, compared it with the original, made some deeply apt comments on the book, and had a brief conversation with the editor on this occasion. Not content with this, the next day he sent a letter to the editor in which he outlined a whole learned excursion about the meaning of the Greek word σημειοῦσθαι in Valsomon's interpretation of the 14th rule of St. apostle. He who sows a blessing, let him reap a blessing in the world to come!” 161 Always ready to help anyone who turned to him, Gorsky enjoyed special respect and love from scientists. Many of them, releasing their works, rushed to present them to Alexander Vasilyevich, asking him to express his opinion about their advantages and disadvantages. The famous philosopher and Slavophile Yuri Samarin sent Gorsky his book about the Jesuits 162 on April 19, 1866, adding: “Your judgment would be dear to me, but I don’t dare ask you for it, knowing that you are burdened with work” 163. Gorsky gave an excellent review of the book. In 1873, the teacher of the Ryazan Theological Seminary, Evgraf Smirnov, presented Gorsky, as an expert and the best specialist in church history, with his “History of the Christian Church,” a textbook used even in modern Theological schools in Russia 164. At the end of 1864, His Eminence Macarius (Bulgakov), then Archbishop of Kharkov, sent Gorsky, as a sign of deep respect for his scientific works, the newly published volumes of his famous “History of the Russian Church” 165. All of the above authors wanted to know the opinion of Alexander Vasilyevich and valued his valuable comments. But not only secular scientists and theologians valued Gorsky’s scientific knowledge. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow himself used his instructions and advice. The Metropolitan sent his sermons of a historical nature for Gorsky to review, talked with him on issues of church life, asked his opinion on various issues that arose in society, for example, regarding the correction of the Charter of Theological Academies, on civil marriage, teaching theology at universities, Zemsky Sobors, etc. The Metropolitan asked Gorsky to write the Charter of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment and to provide reviews of some books. At the request of Saint Philaret, Gorsky explained the “Testimony of the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts,” attributed to Nikita Stifat or Pectorat. Gorsky also commented on the letter of Theodore the Studite to Pope Leo III. It was this letter that Catholics referred to as proof of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Metropolitan Filaret, in many of the most important issues of church government, in which the Synod demanded advice from him, himself sought the advice and scientific instructions of Alexander Vasilyevich and in them found a solid scientific basis for his orders 166. It is no coincidence that there was a legend in the Moscow Theological Academy that Filaret owed much to Gorsky for the amazing depth of canonical and historical justification in his famous resolutions. Philaret’s detailed reports to the Holy Synod 167 are of the same origin. Demanding of his subordinates, Metropolitan Filaret favored Gorsky, distinguished and rewarded him. For his part, Alexander Vasilyevich respected the bishop and was in awe of his intelligence. Frequently meeting with the metropolitan, Gorsky knew the ardent character of St. Philaret, his demands, views, and knew how to behave in such a way as not to cause unnecessary anger. None of the works presented to the Metropolitan’s court were as successful as those reviewed by Gorsky before. But this close relationship between the saint and the scientist also contained a certain difficulty for Alexander Vasilyevich, who knew well himself and did not hide from others that not all of his research could be made known to the reading public. “For myself, I do as much as I can and as much as I can...” he wrote to Pogodin. “But the state of our church affairs and my personal position do not allow me to say in print what, in good conscience, a scientist can and should say in his office” 168. Another time, in his diary on June 19, 1836, Gorsky wrote: “Yesterday the rector (Archimandrite Filaret Gumilyovsky) said that the bishop, in a conversation about reasoning, among other things, expressed his thought about the lack of spiritual works in our country. Our spiritual scientists, he said, do not write anything. And how to write? Whatever is written with an effort to reveal a new side in the subject, it will all seem like heresy” 169. Of course, the strict metropolitan could not force Gorsky to think in the quiet of his office the way his superiors wanted, but he had the power and strength to influence the external expression of Gorsky’s thoughts and allowed this. Therefore, Alexander Vasilyevich never forgot to be careful in words and on paper, so he published little of his works, often without even disclosing his name in them. In addition, the works of Metropolitan Philaret himself were repeatedly censored, and he more than once came into disagreement with the civil authorities and the Holy Synod 170. Not all of Gorsky's contemporaries understood this. M.P. Pogodin was especially vehemently indignant: “Why are you giving them to the bishop for inspection. This is a long box. I don’t understand your fear of the Jews? Are you a slave? Who has the right to your thoughts and business? In any case, an article without the author’s name cannot cause you any harm. It is difficult to imagine such despotism, or better than such eastern citizenship. You, you yourself are to blame,” the scientist wrote to Gorsky on November 22, 1842. Another time, on October 20, 1847, Pogodin inspired Alexander Vasilyevich: “This is the stigma... aro...aro of seminary education, the scars of despotism, which the best and highest souls cannot smooth out within themselves. Forgive my frankness! If I did not love you sincerely, I would not have dared to speak like that. He also helped NN here with the weight of his mind and character! The entire Moscow clergy is, as it were, bewitched and cannot breathe freely” 171. In vain and more than once did M.P. Pogodin convince Gorsky: “Yes, get down to a complete, detailed Russian church history. Who, no matter how you, should write it.” Or: “Take up something bigger, for example, Russian church history; If you want, you can donate it to the fatherland” 172. But Gorsky considered such work premature. It is unlikely that he lacked the talent for fundamental scientific work. The point here is not only the difficulties associated with censorship. Pragmatic treatment of church history is possible only when the particular departments of science have been thoroughly processed, when material that serves the purpose has already been studied, when science can assert the versatility of its information. All this, of course, did not exist in Russia in those years. Russian church-historical science was just beginning its work. The course of historical development of Russia in the 19th century gradually prepared the way for domestic church historical science to strengthen its scientific and educational significance. In this sense, it was Professor A.V. Gorsky who put church history on an independent scientific pedestal and opened wide and bright horizons for its systematic study. It was he who “educated an entire historical school that spread throughout the entire expanse of the Russian theological field” 173. His grateful students, who received the invaluable help of their wise mentor, subsequently created fundamental works on the history of the Russian Church and paved the way for its further scientific and critical study. It was Gorsky who suggested to E. E. Golubinsky the idea of ​​basing his reconstruction of the structure and life of the ancient Russian Church 174 on Byzantine material... Gorsky also suggested to Kapterev the method he used in his works on the history of the Patriarchate of Nikon 175, and Kapterev used materials selected by Gorsky. The completeness and versatility of his knowledge were truly amazing, and therefore his influence extended to all branches of Russian theology. 4. The pride of Russian science Gorsky's creative and scientific activity expressed an extraordinary depth and completeness of knowledge, enormous erudition, the ability to talk about everything in an exciting way, cordial responsiveness, delicacy and gentleness. All this, combined with the scientist’s irreplaceable contribution to the development of new knowledge about church and civil history and his discoveries in the field of philology and archeography, gave rise to many learned societies to elect Gorsky as a member. In 1850, the Imperial Archaeological Society elected Gorsky as its corresponding member in honor of his work on Russian antiquities. On December 28, 1857, A.V. Gorsky became a corresponding member of the Imperial St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the department of Russian language and literature. The Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment elected Gorsky as its honorary member on September 26, 1863. A short time later, on the eve of the celebration of the fiftieth anniversary of the Moscow Theological Academy, Alexander Vasilyevich was elected an honorary member of Moscow University at a meeting of its Council on September 28, 1864. And on the very day of the Academy’s anniversary, October 1, at a ceremonial ceremony, its former student, the rector of the university, S.I. Barshev, handed over the diploma to Gorsky. In the same anniversary year, Gorsky was elected a member of the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities without writing a special work. And on February 3, 1865, at the request of Metropolitan Philaret, “due to his attention to theological and historical works and their scientific merit,” he was elevated to the degree of Doctor of Theology. In the same year, on August 13, by the conference of the Kyiv Theological Academy, Gorsky was elected an honorary member, “out of respect for scientific works and exemplary fruitful activity for the benefit of the domestic Theological school” 176. At the end of 1866, on the recommendation of Academician M. Sukhomlinov, Alexander Vasilyevich was awarded, together with a few scientists, the degree of Doctor of Russian History by the Council of St. Petersburg University on the occasion of the centenary of N.M. Karamzin. His learned friends joyfully conveyed this news to Gorsky: “Dear Alexander Vasilyevich! I hasten to congratulate you on your election, which is extremely pleasant for our entire university. On December 2 of this year, our university celebrates the memory of Karamzin. Wanting to honor the memory of the historiographer in a worthy manner, the university decided to elevate to the degree of Doctor of Russian History scientists who have glorified themselves for their services in the field of Russian history in all its branches. I consider myself happy that I had the opportunity to declare to the university council about your rights to the highest academic degree, which (based on the note to § 113 of the University Charter) belongs to “famous scientists who have gained universal fame for their scientific works.” The Council expressed full sympathy and respect for your scientific work. The election took place through closed voting; All members of the university took part in the election: philologists, lawyers, orientalists, mathematicians and naturalists. At the end of the voting, it turned out that you were chosen unanimously. All faculties appreciate your services and congratulate the university on its famous co-member. Please welcome, dear Alexander Vasilyevich, our general greetings. We are convinced that with such an election we only fulfilled the words of the Gospel, without hiding the lamp that has been shining for so long and so brightly for everyone involved in Russian history and literature. Together with you, the Czech historiographer Palacky, the first Slavic historian in our time and Minister of War Milyutin, the author of the best essay on military history, were elected doctors. One of these days you will receive official notification of your election and a diploma for the degree of Doctor of Russian History. Please accept these same lines as a private message from your longtime admirer, if you have not forgotten him. In the name of an old friendship, I ask you to inform me in a few words about the state of your health: we have rumors that it has recently become upset. God grant that this is unfair. If you only write to me “I am healthy,” then you will give me sincere pleasure. Wishing you, first of all, health, I ask you to accept the assurance of deep and indelible respect, devotion and gratitude from your admirer Mikhail Sukhomlinov, professor at St. Petersburg University” 177 . These congratulations were also joined by another long-time friend of Gorsky, I. I. Sreznevsky. In 1868, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature, only then renewed at Moscow University, elected Gorsky as a member at its first meeting in order to express respect for the scientist as an expert on Russian ancient literature and the engine of its philological knowledge. And at the beginning of 1871, the South Slavic Academy of Sciences and Arts elected Gorsky as its corresponding member 178. Gorsky was unanimously elected on May 19, 1872, an honorary member of the St. Petersburg Department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment, and in July of the same year, also unanimously by the conference of the Kazan Theological Academy, he was elected its honorary member 179. The Imperial Society of Natural History Lovers, located at Moscow University, which many times received approval from Gorsky regarding the topics of various scientific and general educational events on which it worked, found it necessary, having completed one of these events - the Polytechnic Exhibition, to bring sincere gratitude to him for his parting words with his prayers to the then newly established museum of applied knowledge. And on December 12, the brotherhood of St. Peter, Metropolitan of Moscow, wishing to testify to their deep respect for the scientific works of Alexander Vasilyevich, performed by him for the benefit of the Orthodox Church, elected him as their honorary member 180. History serves as a necessary guide both in theological sciences and in life. 1. Lecture courses by A. V. Gorsky. Methodology of church history Introductory lectures on any subject introduce students to the scientific views of the professor, with his ideals, aspirations, hopes, desires. These are Gorsky's introductory lectures 181. What ideals flashed before his eyes, what aspirations were he animated by, what hopes and desires were he fulfilled and guided by? Gorsky was convinced that church history as a science is subject to the general laws of historical truth. Truth for a church historian is not some kind of conditional statement, which, when examined from some other point of view, would turn out to be doubtful. Church-historical truth is truth without relation. This is because the church historian obtains it, guided by the same methods by which any historical truth is acquired. Gorsky declared to his listeners: “There is no need to say that church history is subject to the general laws of any historical work, that, for example, it must use only reliable sources” 182 . Gorsky understood church history not as a collection of facts, dead and dry, but as a science indicating the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bchurch-historical life, he looked at facts as external indicators of internal relations and phenomena. Gorsky said that church history should not collect only facts; in his views, it must penetrate into the internal connection between them, extract ideas of fact from the fact itself. This, according to the historian Gorsky, should be the way church history in general should be, and it should be the same when it considers particular issues. Here are the words of the scientist: “In each department containing a part of church life in a certain era, all data must be revealed in their internal connection with each other so that the whole, if possible, represents one living organic development of the principles that were located within the observed part of church life, and not a simple collection of facts that have no other connection with each other except monotony.” Gorsky, as a profound historian, believed that church history should introduce not just church-historical facts, but actually church-historical life. Why cite a fact if it stands alone, does not explain anything in the general flow of life, if it can be told, but nothing can be explained to them? 183 As a historian of the Church, Gorsky was distinguished by the most sublime view of his subject and treated it with religious animation. In particular, Gorsky considers the most important aspects of church-historical life as “the discovery of Christian life under the direct action of the Holy Trinity”; in one group of facts he finds expression of the action of God the Father, in another - of God the Son, in the third - of the Holy Spirit. And from this point of view he views the entire church history. In the spread of Christianity, the firmness of the martyrs during persecution, the apologetic activity of the Church aimed at admonishing paganism, which did not want to recognize the greatness of Christianity, Gorsky noticed the influence of the first person of the Holy Trinity, God the Father. In his introductory lectures, he states: “We must see how God has called one people after another into the bosom of His Church, how willingly or not without resistance people will follow this attraction. And if, according to the word of the Savior, no one will come to Him unless the Father draws him, then here we should see primarily the action of God the Father, Who wants all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. Having produced all people from a single blood, He settled peoples over the entire face of the earth, determining times and limits for the residence of each of them, so that they would seek God, and when, according to the plan of the general world government, the turn of one or another people comes to be part of the renewed humanity, then, through the common paths of His Providence or through well-known strong figures, He attaches the wild olive to the fruitful root. This was the case at the very first appearance of Christianity, and in subsequent times. A new order usually does not suddenly take the place of the old one, darkness does not suddenly give way to light. Depending on how a person is addicted to his previous way of life, how his spirit opens up to accept the religion of truth, love and goodness, it can be more difficult or easier for him. Often, like a blind man, he arms himself against what constitutes his essential good. This happens to entire people. Thus, the history of the spread of the Church is closely connected with the history of persecutions against it, which are pacified by the patience of the martyrs, the thorough defense of the Divine truth (apologists) and the special actions of Divine Providence” 184. Thus, a person’s entry into the Church and his struggle with external enemies, according to Gorsky, is accomplished through the action of Divine power, poured out on humanity from God the Father. Gorsky places other groups of church-historical phenomena relating to the internal development and improvement of the Church under the special influence of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, Christ. Here he includes the history of church teaching, worship and hierarchy. Gorsky addressed his listeners with the following thoughts: “Now church history must show how the peoples brought into the fence of the Church are guided in it by the Head of the Church, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who, as a great prophet, revealed to the world the light of true knowledge of God, how the true high priest gave the Church the means of grace-filled sanctification, how the king rules through his servants the entire body of the Church according to the laws of His Divine will.” Gorsky finds in the history of the Church the continuation of the triple ministry of Jesus Christ as prophet, high priest and king. Expanding this idea, Gorsky said: “The Church is at the same time a school of truth for those who are guided, and a church for their sanctification, and a spiritual kingdom, in which each member is assigned his own place and all subordinates to one supreme invisible power are governed on the basis of its laws by the visible hierarchy” 185. The teaching of the Church, its worship, its hierarchical administration - these are the subjects to which the providential activity of Christ the Savior is directed. The area of ​​the Holy Spirit in the history of the Church, according to Gorsky, is the direction of all Christian life towards the practical implementation of the ideal of goodness and truth. “The renewal begun under the leadership of the Church through Jesus Christ is completed,” argues Gorsky, “under the influence of the Holy Spirit and with the assistance of grace-filled institutions in everyone’s own activities, which are varied in various relations of present temporary life. The teaching of faith determines the way of thinking of individuals, the laws of piety determine the way of life, grace-filled benefits, healing infirmities and strengthening strengths, form in various classes of society more or less strong actors who, by their example, their instructions, their authority, improve the general direction of minds, introduce or at least support various institutions that serve to preserve and spread the spirit of piety. The history of the Church brings together into one whole these diverse phenomena of Christian life, which comprise the entire series of previous actions of Divine leadership on earth” 186. The indicated views of Gorsky on the history of the Church can lead to the idea that, considering history as the discovery of Divine actions, he thereby refused to study the natural causes and conditions for the development of church-historical life. But this conclusion is unfair. Gorsky never forgot the fundamental truth that the history of Christian life was revealed among purely historical, human relationships and therefore can only be studied in connection with these relationships. Gorsky addressed this truth more than once in his introductory readings. The best proof of this is his thoughts on how a serious historian should study the history of Christian dogmas. The development of Christian dogma is the most important aspect for the study of the historian. Here is the center of gravity of the entire movement of church life. In considering such questions, the careful historian can least allow himself to be influenced by the spirit of the times and historical conditions. If it is assumed that dogma develops in the same way as any human worldview, then there is a danger of confusing the truth given in revelation with natural human truth. Gorsky does not find anything reprehensible in considering the history of Christian teaching in connection with the general course of mental development of mankind; he only tries to indicate what limits in this case the historian should not cross. Gorsky announced to his listeners: “In the department of science, teaching should reveal the direction and successes of Christian dogmatics. One fragmentary collection of sayings or passages from the writings of the Fathers of the Church about any truths of Christian teaching is not enough...” 187 In another case, Gorsky said: “At each time it is necessary to pay attention to the development - the means and degree of development of the teaching of faith and piety. Where did the development of teaching stop in the previous period? Who continued his movement in the present? How was it formed in the movers themselves? Who or what did it meet and fight? And what was the consequence of this collision? 188 A subject that deserves special attention when studying the history of church teaching, Gorsky considers the question of the influence of the individual qualities of teachers of the Church on the teaching of the Church. How to understand this last thought - the historian speaks about this very clearly and quite rightly in one of his introductory lectures. “Biographical information about teachers of the Church and a list of their works when presenting the history of church teaching are needed in such a case and to the extent that it is required to reveal the state of the teaching, when and how much the first determines the mode of action of any teacher of the Church, and the latter serve as a source of revealed truths; In general, this information should serve to reveal the direction and successes of the development of Christian dogmatics” 189. The divine establishment of the Church, the revelation of its teaching, thus, according to Gorsky, do not exclude the natural course of development of church life; this idea does not contradict the concept of the Church as an organism animated by higher powers. Gorsky then presents a list of auxiliary sciences and sources for general church history, and also gives an overview of works on church history in the following form: "Church geography (Wilcha), statistics (Steidlin) and chronology (L'art verifier les dates des faitis historiques 190). History of Christian missions (Fabricii lux Evangelica 191, Blumgard, Henrion). History of dogmas (Dionysius Petavius, Münster, Neander); symbolism of confessions (Wiener, Mehler, Guericke, Ghana). Patristics and patrolology; history of heresies (Walch). Ecclesiastical archeology (Bingham, Augusti, Binterim). Acts and rules of the councils and their history. History of Christian life (Cheti-Minea, Acta sanctorum, acta martyrum sincera 192). Works on church history. The most ancient: works of Egezinn, Eusebius, bishop. Caesarea (analysis of his “History”; what did he use? Its advantages and disadvantages), Rufinus, Sulnicius Severus and Orosius. Continuers of the works of Eusebius: Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Fedor the reader, Evagrius (their characteristic differences). Medieval: in the east, the works of Byzantine writers and Nikephoros Callistus. In the west: Gregory of Tours, Bede, Adam of Bremen; historia tripartita 193; annales of different places, times and persons. Towards the end of the Middle Ages the beginning of critical works: Valla. Since the Reformation - a polemical direction: the centuries of Magdeburg; concept about them, their advantages and disadvantages. They were opposed by the Church of the Roman Chronicle of Baronia. Their assessment. Works of: a) Roman Catholic scholars, especially monastics in France - on the publication of ancient historical monuments, writings of the fathers, acts of councils, lives of saints, history of monastic orders in the 17th and first quarter of the 18th century. Actually church-historical works: Alexander Natalis, Tilmon, Fleury and in recent times: Rohrbacher, Anrion, Abb. Goethe (Abbé Migne edition). Of the Germans in the current century (i.e. in the 19th century - A.M.): Stolberg, Katerkamif, Dellinger, Alzog. b) Protestants of the Lutheran confession: Gottfried Arnold, Weisman, Buddey, Mozheim, Walchow, Schreck. Protestant: Goettinger, Spangheim, Kave, Udin, Bingham, etc. Since the half of the last century (i.e. the 18th century - A.M.), a new direction in the theology of Protestants is reflected in the church historical works: Zemler, Genke, etc. The merits of Neander and his school and the most important shortcomings in his works. The significance of Gieseler's historical works. c) Orthodox writers from the Greeks: Dionysius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, Meletius, Metropolitan of Athens. We have: St. Demetrius, Methodius of Pskov, Innocent of Penza and others" 194. It follows from this that Gorsky not only strictly and thoroughly studied the literature on his subject, he to a certain extent also formed an idea of ​​\u200b\u200bchurch historiography from ancient times to his contemporary era, including a review of the historiography of the strongest German church-historical science at that time. He also reviewed the main works on the then nascent Russian church-historical science. At the same time, Gorsky always approaches the analysis of the works of historians strictly scientifically and critically. From a critical assessment of various manuals on church history included in Gorsky’s lectures, it is clear that he gave preference to the historical works of I. Mosheim, A. Neander and I. Gieseler over other studies. He speaks about the first as follows: “Mosheim, in addition to the necessary talents for the business, besides knowledge of languages, critical taste, and familiarity with philosophical history, had many other advantages. He knew the world and man well, which gave him the opportunity to often find the first causes of events in human inclinations and passions. He was too lenient towards heretics" 195. About Mosheim’s main work 196 “Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae antiguae et recentioris” 197 Gorsky says that “it is always based on evidence, full of witty (sometimes too harsh and unfair) judgments and instructive remarks. It is distinguished by pragmatism and art of presentation” 198. About Neander 199 Gorsky makes the following review: “Neander restored respect for ancient church history. In him, Germany saw the first historian who revealed his subject as one whole, in the harmonious and close connection of all its parts, church life, revealed in various phenomena not by chance, but in strict sequence, based on previously given principles. However, the author looks at Christian life from a Lutheran point of view” 200. About Gieseler 201 Gorsky notes: “His church history is distinguished by extensive scholarship, rich in extracts from sources, but the author is one of the rationalists” 202. Neander was Gorsky's favorite leader in the field of historical research. Both in biblical and church history, Gorsky in many cases was undoubtedly under his influence: this can be seen, for example, in the presentation of the history of the persecution of Christians. But at the same time, it cannot be said that Gorsky’s use of Neander in his scientific constructions reached the point of complete borrowing. Gorsky largely reworks and complements Neander both in the arrangement of facts and in his views, and in the nature of the presentation of the material. In addition, in places Gorsky polemicizes with the German historian. Gorsky used Gieseler mainly for critical study of sources. Of the contemporary historians, Gorsky paid some attention to Kurtz. In addition, he used other authors, for example Tschirner when depicting the history of the decline of paganism, as well as Lequesne, Tilmont, Dupin, Selye 203. The height of perfection in the construction of lecture courses that Gorsky read at the Academy must be recognized as his “History of the Evangelical and Apostolic Church,” for the compilation of which he put a lot of work and on which he worked with special care. These academic lectures were published after the death of the scientist 204 and represent the philosophy of the New Testament Sacred History, presented with rare insight. Throughout this entire story, especially the history of the Gospel, Gorsky pursued one idea - the awakening of faith by Christ in the disciples and among the people. This idea also appears in such facts that, with a simple reading of the Gospel, could in no way lead to the conclusions that Gorsky draws from them. Imbued with a fiery faith in the redemptive feat of Christ the Savior, Gorsky became animated in his readings, and his speech often breathed with poetic delight 205. Gorsky's works amaze with their skill. The legacy of the scientist is, first of all, his scientific works, which can be divided into four groups: 1) biographies and studies related to general church history; 2) biographies and studies related to Russian church history; 3) ancient Russian monuments, published with commentaries; 4) teachings and speeches. In total, Gorsky published over 40 published scientific works. In addition to them, extensive works remained in manuscripts. These are mainly lectures on general and Russian church history and dogmatic theology 206. Gorsky also took the initiative to publish the magazine “Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation,” which began publishing in Moscow in 1843. He was one of the editors of the magazine and its most active employee. As for Gorsky’s research on Russian church history, his work should be recognized as independent and original. He studied chronicles, charters, and acts deeply and thoroughly, then using these selected materials in developing the scientific component of his subject. Gorsky has the honor and merit for the discovery of some remarkable monuments of ancient Russian literature. Gorsky, however, did not have a feverish haste to publish all the sources that came into his hands. New monuments were introduced into scientific circulation by Gorsky only when, after a comprehensive study, it was possible to reveal their meaning and determine their place in history or literature. Suffice it to say that the wonderful monument of antiquity, “The Sermon on Law and Grace” by Metropolitan Hilarion of Kyiv, became the property of historical science thanks to Gorsky, who published it for the first time, providing it with a detailed, scientifically verified explanation 207 . Previously, the “Lay” was known to Karamzin under the name “Life of Vladimirov” 208, but Gorsky, after studying the writings of the “Greek Hilarion” 209, proved the undoubted independence of the works of “Russian Hilarion” he found, traced their history in ancient Russian writing to the time of Archbishop Guria (1555) 210 and dated them to a certain era. Gorsky also published biographies and teachings of Cyril II, Metropolitan of Kyiv, Metropolitans of Moscow Peter and Alexei 211. These biographies of the ancient Moscow saints, compiled at the suggestion of Metropolitan Philaret, can be considered exemplary works. Not inferior to them in dignity are Gorsky’s extensive works on the Eastern fathers: Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great and Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus 212. Regarding the nature of presentation in Gorsky’s works, it should be noted that he wrote in pure Russian, did not allow foreign terms in his speech, avoided vague and ambiguous expressions, chose words and expressions that were precise and weighty, exercised extreme caution in constructing phrases, and despite all the scientific nature of his research, did not fall into dryness of presentation. A serious Orthodox church historian, when starting his work, cannot avoid a very significant question: what tasks does his membership in the Orthodox Church pose for him? what should distinguish an Orthodox historian from all other historians; How should he treat the rich literature that owes its origin to Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians? These questions also occupied Gorsky. He, however, solves them very simply and briefly. Gorsky summed up his thoughts in this case: “The presentation of history is determined by a look at its subject, which must be deduced from its essence. Both theory and experience must agree that the presentation of the history of the Church is most determined by the dogmatic view. The character of Orthodox theology is to affirm its truths on the word of God and to support its understanding of the word of God with the testimony of the Church or tradition in the broadest sense. This respect for the voice of the Church or tradition is at the same time respect for the history of the Church. In this case, we partly agree with the Roman Catholic Church, contrary to the Protestant trend, but we have an advantage over the Roman Church in that our Church has more accurately respected the character of antiquity, the primitive times of Christianity, has not distorted the purity of its faith, its worship and hierarchical institutions - arbitrariness and lust for power - its dogmatism is not burdened with scholasticism. In what relation does Orthodoxy place us in relation to the church-historical works of other faiths? Let us follow the apostolic rule - keep everything that is tempting. “Temptingly,” that is, turning to the original sources” 213. Then Gorsky used to inform his listeners about the nature of the church historical works of Catholics and Protestants, their significance in science. Orthodoxy, as follows from Gorsky’s words, should serve as a guide and criterion of truth, but it should not give rise to conceit and disdain in the historian for the church historical works of non-Orthodox authors. Orthodoxy does not prevent the historian from using all the best that has come from non-Orthodox theologians. A.V. Gorsky deeply loved and had great respect for his subject - church history. This encouraged him to share with his listeners his ideas about the importance and benefits of church history studies: the zealous professor, out of the abundance of his heart, involuntarily spoke his lips (Luke 6:45). Gorsky pointed out the importance and benefits of church history: 1) In it itself: “The history of the Church,” he said, “represents, on the one hand, God in the closest relation to humanity, on the other, man in the highest of his aspirations. “As much as a person’s religious aspiration is higher than any other, his history is just as superior to others.” 2) In the benefit of church history for every believer: “Since the Church from its beginning to this day constitutes one great union, then each member of this union, as soon as he has the opportunity, should take care to familiarize himself with it. Everyone is a heir to the spirit of former times!” 3) Its necessity for the theologian: “For the one who himself is elected to be the builder (?) of the mysteries of Christ, history serves as a necessary guide both in theological sciences and in life.” 4) In need of church history for the Russian pastor. “In particular, the study of church history is useful for a Russian theologian. It makes it possible to see: a) what we have and what we still do not have in comparison with other Churches, for example, independent theological and church-historical scholarship; b) how they should act in our time” 214. Gorsky quite rightly saw one of the difficulties in studying church history in the fact that church-historical science, which explains the movements of the human spirit under the guidance of the Divine, “needs to have the eye of the seraphim in order to read so freely in the depths of human hearts, to look so fearlessly at the glory of God! If in general the observation of phenomena taking place in the depths of the human spirit is associated with great difficulty and is exposed to the danger of many errors and misconceptions, then what is the value of such a profound revelation of all the powers of the human spirit in both its directions to heaven and hell, which belongs to the pen of church history? 215 Gorsky set his task not only to present scientific information about the subject, but also tried to refute incorrect, false judgments regarding this or that church-historical phenomenon or person. He wanted to be an apologist for Christian truth and Christian beliefs and views that were dear to him, sanctified by tradition. As soon as the first volume of the “Ecclesiastical History” of the famous Baur 216 appeared, in which this writer sought to undermine confidence in the Divine establishment of Christianity, Gorsky, in his readings, with strength, animation and learning, came to the defense of Christianity and its original history. As a serious scientist, Gorsky in his readings diligently and comprehensively examines those church-historical issues that cause controversy in science and therefore require an independent, new look. For example, Gorsky engages with his listeners in a critical study of the important question of what year the Nativity of Christ was. Starting to present the history of persecution, Gorsky considers the opinion that arose in ancient times and was preserved by some historians of his time, that there could be and were only ten persecutions in the first three centuries. Gorsky's goal was to refute this unhistorical view 217. In expressing his thoughts, Gorsky did not consider it scientific to definitely speak out in favor of one or another solution to the issue if the two conclusions had the same degree of probability. He simply indicated which facts led to one decision and which to another, as if leaving the final judgment to the listener himself. This is a feature of true scientific impartiality. Gorsky rarely leaves his listeners without a direct explanation of the issue, when church history offers such tasks, the solution of which is extremely difficult and almost impossible due to the contradictory nature of historical information, its one-sidedness and obscurity. Only a person who knows a lot and has thought a lot about the issue can get out of a difficulty under such circumstances. Gorsky is exactly that. He knows how to group heterogeneous and dissimilar things and draw certain conclusions. If each individual message from a source is not enough to explain a fact, then all the information taken together leads to the desired goal - a sufficient explanation of the phenomenon. Gorsky generally loved a simple but strictly scientific study of the subject, alien to hypotheses, speculation, or the implementation of any extraneous ideas. But this did not exclude the desire to find the causes governing historical phenomena. In such cases, Gorsky appears before us as a pragmatic historian. Thus, he not only studies facts related to the history of the papacy from the 4th to the 11th centuries, but deeply reveals the reasons for the rise of the papacy in this period. This, according to Gorsky, was favored by: 1) the ancient significance of Rome, 2) greater freedom for the popes with the removal of emperors from Rome, 3) the superiority of Rome over the entire West, 4) the fragmentation of the East between four hierarchs, 5) in the West there were fewer dogmatic disputes, 6) interpretation in favor of the popes of the rules of the Council of Sardicia, 7) the decree of Valentinian III, 8) the rise of the pope under Ostrogothic rulers, 9) the attitude of the Greek government towards the popes under Justinian and 10) under the Lombards 218. Church history, like history in general, provides an extraordinary wealth of materials that are difficult to fit into a specific course of lectures. Therefore, the art of reading should also be expressed in choosing from many a few, but characteristic and essential. If we consider Gorsky's readings from this side, it should be noted that he knew how to focus the attention of his listeners on the most essential and important things, without suppressing thoughts and memory with details, special and petty presentation of scientific facts. At the beginning of his professorial career, Gorsky had the responsibility of presenting from the pulpit the entire church history, from biblical times to our time - Greek, Western, and Russian. He lectured on biblical Old Testament history, and on evangelical and apostolic history, and history before the division of the Church, and the history of the Western Church during the period of scholasticism and the era of the Reformation before the formation of the original Protestant societies, and Greek church history until very recent times, and Russian church history 219. Over time, before his eyes and not without his assistance, various departments emerged from the vast science of church history in the form of independent scientific subjects, which individual teachers began to present to students. From the general sphere of church historical science, biblical history, Russian church history, and modern church history of the West stood out as independent sciences during Gorsky’s teaching. And Gorsky, in the last years of his professorship as a teacher of church history, taught one ancient church history. Gorsky as a historian of the 19th century. belonged to a movement called at that time objectivist. Objectivist historians were distinguished by the most rigorous analysis of facts, a thorough study of sources, but in the presentation and grouping of facts they avoided indicating and revealing the laws of history according to which human life moves. This is the business of the so-called subjectivist historians, pragmatists, whose conclusions first seemed too hasty, arrogant and fantastic. You need to know the fact as it is, to distinguish a reliable fact from an unreliable one, - said the objectivists; this is not enough, the pragmatists noted: it is necessary to indicate what significance it has among other historical facts, it is necessary to judge on the basis of the fact of the movement of history, otherwise there is no need to study history. Gorsky in this regard was an objectivist historian. He was constantly busy both in his lectures and in printed church-historical works with factual truth, a careful study of facts, but as for a broad generalization of facts, a fundamental study of history, Gorsky did not set himself such tasks. One cannot, of course, think that Gorsky did not have enough talent for this kind of scientific formulation of the matter; one should not say that he did not sympathize with such methods: in his introductory lectures there are thoughts close to this direction 220. One must think that Gorsky considered such work still premature for Russia. A generalizing historical work on church history is possible only when the particular branches of science have been deeply developed, a significant amount of sources have been studied, and when science can boast of the versatility of its information. All this, of course, was not then in the potential of domestic historical and church-historical science. Consideration of church history from a pragmatic point of view is all the more difficult because the Orthodox historian must develop his own principles, independent of Western models, and from this point of view he must treat the subject. Western models are unsuitable for Russian church science, because these writers start from Protestantism or the papacy as the highest manifestation of historical Christianity and in the papacy or in Protestantism they look for those highest forms of church-historical life to which the entire previous development of Christian life is reduced. An Orthodox historian can only place Orthodoxy as the initial ideological position in relation to the study of the historical development of church life. Gorsky, with his scientific activities, responded to the urgent needs of the time. He did not take on broad tasks, because first it was necessary to establish the foundations for science, to understand the materials of historical sources accumulated and discovered at that time. Church historical science had to go through its history 221. 2. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library The middle of the 19th century was a time of rapid development of philology in Russian science. This science largely owes its flourishing to the remarkable scientist Alexander Khristoforovich Vostokov. This Slavic philologist, researcher of ancient Russian literature, poet and translator made many discoveries in the field of philological knowledge. He owns works on the comparative grammar of Slavic languages, lexicography of Church Slavonic and Russian languages, and paleography 222. A. Kh. Vostokov was the first representative of the comparative historical school in Russian linguistics. In his works, he dealt with the issues of the origin of the Old Church Slavonic language, the relationship between the Church Slavonic language and secular Slavic languages, etc. Comparing data from various languages, establishing their kinship, A. Kh. Vostokov developed a new method for that time, which was called comparative historical. This strict scientific method of Vostokov was applied to an unusually rich collection of monuments of Russian antiquity - to the manuscripts of the Synodal Library - in the 50s of the 19th century by A.V. Gorsky. His work, written jointly with K.I. Nevostruev, was built on the basis of the method developed by Vostokov. First, we should consider Gorsky's previous activities, in which his gift as an archaeographer gradually developed. This process is very interesting and instructive, especially for the theoretical and practical understanding of techniques aimed at research in the field of literary history. Gorsky, like any novice researcher, when starting to study the monuments of ancient literature, walked uncertainly, by touch, developing techniques for himself, losing his way, wondering what to take and what to discard; I stopped at the empty, insignificant and missed the important, serious. In addition, at that time there were almost no critically processed editions of monuments that could make the work of a scientist easier. When Gorsky for the first time, with only the “Dictionary of Spiritual Writers” of Metropolitan Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) 223 in his hands, began to study the church and literary monuments of Ancient Rus', there was great interest in the scientific community in N. A. Polevoy’s book “The History of the Russian People” 224. After N. M. Karamzin’s “History of the Russian State” 225, this work served as a source of acquaintance with Russian antiquity for the young researcher. At the Theological Academy, Gorsky met a man who managed to direct his interest in the study of antiquity - the manuscripts of the library of the Academy and the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. This was his friend Filaret (Gumilevsky), a famous historian of the Russian Church, author of the “Review of Spiritual Literature” 226, later Archbishop of Chernigov. Having entered under the scientific guidance of Filaret, Gorsky immediately felt the weak side of Polevoy’s historical work, the hasty conclusions of the researcher, so that he himself could already point out the gaps in this work. Gorsky's first studies were aimed at studying the history of the Russian Church; he set the task of tracing how Christian teaching was instilled in the Russian people in different periods. “In the entire history of the Christian Church,” says Gorsky, “by revealing the history of its teachings, we follow, in fact, the gradual disclosure of Christian teaching. Here we must look at how the teaching was previously spread, how it was applied to the mind, how it was revealed and in what way it revealed its effect” 227. Connected with this is Gorsky’s constant interest in the inner life of the church people themselves: how Christian teaching was accepted in everyday life and in life. Therefore, he was interested not so much in official documents as in literary monuments, especially lives and sermons, which opened access to this inner world of church antiquity. And it is from these studies of Gorsky that his definition of the task of Russian church history comes: to present the life of the Russian people as a society of believers. But, unfortunately, this task has not been accomplished to date. While working on this problem, Gorsky drew attention to an important conductor of Christian ideas into the pagan masses of the Russian Slavs - literature and preaching. In this way he approached the study of literary monuments of Russian antiquity. Touching on the life of the Greek Church at the time when the Russians borrowed Christianity, and finding both here and there “the scarcity of teaching people,” Gorsky, through a strictly scientific study of Russian history, came to the interesting conclusions that Christian enlightenment was established in Rus' mainly with the help of the Slavic Bible. “In tenth-century Greece, the responsibility to preach lay with bishops, not presbyters. It was the same with us. There were few preachers compared to the need. The Greek preachers banished all simplicity. The Slavic translation of the books of John of Damascus could not be a folk book, for there was much that was incomprehensible. The true treasure remained one translation of the Holy Scriptures” 228. Gorsky's study of Russian church history, as can be seen from this passage, was based on a wide and close acquaintance with the history of the Christian Church in general and the Greek Church in particular. Thus, if Russian monuments did not contain enough information about distant facts of Russian church history, he turned to the documents of the Church of Constantinople and found an explanation there. This method was used to explain Gorsky’s confirmation of Saint Alexy in the rank of metropolitan. Monuments of Russian church literature, on the contrary, explained to him the dark issues in the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Metropolitan Cyprian, describing the life of Saint Peter of Moscow, speaks of the displacement of the then Patriarch of Constantinople - a fact not known from Greek sources. Thus, without the additions of Metropolitan Cyprian, they would not have learned about the violent overthrow of Patriarch Philotheus from the throne. From the very beginning, the study of literature and the history of the Russian Church goes hand in hand with the study of the history of Byzantium. The weak spread of education among the masses reveals one of the root causes of the phenomenon known in Russia as schism, and a comparative study of the destinies of the Russian and Greek Churches sheds even more light on this phenomenon. Explaining the history of the schism, Gorsky managed to preserve historical truth in purity, without sacrificing it for biased interpretations. As a wise historian, he comments on the historical fact itself, and does not denounce the Old Believers. In ancient monuments of church literature, he points out traces of double hallelujah and double fingers, the legality of which was proved by Metropolitan Daniel of Moscow even before the famous Council of the Hundred Glava. In Nikon's correction of church books, Gorsky found shortcomings: the literalness of the translation, even with the loss of meaning. But for the sake of polemical purposes, Gorsky never resorted to sophistry, refuting the ahistorical opinion that the Hundred Head Council had no legal significance. The main advantage of Gorsky's historical research is given by the fact that he worked from handwritten sources and was guided by a strictly scientific method. Therefore, his scientific works bear the stamp of rare self-sufficiency. Applying his knowledge to the treasures of ancient Russian literature, which were located in the Lavra, Academic and Synodal libraries, Gorsky found in these unpublished historical monuments an explanation of the past destinies of the Russian land. The narrow limits of one scientific specialty did not satisfy the researcher. Gorsky mastered all the manuals for philological and historical criticism of the source, paleography, studied Slavic languages ​​and Russian in its historical development. The appearance in print of the “Description” of the Rumyantsev Museum by A. Kh. Vostokov 229 was a very important step in the study of monuments of ancient Russian and Slavic writing. A.V. Gorsky was able to take advantage of Vostokov’s work by adopting his comparative historical method. Gorsky surpassed him in the depth and breadth of his theological education, so necessary for a correct assessment of the monuments of ancient Russian literature. Excellent familiarity with Byzantine literature helped Gorski to critically assess its influence on the literature of the Slavs: Serbs, Bulgarians and Russians. “The great work of the Slavic Slavist” (A. Kh. Vostokova) was greeted by Gorsky with an extensive review, in which he was able to correct and supplement his research 230 . Gorsky's education and paleographic experience were so significant that he easily explained the alphabetical table, before which Vostokov stopped powerless 231 . His extensive erudition was also due to the fact that the range of sources he studied was wider than that of Vostokov. The latter studied those Slavic manuscripts that were in the hands of N.P. Rumyantsev, and a few manuscripts that previously belonged to A.S. Norov and D.A. Tolstoy. Gorsky opened the libraries of the Trinity Lavra, the Theological Academy, the Volokolamsk Monastery and, finally, the Synodal Library. What was the Moscow Synodal Library like during Gorsky’s time? The Synodal Library, organized in 1721, was compiled on the basis of ancient Russian collections. By the middle of the 19th century, the library's holdings had increased significantly. It is obvious that at this time no other book depository in Russia could present as many materials for the history of the ancient Russian Church and even for the entire Orthodox East as was hidden in the ancient handwritten and printed records of this library 232. Of exceptional value here was and remains to this day precisely the collection of Slavic manuscripts of the 11th-18th centuries, the total number of which is more than a thousand, and among them there are many truly unique ones. Meanwhile, this very valuable material remained scientifically unclaimed: in the absence of a full-fledged index or catalog for it, it was almost impossible to use it, although the need for the use of all this wealth for learned historians arose long ago. Secular researchers involved in historical science have more than once reproached, and quite rightly, the spiritual authorities for their reluctance to correct the situation. Finally, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow took the initiative to solve the problem. In May 1849, he wrote to the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Alexy (Rzhanitsyn), later Archbishop of Tver: “They say that strangers are undertaking without us for the Synodal Library what I have been thinking about for a long time, without achieving it, namely the compilation of a clear catalogue, and are even thinking about printing. Therefore, tell the censors that if anything of this kind comes to the censorship, they should keep it from being passed through without being presented to the Holy Synod. And I want to know if something like this happens. But just as it is desirable for us ourselves, it is necessary to do the work, for not doing which they can be reproached: then talk to Mr. Gorsky, if he will take on this matter with several employees who could be hired in Moscow and whom he would direct and supervise the work, visiting Moscow from time to time. Engage in this thought and give me the answer” 233. It is obvious that Metropolitan Philaret’s plan for the Synodal Book Depository was to introduce all this new manuscript material into scientific circulation immediately with proper interpretation in line with church tradition. That’s why he wanted to entrust this to “his” person, who was A.V. Gorsky, not wanting to allow the intervention of “strangers,” secular researchers. The letter from the Moscow hierarch decided the matter. After the rector's conversation with Gorsky, the latter got down to business 234. First it was necessary to find a capable assistant. Being a professor, Gorsky knew all the students - both those graduating from the Academy and those who had already graduated from it. But choosing one of them as an employee was not an easy task. Finally, Gorsky’s attention focused on the teacher of the Simbirsk Theological Seminary, Kapiton Ivanovich Nevostruev. When Nevostruev was still a student at the Academy, he already showed an inclination towards history and archaeological research. Having become a teacher, he began to diligently study Russian antiquities, studying archives and compiling descriptions of the monasteries of the Simbirsk diocese. Gorsky, with whom Nevostruev maintained frequent correspondence after graduating from the Academy, was an active adviser to him in this work. It was precisely such a talented student that Gorsky decided to involve in the work of describing the manuscripts of the Synodal Library. In a letter dated June 31, 1849, Alexander Vasilyevich wrote to K.I. Nevostruev: “...On the instructions of our bishop, I had to take upon myself the compilation of a clear description of the Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library and for this purpose choose an employee who could conduct this work on the spot under my supervision and order. My choice fell on you. For this purpose, Bishop agreed to inform the higher authorities about summoning you to Moscow... and with the production of you the same salaries that you currently enjoy in the service at the seminary. For this purpose, you will be given a room in Moscow in the Chudov Monastery and two scribes from the seminary students who have completed the course. I will come to Moscow from time to time, together with you, consider which manuscripts should be described, help you in your research, etc., etc. Now I ask you to notify me whether you agree to accept the assigned work, without losing sight of the fact that the authorities are authoritatively disposing of us for their own purposes and without our will. I am also not writing anything about your description of monasteries; but you see from the case that your labors provide you with a path to new occupations, and so on. achieve your goal. I look forward to your speedy response. Your most zealous servant A. Gorsky" 235. In a response letter to Gorsky on July 11, 1849, K. I. Nevostruev wrote: “I most humbly and deeply have the honor to thank you, Alexander Vasilyevich, for the good memory of me and the election with which you deign to honor me, I am fully aware of the greatness of the matter and its special difficulty for me: for I have neither historical and archaeological information, nor vision and health, which I have noticeably weak, especially the first. On the contrary, I feel great ability and have the means to study theological sciences, and now I am sad to leave them. But your recommendation and the obligation to unquestioningly obey the authorities, driven by Providence, determine me to the assigned work, and the hope of God’s help, yours [and] from other friends of science calms my lurking weakness. And so be it according to your thoughts, for which I sincerely and most humbly thank you. It is desirable and necessary for me that my call from Simbirsk should come no earlier than August or the second half of July, and that on the way I could stay in Nizhny for about five days to complete my descriptions on the spot and the necessary information about them in Nizhny Novgorod. spirit. consistory..." 236 And soon, on July 30, 1849, a decree of the Holy Synod followed, ordering A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev to compile a description of the Slavic manuscripts stored in the Synodal Library 237. And already in the autumn of the same year, hard work began on describing the collection. Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) wrote to Gorsky on August 7, 1849 on this occasion: “What you write about the Synod’s instructions regarding the Synodal Library is news for me, and the news is very gratifying, very pleasant. Strive, strive diligently. The matter, as is obvious to everyone, is very necessary, something that should have been done long ago. How many reproaches have you swallowed? Really, unpleasant things. Please do not imitate your predecessors: be persistent in work and patience. There will be obstacles and stoppages, either from talk of crookedness or simply from pride. Bear it patiently and go, do not stop because of your inner voice. I will also add this: do not get carried away by your assumptions and desires to do exemplary work. Otherwise, one’s own suspiciousness can cause a lot of hindrances and stops” 238. It goes without saying that such a large and necessary undertaking, which Gorsky took on together with K.I. Nevostruev, required detailed preliminary discussions of the task, methods and order of its implementation. Therefore, the researchers first found out the purpose of their work and then drew up special rules for it. According to their plans, the description should have appeared not in the form of a simple inventory serving to preserve manuscripts, or a detailed list of the articles contained in them, but in the form of a serious scientific bibliographic work. The purpose of the work was “to present a more distinct concept of them (that is, manuscripts and articles) in consideration of issues of scientific sophistication, paying attention to both the content and the language of ancient written monuments. Moreover, due to the nature of these monuments, mostly ecclesiastical, scientific research should primarily serve to explain the history of the Church, its literature and antiquities.” The work itself was carried out according to the following rules: 1) Manuscripts were arranged according to their content, and then distributed in accordance with the time of writing. 2) Each manuscript was described in detail, highlighting its features and properties that are not repeated in manuscripts of similar content: bibliographical features were noted, including spelling; the content was revealed in more detail, the more different it was; analyzed several manuscripts of similar content, highlighting the oldest sample; they wrote out all the postscripts, etc. 3) With the analysis of manuscripts containing remarkable monuments of literature, they combined the analysis of the monuments themselves, paying attention to the correspondence of content and language; and when analyzing translations - on the correctness of the transmission of the original. 4) To evaluate translations and extracts from Greek and other foreign language works, they always looked for the source used by the translator or extractor, and if it was not in printed publications, they looked for it in the manuscripts of the Synodal Library or other available ones. 5) Everything that deserved special attention and research, both in the main content of the manuscript and in the inserted articles and postscripts, should have been examined and explained as far as possible. 6) All extracts from manuscripts, no matter how large or small they were, had to be conveyed in the description with literal accuracy 239. The researchers' work followed approximately this pattern. The initial description of a certain manuscript was made on site by Nevostruev, who worked in the Moscow Kremlin, in the Chudov Monastery. He analyzed manuscripts, made comparisons, expressed his assumptions and considerations. The notebook with such descriptions was then sent to Gorsky, and he, where necessary, corrected them and provided additional philological, historical and other comments. The notebook, completely rewritten in Moscow, was again sent to the Sergius Lavra to Gorsky, for his final approval. Sometimes the description was carried out differently: Gorsky himself took some manuscript from the Synodal Library, made notes on it and forwarded it to Nevostruev, who then began the description itself. And again, from the Chudov Monastery, the notebook with the studied material went on a 60-kilometer journey to the Lavra to Gorsky. These notebooks of description, compiled by Nevostruev, were always returned to Gorsky, dotted with comments, additions and insertions from Alexander Vasilyevich. These corrections, which were sent along with numerous letters, are full of the same instructions and messages 240. Reviewing all this again, K.I. Nevostruev could understand what he paid too much attention to and what he did not take into account; how best to use the data that he himself extracted from the manuscripts; how to analyze and study manuscripts further. Nevostruev ponders these conclusions and, based on them, once again reworks his work. Although Nevostruev was prepared for the task of describing his Simbirsk activities in antiquity, it was not enough. At first, Gorsky explained to him what he needed to pay attention to when reading and studying manuscripts, advised him to omit unimportant details such as typos, rearrangements of words, taught him how to determine the antiquity of a translation and the features of the language, how to make comparisons and selections. “Student mistakes are replete with Nevostruev’s first notebook. He sees antiquity where corrupted forms appear, incomprehensible to the scribe; he sees antiquity where a local accent is displayed. Gorsky eliminates these student mistakes of his employee, but with that modesty and caution that cannot offend anyone’s pride, he sees in his employee gross mistakes, student slips, but constantly treats them as learned opinions with which he does not agree. All these, so to speak, intimate suggestions always bear the stamp of the broadest humanity” 241. Letters, notebooks, half-sheets of paper, sewn-in and enclosed notes and personal conversations with Gorsky were of great importance for Nevostruev. He gradually improved, studied, acquired the skill and ability to understand manuscripts in order to work usefully and fruitfully. Joint work and communication with Gorsky developed, educated and improved Nevostruev as a scientist. In his free time from working with the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, Nevostruev also spent a lot of time studying ancient Russian monuments 242. “Nevostruev did not forget the materials he collected during his work in Simbirsk. He prepared and published a number of historical descriptions and publications of documents on the history of monasteries, cathedrals and churches of the Simbirsk-Samara Volga region” 243. And this, of course, was Gorsky’s school, which was based on the principles of archaeographic work that were developed when describing the collection of manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. In this regard, the draft notebooks “Descriptions” 244 are interesting. More than half of Nevostruev’s texts, extracts, and materials have been crossed out; errors, mistakes, guesswork are eliminated; Gorsky accompanies all this with new quotes, long critical comments in place of the student’s extracts, insignificant and immature. Sending Nevostruev a number of his many years of observations based on a deep critical study of both the Synodal and Lavra manuscripts, Gorsky poses a number of new, private questions: “search, inquire, note, explain, prove.” The “Description” itself will forever remain Gorsky’s major work. This is a treasure trove of critically researched facts for the history of language, both Russian and Old Slavic. In terms of breadth of plan, it has nothing similar in European literature. The researcher set himself the task of presenting not a dry description of many manuscripts, but the historical fate of those literary works, the lists of which ended up in the Synodal Library. Brought to completion in accordance with the original plan and executed with that critical tact, with the enormous erudition that Gorsky possessed, “Description” represents the history of all pre-Petrine literature. The material collected and processed by Gorsky provided invaluable information in the field of historical and literary research, enriching not only the history of our literature, but also that of Byzantine literature. Adhering to the comparative historical method of study, Gorsky, first of all, strives to find the initial Greek and Latin text, then subjects their translations to a detailed examination, and makes detailed extracts from unpublished works. In his extensive work, he does not hide either from himself or from his readers the difficulties of the upcoming task, but these difficulties are overcome and lead to new discoveries in the field of not only ancient Slavic, but also Greek literature. For example, the study of Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library made it possible to discover the “Words” of the famous opponent of Origen - Methodius of Patara, completely unknown to Western scientists at that time. The ancient Greek Patericon was first revealed to science in a Slavic translation, described chapter by chapter by Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, but unknown in Greek. New passages were discovered from the “Ladder” of John of Sinai, the “Instructions” of the Apostle James to the Jews, the new “Word” of Theodore the Studite, the “Words” of Simeon the New Theologian, previously unpublished, or not at all known among the Greek monuments. A new edition of the Christian adaptation of the work of the Stoic Epictetus, attributed to the Monk Maximus the Confessor, in 100 chapters, has been opened. It also turned out that the Monk Maxim is the author of a work of spiritual and moral content called “The Helmsman,” which is not in Greek 245 . Studying the original monuments of Slavic and Russian literature, Gorsky notes all the descriptions of folk life found in them, everything that concerned historical figures and all the features that vividly characterize a certain era of antiquity 246. But the main interest of the study focused on resolving the question that deeply occupied Gorsky for many years, namely: “how was that collection of biblical books in the Slavic language that we have before the first printed editions formed? And in what form was the word of God known to our ancestors?” 247 Setting such a task is completely justified from the point of view of the history of the Slavic translation of the Bible. Dissatisfaction with the existing Slavic translation has long been recognized in Russia and has caused attempts in the scientific world to eliminate it. Back in 1812, Metropolitan Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov) submitted his “Study on the Slavic translation of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments” for publication to the Imperial Academy of Sciences. The author based it on the text of the Gennadian Bible of 1499, formed largely on the basis of the Latin Vulgate, and not Greek manuscripts 248. However, for some reason this monograph was not published at the time. But in 1839, the work of the professor of the Kiev Theological Academy Orest Novitsky “On the initial translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Slavic language” appeared, which was written at the suggestion, with the approval and with the instructions of the Right Reverend Eugene 249. When describing the Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library, Gorsky made an invaluable contribution to the study of this issue: he discovered, collected and reviewed enormous material and outlined new prospects for fruitful scientific work on the genesis and restitution of the Slavic Bible. According to the fair and competent opinion of Professor G. A. Voskresensky, this “is, one might say, an inexhaustible treasury of critically cleared facts for the history of the sacred biblical text” 250. Gorsky's work also contained valuable discoveries that served as an impetus for further research, which was then conducted in this area mainly from the historical, literary and philological sides. The history of the Slavic text is constantly touched upon by Gorsky throughout the entire “Description”. He proved that Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod did not know all of the Old Testament books of the Bible in the Slavic translation. The remaining books were translated from Latin and are not arranged quite correctly. This is probably why the book of Esther was adopted in a later translation from the Hebrew. At the same time, Gorsky followed the text of the Holy Scripture itself through all the monuments of ancient Slavic literature. Gorsky also noted that the oldest Slavic writers do not cite the texts of Scripture in full accordance with the ancient original, but very often convey it in their own translation. Examining a 13th-century manuscript containing a Slavic translation of the “Theology” of St. John of Damascus, Gorsky found out that the author of the translation, John, Exarch of Bulgaria, not only shortened the original in composition, but also enriched it with his own additions. At the same time, when transmitting quotations from the Holy Scriptures, he reproduced them not in a ready-made Cyril and Methodius translation, but in an independent one. Constantine, the presbyter of Bulgaria or the bishop of Preslav, acted similarly when he translated the teachings of St. John Chrysostom to Sundays; Moreover, he even published his own work under the name of Chrysostom 251. Thus, Gorsky established the following pattern: the older the monument of Slavic literature, the more the Slavic text of the Holy Scripture is distinguished by disagreement and independence in relation to the ancient original. He noted this remarkable phenomenon, raising the question of the scope and fate of the Cyril and Methodius translation of the Holy Scriptures. He did not completely resolve this issue, but managed to identify the most important phases in the history of the Slavic text of the New Testament and, with the help of subtle critical observations, was able to identify the oldest original text of the Psalms, Acts and Apostolic Epistles. In the “Description”, Gorsky placed the analysis of the text at the forefront, and this analysis met all the requirements of both philological and historical science and was supported by the colossal theological erudition of the scientist 252. The description of the manuscripts with the direct participation of Gorsky lasted for 14 years. The result of such a long work was the appearance in print with the name of Gorsky and Nevostruev of six rather voluminous volumes, in which more than 340 books and manuscripts were described in detail. The first book “Descriptions” was published in 1855. This first volume examines all the Slavic-Russian manuscripts of the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments and, first of all, the Bible of Archbishop Gennady of Novgorod according to the lists of the XV-XVII centuries, as well as separate lists of the XII-XVII centuries of the Gospel, the Apostle, the Psalter, the Prophecies and so on. They are examined in comparison with printed Bibles, starting with the Ostrog Bible of 1581, and in parallel with biblical Greek, Latin and Hebrew texts 253. But it was this first book, and indeed the entire extensive “Description” series, that faced the sad fate of remaining forever in obscurity. The breadth, versatility, critical direction of the enterprise organized by the authors to publish descriptions of manuscripts, scientific novelty and bold decisions to which they came almost served as the main obstacle to the appearance of their work in print. It was like this. When the first volume of the “Description” was prepared, its final version was presented by Gorsky to Saint Philaret in September 1852. The Metropolitan sent the manuscript for consideration to the Synod, providing the study with his review. The work of Gorsky and Nevostruev was presented to the ordinary professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, Archimandrite John (Sokolov), who was a member of the Committee of Spiritual Censorship. This censor was distinguished by two traits: pickiness and complete disrespect for other people's thoughts, managing to arm even the most harmless people against himself. And he approached the first part of the “Description” entrusted to him for consideration with his usual techniques. Archimandrite John gave a negative review of the “Description” and spoke out against its publication 254. Without rejecting the scientific erudition and talents of the authors, the censor saw precisely in their scholarship a danger to the Church itself, and in his review he took upon himself the responsibility of preventing the book from going into print. Two points in the “Description” seemed to him especially seditious and unseemly: convincing evidence that in the entire multitude of Slavic copies of the Holy Scriptures, the authors did not find a single correct one; an indication that the complete collection of Old Testament books in the Slavic language appeared in Rus' in the 15th century with borrowings from the Vulgate, Latin and German editions. The censor considers the first thesis to be a blasphemy against the Russian Church, suggesting that for several centuries our Church did not have the word of God in a pure, complete form, but accepted and preached it in a damaged form. He finds the second point unfavorable for judgments about our Church, especially from heterodox confessions, and unseemly and unhelpful for general reading. The very attempt of the descriptors to critically examine the Slavic text of the Bible seems to the censor to be an audacity that encroaches on the Holy Scriptures: “The descriptors proposed in their work a goal that was not only strictly bibliographic, but also scientifically critical. If they had limited themselves to the first goal, then it would have been enough to describe the time and place of origin of each manuscript, its composition, the features of the language... In this case, the imperfections of our ancient translations of the Holy Scriptures would not have been discovered, but could have been exposed only by deliberately reading each manuscript, if someone wanted to read the manuscripts in the library itself. But the descriptors went further. They armed themselves with learned criticism and began to examine and judge the merits of the translations of Holy Scripture themselves, comparing them with Greek and other editions of it. In this case, it is no longer possible to hide all the defects in our Bible translations. But is this necessary in the proposed description of the library’s manuscripts?” 255 Archimandrite John's review raised the issue of publishing the Description quite seriously. Given the distrust with which the publication of ancient Russian church monuments was treated at that time, such a review could raise serious doubts about whether such a description is necessary and useful. Fortunately for our Church and our science, the task of describing manuscripts was near and dear to Metropolitan Philaret, and the archimandrite did not have the strength to fight the authority of the saint. The recall did not decide the outcome of the case, and Metropolitan Filaret decided to teach the arrogant censor a lesson. With the blessing of Bishop Gorsky had to draw up a detailed explanation of the objections and demands of the censor review. He got down to business and already in the summer of 1853, after careful, painstaking work and constant consultations with Metropolitan Philaret, the answer was ready. The document itself is entitled: “Apology for the “Description of Slavic Manuscripts of the Synodal Library” and an Accusatory Word against Father John (now the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy)” 256. As a result, from Gorsky’s pen came what can rightfully be called a masterpiece of polemical art. In a serious, scientific style, a competent and comprehensive response to Archimandrite John’s review was given, but not only as a rebuff to all the critic’s comments. Here you can see how Gorsky literally pursues the censor to the end, exposing the exaggeration of his conclusions and the insidiousness of his plans. This answer is indeed not only an apology for the “Description”, but also a kind of accusatory word on the censor’s review. Defending all the conclusions of the “Description” regarding the history of the Sacred Text, Gorsky with particular energy defends the scientific formulation of the work, proving with unshakable arguments that the work in question can only be recognized as unseemly and unprofitable for general reading by a picky look, burdened with false judgments. In some places, “Apology” abandons its official tone and rises to lyrical inspiration. To the censor’s demand to eliminate the scientific-critical component, Gorsky responds with energetic words with a sense of fulfilled duty to the Church and science: “Under the plausible pretext of covering up the shortcomings of the ancient text, the review eliminates all other studies from the description: whereas, given the well-known opinion about the loss of the original translation of the Old Testament books, the questions seem necessary: ​​where did we get the translations of the Old Testament books in complete copies of the Bible and in individual manuscripts? What constitutes the original basis of our current Code of St. books? To what extent could ancient translations satisfy the saving desire to know the Word of God? All these questions, resolved by comparing the lists with each other, by closely examining the antiquity of the translation of each book, by checking the translation with the original, the author of the review wants to exclude from the description under the name of a scientific-critical work. The description provides convincing evidence that the Pentateuch of Moses, the books of Joshua, Judges, and Ruth are known to us in translation from ancient times; that the text of the prophetic books was extracted from the translation of interpretations of the Prophets, which was known to us in the first half of the eleventh century; that the text of the book of Job and the Song of Songs is also extracted from ancient translations, that the book of Esther is translated from the Hebrew language. The author of the review, without refuting these arguments in any way, does not want to give them a place in the description. Is it really better to remain with the idea that the original translation of the Old Testament books was lost, and the new one appeared unknown how and when?” 257 Further, Gorsky says that “the curiosity of scientists, either in their philological research or in their historical research, already concerns questions that are given a place in the description: when secular scholars pay attention to the differences in the biblical lists, to their relationship to the Greek text; when research about the ancient translation of St. Scriptures can also be produced from manuscripts of other libraries, except the Synodal: is it decent and useful for spiritual scholars to remove themselves from matters that are most closely related to the field of their studies?.. If [the matter] takes a false direction, will it not present new difficulties in the struggle for the truth, a struggle for which preparation is needed? 258. As can be seen from all of the above, the censor denies the need for a full-fledged scientific analysis of the entire manuscript collection. For the sake of personal ambitions and unhealthy suspiciousness, the author of the review denies the very possibility of using comparative historical and critical methods in biblical textual criticism, presenting an obvious forgery against the truth, proposing to deliberately conceal important scientific facts, reducing the “Description” itself to a simple bibliographic index. In the same summer of 1853, the “Apology” was sent to the Synod, and in early November, Metropolitan Filaret informed Gorsky through Nevostruev that “the description presented to the Synod is permitted to be published as it is and is protected by you, without the exception of research” 259. After receiving permission to publish the first book, “Descriptions,” work at the printing house was delayed. It was necessary to cast a new font for the Slavic text, then the revision of the Synodal Library, carried out in 1854, took a lot of time. Therefore, the “Description” was published only in the fall of 1855. This is how the story with the first book “Descriptions” ended happily. It owes its favorable outcome to the brilliant responses of A.V. Gorsky to the censor’s review, but also to St. Philaret no less. If he had not been at the head of the entire enterprise, such a censorial review as that of Archimandrite John could have completely ruined the whole thing. Instructing K.I. Nevostruev to present the first part of the “Description” to the Metropolitan, Gorsky wrote: “I ask you to humbly present it from us to the Saint, who showed us this work and constantly guided us with his advice and encouraged us with merciful attention. We remember and will remember that without his strong words our book would not have seen the light of day. Presenting the book, I ask you to explain everything to our Patron in a bold voice of pure, sincere gratitude, so that he sees in this not just a formal rite, but so that our feelings are clearly reflected in his soul” 260. And this sincere feeling of gratitude to St. Philaret for the defense of the “Description”, expressed by A.V. Gorsky, should be close to everyone who values ​​​​the successes of Russian science. Subsequent publication of the remaining volumes was given the green light. In 1857, 1859 and 1862, the second, third and fourth books of the “Descriptions” were published, respectively, in which manuscripts containing various works of the Church Fathers were published - exegetical, dogmatic, teaching, etc. 261 Finally, in 1869, the fifth book, “Descriptions,” was published, dedicated to manuscripts with liturgical texts 262. At this point, the publication of the results of the work of Gorsky and Nevostruev stopped, although work with manuscripts continued until the death of K. I. Nevostruev in 1872, and another volume was prepared for printing, also dedicated to liturgical Slavic-Russian books. And only in 1917 it was published by the head of the Synodal Library Nikolai Petrovich Popov 263. The last two volumes of the “Description”, for the first time in Russian archeography, contain a very detailed description of the composition and texts of the Service Books, Trebniks, Charters, Octoechos, Triodeus, Menaion. “Description” includes precious materials for studying the history of the Slavic text of the Holy Scriptures, liturgical and patristic books, and for all Slavic philology. “Many considerations and instructions that are precious for a philologist have been collected and prepared here. Thus, the extracts show the features of the grammatical forms of the ancient Church Slavonic language and ancient spelling according to dialects; obscure words are explained through comparison with later ones adopted to replace them, or through comparison of the Slavic text with the Greek; Many ancient words were noted, hitherto unknown, or having new meanings not found in dictionaries” 264. In confirmation of the latter, one should point out the appearance of new words that Miklosic took from the “Description” in the second edition of his dictionary and which were not in its first edition or in Vostokov’s dictionary of the Church Slavonic language 265 . This conscientious work rendered a great service to the development of Slavic philology, creating Gorsky real fame as a scientist. Everyone was talking about the “Description” at that time: they said that in terms of completeness, thoroughness, depth and detail, even similar descriptions of the oldest libraries in Europe, compiled by Western scientists, could not compare with it 266 . In 1867, the Academy of Sciences awarded “Description” the First Lomonosov Prize. His friends rushed to tell Gorsky this good news. Academician A.F. Bychkov, notifying Alexander Vasilyevich, wrote to him on December 2, 1867: “I hasten to convey to you the pleasant news that at yesterday’s meeting of the Academy of Sciences you were awarded the Lomonosov Prize for your description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Library, this long-term work that has enriched Slavic philology and our literature with many new data. The Academy of Sciences, on the basis of detailed reports compiled by me and I. I. Sreznevsky, unanimously awarded you and K. I. Nevostruev Prize and thus managed to pay tribute and deserved respect to work, which has few similar ones in Western European literature” 267. The official report on the full award of the Lomonosov Prize stated that “Description” is “a work of our scientific literature, the merits of which place it in a small number of the most important phenomena of our current scientific literature and give it the right to special respect from the Academy ... an important phenomenon, both in relation to the famous book depository, which contains works of ancient and ancient writing, necessary for anyone studying the language and literature of Russian and all Slavic Orthodoxy, and in its scientific the significance not only of Russian and Slavic literature, but also in European scientific literature in general.” “There are very few such works of intelligence, scholarship, diligence, and attentiveness in our scientific literature; There are few such works in the literature of Western Europe” 268. To this day, the description of the collection of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, undertaken by A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev, remains scientifically relevant and serves as a valuable tool in the study of literary monuments and Slavic antiquities 269. Chapter V. A. V. Gorsky - Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy With extensive scholarship, combining deep devotion to the Holy Church and the Orthodox faith and zealously caring for the fulfillment of the high mission entrusted to you by the Academy, you expertly guide students and make vigilant care for the mental and moral progress of students. From a letter from Emperor Alexander II A. V. Gorsky April 16, 1872 When the “Description” volumes were already published, a significant event happened in the life of Alexander Vasilyevich. In October 1859, he was instructed by Metropolitan Philaret to draw up a brief note on “whether canonical decrees require that parish priests be married, and on what basis and since what time has the custom of ordination been established in our country only when the person destined for ordination gets married” 270 . Gorsky set to work, and it soon turned out that several pages of the certificate he compiled were extremely important for his own fate. Gorsky had long wanted to take the priesthood, but the obligatory church requirement to pre-marry did not allow Alexander Vasilyevich to do this. And as can be seen from Gorsky’s past life, his parental prohibition did not allow him to become a monk. Metropolitan Filaret knew about Gorsky’s desire. He decided to ordain Gorsky as a priest without taking into account the existing custom. The consequence of this intention was that the Metropolitan ordered Gorsky to compile a study on the celibacy of the white clergy. Obviously, Saint Philaret wanted to make sure in advance whether his plans would not encounter canonical obstacles. Gorsky investigated the question proposed to him and, in the end, came to the following conclusion: “it was not canonically forbidden to ordain celibates as priests and deacons; but due to various reasons, of course, both in Greece and here in Rus', it became a custom to supply only those who had married” 271 . This answer satisfied the metropolitan, who blessed Gorsky to write a petition for priestly ordination. In his official petition to Metropolitan Philaret on March 12, 1860, Gorsky wrote that he had had the desire to be an altar server for a long time, and was not entering into family life due to his disposition towards academic pursuits. Gorsky assured the hierarchy that, with the help of God, he had already experienced himself enough in this state, and therefore asks to be honored with holy orders and assigned to some church that has a free priestly place, but does not require a rector, so that he can continue his service at the Theological Academy 272. The Bishop ordered the Consistory to provide a certificate of priestly vacancies and on this certificate, on March 22, 1860, he put the following resolution: “1) Based on Rule 6 of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, Prof. A. Gorsky gives an immutable promise and signature that upon entering the priesthood he will remain celibate for the rest of his life. 2) Prof. Gorsky is appointed priest to the cathedral. 3) [Admit] to confession, and, if there is no doubt, to the oath and dedication” 273. In a private letter, Gorsky wrote to Saint Philaret: “As I approach the Throne of Grace with reverence, in the depths of my soul I recognize both the greatness of the promised gift and my unworthiness. But, having tasted the sweetness of hope itself, I again surrender myself to Your condescension and, falling at Your feet, I boldly ask you to complete the work of goodness on me.”274 Here you can see how Gorsky, who had been particularly sensitive and vulnerable since childhood, worried about his upcoming ordination. He approached such an important step in life as accepting the grace of the priesthood very responsibly and with special attention. The kind of mood Alexander Vasilyevich was in before his consecration is also evidenced by his letter to His Eminence Leonid (Krasnopevkov), Bishop of Dmitrovsky. A kind of joyful trembling and, at the same time, fear and embarrassment then took possession of the entire soul of the protege. Gorsky did not ask, he almost begged Bishop Leonid: “Support with spiritual help the first steps of those who decide to approach the Throne of Grace. The dignity of the rank is great, but the unworthiness, despite the long preparation of an unprepared life, is immeasurable. Abandoning all external considerations, I think to concentrate my thoughts and feelings on myself in order to more deeply feel the greatness of the gift of grace and with greater boldness hope to plunge into the abyss of God’s bounty and mercy” 275. After receiving the blessing of St. Philaret, all formalities were resolved, and on March 25, 1860, Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky was ordained a deacon in the Chudov Monastery, and on March 27, in the Assumption Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin, he was ordained a priest and appointed to serve in the Moscow Archangel Cathedral 276. The case of promotion to the sacred degree of a celibate is unprecedented in the then ecclesiastical practice of the Russian Church. Only among Catholics there was, and still is, mandatory celibacy of the priesthood, the so-called celibacy. At least before Gorsky, only one case of celibacy is known, when in 1845 in Novoarkhangelsk, the Right Reverend Innokenty (Veniaminov) (later Metropolitan of Moscow) “ordained the celibate clergyman Ermolai to the priesthood” 277. It is understandable, therefore, with what excitement the news of Gorsky’s ordination was received in both spiritual and secular society. The impression this order of Metropolitan Philaret made in Moscow at that time can be judged by the following letter from one of the clergy to the Ryazan Archbishop Gabriel (Gorodkov): “For the sake of the holiday, I will tell Your Eminence extraordinary news. Do you deign to know the professor of our Academy, Mr. Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky? He had not previously been married, but did not want to enter monasticism, but wanted to be a priest, just so as not to get married. And his wish finally came true. On the basis of the 6th rule of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the bishop, having taken from him a subscription not to marry, ordained him on the Annunciation in the Chudov Monastery, as a deacon, and on the week of Vay in the Assumption Cathedral as a presbyter of the Archangel Cathedral, leaving service at the Academy. And he did this without communicating with the Synod. Now the only talk about Moscow is about Mr. Gorsky. Marvel with us at what happened in our ancient capital. Gorsky is about 50 years old. March 25, 1860 Moscow" 278. Indeed, there was a real uproar in Moscow society: everyone was talking about it, talking a lot, speaking out both for and against. According to the memoirs of D. N. Tolstoy, “the ordination of Alexander Vasilyevich was so new that it gave rise to a lot of talk even in our salons, which were usually extremely indifferent to church events. Due to our general ignorance of the canons, there were even doubts about the correctness of his ordination; others confused celibacy with monasticism and asked why he did not wear a hood” 279. Before the consecration, such rumors could have swayed the highest diocesan authorities in their decision, but when everything was done, Father Alexander no longer had to fear all these conversations. Friends accepted Gorsky’s ordination with great joy. Thus, Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky), in a letter dated May 18, 1860, congratulating Father Alexander on his consecration, simultaneously instructed and supported his friend: “God-loving Alexander Vasilyevich! With the grace of the priesthood, long desired by you, I congratulate you. Grow in the Lord. Strengthen yourself with godly labors" 280. Such words, spoken by a sincere well-wisher, Bishop Philaret, obviously had a positive impact on the mood of the newly ordained Father Alexander. “My position is now easy,” he wrote a month after his ordination to K.I. Nevostruev, “without worrying about the consequences, I listen to talk pro and contra. It would be bad when such rumors rose to the level of dedication. Then my heart would ache from them.” In the same letter, Father Alexander talks about the first days of his priestly service: “Now, by the grace of God, I serve mass when it is convenient according to classical relations. The local elders say that a newly ordained priest must serve forty days of liturgy in a row. I started making passes while still in Moscow: and even now I can’t use it every day. At least I’m trying to do the best I can.” 281 From this letter it is clear how glad Gorsky was about his new ministry and how seriously he took it - just as seriously as he took the rest of his previous obediences. He strives to fulfill the unwritten traditions regarding the priesthood, not to mention direct and clear church decrees. It was not for nothing that Gorsky copied and kept the priestly oath for a constant reminder: he wanted to be a devout, true servant of the altar of the Lord and the Church of Christ 282. 2. Work on the Committee for the Transformation of Theological Schools At the time when Gorsky was so busy with his priesthood, the question of transforming religious educational institutions was on the agenda at the Synod. In the professional training of the clergy by the 1860s, quite a lot of shortcomings had accumulated, obvious to the church hierarchy. In the atmosphere of liberal reforms of Alexander II, the reform of religious education was not only necessary, but also had national significance. In connection with the internal political transformations in the country and the beginning of the era of the Great Reforms, it was absolutely clear to both the government and the public that the changes would affect literally all spheres of Russian life. Naturally, the Russian Church, as an integral component of the entire society, had to be organically included in the mechanism of these reforms. At the beginning of 1859, the chief prosecutor of the Synod, A.P. Tolstoy, sent an order to rectors and bishops to urgently submit opinions on the shortcomings of the theological school and ways to eliminate them. As preparations for the peasant reform and the reform of the public education system progressed, the question of the fate of religious educational institutions increasingly acquired significance that went beyond just an intra-church, departmental problem. Observing with his own eyes the development of events in St. Petersburg, Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky) of Kharkov reported to Metropolitan Filaret of Moscow: “The matter of transforming the seminaries has received some new movement, in addition to the jurisdiction of the Synod” 283 . The opinions of the rectors and diocesan leadership were processed in the Synod. At the beginning of 1860, based on them, a “Code of Opinions of Diocesan Bishops and Rectors on the Transformations Necessary for a Theological School” was compiled. The document collected the whole range of opinions about existing shortcomings and ways to eliminate them. The “Code of Opinions” became a good basis for further work, which was called upon to carry out by a special Committee on considerations of the transformation of theological schools, headed by Archbishop Dimitry (Muretov) of Kherson, established on February 22, 1860. Record keeping and editing were concentrated in the hands of the trusted chief prosecutor, official for special assignments T. I. Filippov. The members were Archimandrites Nektary (Nadezhdin), rector of the St. Petersburg Seminary Platon (Troepolsky), two alternate (i.e., summoned to the Synod for a session) archimandrites - Theophylact (Gubin) and Feodosius (Shapovalenko), Archpriests G. Debolsky and K. Krupsky, an official at the chief prosecutor's table I. Gaevsky 284 . In addition, the Committee was given the right to call necessary figures from different dioceses to the meeting. The Committee had to submit final considerations and decisions on the transformation to the Synod. In a letter dated May 17, 1860, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod A.P. Tolstoy, notifying Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow about the start of the work of the Committee, asked him to appoint one of the persons subordinate to him to work in St. Petersburg. Saint Philaret had only one person in mind - Academy professor Father Alexander Gorsky, who by that time had already been elevated to the rank of archpriest. On the same letter from the Chief Prosecutor, the Metropolitan put the following resolution: “Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, in accordance with this requirement, is sent to take part in the Committee’s case on schools so that, after spending his vacation time in the Committee, at the end of it he will return at the request of his duties here. The Academic Board will provide him with the necessary travel allowance, in accordance with the law” 285. Before leaving, Gorsky personally talked with the Metropolitan, who gave Father Alexander his instructions: “Your job is not only to be a transmitter, but also to cast your voice, as long as you are convinced of it. There is no point in starting a dirty line of argument, I hope you won’t allow yourself to do that. But you must express your opinions with reason.” During the same audience with Bishop Gorsky, he became acquainted with the “Opinion regarding the structure of the parish clergy,” submitted by the Metropolitan back in 1828, but by that time not implemented. This “Opinion” spoke, among other things, about “methods for the successful education of the clergy,” which made this note by the Moscow hierarch relevant in the light of the ongoing transformations. Thus, Gorsky was sufficiently prepared to work on the Committee and on July 18, 1860 he set off 286. What was the position of the Committee when Archpriest Alexander Gorsky arrived there? At a series of meetings that took place until August and were often not included in the journal, the Committee tried to develop its vision of the problem of transforming the theological school. But from the very beginning it became an arena of struggle between two directions: defending the interests of the Church, and carrying out ideas that have become widespread in secular society 287 . General meetings of members began only in August. The transformation of lower and secondary religious educational institutions was supposed to be carried out in this way: the entire course of sciences taught in them should be distributed over twelve years with the following division: the first four years should go to grammatical education (initial course), the next four to verbal education (general education course, gymnasium course), the last to theological or seminary education itself. After the first four years of schooling, pupils must pass a strict examination in order to separate the able students from the weak and be the first to provide further education. A similar analysis of the students’ successes should be done at the end of the second four-year period in order to find out who wants to enter the clergy and take upon themselves, if they are worthy, the priesthood. Those who wish enter the final four-year course, while others leave the school to enter higher educational institutions of the secular department after passing the exam or enter the civil service with the right to the first class rank. For better supervision of pupils, try, if possible, for them to live not scattered in private apartments, but in dormitories. The maintenance of all such schools in each diocese will be provided at the latter's own expense 288. Such a plan for the organization of religious schools was proposed by the head of the Committee, Archbishop Demetrius of Kherson. To increase income, he wanted to petition for the Church to have a monopoly on the sale of church candles. Thus, Archbishop Demetrius’ project actually eliminated the Spiritual Educational Administration from managing material resources, leaving it with the role of coordinator of the educational process, which, of course, could not suit the bureaucratic elite. That is why serious disagreements arose in the Committee on the issue of transferring candle profits into the hands of the dioceses. Members of the clergy spoke in favor of Archbishop Demetrius's proposal. Informing Metropolitan Philaret about the disputes, Gorsky wrote: “With the strengthening of local activities and reporting, the huge number of officials who are now receiving salaries from the same amounts would become less necessary. This last result, of course, is not stated, but it is meant.” Gorsky reports that T. I. Filippov immediately spoke out against Bishop Dimitri’s project. No compromise was found. Soon, as Gorsky noted, a cooling became noticeable between the secular members of the Committee and the spiritual ones: “The secular ones say that the plans for transformation do not have solid support. They are based on the assumption of increased candle income, which is not backed by anything true. Perhaps the secular ones are also frightened by the suspected desire to eliminate them from managing spiritual and educational capital.” It is curious that members of the clergy themselves were in great doubt about the changes proposed by Archbishop Demetrius in the provision of schools and seminaries, especially since the reporting did not give a correct picture of the size of the candle collection. Gorsky himself more than once drew attention to this particular part of the project as the weakest and possibly threatening with serious consequences. “It is not known whether the government will allow a monopoly of candle sales in favor of the Church given the current aversion to monopolies? It is impossible to determine how much the candle profit figure will increase if it is collected more accurately? How to satisfy the needs of dioceses that cannot support religious educational institutions with their own funds?” – he asked Metropolitan Philaret, wanting to get advice from him. For his part, Saint Philaret constantly instructed Gorsky, and through him influenced other members of the Committee, without revealing his own direct participation 289. There were other doubts as well. In particular, the clergy were afraid that with equal rights with high school students, graduates would leave the Church after the second separation, and all their efforts would be in vain. In his letter dated July 26, 1860, Metropolitan Philaret instructed Gorsky to oppose the division of the curriculum into a general gymnasium and a closed seminary: “The art of medicine can take something away from the body or contribute to the increase of what is missing: but if you cross the body, will you save life? And a school can be healed by taking away what is not related, by adding to what is missing: but by dividing it into a general gymnasium and a closed seminary, having killed the old life, is it easy to give a new one? I see only the inconvenience and harm of this plan: I see no benefit” 290. Gorsky tried to act in this direction in the Committee. Since August 1860, having already actually decided on the main positions, the Committee considered the “Code of Opinions”. He made decisions to strengthen moral supervision through the establishment of dormitories and to develop special regulations about it; the immediate expulsion of students who misbehave; about the establishment of a house church in each seminary; on the appointment of a confessor; about the strict observance of fasts by the students and mandatory participation in divine services, stipulating that all of them should be at the liturgy every Wednesday and Friday, and 10 people from the entire seminary should be present during the daily worship. The committee spoke out against the actual liquidation of the theological school by merging it with the secular one, as well as against the study of natural history, medicine, and agriculture. The list of theological disciplines proper has been revised. The committee discussed in detail numerous and often divergent opinions and, after heated debate, by a majority vote adopted a version of the decision that left patrolology and liturgics as independent disciplines, abolished the study of the Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila (as repeating the Long Catechism) and combined homiletics with pastoral theology. But even here the disagreements could not be eliminated, and T.I. Filippov submitted a special opinion in favor of combining homiletics with general literature, pointing out, not without reason, that such a connection would help connect theory with practice 291 . But all these last disputes took place in the absence of Gorsky, who did not remain in St. Petersburg until the end of the work of the Committee, whose meetings continued until February 1, 1861. In September, before the start of the academic year at the Academy, he returned to Sergiev Posad and worked on this issue at home 292. Gorsky had not yet finished his committee work when his “well-wishers” almost arranged for him a new trip to lands not as close as St. Petersburg. In the early 60s of the 19th century, the Bulgarian dioceses decided to separate from the Patriarchate of Constantinople and form an independent, autocephalous Church in order to restore the ecclesiastical independence lost in the 18th century. The Ecumenical Patriarch and his Synod were against such a separation of the Bulgarians. Bickering and disputes began between both sides, and political contradictions also intervened. Troubles arose - the so-called Greek-Bulgarian church strife, which caused a great response in Russian public life 293. It is not surprising, therefore, that there were people - Count Dmitry Nikolaevich and Countess Antonina Dmitrievna Bludov, who really wanted to send Gorsky to the East to help pacify the opposing sides. They expressed their desire to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod and Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and at the same time proposed that if it was impossible to give official instructions to Alexander Vasilyevich, send him under the guise of a traveler to Athos and Constantinople, so that there he would contribute to the peace of the Churches with his influence, advice and knowledge. Gorsky himself, even earlier, when in a conversation with Metropolitan Philaret there was talk of sending some clergy to the East to promote the reconciliation of the Greeks with the Bulgarians, he managed to convince Saint Philaret that “a powerless agent limited to the transfer of St. Petersburg ideas will not mean anything” 294 . It involuntarily turned out that Gorsky spoke for his own good, and the chief prosecutor did not sympathize with the Bludovs’ initiative, and Alexander Vasilyevich’s embassy to the East did not take place, and soon the rectorship he received at the Moscow Theological Academy completely protected him from such “embassies” in the future. 3. The most durable boss for the Academy In December 1860, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archimandrite Sergius (Lyapidevsky), was transferred to the episcopal see in Kursk. It was then that for the first time there was talk of appointing Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky as rector of the Academy, but Metropolitan Philaret did not support this idea. This is what he wrote to the chief prosecutor of the Synod, A.P. Tolstoy, on January 7, 1861: “There is no rector of the Academy yet. Apparently, there is doubt in this matter. I hear that some people want the rector of the Academy to be Fr. Gorsky. I wish this too; and for this purpose he invited him to enter monasticism, but he remained firm in his long-accepted disposition. If you want him to be a rector and have an archimandrite inspector subordinate to him, then this will be an entry, although not yet noticeable, but already exemplary for the future, an entry into the path of the church revolution desired by some, contrary to the ancient constant rule, to place the white clergy above the monastics. Let not the pillars of the house of God be shaken." 295 Apparently, the cautious Saint Philaret was afraid of a revolution in church consciousness and rejected Gorsky’s candidacy. Then the Metropolitan chose the rector of the Moscow Theological Seminary, Archimandrite Savva (Tikhomirov). He recommended him as a person with a strong character, capable of taking the reins of government 296 at the Academy. So Archimandrite Savva became the rector of the Academy, but remained in his new position for about a year and a half: in September 1862, he was appointed vicar of the Moscow Metropolitan, and subsequently archbishop of Tver. The rector's position became vacant again. Now Metropolitan Filaret was already directly behind Gorsky. Apparently the bishop was convinced of this by his confessor, the governor of the Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev). The governor asked the saint: “Why don’t you want to appoint Gorsky?” “He is a white priest, not a monk,” answered the saint. “How white is he? He is gray and now may be inclined to be black; and it would be easier for you to elect a permanent rector than to worry about filling this important position again” 297. After this conversation, the Metropolitan finally decided to appoint Gorsky as rector. Even before the appointment of Archimandrite Savva as bishop, Saint Philaret wrote to the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, A.P. Akhmatov: “If the election of Savva had been confirmed, then Professor Archpriest could have been appointed rector of the Academy. A. Gorsky, worthy of this in terms of his scholarship, long-term service and moral dignity. Not being a monk, he, just like a monk, devotes himself entirely to spiritual learning and the fulfillment of academic duties, without being entertained by anything extraneous” 298. When Archimandrite Savva, already appointed Bishop of Mozhaisk, came to Metropolitan Philaret and learned about his promotion, the bishop asked him: “Who do you recommend to take your place?” Father Savva named the rectors of the Moscow and Bethany Seminaries and the inspector of the Academy. “Why don’t you recommend Archpriest Gorsky?” - “Lord! Is this really possible? – Archimandrite Savva asked in amazement. “Why not?” “In that case, this will be the best choice. Father Archpriest Gorsky will be the most worthy and most durable leader for the Academy. But why didn’t you deign to appoint him instead of me after Archimandrite Sergius?” “It was not the time then,” answered Metropolitan Philaret. And the inconvenience that the rector-archpriest in service had to become higher than the inspector-archimandrite was eliminated by the award of a miter to Father Alexander; This idea was suggested to the Metropolitan by Archimandrite Savva 299. The metropolitan's word mattered in the Synod, and Gorsky was appointed rector of the Moscow Theological Academy on October 23, 1862. Notifying Archpriest Alexander about this, the Moscow saint wrote to him: “Accept the position of rector with obedience. I believe that you will also need to accept the chair of theological sciences. Consider other consequences of the change taking place and tell me your thoughts. I hope that you will act according to the rules of holy obedience, and the Lord will bless your obedience with the fruits of goodness and peace” 300. How did Gorsky himself perceive his appointment as rector? With submission and extraordinary humility, but also with a certain amount of determination. His diary testifies to this: “They elected me, not experienced in government positions. In turbulent times. Not in the general order. Everyone's eyes will be especially focused on me. Which class should I take? How to behave in relation to elders at the Academy and at the Lavra? I don’t know about others, but I see in this appointment only the goal of the authorities to show that they are not behind the formality” 301. Thus, Archpriest Gorsky became the first rector of the Academy from the white clergy in the history of the Russian theological school. The appointment of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky as rector was received at the Academy and beyond its walls, not without surprise, but with great sympathy. Everyone had high hopes for the personality of Father Alexander: they thought that he would raise the authority of the rector’s position at the Academy, support the department of theology, be a good leader for students, and stand guard over Orthodoxy, giving society and the Church new champions of Christianity. With the entrustment of the rectorship to him, Gorsky's responsibilities became significantly more complicated. To ease his situation and focus all his energy and attention on his new ministry, he left the position of academic librarian, which he had held for 20 years. Gorsky was also forced to refuse direct participation in the ongoing description of the synodal manuscripts, and was released from this by official order. Between the last two events, the appointment to the rector and the dismissal from the description of manuscripts, one more thing happened in Gorsky’s life: Metropolitan Philaret made a last attempt to persuade him to accept monasticism. In mid-January 1863, the saint instructed the abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, Archimandrite Anthony (Medvedev), to talk with Gorsky about accepting the abbotship of the Moscow Epiphany Monastery with entry into monasticism, retaining the position of rector of the Academy and the promise of a quick elevation to the rank of bishop. Gorsky was embarrassed by such a proposal, and these are the thoughts he left in a special note written on this occasion: “Is a change of title necessary for my present ministry? It seems not. Or do they want to transfer to another field of action? But doesn’t the Academy open things up enough for zeal? Isn’t it useful for the Church to serve as an educator in a higher theological school? Shouldn’t the Church have support for itself in the Academy, taking advantage of the conscientious labors of the scientific experience of its members? Of course, I cannot boast that I can promise a good worker in this field of service. But maybe God will allow me to do something when I go deeper into my present situation and become more closely acquainted with the field of my new science. Will my strength change me? I already feel that such work should have been undertaken much earlier than my present years.”302 But the trials of Father Alexander did not end there. On February 7, 1862, at the Divine Liturgy in Moscow, Archpriest Gorsky concelebrated with Metropolitan Philaret. Here he again heard a repetition of the saint’s desire for monasticism, which was expressed to him through Archimandrite Anthony in the Lavra. Wanting to know God’s will for this, Father Alexander immediately prayed and opened the book of the New Testament. The Gospel of Mark was revealed to him: Whoever wants to be first must be last of all and servant of all. And he took the child, placed him in the midst of them, and, embracing him, said to them: whoever receives one of these children in My name receives Me; and whoever receives Me does not receive Me, but Him who sent Me (Mark 9:35–37). In these words of Holy Scripture, Gorsky saw a definition of God’s will for himself: “Not to desire the highest position in society, but to be the last of all and the servant of all” 303. Thus, the question of taking monastic vows and the further elevation of Father Alexander was finally resolved. In his appointment to the position of rector, Gorsky saw, among other things, a phenomenon fundamentally important for the spiritual and educational department: “By electing a rector from the white clergy, a certain deflection was made to weaken the reproaches of the predominance of monasticism over everything. Is it necessary to destroy something that has just been put down? Won't this give rise to new complaints? By electing a rector from the white clergy, the way was, as it were, opened for other government positions in the ecclesiastical school department from the white clergy. Is it necessary to close this path now? Given the current scarcity in monasticism, why not take advantage of good elements from another area of ​​life, where they have long remained unused for this type of activity? By introducing the white clergy into the circle of the highest administration of religious educational institutions, won’t the authorities arouse the spirit of competition in the monastic scientist himself and thereby elevate him?” 304 In his diary, Gorsky wrote more critically: “In my example, the Academy is hierarchically degrading” 305. and at first, the new rector’s relationship with students was difficult. The desire to get closer to students “in spirit and direction,” as Gorsky told them upon taking office, was not fulfilled at first. Firstly, there was a lot of disorder in the organizational and financial life of the Academy: the commissar stole, the housekeeper’s father did not look after the students’ meals well, cleanliness and tidiness were little known in the academic kitchen and dining room, the students on duty were not conscientious, even the student hospital was not cleaned and dirty. The subject of students' violent displeasure was such, at first glance, little things as stale cottage cheese, smelly fish, tough beef 306 . Gorsky had to figure all this out, but in organizational and financial matters he did not feel as strong and competent as in historical science. Before the rector had time to correct these economic problems, a new problem arose due to a literary evening organized by students without the blessing of Father Alexander. The rector was not at all against various types of entertainment: according to contemporaries, he “did not prohibit national chants, however, with the appropriate choice; during his rectorship, for the first time the sounds of a piano were heard within the academic walls” 307, but at the same time he always “tried to explain that this kind of pleasure cannot often be allowed to spiritual young men” 308. Gorsky absolutely did not like the direction of the so-called “literary evenings” - a comic genre of performances with frantic ridicule. The rector did not want such evenings to turn the Theological Academy into a theater of satire with a gallery. Gorsky was outraged by the articles read at such evenings, where only everything most vulgar and base was exposed, where not a single animating thought or feeling was encountered. The rector wanted to give literary entertainment a serious character, considering it a means of educating future preachers. Meanwhile, a murmur arose among the students, complaining of embarrassment from the authorities. In attempts to establish trust and provoke frankness, the pupils saw an afterthought, the ground for snitching and denunciations. The consequence of such sentiments was another unpleasant story with an essay, which the students refused to submit to the inspector Archimandrite Mikhail (Luzin) 309 . Neither the rector's persuasion, nor threats, nor the naive desire to interest the topic (about changing views on the Bible throughout all centuries of Christianity) led to nothing. It was clear that the leadership influence of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky on the Academy was difficult to establish. But the situation changed quite quickly. Gorsky, possessing an undeniable scientist and moral authority sufficient for the improvement of the Academy, had a strong influence on young minds. Gorsky's scholarship was recognized by everyone without a doubt, and the academic custom of the so-called “going to the rector” on every scientific issue indicates that Archpriest Alexander stood in this regard above the rest in the academic circle. But this unusual rector was not without other necessary advantages. He loved students, and since “love and sincerity must be one,” as he put it, Gorsky was sincere with his students 310. When he called them “children,” he was expressing his genuine, sincere feelings. Gorsky did not share harsh measures and was too kind to punish 311. As an experienced educator, Father Alexander turned to the best sides of human nature, believing only in them, trying to develop in the youth under his command a love of science, a love of school, frankness and self-confidence. Apparently, there was a little more optimism here than was necessary, but there is no doubt that Gorsky’s pedagogy almost always justified itself. After all, for him, every student was, first of all, a future minister of the Church. In general, Gorsky was distinguished by an even, attentive attitude towards all students, spiritual and moral influence on them as the main educational means 312. There was great mutual love between the academic students and the rector. The “kids” called Gorsky their “dad.” Here is how V. Sokolov speaks about this: “In our time, among students there was no other name for him than “daddy.” None of us said: “I’ll go to the rector” or “the rector is calling me,” but without fail: “I’ll go to dad” or “dad is calling me.” And each of us went to him with our needs and sorrows, as if to our own father.” In the apt expression of another student of Gorsky, “the Ukrainian students called him Siviy.” On one of the photographs of the Academy students, headed by the rector, the famous words of the prophet Isaiah are written: Behold, and the children whom God has given (Is. 8:18) 313. And indeed, under Gorsky, the Academy was dominated by “the beneficent spirit of family humanity... representatives of the highest, truly Christian learning.” The Academy was “the sphere of an active Christian family.” It was not for nothing that one student of the St. Petersburg gymnasium, who at that time ended up in the Moscow Theological Academy, was amazed and touched by this simplicity, family relations that were passed on from the rector to the others, which testifies to the important educational influence of such an atmosphere on students. And then mentoring invariably developed into clergy. “Seeing and hearing me with Father Alexander,” recalls one of Gorsky’s students, “one could take us for a community of a wise and highly grace-filled ancient father of Christ’s Church with a daring, if not a pagan, then at least a pagan-educated neophyte” 314. Gorsky delved into all the problems of academic life, finding time to visit sick students, about whom he cared greatly. The rector personally came to the hospital, sat at the patient’s bedside, entertained him with conversations, straightened the pillow himself, fulfilled his whims, and sent books or treats for entertainment. For Gorsky, the death of a student was the grief of his father. “Among the rector’s funeral speeches, full of lofty, truly Christian lyricism, one could hear sobs for his untimely lost son” 315. Gorsky actively advocated for the creation of a special tomb for the academic family. In June 1870, he wrote to Metropolitan Innokenty of Moscow: “I humbly ask for Archpastoral permission in ... the part of the academic garden adjacent to the Smolensk cemetery to form a small cemetery for employees and students,” to which the Metropolitan responded with a brief resolution “With God” 316. And already in the next year, 1871, an academic cemetery was built on the territory of the Academy garden 317. And since then, the mentors who departed for another world did not part with their native alma mater even after death. Archpriest Gorsky did not tolerate lies, did not tolerate cynical frankness about sins without regretting them or with boasting. He was especially upset by manifestations of coldness towards religion. Outraged by the failure to fulfill religious duties, he reproached and became angry. But love made itself felt: “The voice, ready to become menacing, appeared begging, plaintive... Reproaches were replaced by pleas” 318. It happened that, sad or excited, he cried in front of everyone. But they did not laugh at these tears. On the contrary, both students and professors protected their rector from grief, and not everything reached him that could upset him. The Academy at that time could not boast of the strictness of external discipline and it was often necessary to hide from the rector what he should have known. Archpriest Gorsky stood above the Academy, above many of its squabbles and discord. She could be proud of the high human connections between students and the boss, rare in educational institutions. Gorsky truly was “the soul, the head, the unifying strong moral force of the scientific academic circle” 319. The influence of Father Alexander extended to the pupils even after the completion of their education. One student, no stranger to the vice of drunkenness, having completed the course, buying a photograph of Gorsky, told his comrades that he was buying it more than as a souvenir for himself - “for his reason and will” 320. Gorsky possessed rare, almost exceptional qualities of character: the authorities not only did not spoil him, but, on the contrary, made him higher and purer. “Before, he was not averse to laughing behind his eyes and in his eyes - it was the need of his living critical thought - to say a sharp word about those who outraged or made him laugh.” Having become rector, Gorsky never allowed himself to do such things. Moreover, he became more restrained and more delicate. And none of the professors ever heard reprimands or comments from him. Archpriest Gorsky always spoke about his displeasure carefully, through other people, or was completely silent. But this does not mean that Gorsky had no influence on his subordinates or was a weak leader. He had no enemies; on the contrary, he had many loyal people. But everyone, both close and not, recognized the authority of Gorsky, who had a solid foundation in the indisputable spiritual superiority of Father Alexander. In professorial families, Gorsky was a welcome, although very rare, guest. Here he was a friend and favorite of the children, whom he loved and caressed very much. Eyewitnesses said that even before his ordination to the priesthood, this serious man sometimes played “fools” with children 321. Unity and agreement in the professorial circle - that’s what Gorsky wanted most of all. Also, the rector’s attitude towards students was based on an exalted view of the Academy, in which he saw a spiritual and educational brotherhood, the support of the Church, a source of theological knowledge for the Orthodox society. Having become rector, Gorsky was forced to leave teaching his beloved church history. According to the rules of that time, the rector was obliged to teach dogmatic theology at the Academy. With characteristic Gorsky energy, he began to develop a new subject for himself. And, as V. O. Klyuchevsky aptly noted, “Gorsky, having switched to dogmatics after many years of reading a church-historical course, built by him on a strictly theological basis, based his dogmatic course on the history of dogma, developing, only with great scientific means, the techniques tested by one of his predecessors, Filaret Gumilevsky” 322. In Gorsky, the development of church historical knowledge was reflected in the development of dogmatic theology using the historical method. According to him, the method of “Orthodox theology is to affirm its truths on the Word of God and to support its understanding of the Word of God with the testimony of the Church or Tradition in the broadest sense. This respect for the voice of the Church or Tradition is at the same time respect for the history of the Church, which is not just a dispassionate narrator of the facts of the past, but a living apology for Christian truth with its doctrinal beliefs and concrete discoveries.” According to Gorsky, Christian teaching “has its own life, its own directions, movements, struggles, successes. Dogma as a Divine thought, forever expressed to humanity in revelation, is always complete in itself, identical, individual. But as a thought... it takes on different forms: its sphere sometimes expands, sometimes it becomes lighter, sometimes it becomes eclipsed; applied to various human relationships, it necessarily becomes more complex; coming into contact with this or that area of ​​cognition, he explains them and is himself explained by them” 323. Here we have to deal “with the development of dogma, and not dogmas,” because, as stated above, dogma itself is “always complete, identical, singular.” From the point of view of the development of dogmatics, the question of “the influence of the individual qualities of teachers of the Church on the teaching of the Church” also makes scientific sense. Consequently, A. V. Gorsky puts theology in close connection with patrolology, since “biographical information about the teachers of the Church and consideration of their writings ... should serve to reveal the direction of the success of the development of dogmatics” 324. Historicism itself in theology appears only when data from sources are perceived not only as a dogmatic argument, but also as historical evidence, in all their temporal originality and against a living historical background, that is, historicism in theology is associated with the concept of development. And in his lectures on dogmatics, Gorsky notes this fact of development. “How to look at Christian dogma? Was it really always the same in terms of the number of truths explained? […] New discoveries of the human mind in the field of truth, its gradually increasing experience, add to it [dogma. – A.M.] clarity. What could previously have been doubted was now undoubted, a decided matter. Thus, each dogma has its own sphere, which grows over time and comes into closer and closer contact with other parts of Christian dogma and with other principles lying in the human mind; everything grows together, is embodied in one body, enlivened by the spirit; the entire area of ​​the mind becomes enlightened; all sciences, the more they are related to dogma, benefit from this in accuracy and positivity; as time goes on, a complete, rigorous system of knowledge becomes more and more possible. This is the course of development of dogma, this is its life! This is a heavenly star" 325. Here again the fullness and depth of the scientific genius of Gorsky was reflected, who in the most incredible way “remained a theologian at the department of church history, just as later at the department of theology he never ceased to be a church historian” 326. During the rectorship of Archpriest Gorsky in 1864, the fiftieth anniversary of the reformed Academy was widely celebrated, the same Academy to which Gorsky gave his entire life without a trace. Reviewing what had been done over this considerable period of half a century in a report on the Moscow diocese for 1863, Metropolitan Philaret noted with satisfaction the significant influence of the Academy on the clergy of Moscow: “The clergy of the capital, made up partly of those who received an academic education... significantly excels over the other clergy of the diocese in both enlightenment and moral character... and is accompanied by a corresponding influence on parishioners" 327. In another document, petitioning for support and awards for the Academy in connection with its anniversary and characterizing its achievements, Metropolitan Philaret speaks of its high dignity, as well as the devotion of the professors of his native Academy. “I would be unfair,” he points out, “if I asked the Moscow Academy for less than what was granted to the St. Petersburg Academy in such a case. I will say it modestly if I say that the dignity of the Moscow Academy is in no way lower in scientific and moral terms in the Orthodox direction... An honorable feature of the Academy’s mentorship, by the way, is that they, with meager content, do not transfer to another most profitable service, even by invitation” 328. In a number of addresses received by the Academy, in the welcoming speeches of the guests and the speeches of the hosts, the result of the activity and influence of the Academy over the entire fifty years was revealed. Professor S. Smirnov gave a description of educational and scientific-theological work, which consisted, first of all, of translations of the Holy Scriptures and especially the works of the Church Fathers, as well as publications and books of professors on various issues. The main asset of the Academy is the strong spirit of Orthodoxy, which it sacredly preserves. Over the half-century of its existence, the Academy gave 26 hierarchs to the Russian Church, and a total of 1,164 students graduated from the Academy during this time 329 . The rector of Moscow University, a graduate of the Academy, S. I. Barshev, described the enormous influence of the Academy with the following words: “God apparently blessed her work. Pupils of the Moscow Theological Academy act everywhere in the very spirit and direction that were instilled in them by their unforgettable mentors, and many of them have already acquired honorable fame for their important services to the Church and science: some in the rank of hierarchs, others as heads and mentors in educational institutions, others in the rank of shepherds.” The university rejoices at her success, for “the truth must be persistently proclaimed and disseminated” 330. The greeting to the Kyiv Theological Academy emphasized the longevity and constancy of the two oldest theological schools, like sisters. “Spiritual science is one of the main threads supporting the connection between Kiev and Moscow, which... will last as long as the Russian people exist” 331. The story of the construction of a separate church for the Academy is forever associated with the name of Gorsky. Undoubtedly, this fact is very significant. After all, for more than half of the first century of its existence, the Moscow Theological Academy did not have its own church. The academic family gathered for prayer either in the academic hall, where all-night vigils were celebrated, or in Lavra churches, mainly in the Refectory Church. Attending divine services was therefore associated with great inconvenience and suffered greatly from this: both the place and time of the divine service were constantly changing and, naturally, the divine service itself was sometimes “not entirely harmonious” 332 . A.V. Gorsky, realizing the unnatural situation for a higher theological school in the absence of its own church, decided to correct the situation. As can be seen from this, Gorsky’s learning did not lead to a decrease in his piety. A contemporary testifies that he was “a great hunter of church services” 333. At the same time, Father Rector advised Academy students to carefully study Orthodox worship, because it represents “the flower and fruit of the tree of life of the Church of Christ” 334. And when he worked hard and achieved the establishment of a church within the walls of the Academy, then, in addition to purely practical conveniences, he was guided by the desire and confidence that the academic family “will be given the consolation of not only lying in the house of God, but also living under its roof, so that more and more we and our young men will be imbued and filled with the spirit of the church” 335. This craving and love for divine services was established in Gorsky from his youth, and the Holy Eucharist always remained the center of his spiritual life: “The blessed moments of St. supper, oh, that you were centuries, eternity to my soul! I can leave and forget everything for you. I notice over myself, and I notice very clearly, that the moment of receiving the Holy Gifts within myself has great power over the soul! Somehow everything becomes more peaceful, warmer, softer! The soul is more loving, more joyful! The fear and feeling of unworthiness that previously possessed her merge into nothing but thanksgiving and praise. Oh my God! Prolong these holy sensations in my heart” 336. It is not surprising, therefore, that Archpriest Gorsky himself was a living example for spiritual youth; he did not miss a single Sunday, not a single holiday, so as not to perform sacred services; sometimes he himself went out to the choir and read the Six Psalms during the all-night vigil; He spoke inspired sermons and speeches, which were exemplary works of oratory and made an extraordinary impression on the listeners 337. The church was built at the expense of the benefactor of the Academy, hereditary honorary citizen Alexei Vasilyevich Tolokovnikov, in the academic hall, where the recently canceled public tests took place, and was consecrated on February 12, 1870 in honor of the Feast of the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The rite of consecration was performed by His Grace Ignatius (Rozhdestvensky), Bishop of Mozhaisk. At the end of the liturgy, the rector of the Academy, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, delivered a solemn, festive speech in honor of the consecration of the academic church with a characteristic name: “Shrine befits Thy house, O Lord, for the length of days” (Ps. 93:5) 338. From that moment on, the academic family had the opportunity to pray in their own church. And these services, headed by the rector of the Academy, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, were always filled with genuine Christian joy and love. Here’s how one of the students says about it: “At Easter after the liturgy, all the available students went to celebrate Christ with their dad. On the table next to him stood a large basket with colored eggs: he gave each person two eggs with his own hands... This was done with some kind of touching joy, as if with an inner radiance. The same image of dad remained with me from his service of the liturgy... to the feeling of naive childish piety that wafted from dad throughout the mass, there was also added a touchingly joyful radiance, especially in his eyes. Thanks to my dad, I fell in love with the very rite of the liturgy, and to this day I always and involuntarily imagine its image... And this is not my personal impression: the rumor about the reverent service of A. V-cha was widespread, many came deliberately to listen to his service and to see his handsome presbyteral face. Yes, it was truly the Holy Father!” 339 The original academic church was very small, with an altar facing south, which disagrees with the 91st rule of St. Basil the Great, according to which “we all look to the east during prayers” and “through this we seek the ancient fatherland of paradise, which God planted in Eden in the east” 340. After Gorsky, when rectors with the rank of bishop began to appear at the Academy and academic worship became more solemn, the need arose to expand the church. And in 1893, during the rectorship of Archimandrite Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (later Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia), the church was more than doubled in size, and the altar was already facing east. Under Archpriest Alexander Gorsky in 1869, a new Charter of Theological Academies came into force. This is the so-called Makarievsky Charter, named after its initiator and editor-in-chief, Archbishop Makariy (Bulgakov) (later Metropolitan of Moscow). The new Charter was developed after careful preparation and study of the experience of teaching theology in higher educational institutions in Europe. According to this Charter, the Academy was given a double task. “It was supposed to be not only a theological higher school, but also a kind of pedagogical institute of the ecclesiastical department” 341. The Charter established the Academy Council, headed by the rector, as the highest body of the Academies. The most important matters of the Academy were decided at general meetings, including the election of new teachers by the entire corporation. According to the new Charter, the possibilities for admission to the Academy were expanded: not only seminarians were accepted, as was the case in accordance with the previous Charter, but admission of gymnasium students and volunteer students was also established. It was allowed to publish lectures and establish learned societies. Academies acquired the right of their own censorship. The introduction of a compulsory doctoral degree for the rector and professors 342 was of great importance. All this contributed to the revival of scientific activity and gave a powerful impetus to the further development of domestic theological thought. The Charter of 1869 responded extremely favorably to the position of church historical science, the importance of which has increased significantly. All academic sciences, according to this Charter, were divided into three departments; Among them, a church history department appeared. Students who signed up for it began to study almost exclusively historical sciences within four years. And soon this department became the most popular and was overflowing with students. As can be seen, the Charter of 1869 generally met the requirements of its time; it helped Archpriest Gorsky to expediently direct scientific life at the Academy. This is where the art of the creators of academic life was expressed: “a harmonious combination of form and idea, flesh and spirit, law and gracious love” 343. It was also of great importance that this Charter introduced the rule that the degree of Master of Theology was given only for a printed work that was publicly defended according to the then accepted procedure. Thus, in the Theological Academies, for the acquisition of academic degrees, exactly the same requirements were introduced as those that existed in Russian universities. This greatly advanced church historical science. A significant number of both master's and doctoral dissertations on issues of church history appeared. And soon after the introduction of the Charter, in December 1871, the first doctoral debate took place at the Moscow Theological Academy. In relation to other Academies, it was fourth. The applicant for the doctorate was Archimandrite Mikhail (Luzin), later Gorsky’s successor as rector, who defended his dissertation on the topic “On the Gospels and Gospel History in relation to the book “The Life of Jesus” by E. Renan.” The successful defense of the first doctor of the Academy took place in a solemn atmosphere, in the presence of St. Innocent, the Metropolitan of Moscow and other bishops. The rector of the Academy, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, characterized Archimandrite Mikhail as a professor “thoroughly familiar with the interpretations of the ancient fathers and teachers of the Church, as well as the newest ones” 344. Archimandrite Michael is known to the scientific world as a talented scientist, a researcher of the biblical text, who left behind not only a number of very valuable works on biblical history, but also a large number of talented students 345. In general, with the introduction of the Charter of 1869, the need to print dissertations led to the fact that they became known to the general public and, according to A.P. Lebedev, “Church historical science came out of the walls of educational institutions and became a phenomenon of public importance” 346. The expansion of the circle of people involved in church history was also facilitated by the University Charter of 1863, according to which the department of church history was opened at the historical and philological department of the university. In spiritual magazines, the number of which at that time increased significantly 347, many church historical articles began to appear, sometimes very valuable. Due to their active demand among readers, they began to be given an increasingly significant place in comparison with other branches of theological sciences. One should pay attention to the very nature of the church-historical monographic literature that appeared under the influence of the academic Charter of 1869, and to the nature of those church-historical articles with which our spiritual journals began to be filled from that time. Various directions have emerged in the development of certain scientific issues. It has become possible to guess from the author himself, regardless of the subject he is writing about, from which angles he will cover the issue under consideration and where his likes and dislikes will lean, which in many ways is usually called a direction in science. But more importantly, in the development of church historical science, a sound rationalism also appeared, so rarely found in theological sciences even today - not one that serves as an expression of distrust of church tradition, but one that is based on the study of historical sources and takes into account the diversity of facts. The well-known writer of that time, His Eminence Porfiry (Uspensky), called this approach “healthy, not consumptive” skepticism; it is called upon to decipher church historical legends and find the grain of truth. Archpriest Gorsky very skillfully and professionally took advantage of these new trends in Russian theological science. It was precisely thanks to his leadership and scientific influence and impact that the scientist’s immediate successors in academic ministry developed church-historical knowledge so widely, “that, having no conditioning factual preliminaries for itself, it could only be rooted in the deep recesses of the creative spirit of this rare personality, just as in general everything great in the world is born with an inconspicuous mystery (Luke 17:20) - not from specific external facts, but from individual factors: humanum paucis vivit genus 348. Already the first to replace Fr. A.V. Gorsky at the academic department - Archimandrite John (Metropolitan) was not afraid to take a treatment of the history of the Ecumenical Councils and narratively depicted the first three of them with sufficient scientific precision, why the successor of this work, Prof. Al. P. Lebedev, did not find it necessary to experience the real side again” 349. From all of the above, we can conclude that Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, who in the shortest possible time had to reorganize the Academy according to the new Charter, completed this difficult task with his characteristic conscientiousness. It is not without reason that the Right Reverend Macarius (Bulgakov), who inspected the reformed Academy in 1875, found it in perfect order and gave the following review of its rector: “The venerable Father Archpriest, who devoted his entire life to the service of science, has long since attested to the learned world his thorough and numerous theological scholarship, especially church history, with his remarkable writings and with his mature mind, many years of experience and deeply religious and strictly moral direction, serves as a reliable leader not only for the students, but also for the Academy’s mentors themselves” 350. As you can see, the liberal era of the 60s of the 19th century actively affected the life of the theological school, for the successful development of which this new time required a strictly scientific methodology. The critical movement made its way in the history of the Church. The banner of this era was, undoubtedly, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, who sought to create around himself a strong team of scientific workers. It was thanks to Gorsky that the Academy acquired the world-famous great Russian historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky. At a difficult moment in his academic career, the young historian Klyuchevsky received invaluable support from Rector Gorsky, who contributed to his appointment as a mentor at the Academy. Having entered the service at the Academy in July 1871, Klyuchevsky was accepted there as “one of our own.” And already on March 16, 1872, he was elected associate professor of the Moscow Theological Academy in the class of Russian civil history and confirmed in this position by Metropolitan Innocent of Moscow 351. Klyuchevsky worked at the Academy for more than 30 years, in his activities uniting the oldest secular and theological schools in Russia. Professor N. Glubokovsky rightly said about this unique phenomenon: “Without envy or rivalry, the Academy in its field wanted to keep up with Moscow University, dear to everyone, and always felt a living spiritual connection with it, the excellent guarantee of which was V. O. Klyuchevsky, who harmoniously embodied the advantages of both schools” 352. In the same year, 1872, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky celebrated forty years of scientific activity. Gorsky's great services to Russian science have received worthy appreciation from the highest state authorities. Archpriest Alexander was awarded the Order of St. Anne of the 1st degree with the Highest Rescript of April 16 with the handwritten signature of Emperor Alexander I “Having completely devoted your long-term service to activities for the benefit of spiritual enlightenment and, upon the election of the ever-memorable hierarch of Moscow, having been appointed to manage the highest spiritual institution, you are going through this field quite worthily. With extensive scholarship, combining deep devotion to the Holy Church and the Orthodox faith and zealously caring for the fulfillment of the high mission entrusted to you by the Academy, you expertly guide students and make vigilant care for the mental and moral progress of students. As an expression of the Royal favor for such excellent service to you, We most mercifully number you in the Imperial Order of St. Anne of the first degree, the signs of which, while transmitting, We command you to place on yourself and wear as prescribed. Our Imperial mercy remains with you. From St. Petersburg. April 16, 1872" 353. In the same anniversary year, Gorsky’s outstanding services evoked a fair assessment from his immediate superiors. On the occasion of the name day on August 30, His Eminence Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow sent an extensive letter of congratulations: “Beloved in the Lord, Fr. rector! The fourtieth anniversary of your ministry has been completed. From the very beginning of your career, your abilities, knowledge, and love for scientific work drew the general attention of those who value the advancement of spiritual learning to you, and gradually elevated you to the high position that you occupy among the best representatives of science in our fatherland. The strength of religious convictions in the spirit of strict Orthodoxy, instilled in the house of your venerable parents and strengthened in the house of the teacher. our father Sergius the Wonderworker, imparted life and fruitfulness to your learning. Over the course of four decades, the composition of your students changed 20 times, and you accepted everyone as your own, devoting most of your time to them. Having always had free access to you, always finding your reception simple and courteous, they wanted to have you as a leader in their studies, and you imperceptibly became a mentor-friend for many. With the assistance of your advice and example, it was easy for them to fall in love with teaching and work, to understand the dignity of Christian science and Christian life. The best of them, having completed their studies, spread throughout Russia the seeds of firm Orthodox convictions and love for Christian enlightenment that you had sown. My predecessor, Reverend. Metropolitan Filaret, highly valued your knowledge, valued your judgments, sought your advice in matters of science, which he dealt with out of love and duty. A strict judge of learning, he saw that your character was one that he loved and respected, for there was no pompousness, vanity, or self-praise. Science, inspired by the life-giving principles of Orthodoxy, as you understood and presented it, led to that wisdom which, in the words of the Apostle, “pure, peaceful, meek, full of good things, undoubted, unfeigned.” This disposed him to entrust you with the leadership of the Academy. To justify this choice, the Academy, managed by you, demonstrates the firmness of religious convictions, sincere devotion to the scientific cause, sedateness of morals, modesty in actions and, at the same time, with dignity, it leads church science to the strong defense of everything that the Holy Church from sanctified antiquity has handed over to our times for safekeeping. After what I have said (although not everything that could be said), you will understand how comforting it is for me to see you as the head of the highest spiritual educational institution entrusted to me, and for which I must answer before the Lord, and how comforted I am by the fact that among my oldest co-workers I have a person like you, beloved archpriest in the Lord! I greet you doubly: on the fourtieth anniversary of your ministry, and on your namesake day, and I pray to the Lord: may He add years upon years of strength to you for the advancement of spiritual learning, for the benefit of church affairs. I invoke God’s blessing on you; I have the honor to be, with special respect and sincere love for the Lord, Your Most Reverend, an all-benevolent servant. Innocent, Metropolitan. Moscow" 354. This is official recognition of the merits of Alexander Vasilyevich; it is dear as an expression of respect for his activities on the part of the highest church authorities. But there was also a warm expression of the most sincere feelings on the part of those for whom he was closest and for whom he worked the most, to whom he dedicated his whole life - these were his colleagues and students. On the day of the fortieth anniversary of his service, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky was presented with an icon of St. Alexander Nevsky with the following address: “Venerable Fr. Rector of the Academy! The days of your namesake have always been a joyful celebration for us; on each of these days we greeted you with love, reviving in our memory the work you have undertaken and the results achieved in your scientific and educational activities, but the present day of your name is even more joyful and even more significant for us. It marks the end of a long series of years - the full forty years of your academic service here, in this dear and dear Academy to all of us. How much work you have brought for spiritual education, how much light has been shed into many areas, especially church-historical science, how much spiritually strong excitement for the pure service of science has been communicated to both students and teachers, who have always seen in you a close, although not always imitated, model - neither place nor time, and even more so to us, and to everyone, your modesty, which is known, does not allow us to reveal this. But in greeting you on the accomplished fortieth anniversary of your academic ministry, we cannot hide from you our joy that after this long period of time, during which everything was given to work, science, truth and the Lord Jesus Christ and nothing to our own convenience, pleasure and personal interest, we still see in you a kind and fresh man, with a strong, vigilant mind, with a lively and rich imagination and with a heart so warm that it embraces with living love everything unworthy and evil. Yes, we rejoice that we see in you, after such a long service to science, not a dry scientific specialist, recoiling from everything living and vital, and for one thing, sometimes not very important, neglecting everything else, but a person about whom we can safely say that nothing human is alien to him, and, in particular, a scientist who joyfully welcomes success in every part of knowledge, no matter how far it [was] from the range of his special studies. As a tangible monument to the thoughts that now fill us, we bring you this small offering. This is an icon of your heavenly co-name and patron saint. good Prince Alexander Nevsky. We most earnestly ask you to accept it from us, who humbly pray before the Lord to grant you many, many more years of life for the benefit of science and for the honor and glory of our Academy” 355. After his anniversary, Gorsky lived for three years. His immense service to science affected his already weak health. But until his last breath, Alexander Vasilyevich continued to serve his native alma mater. There was an outstanding feature in the rector's relationship with his Academy. Gorsky, nurtured by the Academy from a young age, loved it as a second homeland with the tenderness of a son. Even in those years when he was a young professor, it was difficult to force him to leave the monastery, and his relatives were upset that he was rarely at home 356. Gorsky seemed to grow closer to the Academy. For many years at the end of his life he planned to visit his native Kostroma, but never got around to it. When leaving the Academy somewhere out of necessity, he missed her. In the last months of his life - in the summer of 1875, after much persuasion by his close people, Gorsky was sent to a dacha in Akhtyrka (a village near the Khotkov Monastery, not far from Sergiev Posad), but he could not live there for even a month, became sad for his native Academy and returned to die there 357. The disease that brought Archpriest A.V. Gorsky to the grave was an old one: doctors at that time called it inflammation of the inner lining of the arteries. Gorsky did not like to be treated and, constantly working, did not spare himself. Obituaries say that he first felt signs of his illness at about the age of 45, in the fall of 1857 358 . However, from a letter from Gorsky himself, placed in the autobiography of the Right Reverend Savva (Tikhomirov), it turns out - a year earlier: on January 30, 1866, Father Alexander wrote: “This year, I’ve been feeling somehow unwell. Although the sore throat has gone away, this has been accompanied by some kind of rush of blood to the chest, and I am often subjected to painful nervous attacks. So today I spent the night without sleep, and therefore had to refuse service. I am afraid that this illness will not return to me to the same extent as it bothered me 10-11 years ago, when I even had to give up drinking tea for a year or more. Sometimes there is a thought to consult with one of your doctors, for example with O.V. Varvinsky (ordinary professor at Moscow University). My local doctor also suggested this idea to me... I don’t know what will happen in the future; but if the signs of insomnia continue, then maybe I will take advantage of the time, and then I will ask you for permission to take shelter (in Moscow).” The illness did not weaken, and, indeed, it was necessary to turn to an experienced doctor, and in mid-February of the same year, Gorsky again wrote to Eminence Savva that the medications recommended by Dr. Varvinsky helped, and his health had improved significantly 359. But since then, this disease has made itself felt several times, including in the summer and autumn of 1872, and in December 1874 it turned out that it was incurable 360. When Gorsky returned from Akhtyrka to the Lavra, appeared in armchairs in the academic garden and, in popular expression, “looked at the light of God,” his colleagues and students, surrounding the patient, felt that they were losing him. And Alexander Vasilyevich himself felt the approach of the end, describing in his diary his difficult state of health, and shortly before his death he said: “I’ve had enough, I’ve served” 361. These heartfelt words conceal both a modest expression of a sense of duty fulfilled and an expression of gratitude to the Creator. Until his last breath, the tireless worker of science continued his ascetic activity. This is how one of his students N. Troitsky recalls it: “Unable to endure the tedious, although involuntary inaction in illness, Alexander Vasilyevich, to everyone’s surprise, finally issues the following order: “let the students come to my apartment to listen to lectures.” The students of the theological department of the Academy were indeed not slow to appear in Fr.’s room. rector Imagine a picture that is more family than school. At a small table on one side, on an armchair, was Fr. the rector, on the other three sides there are students on chairs. The old professor, having broken his mighty strength, depressed by illness, with rapid breathing and a faltering voice, but with the same sincerity, actually continued the course of his learned lectures, when he had little left before the end of his life itself. The students listened attentively, now more than before, to the dying lessons of this fiery zealot of science, but with bated breath they noticed his fading” 362. The date came October 11, 1875. Even the day before, Gorsky expressed a desire to be admonished at the Liturgy of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. In the morning, the sick rector listened to the liturgy in his chambers - the doors of his office and the academic church were open so that Father Alexander could monitor everything that was happening during the service. After the sacramental verse, the priest left the altar with the Holy Gifts and, accompanied by singers from among the students of the Academy, went to the rector’s chambers. Gorsky rose from his chair and took communion standing. How touching and exciting this moment was! This is how Professor N. Zaozersky, who saw Gorsky in the last hours of his life, recalls this: “Dressed in a white robe, he seemed stately and bright, and only heavy, intermittent breathing testified to his physical torment. After the priest left, he told us in an intermittent voice: “I thank you... that you... worked hard for me...” We wanted to throw ourselves at his feet, but, obeying the inspector’s sign, we just bowed silently and left the room.”363 At about ten o'clock in the evening, Gorsky rings a bell and calls the servant and says: “I want to go home quickly.” “The servant, thinking that he wanted to be in the small office, noticed that this could not be done; another servant came running; the patient suddenly jumps up and runs, the servants did not have the strength to restrain him; Arriving in the living room, towards the icons, the patient fell into an armchair, sighed loudly three times and died. It was 5 minutes past 11 o'clock" 364. The rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, passed away. The last dying words of the deceased were: “I want to go home soon.” Whether this was a memory of his native Kostroma - the last thought of the earth, or the first revelation of the Heavenly Fatherland, closer to his soul than the earth, is unknown... The news of the grief that befell it quickly swept through the Academy. An hour later, the body of the deceased was surrounded by students who wept bitterly over the loss of their dear father and teacher. Already at 11 o'clock in the evening, in the same room where the deceased rector received the Holy Mysteries in the morning, the first funeral service was celebrated 365. The sad news of Gorsky's death struck with grief all the learned friends, colleagues and students of the deceased, all who valued the development of Russian science. In response to the notification of Gorsky’s death, received by academician and professor of St. Petersburg University I. I. Sreznevsky, a telegram was sent from members of the Academy of Sciences, St. Petersburg University, philological, archaeological and other societies, compiled by Sreznevsky. “Honoring the great merits of the deceased as a scientist, writer and leader, we ask the Academy to add to its own our deep sorrow for the loss suffered by all of us” 366. “The burial of the body of ... Gorsky took place on Tuesday, October 14. From the apartments that make up the rector's premises, the body was transferred to the academic church on Sunday, the 12th, at four o'clock in the afternoon. The continuous reading of the Gospel was performed by students of the Academy who had priestly rank. On Monday, October 13, in the morning, Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow, arrived, who, with the brethren of the Lavra and the Academy, solemnly celebrated a memorial service for the deceased... In the evening, the Right Reverend Leonid (Krasnopevkov), one of the favorite students of the rector’s late father, arrived. At nine o'clock in the evening on the same day, he served a memorial service and then read the Gospel before the coffin of the deceased. Prayer, reading and singing were not interrupted the entire time the coffin stood in the church... On the 14th, at nine o'clock in the morning, the ringing of a large bell on the Lavra bell tower announced the beginning of the sad ceremony. After the litany and speech delivered by the candidate of the Academy A. Belyaev, the coffin of the deceased, presented with banners and icons and preceded by His Eminence Leonid with the clergy who arrived from Moscow, by the hands of the Academy’s mentors, was transferred from the difficult academic church to the vast Lavra Refectory Church” 367. The funeral liturgy was performed by Bishop Leonid in the concelebration of the highest Moscow clergy and some of the Lavra brethren. The sermon was delivered by Academy professor Archimandrite Mikhail (Luzin). His wonderful words brought tears to many. At the funeral service, 12 clergymen came out of the altar with the Right Reverend - Moscow archpriests and priests, Gorsky’s students, students and some of the brethren of the Lavra. Before the funeral began, a speech was made by the Academy’s private associate professor V. A. Sokolov, and at the end of the funeral the 3rd year student Kh. Maksimov spoke. During the funeral service, Eminence Leonid himself read the troparia of the canon. After the touching farewell of teachers and students to their unforgettable, dear boss, the coffin was carried out of the Refectory Church in the arms of the Academy’s mentors; against the altar of the Trinity Cathedral, lithiums were performed in the same form as in front of the Church of Philaret the Merciful, when the coffin was transferred from the academic to the Refectory Church. The grave was prepared in the same academic student cemetery near the Smolensk Church, which the late rector had so carefully arranged several years before his death. Here, under the shadow of a spreading poplar, the late Alexander Vasilyevich often sat, reflecting on the lofty, incomprehensible secrets of the afterlife. Before the open grave of the rector, a 3rd year Montenegrin student I. Nikolic 368 heartfeltly delivered a farewell speech in Serbian. And the grave received the ever-memorable worker of science, mourned by many prayers and tears. Thus the grateful Academy saw off its great son on his last journey. When Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky died, his student Professor N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov said: “It is necessary to recreate the entire spiritual personality of the deceased, a colossal personality, we would say if the epithet “colossality” could befit the moral height, the height of humility, the fulfillment of duty to self-forgetfulness. This ascetic professor, this lay monk, who combined sociable humanity and a willingness to serve everyone with his knowledge and labors with an ascetic life, was an extraordinary phenomenon. It is unlikely to happen again" 369. These last words of the grateful student are still relevant, having become prophetic in our time. Indeed, Gorsky did not repeat himself, but the spiritual structure of the Moscow Theological Academy, the fruit of which was its ever-memorable rector, did not die with him. Enlightened religiosity, humble scholarship, paternal, filial and fraternal relationships in the academic family - these are the main features of the Academy, which it was able to retain until the revolution of 1917. It is no coincidence that the grateful students and followers of the scientific genius Gorsky, forty years after his death, with an expression of sincere love for their mentor, uttered the words that were published in the anniversary collection dedicated to the centenary of the Academy: “Undoubtedly, for the Moscow Theological Academy, Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, who occupies first place during the entire hundred-year existence of the Academy, is of the greatest importance. Without exaggeration, we can say that all the best and brightest in the Academy comes from Gorsky and the Academy will not completely lose its theological and scientific strength until the spirit of Gorsky completely dries up in it” 370. Many amazing phenomena are associated with the personality of A.V. Gorsky. And there is no doubt that Alexander Vasilyevich was a great scientist who did a lot for the development and prosperity of domestic science. But what is most striking is that there is still no complete and detailed biography of him in historiography, no complete special study devoted to his scientific works. This work is a timid attempt to somehow fill such a large gap. Back in 1881, N. Troitsky prophetically and wisely wrote: “Gorsky’s biography is needed at the present time, when the life of the younger generation is excited by a whirlwind of passionate forces, impetuously rushing into a fantastic land of ideal happiness, when the life of the higher, middle and lower schools makes such a great demand for a whole mass of rules, regulations, etc., which, however, do little to ensure its well-being, when true shepherding, sustainable hard work are so weakened, scientific and authorial leadership of the people among the clergy themselves; when the proud word of the quasi-Orthodox press is so loud, when, finally, someone who has barely learned the ABCs of science imagines himself as the leader of both school and public life” 371. Gorsky is a special kind of scientist. There are no multi-volume works left from him, there are only a small number of journal articles and the famous “Description” of manuscripts, and that was published in collaboration with K. I. Nevostruev. On the pages of printed publications, often under a false name, in the margins of books, in notes and numerous letters, Gorsky sowed his valuable knowledge. Many scientists used his instructions, many of them, with or without the knowledge of the author, selected grains of scientific material accumulated by him, decorating their works. There are still many grains of this knowledge, scattered, uncollected, lost. All this greatly complicates the study of the life and scientific work of A.V. Gorsky. The name of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky is forever associated with the history of the Moscow Theological Academy, of which he is a student and helmsman. His learning was acquired under the roof of St. Sergius of Radonezh in the hotbed of the highest theological knowledge, located within the walls of the ancient monastery - at the Trinity Academy. It was the Academy that gave a special impetus to the discovery and direction of Gorsky’s talent. The natural liveliness of the mind and the power of dialectical analysis were developed and developed in Gorsky thanks to the educational system that then existed within the walls of the Academy. The eloquent lectures of the little-known Professor F.A. Ternovsky-Platonov, unappreciated by his strict superiors, awakened the young Gorsky’s love for history and positive knowledge, but he had to study this science alone, and later - together with his father Filaret (Gumilevsky) - a faithful friend and worthy teacher. So Gorsky trained as a scientist as a student, and became one, famous and glorious, as a professor. He began by studying accessible and not always valuable material, with those mistakes and misconceptions from which, especially in youth, no one is immune, and completed his life’s work with scientific fame in the rank of rector of the oldest theological school in Russia in the rank of archpriest. He accumulated universal knowledge, valuable, critically tested knowledge, leaving it in his talented students, whom he nurtured under his own sensitive scientific guidance. It is interesting to trace the external path and means of developing Gorsky’s scientific talent. This is a thorough study of the available literature, checking the data obtained through source material. For this, Gorsky spared neither time nor effort. He spent days and nights in libraries, studied archives, corresponded with scientists, collected information from all over Russia, and ordered books from abroad. It is more difficult to indicate what the inner growth of his genius was. A strong critical talent is at first, as it were, suppressed, obscured by the lack of necessary knowledge, the acquisition of which requires serious and long work. Sometimes, on the contrary, a strong flow of new knowledge tends to suppress the activity of reason. But over time, when the accumulated knowledge has already been brought into the system, Gorsky’s thought grows stronger and acquires all the forms of scientific inquisitiveness characteristic of him; this is noticeable in his works. The power of critical analysis increases over time; hasty conclusions, opinions borrowed from other authors give way to more mature, thorough, independent judgments. Gorsky the scientist had to go through a long path of improvement: from the initial lectures to the European famous “Description of Manuscripts”, to instructions from such gifted scientists as I. I. Sreznevsky, M. P. Pogodin, Yu. F. Samarin, N. I. Kostomarov and others. This great path was not passed immediately. It cost Gorsky more than forty years of hard work, learned asceticism, and he cost the most precious thing - health. This asceticism was performed in the silence of the study-cell; Gorsky worked a lot, grieved, worried, often misunderstood, sometimes even by those closest to him. But he walked this thorny path with honor. In the work of his ministry, both scientific, pedagogical and pastoral, Gorsky invested not only his richly gifted mind, but also all the strength of his character, which did not stop in the face of obstacles in the acquisition and communication of knowledge. But he also had a kind heart, which he gave freely to the people around him. The warmth and love of this heart, delicacy, tenderness and gentleness rightly earned him the reputation of a “heartfelt” and “spiritual” theologian. What is especially surprising and worthy of emulation in Gorsky is that he directed all his ascetic activity towards serving God and his neighbors. He remained a sincere and kind Christian always and in any situation. “He looked at all his work, obedience and academic pursuits as service to God, which is why he tried to fulfill it as if in the eyes of God. All his works are aimed at achieving the glory of God, imprinted with this idea, which gives them a shade not of false and feigned, but of sincere, deep, rare religiosity” 372. Gorsky sincerely loved to help those striving for knowledge. He readily provided information to those who wanted it, shared his scientific discoveries, sent his lectures, often forgetting about copyright. The charm of his bright personality and his influence on those around him were so strong that his contemporaries did not know how to express their love and respect for his scientific genius, how to more fully define his significance in Russian science. “The giant of knowledge”, “the giant of Russian science”, “the beauty and glory of the Academy”, “the glory of Russian science”, “the adornment of the Holy Church” - they called him 373. It cannot be denied that Gorsky’s works are still of great importance for scientific knowledge; they have made an invaluable contribution to the development of education in Russia, which is especially important for the Moscow Theological Academy, where he created his own scientific school. In terms of the wealth and breadth of knowledge, as well as the originality of the scientific method, Gorsky can be safely placed on the same level as the most outstanding representatives of Russian and Western European scholarship. All the evidence presented in this study shows and proves that Archpriest A.V. Gorsky took an active part in the development of church historical and philological sciences, actively helped famous scientists of his era, and enjoyed the love and respect of the scientific class not only in Russia, but also abroad. It must also be said that “he, undoubtedly, was the founder of our church historical science.” In addition, Gorsky “created examples of the study of particular issues in church historical science, and these works of his are very important for its development” 374. Gorsky was not only a professor at the Academy, but also a scientist throughout Russia, he was not only a boss, but, above all, a loving father of his academic family, and was a sincere friend to everyone who came to him for help. Archpriest Alexander Gorsky embodied the gospel ideal of a good shepherd who united everyone with love, faith, compassion and philanthropy. Gorsky devoted all his strength to the Moscow Theological Academy - he served and worked in it from the age of sixteen until his death. Even the honors of the priesthood could not convince him to leave his native alma mater, near the walls of which he was buried, not parting with the Academy even after death. She can and must be proud of such a student, professor, librarian and rector. All of Russia should be proud of such a son. And let the life of Professor Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky serve as a living example for the leaders of modern theological and secular schools, for teachers and students, for scientists and priests, for theologians and historians, let it be a model, a standard of pure and impartial service to God and people, love for the Church and science. Currently, the name of A.V. Gorsky is included in the chronological list of “Holy Rus'” as a revered ascetic of piety in the person of the holy righteous Alexander Archpriest, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy 375. I would like to believe that there is little time left before his official canonization and universal veneration by believers in the Russian Orthodox Church. After all, the very life of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky can be called with full confidence a sacred epic, for it really was such both in the harmonious harmony of the path traveled and in the incredible number of deeds accomplished. This life was full of originality, which is so characteristic of the biographies of many outstanding minds of Russian culture, and the scientific heritage of the scientist is an invaluable treasure passed down to us from the past of church history, philology and theology. I. Problems of historiography and sources for studying the activities of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky We ask you to remember us while we are alive, and remember us when we die. From a letter from A.V. Gorsky to his uncle In October 1875, the scientist’s life was cut short. After the death of A.V. Gorsky, contemporaries suddenly came face to face with the urgent need to comprehend the work of the deceased, to understand his extensive creative and scientific activity in general, his role in Russian church historical science, and at the same time to remember a lot from the daily life of the deceased. A wide stream of obituaries and articles dedicated to his memory included the reflections and conclusions of many contemporaries about the place of the late rector of the Moscow Theological Academy in church science and about the results of his creative path. Thus, immediately after the death of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, the first large historiographical complex of works dedicated to him was formed. It is easy to notice that the literature about Gorsky of the first historiographical complex begins with short biographical sketches and characteristics, published shortly after the death of the scientist, words and speeches pronounced over his coffin. Thus, in a number of issues of “Moskovskie Vedomosti” for 1875, Archpriest S.K. Smirnov published a short but detailed biography of Gorsky, with a description and list of his works and a description of the burial 376. In the same “Moskovskie Vedomosti” Archimandrite Mikhail (Luzin) placed his funeral eulogy, and N. Z. (N. I. Subbotin) - brief but valuable memories of Gorsky 377. The biography of S.K. Smirnov and the words of Archimandrite Mikhail were later included in the first brochure dedicated to the “Memory of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky,” printed in the December book of the Orthodox Review for 1875 378. The same brochure contains the words and speeches of A.D. Belyaev, V.A. Sokolov, Iv. Sokolov, A. P. Lebedev, M. Dmitriev, M. Muretov, D. F. Golubinsky. They depict the high moral and Christian qualities of the deceased and provide important information about his scientific merits, about the attitude of Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret (Drozdov) towards Gorsky, etc. His other admirers also expressed their opinions about the deceased. I. I. Sreznevsky, shortly after Gorsky’s death, gave a lecture about him 379. T. I. Filippov at a meeting of the St. Petersburg department of the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment on October 23, 1875, gave a speech dedicated to the memory of Gorsky. In it, he gives a short list of Gorsky’s affairs and gives a brief but true description of him as a learned leader and a Christian. The speech was published in the “Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette” for 1875, then in the 182nd book of the “Journal of the Ministry of Public Education” and then included in the collection of T. I. Filippov 380. At the end of 1875, N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov published a short note about Gorsky in Sovremennye Izvestia, which was later reprinted in the 2nd volume of his works 381. Count D.N. Tolstoy published a short biography and characterization of Gorsky in the Russian Archive for 1875 in the form of a letter, and Archimandrite Gregory in “Readings in the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities” printed several comments on Gorsky’s biography concerning his ordination to the priesthood 382. All this data, especially the messages of S.K. Smirnov, the word of Archimandrite Mikhail and the speech of T.I. Filippov, served as material for other biographies. In many spiritual and secular magazines in the first months after the death of the scientist, a number of his obituaries appeared. The stamp of haste (understandable in those conditions) lies on these generalizing, evaluative articles. The authors inevitably had to use a narrow and, of course, very imperfect documentary base. The advantage of the work is the vivid impressions of communicating with Gorsky and participating in the discussion of his personality and his activities in the academic environment of that time. Obituaries about Gorsky were published in: “Don Diocesan Gazette”, “Minsk Diocesan Gazette”, “Tambov Diocesan Gazette”, “Tula Diocesan Gazette”, “Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette”, “Volynsk Diocesan Gazette”, “Spiritual Conversation” magazine 383. Gorsky's biographies were published in monthly spiritual magazines: “Strannik”, “Soulful Reading”, “Orthodox Review” 384. Secular publications also published briefly about Gorsky’s death. On the occasion of his death, an editorial was published in “Modernity” and a little later in the same place - about the moral character of the scientist. Obituaries about Gorsky were published in the newspapers: “Gatsuka”, “Golos”, “Home Conversation”, “Illustrated Week”, “Niva”, “Citizen”, the foreign magazine “Polybiblion Revue bibl. universelle" for 1876 in the February book included "Necrologie A. Gorski" 385. But in all these publications, nothing new and important to characterize Gorsky’s activities is reported. Only in the letter of priest Chojnacki and in the message of student N.V. “On the occasion of the dismantling of the library of A.V. Gorsky,” as well as in the article “A. V. Gorsky. Several personal memories” N. Kalinnikova 386 there are valuable comments about Gorsky’s relationships with students and scientists, and the wealth of his library is described. The paradox of the entire “funeral”, “necrological” complex is that all this valuable factual material for the most part could not be used to create the first generalizing works about the church historian, and it often happened that works about Gorsky were published in different publications almost simultaneously. At the end of 1876, on the anniversary of Gorsky's death, several interesting and important articles about him appeared. Their authors expressed not only their personal impressions or shared memories, but also used papers and documents left after him. At the solemn ceremony on October 10, 1876, the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest S. K. Smirnov, made a speech: “Memories of the late rector M. D. A. Archpriest A. V. Gorsky,” which was published in “Orthodox Review” 387. In it, using a diary that was still unpublished at that time and letters from his relatives to Gorsky, Smirnov outlined biographical information about Gorsky, noted rare traits of his character, his religiosity, mystical and contemplative mood. As an explanation to his memoirs, he published the note “Sortes Sanctorum” 388, in which he tried to justify with various considerations and references Gorsky’s custom of learning the will of God from randomly discovered passages of Holy Scripture. The note prompted an article by P. S. Kazansky “From my memories of A. V. Gorsky regarding the speech of Professor S. Smirnov”, published in the next issue of “Orthodox Review” 389. Here P. S. Kazansky sought to show the incorrectness of Smirnov’s interpretation of the mentioned custom and outlined several of his memories of Gorsky. This controversy regarding the psychological portrait of Gorsky became the first dispute in assessing the personality of the historian in the emerging historiography about him. He used diary data and correspondence when compiling his “Word”, delivered on the day of the annual commemoration of the deceased rector and published in the same issue of “Orthodox Review”, A.F. Lavrov-Platonov 390. In it, the author dwells in detail on clarifying the methods of acquiring and characterizing Gorsky’s scientific knowledge, his religious disposition and attitude towards professors and students. In 1877, two brochures dedicated to the memory of Gorsky were printed, the size of which is inversely proportional to their dignity. This is: “A. V. Gorsky" by A.D. Belyaev and "To the memories of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, who died in Bose, written and published by E.N. Voronets" 391. In the first work, Gorsky's student, Professor A.D. Belyaev, in brief, but strong and apt expressions, characterizes his mentor as a scientist and distinguishes his religious and moral traits, and in the second, also a former student in a pompous tone expresses his personal impressions. After this, articles dedicated to the memory of Gorsky rarely appear. In 1879, Professor A.P. Lebedev published “Several memories of the late Gorsky as a professor of church history” 392. In his article, the author uses not so much the full course as separate, incomplete introductory lectures and notes from Gorsky on general church history. He first talks about Gorsky’s views, sympathies and scientific principles, tries to give an idea of ​​his scientific system and its properties, and of the historian’s working methods. This is the first scientific attempt to introduce the public to Gorsky as a historian. A.P. Lebedev had valuable, interesting, unknown material at his disposal. Here the reader gets acquainted with the work methods and plans of the historian A.V. Gorsky, but can little judge how he carried out his tasks, how he gave lectures. In terms of scientific content and time of publication, one can put on par with the above work the article by Professor N. S. Tikhonravov: “Gorsky and Nevostruev”; placed in the lithographed course of his lectures “The History of Ancient Russian Literature” (1881/82 academic year), but was first published in the anniversary collection dedicated to the centenary of the Moscow theological school, “At the Trinity at the Academy” only in 1914 393. The author also characterizes Gorsky as a scientist, dwells in detail on clarifying the role of both specialists in the description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library and outlines the very progress of the description work. He became acquainted with Gorsky's printed articles and handwritten lectures on Russian church history and gave an apt description of them. He also examined the draft papers describing the manuscripts, although not all of them, and gave a general, masterfully presented picture of the description. A significant place is given to Gorsky's personality in the work of S.K. Smirnov, published in 1879, dedicated to the history of the Moscow Theological Academy 394. Here Gorsky is presented, first of all, as a highly gifted scientist, talented lecturer and experienced librarian. It should also be noted that there is a bibliography of Gorsky’s works published before 1879. In 1881, an article by N. Troitsky 395 appeared on the pages of “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment.” Here the author, a student of Gorsky, publishing three letters from his teacher to his family, shares his memories of him as a scientist, professor, leader and loving father, rector. The speech of the grateful student is in places downright enthusiastic, breathing with love and gratitude, but this does not detract from the scientific merit of the memoirs, since N. Troitsky’s judgments are confirmed by archival data. Wonderful memories of A.V. Gorsky were published in 1885 by Archpriest G.P. Smirnov-Platonov in his “Children's Help” 396. In 1887, the magazine “Sunday Day” published a biographical sketch of Professor V. A. Sokolov, “Rector M. D. Ak. prot. A.V. Gorsky" 397. The author briefly outlines biographical information about Gorsky, opinions about him as a scientist and his personal memories. Among such memoirs one should also include A. P. Smirnov’s article “A Page from a Student Diary,” published in “Soulful Reading” for 1891 398 . In 1892, in the journal “Slavic Review”, Professor G. A. Voskresensky published an article “A. V. Gorsky” 399, in which he examined his works related to Russian-Slavic historical science and spiritual literature, and touched upon the professor’s views on the Greek-Bulgarian church feud. In 1896, the Theological Bulletin published the work of S. G. Popov, “Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A. V. Gorsky.” Here the author, using archival data, sets out in detail Gorsky’s biography and gives a brief description of his moral qualities. This work was republished as a separate pamphlet in 1897 400. In 1896, Professor N.I. Subbotin in Russian Review 401 published his valuable memories of Gorsky as a professor, librarian and leader, as well as part of his correspondence. A new widespread interest in the study of the personality of A. V. Gorsky appeared in 1900, when it was 25 years since the death of the scientist. This event became the basis for the emergence of a second, more mature and systematized historiographical body of work devoted to the personality of the deceased. Professor A.P. Lebedev published his work in the magazine “Faith and Church”: “Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, rector and professor of the M.D. Academy.” A little later, in 1903, in his extensive work “Church historiography in its most important representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries” he included a special chapter “Church historian A.V. Gorsky”, where he fully revealed his scientific method, talent as a lecturer and talents as an archaeographer. The image of Gorsky, combined with high moral qualities, appears here as an original and brilliant phenomenon in Russian church scientific life 402. The entire November book of the Theological Bulletin for 1900 is dedicated to the memory of the church historian A.V. Gorsky 403. The articles published here together with the memoirs of A.P. Lebedev constituted a special anniversary edition. This anniversary collection contains: a brief description of the celebration of the memory of Gorsky, the word of Professor N.A. Zaozersky, as well as speeches and memories of Gorsky. The publication of speeches begins with a biographical sketch of Professor S. Smirnov “A. V. Gorsky,” which briefly outlines the main events in the life of the great figure of Russian science and judgments about his scientific works and leadership. The author not only describes Gorsky’s life, but also characterizes it and tries to depict the professor’s inner world. In the article “On the merits of Rev. A. V. Gorsky for Slavic-Russian historical and philological science,” Professor G. A. Voskresensky sets out several personal memories and points out Gorsky’s merits for philology. Professor V.A. Sokolov in his notes “From the memories of A.V. Gorsky” with strong inspiration paints the image of Gorsky as a professor and rector, a scientist and a Christian. Professor D.F. Golubinsky in his memoirs reported on Gorsky’s participation in the establishment of the Department of Natural Science Apologetics at the Academy. Professor V. O. Klyuchevsky touched upon the most diverse aspects of the life and character of A. V. Gorsky. From the documents printed here are: a review of the “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by Archimandrite John (Sokolov) (later Bishop of Smolensk), an apology of “Descriptions of the Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library” by Gorsky with a foreword by Professor A. A. Spassky, “Remarks of A. V. Gorsky on the theological works of A. S. Khomyakov.” In memory of the same twenty-fifth anniversary of the death of A.V. Gorsky, the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society organized a special meeting (December 1, 1900), at which Professor I.E. Evseev read the report “Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky” 404. This report reveals in detail what significance Gorsky had for many scientists, for example, for the scientific heritage of E. E. Golubinsky. At the same meeting, S. O. Dolgov read interesting excerpts “From the letters of A. V. Gorsky to N. K. Sokolov” 405. In honor of the celebrated event, the Moscow Theological Academy published a special collection dedicated to the memory of Gorsky. In it, in addition to the memoirs of contemporaries, many letters from the scientist’s archive were published for the first time 406. In 1903, Professor S.I. Smirnov published a short but detailed article about A.V. Gorsky in the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia. In 1910, Academician I.V. Yagich’s “History of Slavic Philology” was published - an extensive work devoted to the development of Slavic philological science. In this respectable publication, the name of Gorsky is mentioned with a short list of his main works in the field of philological research. In 1913, on the eve of the centennial anniversary of the Moscow Theological Academy, the Russian Archive published an article by N. G. Vysotsky “A. V. Gorsky in the memoirs of one of his students" 407. The harsh and fateful year for all of Russia, 1914, was marked by a bright and bright event in the history of the national theological school. The centenary of the Moscow Theological Academy was celebrated. In the anniversary collection of historical materials “At the Trinity at the Academy,” 408, which is a publication of the works of former students of the Academy, many different memoirs, reviews, impressions of contemporaries and scientific followers of A.V. Gorsky, dedicated to the memory of the scientist, were published. Some of Gorsky's letters and part of his scientific writings were also published for the first time. The academic professorship is represented in the collection by Gorsky's students and scientific followers. Professor N.F. Kapterev (under Gorsky, read the history of the Russian Church) in his article “Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. From my personal memories” characterizes his teacher as a highly moral and meek person, citing specific everyday examples to confirm this. Separately, we should highlight the extensive article by priest P. Postnikov, “Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky,” which details Gorsky’s biography, taking into account data from all previously published works and memoirs about him. The study also contains a historiographical review of the literature about Gorsky that had accumulated by that time. From the documents, P. Postnikov also published an important, previously unpublished work by Gorsky on the history of the Russian Church, “The Period of Patriarchate in the Russian Church.” Professor V. A. Sokolov (private associate professor in the department of New Civil History in the last years of Gorsky's rectorship) published Gorsky's correspondence with his friend Archbishop Filaret (Gumilevsky). Sokolov also reported “Excerpts from the diary of A.V. Gorsky”, as well as “A sheet of dying orders of A.V. Gorsky”. “The Spiritual Testament of A.V. Gorsky” saw the light of day thanks to the Secretary of the Council and Board of the Academy N.D. Vsekhsvyatsky. The collection also contains Gorsky's correspondence with various secular and spiritual figures with whom the scientist was on friendly terms 409 . In the same 1914, in the anniversary collection “In Memory of Deceased Mentors,” an article by Professor S.I. Smirnov was published, dedicated to the personality of Gorsky, which was of a memoir nature. Another work, published as a separate brochure, “The Church of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy at the beginning of the second century of its existence,” shows Gorsky’s important merit in organizing a separate church for the Academy. Its author is Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky), later Archbishop of Verei (canonized as a martyr by the Russian Orthodox Church in 2000). Many remarkable and valuable judgments about the scientific nature of Gorsky’s work and his critical talent are found in V. O. Klyuchevsky in his “Reviews and Answers,” published in 1918. It also talks about the great contribution of A.V. Gorsky to the organization of a powerful scientific movement at the Academy, which contributed to the emergence of a critical trend in the study of church history 410. In fact, the anniversary collection “At the Trinity at the Academy” became the last major publication, which included valuable and serious publications about the personality and scientific qualities of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky. After the revolution in 1924, the Academy ceased to exist, and the ideological dictatorship of Marxism in historical science could not allow even a mention of an independent, independent and impartial study of church history, as well as the study of the biographies and creative activities of its outstanding representatives. Studying the data of Soviet historiography, the historian of the Church is inevitably forced to face a completely new historiographical situation, which is characterized by a complete lack of systematic and thorough research on the problems of church history (both Russian and universal). Therefore, it is quite natural that in the Soviet era, Gorsky’s personality did not arouse any interest and was not studied at all. However, among the emigrants, the importance of A.V. Gorsky as a scientist was assessed more fairly. But even here there are only a few works concerning the personality of the famous rector-archpriest. All of them had no tendency towards a special study of the biography and creative activity of the scientist, but fit into the system of a general presentation of the history of the Russian theological school and domestic theological thought. First of all, it is necessary to name the work of N. N. Glubokovsky, a student of the Moscow Theological Academy of the pre-revolutionary era, a professor at the Petrograd Theological Academy, and an exile professor at the Sofia State University. His work, first published in 1928, is called “Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state” 411. This extensive study dedicated to the history of Russian theological thought contains a lot of information about Gorsky’s personality. It talks about his merits in the development of church historical knowledge, his understanding of the philosophy of history, the personal modesty of the scientist, his scientific school and influence on the Moscow Theological Academy. Glubokovsky also provides a bibliography of the main works devoted to Gorsky. Also noteworthy is the major two-volume work of Professor I.K. Smolich, who worked on his research in Germany in the 1950s–1960s. In his “History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917” space is allocated for the characterization of A.V. Gorsky in the chapter on spiritual education 412. Here is a short biography of the scientist, a description of his scientific method and reviews from his contemporaries. The psychological portrait of Gorsky is clearly and powerfully shown in the book of the outstanding Russian thinker Archpriest G. Florovsky “Ways of Russian Theology” 413. In addition, “Paths” reveals the image of Gorsky as an unusually erudite and highly gifted scientist, a strong archaeographer who created his own scientific school. It also shows his influence on his students and followers, reflected in the works of the latter. In Soviet Russia, the personality of A.V. Gorsky was addressed only in 1962, when it was one hundred and fifty years since his birth. An extensive article “Archpriest A.V. Gorsky (1812–1962)” 414 appeared in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate, where the anonymous author briefly but thoroughly outlined the biography of the scientist, indicated his services to Russian historical science, assessed his scientific work and highlighted important features of his character. This publication paved the way for increased interest in the personality of A.V. Gorsky. In 1977, an article by L. P. Zhukovskaya “Vocabulary of the 1073 Collection in the “Description of Manuscripts of the Synodal Library”” 415 was published, where the author attempted to determine Gorsky’s personal contribution to the work created jointly with K. I. Nevostruev on the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. The main drawback of this article was that L.P. Zhukovskaya, not having archival data, extremely freely presented in her work the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts, while unfairly belittling the role of Gorsky in such a vast and labor-intensive enterprise. In 1986, in the anniversary book “Theological Works”, dedicated to the tercentenary of the creation of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, an article by priest A. Saltykov “A brief outline of the history of the Moscow Theological Academy” appeared. Rector of the Academy prof. prot. A.V. Gorsky" 416. Here is a brief biography of the scientist and tells about the structure of the Academy during Gorsky's rectorship, as well as his participation in the reform of the theological school of 1867–1868. The materials of this study are based on pre-revolutionary publications, but do not rely on archival data. In 1993, an article dedicated to Gorsky was published in the encyclopedic dictionary “Christianity” 417: a brief biography of the scientist is given, a description of his scientific activity is given, along with a list of the most important works and the main literature about him. In 1996, an article by Professor, Doctor of Philology V. M. Kirillin, head of the Department of Philology of the Moscow Theological Academy, entitled “Alexander Gorsky and Russian Archeography” 418, appeared in the Istoricheskaya Gazeta. In his work, the author, attaching a brief biography of Gorsky, dwells in detail on the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts in the Moscow Synodal Library. Highly appreciating Gorsky's contribution to this enterprise, V. M. Kirillin provides his article with a detailed study of the issue under consideration from philological and archaeographic positions. In many ways, this article has something in common with M. N. Vorobyov’s work “A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of co-authorship)" 419. Here we briefly talk about Gorsky’s merits in the description of Slavic manuscripts and his leading role in this collective work. In 1999, S. V. Rimsky’s monograph “The Russian Church in the Age of Great Reforms” 420 was published. Gorsky's role in preparing the religious education reform of 1867–1868 is mentioned here. It is very valuable that the author often uses archival data, in particular the correspondence of the scientist with Metropolitan Philaret. In 2002, our short review article “Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science” 421 was published in the collection of scientific works “Platonov Readings”. Here we present Gorsky as a prominent church historian, a talented worker of science and a good Christian, and put forward the idea of ​​the need for a more in-depth study of his personality and a holistic understanding of his scientific heritage. At the end of the same year, another of our works was published, published in the “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate” 422. Here are the key problems in studying the topic “A. V. Gorsky”, in general terms, the psychological portrait of the scientist, the formation of his character is revealed, his pedagogical and scientific activities are assessed. The year 2004 was especially rich in publications about the personality and works of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. So, on the eve of the 190th anniversary of the Moscow Theological Academy, three of our works appeared within the walls of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. The magazine “Church and Time” published an article devoted to such an important but little-studied episode in science as the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library, and in the collection “Humanities and Orthodox Culture” there was a study “Methodology of Church History in the Scientific Concepts of A. V. Gorsky,” touching upon issues of the relationship between faith and knowledge in relation to the field of church history that had not previously been studied in historical science. The short article “On the Pannonian Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius” 423 reveals the little-known circumstances of the study of this monument by the predecessors of A.V. Gorsky and the methodological principles of the scientist himself in the critical analysis of the lives of the Equal-to-the-Apostles brothers. At the indicated time, a brochure by Archimandrite Gennady (Gogolev) “Giant of Learning. The life and works of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky" 424. Unfortunately, this work has little scientific value. The author often and haphazardly refers to archival materials, losing sight of the fact that many of them had already been published in pre-revolutionary periodicals. The study generally provides little new information about the life and work of A. V. Gorsky; it is based on already known facts; in addition, the author practically does not use or take into account the latest historiographic data on the issue under consideration, which deprives the work of relevance and scientific novelty. The candidate dissertation of P. Gaidarenko, a 2004 graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, is completely opposite to the brochure of Archimandrite Gennady. His extensive work “Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky as a researcher of Slavic-Russian books and literature,” 425, written under the scientific guidance of Professor V. M. Kirillin, opened new milestones in the study of Gorsky’s heritage. The author competently uses archival materials, for the first time presenting to the scientific world many valuable documents, on the basis of which we see the Slavic-Russian book heritage in the works of A.V. Gorsky in all its unsurpassed heights. Against the background of a study of the scientist’s activities as an outstanding archaeographer and textual critic who made a significant contribution to the development of domestic philological knowledge, the bright personality of Father Alexander is manifested with sufficient force. A unique result in a whole series of these anniversary publications dedicated to A.V. Gorsky was summed up by Professor V.M. Kirillin in his short but capacious article “Scientific works of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and the development of Russian archeography” 426. Here the basic biographical information about the scientist’s personality is presented, his main works are listed, the history of the description of the Synodal Assembly is briefly outlined, and the significance of this work for Russian science is noted. In 2005, it was 130 years since the death of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. In connection with this memorable event, we have prepared two publications. The first article: “From the history of the publication of “Descriptions of Slavic Manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev” 427 describes an episode associated with a biased and tendentious censor review of the work of respected scientists and the subsequent “Apology” for the censor’s review, brilliantly compiled by A.V. Gorsky. Our other article: ““Their deeds follow them”: St. Philaret of Moscow and Archpriest Alexander of Gorsky,” 428, published in the magazine “Church and Time,” for the first time in Russian historiography tells about the nature of the relationship between the great hierarch of Moscow and the valiant worker of science as two outstanding personalities connected with each other by sincere love for the Church and theological science. From the above we can conclude that the available literature about Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky is heterogeneous. It began to take shape from obituaries, memories, and individual judgments. Over time, articles devoted to Gorsky’s personality began to acquire an increasingly scientific character, and various directions in the study of his life and work began to emerge. These are purely biographical sketches, and attempts to assess his scientific heritage, and a definition of the scientist’s role in the history of the theological school of Russia. And recently, with growing interest in his personality, along with research into specific issues (the historical and philological components of the scientist’s works), there has been a steady desire for a comprehensive study of the life path of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky and his scientific heritage. This study is based on numerous written documents. Archival sources are concentrated mainly in the manuscripts department of the Russian State Library (OR RSL). The fund of A.V. Gorsky himself is of greatest interest (f. 78). It includes extensive materials concerning the personality of the scientist. The fund was created from documents stored before the revolution at the Moscow Theological Academy in the so-called “Gorsky archive”. It is noteworthy that this archive was practically not studied in any way during Soviet times, as a result of which many valuable sources testifying to the life, creativity and scientific activity of A. V. Gorsky are completely unknown to researchers. We studied in detail the fund of A.V. Gorsky, built the structure of this archive and classified the files stored in it. The research of the A.V. Gorsky Foundation helped to systematize the already available material, concentrated in published sources, and supplement it with new, previously unknown and unpublished data. Of great interest are the cases relating to the time of Gorsky’s studies at the Academy (k. 1, items 1–40). These are student essays and notes from lectures they attended. Studying these documents allows you to see how the beginnings of knowledge and love for science were formed in the future scientist. Here is also a copy of the petition to Metropolitan Philaret to be ordained a priest (k. 1, item 2) and a certificate for the Order of St. Anna, 1st degree (k. 1, item 4). Of no small importance are the rough notes of notes and materials of lectures given by Gorsky at the Academy (k. 2, item 5 – k. 8, item 2). Based on their analysis, it becomes possible to understand the methodological and historiosophical views of the scientist, as well as pedagogical techniques for organizing the educational process. Rich material for this study is scattered throughout the letters. There are relatively few letters from Gorsky (k. 21, item 14 – k. 22, item 54). However, they contain rich material that allows us to trace not only business correspondence on scientific issues with various researchers, but also to recreate the psychological portrait of Alexander Vasilyevich, and to reveal the nature of his relationships with his family. There are much more letters to Gorsky from different people (k. 23, item 1 – k. 43, item 18). These are letters from his father (with notes from his mother), sister, brother and other relatives, which introduce the home life and atmosphere of the Gorsky family; letters from Metropolitans of Moscow Filaret (Drozdov) and Innocent (Veniaminov), as well as Bishops Leonid (Krasnopevkov) and Anthony (Kazansky). In addition, there are many letters from colleagues, former students, various scientists, acquaintances and friends who tell about the relationship of their authors with Gorsky. A special place is occupied by correspondence with K.I. Nevostruev (more than 500 letters), which lasted over 30 years. It contains valuable material concerning the description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library. Valuable information contains materials related to the activities of the Committee for the Transformation of Theological Schools (k. 19, item 19 - k. 20, item 14), in the meetings of which Gorsky took an active part. When writing the work, documents from related funds were used. Vivid material for characterizing the details of the meetings of the Committee for the Transformation of Theological Schools is contained in the Committee's journals for August-September 1860 (OR RSL, f. 316, k. 66). The same fund also contains correspondence between Gorsky and Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) on this issue. The collection of M.P. Pogodin contains a number of letters from this famous scientist to Gorsky (OR RSL, f. 231/I, room 44). All of them are in the nature of scientific correspondence and friendly communication. When studying the question of Gorsky’s compilation of the biography of Saints Cyril and Methodius, materials from the fund of O. M. Bodyansky (OR RSL, f. 36) and A. E. Viktorov (OR RSL, f. 51) were used. Of the published documents, the most valuable is Gorsky's Diary, which is an extremely valuable evidence of his spiritual life 429. This is a wonderful source from which it is possible to reconstruct the psychological portrait of a scientist. His youthful notes amaze with the depth and sublimity of his thoughts; this is a truly theological diary. Gorsky began writing it in 1830, when he entered his senior year at the Academy, and continued intermittently until 1840. Then the author kept only fragmentary notes until his death in 1875. The “Diary” appeared as a separate publication in print in 1885 430. For constructing a psychological portrait of Gorsky, the first part of the “Diary” is especially important, containing an expression of his inner spiritual life. The second part records conversations with Metropolitan Philaret, reflections on the reform of theological education and the secret influence of members of the imperial family on this process, as well as information about Gorsky’s first steps as rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. Of particular value for the study of the topic under consideration is the epistolary heritage of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow, an outstanding church figure of the 19th century. Materials from the following published sources help to understand the role and significance of St. Philaret in the life of Gorsky: “Letters of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky”; “Letters to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867"; “Letters from clergy and secular persons to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow”; “Collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues” 431. The study also used “Letters of Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky” 432. In importance they are joined by the diary entries of Archbishop Savva (Tikhomirov), containing the correspondence of this bishop over many years. In his work entitled “Chronicle of My Life” 433 Gorsky is often mentioned. The multi-volume work of N. Barsukov “The Life and Works of M. P. Pogodin” 434 is of great importance. This series contains the correspondence of the scientist with A.V. Gorsky on various scientific issues. An important article by M. N. Vorobyov “A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of co-authorship),” where the correspondence of scientists was published, which makes it possible to extract a lot of valuable information from the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library 435. II. Printed works of Professor Archpriest A.V. Gorsky Separately published · Historical description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1842, 1852, 1857, 1865, 1873, 1882, 1902, 1996. · History of the Florence Cathedral. M., 1847. · St. Alexy, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia. M., 1848. · St. Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia. M., 1848. · Life of Saint Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. M., 1851; Sergiev Posad, 1902. · Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library / A. Gorsky, K. Nevostruev. M., 1855–1917. T. 1–6. · About the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church. M., 1862. · Word for the Day of Remembrance of St. Cyril and Methodius. M., 1865. · Formation of the canon of the Holy Books of the New Testament. M., 1871. · About the sacred ceremony of the wedding and anointing of kings to the kingdom. M., 1882. · History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. M., 1883; Reprint. ed. St. Petersburg, 1999. · Words from the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1895. Articles in periodicals Studies in General Church History · About Christian virgins before monasticism // Additions to the edition of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 1. 1843. · Life of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea // Ibid. Part 3. 1845. · Brief history of the Council of Constantinople III, Ecumenical IV // Christian Reading. 1847. No. 1–4. · The external state of the Eastern Church in the 9th-13th centuries // Ibid. 1848. No. 1. · Life of St. Athanasius of Alexandria // Additions... Part 10. 1851. · Devotees of faith in the East after the fall of the Greek Empire // Ibid. Part 11. 1852. · Did the Lord Jesus Christ celebrate the Jewish Passover at His last supper with His disciples // Ibid. Part 12. 1853. · Life of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus // Ibid. Part 14. 1855. · Letter from Mara of Samosata to his son Serapion // Ibid. Part 20. 1861. · On the rank of bishop in relation to monasticism in the Eastern Church // Ibid. Part 21. 1862. · St. Epiphanius of Cyprus // Ibid. Part 22. 1863. · Formation of the canon of sacred books // Ibid. Part 24. 1871. · About the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 // Ibid. · About the Greek Church from 1453 to the beginning of the 18th century // Ibid. Part 32. 1883. Research on the history of the Russian Church · News about Abraham Palitsyn // Moskvitian. 1841. Part 5. · Objections to comments about the siege of the Trinity Lavra // Ibid. 1842. Part 6. · About Saints Cyril and Methodius // Ibid. 1843. Part 3. · Cyril II, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia // Additions... Part 1. 1843. · About the Russians’ campaign against Surozh // Notes of the Odessa History Society. 1855. T. 1. · Saint Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, and his confession of faith // Additions... Part 2. 1844. · About theological schools in Moscow in the 17th century // Ibid. Part 3. 1845. · Saint Jonah, Metropolitan of Kyiv // Ibid. Part 4. 1846. · Peter (Tomb), Metropolitan of Kiev // Ibid. · On the relations of the Russian Church with the Holy Sepulcher monasteries until the 18th century // Ibid. Part 6. 1848. · Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia // Ibid. · Saint Cyprian, Metropolitan of Kiev // Ibid. · About the Russian Metropolis at the end of the 9th century // Ibid. Part 9. 1850. · Saint Photius, Metropolitan of Kyiv // Ibid. Part 11. 1852. · Metropolis of Kiev at the beginning of its separation from Moscow // Ibid. Part 13. 1854. · Metropolitans of Moscow Theodosius and Philip // Ibid. Part 16. 1857. · Maxim the Greek – Svyatogorets // Ibid. Part 18. 1859. · Some information about Paisius Ligarid before his arrival in Russia // Ibid. Part 21. 1861. · Claims of an apologist for the Austrian priesthood // Ibid. Part 23. 1864. · Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius // Cyril and Methodius collection: in memory of the accomplished millennium of Slavic writing and Christianity in Russia. M.: M. P. Pogodin, 1865. · On the sacred ceremony of the wedding and anointing of kings to the kingdom // Additions... Part 29. 1882. · The period of the patriarchate in the Russian Church // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection of historical materials / Published by former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. · History of the Russian Church / Publ. prot. Anatoly Prosvirin based on a manuscript of 1842 // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1976. No. 1–4. Ancient Russian church monuments, published with explanation and research about them · Monuments of spiritual literature from the times of Grand Duke Yaroslav I // Additions... Part 2. 1844. · Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, compiled by A. Vostokov // Moskvityanin. 1843. Part 2. · The attitude of the monks of the Kirillov Belozersky and Josephov Volokolamsk monasteries in the 16th century. // Additions... Part 10. 1851. · Message to Vasily, Archimandrite of Pechersk, XII century. // Ibid. · Some written monuments of the pre-Mongol period // Moskvityanin. 1856. Part 6. · About the ancient canons to Saints Cyril and Methodius // Additions... Part 15. 1856. · About the ancient words for the Holy Pentecost // Ibid. Part 17. 1858. · About the Slavic translation of the Pentateuch of Moses, corrected in the 15th century. according to the Hebrew text // Ibid. Part 19. 1860. · About the ancient canons of Saints Cyril and Methodius, according to the synodal list // Cyril and Methodius collection... · Words on the day of Holy Pascha at Vespers // Additions... Part 16. 1857; Part 17. 1858; Part 21. 1862. · A word on the memory of the deliverance of the Trinity Lavra from the siege // Ibid. Part 19. 1860. · Sermon on the Day of the Presentation of the Lord // Ibid. Part 20. 1861. · Word on the Day of Pentecost // Ibid. · Word on the Day of the Nativity of Christ // Ibid. Part 22. 1863. · Homily on the Sunday of Orthodoxy and on the day of the accession of the Emperor to the throne // Ibid. Part 23. 1864. · Speech delivered at the ceremonial meeting of the Moscow Theological Academy on the occasion of the celebration of its anniversary // Collection published by the Moscow Theological Academy on the occasion of the celebration of its fiftieth anniversary. M., 1864. · Word for the Day of Remembrance of St. Cyril and Methodius // Cyril and Methodius collection... · Scientific testing as a path leading to Christ // Soulful reading. 1866. No. 12. · Speech delivered on the occasion of Metropolitan Philaret’s fiftieth year of episcopal service // Orthodox Review. 1867. No. 9. · Word before the funeral service of Metropolitan Philaret // Ibid. 1867. No. 11. · Speeches given by A.V. Gorsky at the communion of mentors and students of the Moscow Theological Academy // Additions... Part 35. 1885. 1. OR RSL. F. 36. K. 3. Unit. hr. 34. 2. OR RSL. F. 51. K. 32. Unit. hr. 32. 3. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 2, 4, 6–14, 16, 19. 4. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 41 – room 8. Unit. hr. 10. 5. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 9. Unit. hr. 2. 6. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 10. Unit. hr. 4–5. 7. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 11. Unit. hr. 1–2. 8. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 12. Unit. hr. 38. 9. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 18. Unit. hr. 1. 10. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 19. Unit. hr. 19 – room 20. Unit. hr. 14. 11. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 20. Unit. hr. 22, 47. 12. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 22. Unit. hr. 1, 41. 13. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 23. Unit. hr. 76. 14. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 24. Unit. hr. 68. 15. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 26. Unit. hr. 81. 16. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 29. Unit. hr. 47. 17. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 30. Unit. hr. 30. 18. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 32. Unit. hr. 1. 19. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 33. Unit. hr. 44. 20. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 38. Unit. hr. 19. 21. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 39. Unit. hr. 22. 22. OR RSL. F. 316. K. 66. Unit. hr. 22. 23. OR RSL. F. 316. K. 66. Unit. hr. 23. 24. OR RSL. F. 316. K. 66. Unit. hr. 31. 25. OR RSL. F. 231/I. K. 44. Unit. hr. 45. 26. OR RSL. F. 231/I. K. 44. Unit. hr. 47. 1. Apology “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library” and an accusatory word against Father John (now the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy) // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 2. Barsukov N. Life and works of M. P. Pogodin: in 22 books. Book 1, 7, 10, 11. St. Petersburg, 1888–1897. 3. Belyaev A. D. A. V. Gorsky. M., 1877. 4. Viktorov A.E. Safarik’s last opinion on the Glagolitic alphabet // Chronicles of Russian literature and antiquity. T. 2. Book. 4. Dept. 1. M.: N. Tikhonravov, 1859. 5. Vorobyov M. N. A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of co-authorship) // Theological collection. M., 1997. No. 1. Issue. 1. 6. Voronets E. N. To the memories of Archpriest A. V. Gorsky who died in Bose. Kharkov, 1877. 7. Memories of A.V. Gorsky // Spiritual conversation. 1875. No. 45. 8. Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 9. Vysotsky N. G. A. V. Gorsky in the memoirs of one of his students // Russian Archive. 1913. T. 1. 10. Gatsuka. 1875. No. 41. 11. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From experiences. St. Petersburg, 1882. 12. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Collected works: in 2 volumes. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1899. 13. Glubokovsky N. For thirty years (1884–1914) // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 15. Gorsky A.V. The Life of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrrhus // Additions to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 14. 1855. 16. Gorsky A.V. Life of Saint Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. Sergiev Posad, 1902. 17. Gorsky A.V. The Life of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea // Additions to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 3. 1845. 18. Gorsky A.V. Lives of Sts. Cyril and Methodius // Cyril and Methodius collection: in memory of the accomplished millennium of Slavic writing and Christianity in Russia. M.: M. P. Pogodin, 1865. 19. Gorsky A.V. Historical description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1842; 1852; 1857; 1873; 1890. 20. Gorsky A.V. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. M., 1883. 21. Gorsky A.V. Kirill II, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia // Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 1. 1843. 22. Gorsky A.V. About the ancient canons of Saints Cyril and Methodius, according to the Synodal list // Cyril and Methodius collection: in memory of the accomplished millennium of Slavic writing and Christianity in Russia. M.: M.P. Pogodin, 1865. 23. Gorsky A.V. About Saints Cyril and Methodius // Moskvitian. 1843. Part 3. No. 6. 24. Gorsky A.V. Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, compiled by A. Vostokov // Moskvityanin. 1843. Part 2. No. 4. 25. Gorsky A.V. Monuments of spiritual literature from the times of Grand Duke Yaroslav I // Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 2. 1844. 26. Gorsky A.V. Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia // Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 6. 1848. 27. Gorsky A.V. Saint Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, and his confession of faith // Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 2. 1844. 28. Gorsky A.V. Sermon on the Day of Remembrance of Sts. Cyril and Methodius // Cyril and Methodius collection: in memory of the accomplished millennium of Slavic writing and Christianity in Russia. M.: M. P. Pogodin, 1865. 29. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library: in 3 departments. M., 1855–1917. Dept. 1: Holy Scripture. M., 1855; Dept. 2: Writings of the Holy Fathers: in 3 vols. M., 1857–1862; Dept. 3: Liturgical books: in 2 volumes. M., 1862–1917. 30. Citizen. 1876. No. 4. 31. Diary of A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 34, 35. 1884. 32. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. 33. Dobrovsky J. Cyril and Methodius, Slovenian first teachers: Historical and critical study / Trans. from German. M., 1825. 34. Home conversation. 1875. No. 43. 35. Don Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 21. 36. Soulful reading. 1896. T. 3. 37. Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov), Metropolitan. Historical dictionary about the writers of the clergy of the Greek-Russian Church who were in Russia: in 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1827. 38. Zaozersky N. Parting communion of the Holy Mysteries by A.V. Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 39. Note by Academician A.F. Bychkov. Appendix to the report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. 40. From the memories of a student // Theological Bulletin. 1915. No. 9–11. 41. From the letters of N. I. Subbotin to his relative Archpriest M. V. Milovsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 42. Illustrated week. 1875. No. 44. 43. Irkutsk Diocesan Gazette. 1879. No. 30. 44. On the biography of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1875. No. 3. 45. Kazansky P. From my memories of A.V. Gorsky regarding the speech of Professor S. Smirnov // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 12. 46. Kalinnikov N. A. V. Gorsky. Several personal memories // Church and Public Bulletin. 1876. No. 1. 47. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State: In 3 books, containing 12 volumes with full notes: in 3 books. 5th ed. St. Petersburg: I. Einerling, 1842–1843. 48. Katansky A.L. Memoirs of an old professor. Pg., 1914. 49. A brief recollection of the Moscow Theological Academy in the period 1876–1880. // At Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 50. Lavrov A. Word on the day of the annual commemoration of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 12. 51. Lebedev A.P. Several memories of the late Gorsky as a professor of church history // Readings in the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1879. T. 1. 52. Lebedev A.P. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, rector and professor of the M.D. Academy // Faith and Church. 1900. No. 11. 53. Minsk Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 23. 54. Mikhail (Luzin), archimandrite. In memory of A.V. Gorsky // Soulful reading. 1875. Part 3. No. 11. 55. Moscow Gazette. 1875. No. 265–266. 56. N.V. On the occasion of dismantling the library of A.V. Gorsky // Church Bulletin. 1876. No. 3. 57. Nechaev V.P. Saint Demetrius, Metropolitan of Rostov. M., 1848. 59. Ostroumov I. N. History of the Florence Cathedral. Master's thesis, revised by prof. A. V. Gorsky. M., 1847. 60. Excerpts from the diary of A.V. Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 61. Correspondence of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky with A. N. Bakhmeeva // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 62. In memory of deceased mentors. Sergiev Posad, 1914. 63. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 12. 64. Letters from clergy and secular persons to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. St. Petersburg, 1900. 65. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 29, 30. M., 1882. 66. Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 31. M., 1883; Part 33. 1884; Part 36. 1885. 67. Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. 68. Letter to the editor, in memory of A.V. Gorsky // Volyn Diocesan Gazette. 1876. No. 2. 69. Rules of the saints of the apostle with interpretations. M., 1876. 70. Rules of the Holy Ecumenical Councils with interpretations. M., 1877. 71. Rules of the Holy Fathers with interpretations. M., 1884. 72. Rules of the Holy Local Councils with interpretations. M., 1880. 73. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky and Archpriest E.I. Popov. Church Chronicle // Spiritual Conversation. 1875. No. 42. 74. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Wanderer. T. 4. No. 10. 1875. 75. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death, October 11 and 22, 1900, with the attachment of some unpublished papers from the archive of A. V. Gorsky. St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1900. 76. Protasyeva T. N. Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Assembly (not included in the description of A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev). Part I. No. 577–819. M., 1970. 77. Protasyeva T. N. Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Assembly (not included in the description of A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev). Part II. No. 820–1051. M., 1973. 78. Review of “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 79. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Chronicle of my life: in 3 volumes. Sergiev Posad, 1897–1901. 80. Collection by T. Filippov. St. Petersburg, 1896. 81. Smirnov A.P. Page from a student’s diary // Soulful reading. 1891. T. 3. 82. Smirnov E. History of the Christian Church. St. Petersburg, 1901. 83. Smirnov S. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 84. Smirnov S.K. Memories of the late rector M.D.A. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 11. 85. Smirnov S.K. Sortes Sanctorum // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 11. 86. Smirnov - Platonov G.P. From the field of memories and dreams // Children's help. M., 1885. 87. Modernity. 1875. No. 120. 88. Modern news. 1875. No. 353. 89. Sokolov V. From the memories of A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 90. Sokolov V. A. Rector M. D. Ak. prot. A. V. Gorsky // Sunday afternoon. 1887. No. 3–6. 91. Soloviev S. M. My notes for my children, and if possible, then for others // Bulletin of Europe. St. Petersburg, 1907. No. 3. 92. Sreznevsky I.I. Report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. 93. Subbotin N. Memoirs, notes and letters. A. V. Gorsky // Russian Review. 1896. T. 37. 94. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Met. Moscow. M., 1868. 95. Tambov diocesan bulletin. 1875. No. 21. 96. Tolstoy D. N. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Russian archive. 1875. T. 3. 97. Tolstoy M.V. Memoirs // Russian Archive. 1881. T. 1. 98. Troitsky N. Memories of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky † 1875 Oct. 11th day // Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1881. T. 3. 99. Tula Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 21. 100. Fiveysky P. A look at the history of the Russian Church. M., 1834. 101. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Letters to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867. M., 1883. 102. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues: in 5 volumes. Vol. 4–5. M., 1886–1887. 103. Filippov T.I.A.V. Gorsky // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1875. Book. 182. No. 11–12. 104. Chojnacki, priest. Requiem service for A.V. Gorsky in the institute church // Volyn Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 22–23. 105. Church newsletter. 1875. No. 44. 106. Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 47–48. 1. Barsukov I. Innokenty, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. M., 1883. 2. Venediktov V. Yu. Greek-Bulgarian church feud and its reflection in Russian social life of the second half of the 19th century: K. N. Leontiev // Platonov’s readings: Collection of scientific works / Ed. Kabytova P. S. Samara, 2003. 3. Venediktov V. Yu. Orthodox East in the works of public and church leaders of Russia in the 19th century // Church and Time. 2004. No. 4. 4. Vorobyov M. N. A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of co-authorship) // Theological collection. M., 1997. No. 1. Issue. 1. 5. Voskresensky G. A. A. V. Gorsky // Slavic Review. 1892. T. 3. Book. 10. 6. Voskresensky G. A. About the merits of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky for Slavic-Russian historical and philological science // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 7. Vostokov A. Kh. Description of Russian and Slavic manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum. St. Petersburg, 1842. 8. Vostokov A. Kh. Dictionary of the Church Slavonic language / Imp. AN. Dept. rus. language and literature: in 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1858–1861. 9 . Gaidarenko P. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky as a researcher of Slavic-Russian books and literature. (Typescript). Sergiev Posad, 2004. 10. Gennady (Gogolev), archimandrite. A giant of learning. The life and works of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. M., 2004. 11. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 2002. 12. Golubinsky E.E. About reform in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913. 13. Golubtsov S., protodeacon. Moscow Theological Academy at the beginning of the twentieth century. Professorship and staff. M., 1999. 14. Evseev E.I. Gennadievskaya Bible of 1499 // Proceedings / Fifteenth Archaeological Congress in Novgorod. 1914. T. 2. 15. Evseev E.I. Antiquities. Proceedings / Slavic Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society. 1902. T. 3. 16. Zhukovskaya L.P. Lexis of the collection of 1073 in the “Description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library” // Collection of Svyatoslav 1073, M., 1977. 17. Ikonnikov V.S. Experience in the history of Russian historiography: in 2 volumes. T. 1. Kiev, 1891–1892. 18. Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Church of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy at the beginning of the second century of its existence. Sergiev Posad, 1914. 19. Kapterev N.F. Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rituals. M., 1887. 20. Kapterev N. F. Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: in 2 volumes. Sergiev Posad, 1909. 21. Kirillin V. Alexander Gorsky and Russian archeography // Historical newspaper. 1996. No. 0. 22. Kirillin V. M. Scientific works of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and the development of Russian archeography // “To the honest and formidable Ivan Vasilyevich”: on the 70th anniversary of Ivan Vasilyevich Levochkin. Sat. articles. M., 2004. 23. Classics of Samara Local History: Anthology / Ed. P. S. Kabytov, E. L. Dubman. Samara, 2002. 24. Klyuchevsky V. O. Reviews and answers. Pg., 1918. 25. Korsunsky I. N. Intercession Church of the Moscow Theological Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1898. No. 11. 26. Lebedev A.P. A brief outline of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. No. 7. 27. Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries. M., 1903. 28. Lebedev A.P. Church historian A.V. Gorsky // Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th. St. Petersburg, 2000. 29. Lisova N.N. Theological views of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky // Theological works. Sat. 37. M., 2002. 30. Macarius (Bulgakov), archimandrite. The history of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1846. 31. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church: in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1868. 32. Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church: in 7 books. M., 1994–1996. 33. Melkov A. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A. V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2002. No. 12. 34. Melkov A. S. “Their deeds follow them”: St. Philaret of Moscow and Archpriest Alexander Gorsky // Church and Time. 2005. No. 4. 35. Melkov A. S. From the history of the publication “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev // Philological science in the 21st century: the view of the young. Materials of the Fourth All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists. M.; Yaroslavl, 2005. 36. Melkov A. S. History of “Descriptions of the collection of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev // Church and Time. 2004. No. 2. 37. Melkov A. S. Methodology of church history in the scientific views of A. V. Gorsky // Materials of the Second Scientific and Methodological Conference “Humanities and Orthodox Culture”. M., 2004. 38. Melkov A. S. Metropolitan Philaret and Moscow Theological Schools // Collection of materials on the results of research activities of young scientists in the fields of humanities, natural and technical sciences in 2003. M., 2004. 39. Melkov A. S. About the Pannonian Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius // Philological science in the 21st century: the view of the young. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Young Scientists. M.; Yaroslavl, 2004. 40. Melkov A. S. Development of church historical science in Russia until the beginning of the twentieth century // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2003. No. 2. 41. Mikhail (Luzin), archimandrite. About the Gospels and Gospel history: Regarding the book “The Life of Jesus”. Op. Renana: Experience in reviewing and analyzing the so-called negative criticism of the Gospels and Gospel history. M., 1870. 42. Nevostruev K.I. Ananyinsky burial ground of the Vyatka province. M., 1871. 43. Nevostruev K.I. Historical description of the male Spaso-Preobrazhensky and female Spassky Monasteries that were in the city of Samara // Classics of Samara Local History: Anthology / Ed. P. S. Kabytov, E. L. Dubman. Samara, 2002. 44. Nevostruev K.I. About the ancient settlements of the Volga-Bulgarian and Kazan kingdoms. M., 1871. 45. Nevostruev K.I. About the beginning of the Alatyr Kiev-Nicholas Monastery // Bulletin of Western Russia. 1866. No. 8–9. 46. Nevostruev K.I. Description of the Simbirsk Spassky Monastery. M., 1855. 47. Nevostruev K.I. The Word of Saint Hippolytus about the Antichrist in the Slavic translation according to the list of the 12th century. M., 1868. 48. Nechkina M. V. V. O. Klyuchevsky. M., 1974. 49. Pogodin M.P. Ancient Russian history before the Mongol yoke: in 4 volumes. M., 1871. 50. Polevoy N.A. History of the Russian people: in 6 volumes. M., 1829–1833. 51. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 1, 5, 7. 52. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. 53. Postnikov P., priest. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 54. Orthodox theological encyclopedia. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1903. 55. Rimsky S.V. The Russian Church in the era of the Great Reforms. M., 1999. 56. Russian writers-theologians. Church historians. Researchers and interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. M., 2001. 57. Saltykov A., priest. A brief outline of the history of the Moscow Theological Academy. Rector of the Academy prof. prot. A. V. Gorsky // Theological works. 300 years of MDA. M., 1986. 58. Samarin Y. Jesuits and their attitude towards Russia. M., 1870. 59. Collection published by the Moscow Theological Academy on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. M., 1864. 60. Holy Rus'. Chronological list of canonized saints, revered devotees of piety and martyrs of the Russian Orthodox Church (1700–1917) // Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. Part 2. M., 1997. 61. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1879. 62. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. Part 1. M., 1996. 63. S – ov A. Archpriest A. V. Gorsky (1812–1962) // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1962. No. 10. 64. Tikhonravov N.S. Gorsky and Nevostruev // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. 65. Filaret (Gumilevsky), bishop. Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners. M., 1846. 66. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. The Life of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Slavic Enlighteners. St. Petersburg, 1885. 67. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Review of Russian spiritual literature: in 2 books. Kharkov, 1859–1861. 68. Filaret (Drozdov), archimandrite. Outlining church and biblical history for the benefit of spiritual youth. St. Petersburg, 1816. 69. Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. 70. Christianity: Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 2 volumes. T. 1. M., 1993. 71. Tsypin V., prot. Canon law. Course of lectures. M., 1994. 72. Chistovich I. A. Correction of the text of the Slavic Bible before the publication of 1751 // Orthodox Review. M., 1860. Part 1. 73. Shevyrev S.P. History of Russian literature, mainly ancient: in 3 volumes. M., 1846. 74. An episode from the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. 75. Yagich I.V. History of Slavic philology. St. Petersburg, 1910. Literature in foreign languages 1. Baur F. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Tubingen, 1863. 2. Časopis Českého Musea. Prague, 1846. 3. Dü mler. Die pannonische Legende wom heiligen Methodius. Wein, 1854. 4. Gieseler I. K. Lehrbuch der Kirchengengeschichte. 6 Bd. Bonn, 1844. 5. Miklosich Fr. Lexicon palaeo-slovenico-graeco-latinum emendatum auctum. Vindobonae, 1862–1865. 6. Mosheim J. L. Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae antiguae et recentioris. Altera Helmstadii, 1764. 7. Neander A. Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. Hamburg, 1828. 8. Necrologie A. Gorski // Polybiblion Revue bibl. Universelle. No. 2. 9. Šafárik P. J. Památky drevniho pismenictví Jihoslovanû. Praha, 1851. Troitsky N. Memories of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky † 1875 Oct. 11th day // Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1881. T. 3. P. 425. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 1. P. 60. Voronets E. N. To the memories of Archpriest A. V. Gorsky who died in Bose. Kharkov, 1877. P. 6. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 24. Unit. hr. 68. L. 13 vol. V. S. Gorsky - A. V. Gorsky dated March 23, 1834 Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 1. P. 62–63. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 24. Unit. hr. 68. L. 28. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 3. Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 1. P. 67. “Can reason, which is the light of truth and the guide of life, as it is usually called, lead a person to the knowledge of truth by itself?” – Here and further approx. auto OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 19. Quote by: Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. pp. 17–18. V. S. Gorsky - A. F. Golubinsky dated August 18, 1828 Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 6. Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 545. See: Melkov A. S. Development of church historical science in Russia before the beginning of the twentieth century // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2003. No. 2. P. 70–75. Tolstoy M.V. Memoirs // Russian Archive. 1881. T. 1. P. 298, 300. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 6. L. 9. Postnikov P., priest. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Anniversary collection. historical materials / Publication of former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. P. 259. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 7. L. 7 rev. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 260. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 8. L. 4 rev. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. pp. 259–260. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1879. P. 20. Klyuchevsky V. O. Reviews and answers. Pg., 1918. P. 306. Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 2. P. 236, 237. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 11–14. Right there. Unit hr. 10, 16. L. 10. Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 2. P. 241. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. pp. 262–263. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 13. Popov S. Decree. op. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P. 33. Quote by: Lavrov A. Word on the day of the annual commemoration of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 12. P. 719. See: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 18. Unit. hr. 1. L. 1–68. Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. P. 368. Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 123. Florovsky G. Decree. op. P. 368. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. pp. 268–269. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 62–63. Quote by: Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. pp. 270–271. Smirnov S.K. Memories of the late rector M.D.A. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 11. P. 482. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 7. Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 3. P. 409. Lavrov A. Decree. op. pp. 716, 717. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 272. See, for example: Filaret (Drozdov), archimandrite. Outlining church and biblical history for the benefit of spiritual youth. St. Petersburg, 1816. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 4. Unit. hr. 1. L. 1–32. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 24. Unit. hr. 68. L. 3. V. S. Gorsky - A. V. Gorsky dated November 21, 1833 Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 40. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 24. Unit. hr. 68. L. 21 vol. V. S. Gorsky - A. V. Gorsky dated June 19, 1834 OR RSL. F. 78. K. 29. Unit. hr. 47. L. 3. Quote by: Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 3. P. 401. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 30. Unit. hr. 30. L. 3–3 vol. P. P. Ptitsyn - A. V. Gorsky dated April 11, 1834 Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin: in 22 books. Book 7. St. Petersburg, 1893. P. 165. Subbotin N. Memoirs, notes and letters. A. V. Gorsky // Russian Review. 1896. T. 37. pp. 268, 269. Gorsky A.V. Historical description of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. M., 1842; 1852; 1857; 1873; 1890; 1996. See draft notes: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 10. Unit. hr. 4–5; K. 11. Unit. hr. 1–2. Kalinnikov N. A. V. Gorsky. Several personal memories // Church and Public Bulletin. 1876. No. 1. P. 7. Troitsky N. Decree. op. pp. 436, 437. Kalinnikov N. Decree. op. P. 7. Troitsky N. Decree. op. P. 438. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From experiences. St. Petersburg, 1882. P. 335. See: Savva (Tikhomirov), Archbishop. Chronicle of my life: in 9 volumes. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P. 307. Subbotin N. Decree. op. pp. 262, 263. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Decree. op. P. 335. See: Savva (Tikhomirov), Archbishop. Decree. op. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P. 342. Lebedev A.P. Church historian A.V. Gorsky // Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th century to the 20th century. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 455. Lavrov A. Decree. op. P. 716; Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky. P. 548. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. M., 1996. Part 1. P. 435. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P. 386. Collection by T. Filippov. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 281. Quote by: Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 279. Quote by: Popov S. Decree. op. Sergiev Posad, 1897. pp. 160–161. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 50–53. See: Melkov A. S. Metropolitan Philaret and Moscow Theological Schools // Collection of materials on the results of research activities of young scientists in the fields of humanities, natural and technical sciences in 2003. M., 2004. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death, October 11 and 22, 1900, with the attachment of some unpublished papers from the archive of A. V. Gorsky. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1900. pp. 61–62. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. P. 286. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 282. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 20–21. Soloviev S. M. My notes for my children, and if possible, then for others // Bulletin of Europe. St. Petersburg, 1907. No. 3. P. 76. Correspondence of the professor of the Moscow Theological Academy P. S. Kazansky with A. N. Bakhmeeva // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 554. Troitsky N. Decree. op. P. 434. Collection by T. Filippov. P. 281. Subbotin N. Decree. op. pp. 263, 264. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 291. Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky. P. 551. Troitsky N. Decree. op. pp. 440–441. Smirnov A.P. Page from a student’s diary // Soulful reading. 1891. T. 3. P. 283. Subbotin N. Decree. op. P. 265. Smirnov A.P. Decree. op. P. 282. Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky. P. 552. Fiveysky P. A look at the history of the Russian Church. M., 1834. Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky. P. 546. Tolstoy D. N. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Russian archive. 1875. T. 3. P. 473. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 294. Nechaev V.P. Saint Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov. M., 1848; Ostroumov I. N. History of the Florence Cathedral. Master's thesis, revised by prof. A. V. Gorsky. M., 1847; See: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 35. Unit. hr. 2. Ostroumov I. Florence Cathedral. See: Letters of Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. pp. 241–242; Barsukov N.P. Decree. op. T. 10. St. Petersburg, 1896. P. 380; T. 11. St. Petersburg, 1897. P. 221. Letters from Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 206. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 295. Subbotin N. Decree. op. P. 266. Soulful reading. 1896. T. 3. P. 324. See: Collection published by the Moscow Theological Academy on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. M., 1864. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 297. Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries. St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 409. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 298. Klyuchevsky V. O. Decree. op. P. 308. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 302. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 33. Unit. hr. 44. L. 3. See: Viktorov A.E. Safarik’s last opinion on the Glagolitic alphabet // Chronicles of Russian literature and antiquity: in 2 volumes. T. 2. Book. 4. Dept. 1. M.: N. Tikhonravov, 1859. P. 67–150. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 33. Unit. hr. 44. L. 23–24. Kalinnikov N. Decree. op. pp. 7, 8. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 26. Unit. hr. 81. L. 6–6 vol. V. D. Kudryavtsev - A. V. Gorsky dated April 12, 1861 Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 324. Quote by: Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 2002. P. 53. Gorsky A.V. About Saints Cyril and Methodius // Moskvitian. 1843. Part 3. No. 6. P. 405–434; See draft notes: OR RSL. F. 51. K. 32. Unit. hr. 32. F. 36. K. 3. Unit. hr. 34. Dobrovsky J. Cyril and Methodius, Slovenian first teachers: Historical and critical study / Trans. from German. M., 1825. Troitsky N. Decree. op. P. 423. Voskresensky G. A. About the merits of Archpriest. A. V. Gorsky for Slavic-Russian historical and philological science // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 449. See: Melkov A.S. About the Pannonian Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius // Philological science in the 21st century: the view of the young. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Young Scientists. M.; Yaroslavl, 2004. pp. 378–383. Filaret (Gumilevsky), bishop. Cyril and Methodius, Slavic enlighteners. M., 1846; Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. The Life of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Slavic Enlighteners. St. Petersburg, 1885. Macarius (Bulgakov), archimandrite. The history of Christianity in Russia before Equal-to-the-Apostles Prince Vladimir as an introduction to the history of the Russian Church. St. Petersburg, 1846. Shevyrev S.P. History of Russian literature, mainly ancient: in 3 volumes. M., 1846. Časopis Českého Musea. Prague, 1846. Dümler. Die pannonische Legende wom heiligen Methodius. Wein, 1854. Š afa rik P. J. Památky drevniho pismenictví Jihoslovanû. Praha, 1851. OR RSL. Pog/.I. K. 44. Unit. hr. 45. L. 27. M. P. Pogodin - A. V. Gorsky dated June 8, 1865 Gorsky A.V. Lives of Sts. Cyril and Methodius // Cyril and Methodius collection: in memory of the accomplished millennium of Slavic writing and Christianity in Russia. M.: M. P. Pogodin, 1865. P. 5–42. Gorsky A.V. About the ancient canons of Saints Cyril and Methodius, according to the synodal list // Ibid. pp. 285–296; Gorsky A.V. Sermon on the Day of Remembrance of Sts. Cyril and Methodius // Ibid. pp. 441–448. See: Pogodin M.P. Ancient Russian history before the Mongol yoke: in 4 volumes. M., 1871. Quote by: Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 325. See: Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. M., 1863, 1867–1916. Tsypin V., prot. Canon law. Course of lectures. M., 1994. P. 6. Rules of the saints of the apostle with interpretations. M., 1876; Rules of the Holy Local Councils with interpretations. M., 1880; Rules of the Holy Fathers with interpretations. M., 1884; Rules of the Holy Ecumenical Councils with interpretations. M., 1877. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 38. Unit. hr. 19. Rules of the saints of the apostle with interpretations. pp. 3–4. See: Samarin Yu. Jesuits and their attitude towards Russia. M., 1870. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 326. Smirnov E. History of the Christian Church. St. Petersburg, 1901; It's him. History of the Christian Church. Reprint. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1997. See: Macarius (Bulgakov), Metropolitan. History of the Russian Church: in 3 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1868; It's him. History of the Russian Church: in 7 books. M., 1994–1996. In memory of deceased mentors. Sergiev Posad, 1914. P. 315. Evseev E.I. Antiquities // Proceedings / Slavic Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society. 1902. T. 3. P. 64. Barsukov N.P. Decree. op. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1888. P. 254. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 43–44. See: Florovsky G. Decree. op. pp. 164–185, 187–189, 191–193, 202–210, 212–220, 222–225, 228–230, 333–335. OR RSL. F. 231/I. K. 44. Unit. hr. 45. L. 7 about; Unit hr. 47. L. 18–18 vol. Right there. Unit hr. 45. L. 8. M. P. Pogodin - A. V. Gorsky dated November 22, 1842; L. 11–11 vol. M.P. Pogodin - A.V. Gorsky dated February 15, 1843. Glubokovsky N. N. Decree. op. P. 53. See: Golubinsky E.E. On reform in the life of the Russian Church. M., 1913. See: Kapterev N.F. Patriarch Nikon and his opponents in the matter of correcting church rituals. M., 1887; Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich: in 2 volumes. Sergiev Posad, 1909. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 332; Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. T. 3. Sergiev Posad, 1901. P. 203, 210–211, 219–221, 230–231. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 32. Unit. hr. 1. L. 1–2. M. Sukhomlinov - A.V. Gorsky dated November 26, 1866. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 334. Quote by: Lebedev A.P. Decree. op. P. 449. Right there. pp. 449–450; see: Melkov A. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A. V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2002. No. 12. P. 51. Quote by: Lebedev A.P. Decree. op. pp. 450–451. Lebedev A.P. Decree. op. P. 453. The art of checking the dates of historical events. Acts of Saints, Acts of Martyrdom. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. pp. 37–39. See: Mosheim J. L. Institutiones historiae ecclesiasticae antiguae et recentioris. Altera Helmstadii, 1764. "Exposition of Church History, Ancient and Recent." Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. P. 40. See his main work: Neander A. Allgemeine Geschichte der christlichen Religion und Kirche. Hamburg, 1828. See his main work: Gieseler I. K. Lehrbuch der Kirchengengeschichte. 6 Bd. Bonn, 1844. Gorsky A.V. History of the Gospel and the Apostolic Church. M., 1883. See: Melkov A. S. Methodology of church history in the scientific views of A. V. Gorsky // Materials of the Second Scientific and Methodological Conference “Humanities and Orthodox Culture”. M., 2004. P. 168. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 41 – K. 8. Unit. hr. 2, 3–10. Gorsky A.V. Monuments of spiritual literature from the times of Grand Duke Yaroslav I // Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 2. 1844. pp. 204–299. See: Moskvitian. 1843. Part 3. P. 531; 1844. Part 2. P. 123. Gorsky A.V. Monuments of spiritual literature from the times of Grand Duke Yaroslav I. S. 220–222; See: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 12. Unit. hr. 38. L. 1–5. Gorsky A.V. Monuments of spiritual literature from the times of Grand Duke Yaroslav I. S. 214. Gorsky A.V. Kirill II, Metropolitan of Kiev and All Russia // Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 1. 1843. pp. 415–432; It's him. Saint Peter, Metropolitan of Kiev, and his Confession of Faith // Ibid. Part 2. 1844. pp. 89–128; It's him. Saint Alexy, Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Russia // Ibid. Part 6. 1848. pp. 89–128. Gorsky A.V. Life of Saint Athanasius the Great, Archbishop of Alexandria. Sergiev Posad, 1902; It's him. The Life of Saint Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea // Additions to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 3. 1845. pp. 1–110; It's him. Life of Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus // Ibid. Part 14. 1855. pp. 309–471. Quote by: Lebedev A.P. Decree. op. P. 454. Quote according to: Glubokovsky N.N. Decree. op. P. 53. See: Baur F. Kirchengeschichte der drei ersten Jahrhunderte. Tü bingen, 1863. Lebedev A.P. Decree. op. P. 458. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 2. Unit. hr. 5 – K. 8. Unit. hr. 2. See: Melkov A. S. Development of church historical science in Russia until the beginning of the twentieth century. pp. 70–75. See: Vostokov A. Kh. Description of Russian and Slavic manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum. St. Petersburg, 1842; Dictionary of the Church Slavonic language: in 2 volumes / Imp. Academician Sci. Dept. rus. language and literature. St. Petersburg, 1858–1861. Evgeniy (Bolkhovitinov), Metropolitan. Historical dictionary about the writers of the clergy of the Greek-Russian Church who were in Russia: in 2 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1827. Polevoy N.A. History of the Russian people: in 6 volumes. M., 1829–1833. Karamzin N. M. History of the Russian State: in 3 books, containing 12 volumes with full notes. 5th ed. St. Petersburg: I. Einerling, 1842–1843. Filaret (Gumilevsky), Archbishop. Review of Russian spiritual literature: in 2 books. Kharkov, 1859–1861. Tikhonravov N.S. Gorsky and Nevostruev // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 343. Vostokov A. Kh. Description of Russian and Slavic manuscripts... Tikhonravov N. S. Decree. op. P. 345; Yagich I.V. History of Slavic philology. St. Petersburg, 1910. P. 643; See review by A.V. Gorsky: Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, compiled by A. Vostokov // Moskvityanin. 1843. Part 2. No. 4. P. 500–516. Description of Russian and Slovenian manuscripts of the Rumyantsev Museum, compiled by A. Vostokov. pp. 511–512. Note See in detail about the Moscow Synodal Library: Ikonnikov V.S. Experience in the history of Russian historiography: in 2 volumes. T. 1. Kiev, 1891–1892. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Letters to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867. M., 1883. pp. 45–46. Gorsky A.V. Diary / Ed. S.K. Smirnova // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 34. 1884. pp. 315, 319, 330. Vorobyov M. N. A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of co-authorship) // Theological collection. M., 1997. No. 1. Issue. 1. P. 278. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 39. Unit. hr. 22. L. 1–6. Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the publication of the works of the Holy Fathers in Russian translation. Part 36. M., 1885. P. 411. Sreznevsky I.I. Report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of Imp. Academician Sci. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. pp. 202–203. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 20. Unit. hr. 22. L. 1–71. Nevostruev K.I. The Word of Saint Hippolytus about the Antichrist in the Slavic translation according to the list of the 12th century. M., 1868. Nevostruev K.I. Description of the Simbirsk Spassky Monastery. M., 1855; It's him. About the beginning of the Alatyr Kiev-Nicholas Monastery // Bulletin of Western Russia. 1866. No. 8–9; It's him. Historical description of the male Spaso-Preobrazhensky and female Spassky Monasteries that were in the city of Samara // Classics of Samara Local History: Anthology / Ed. P. S. Kabytov, E. L. Dubman. Samara, 2002. pp. 31–44; Classics of Samara Local History: Anthology / Ed. P. S. Kabytov, E. L. Dubman. Samara, 2002. P. 32; see the research of K. I. Nevostruev on the archeology of the Volga region: On the ancient settlements of the Volga-Bulgarian and Kazan kingdoms. M., 1871; Ananyinsky burial ground, Vyatka province. M., 1871. OR RSL. F. 78. Unit. hr. 11. L. 1–229. Note from Academician A.F. Bychkov. Appendix to the report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. P. 296. Tikhonravov N. S. Decree. op. P. 348. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library: in 3 departments. Dept. 1. M., 1855. P. II. See: Evseev E.I. Gennadievskaya Bible of 1499 // Proceedings / Fifteenth Archaeological Congress in Novgorod. 1914. T. 2. Yagich I.V. Decree. op. P. 348. Quote according to: Glubokovsky N.N. Decree. op. P. 50. Kirillin V. Alexander Gorsky and Russian archeography // Historical newspaper. 1996. No. 0. P. 9. Vorobyov M. N. Decree. op. P. 275. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts... Dep. 1: Holy Scripture. M., 1855. An episode from the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. pp. 485–486. Review of “Description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. P. 493, 495. For a draft version, see: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 9. Unit. hr. 2; Apology “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Synodal Library” and an accusatory word against Father John (now the rector of the Kazan Theological Academy) // Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. pp. 496–515. Quote from: Episode from the history of the description of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library. P. 490. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts... Dep. 2: Writings of the Holy Fathers: in 3 vols. M., 1857–1862. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts... Dep. 3: Liturgical books. Part 1. M., 1869. Gorsky A.V., Nevostruev K.I. Description of Slavic manuscripts... Dep. 3: Liturgical books. Part 2. M., 1917. Voskresensky G. A. A. V. Gorsky // Slavic Review. 1892. T. 3. Book. 10. P. 178. Miklosich Fr. Lexicon palaeo-slovenico-graeco-latinum emendatum auctum. Vindobonae, 1862–1865; Vostokov A. Kh. Dictionary of the Church Slavonic language... See: Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From experiences. St. Petersburg, 1882. P. 96. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 23. Unit. hr. 76. L. 1–1 vol. A. F. Bychkov - A. V. Gorsky dated December 2, 1867 Sreznevsky I.I. Report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize. pp. 196–197; It's him. Appendix to the report on the first award of the Lomonosov Prize // Notes of Imp. Academician Sci. St. Petersburg, 1868. T. 12. Book. 2. P. 240. Descriptions of manuscripts not included in the work of A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev were produced in 1970–1973. T. N. Protasyeva, but on a much more modest scale. This is explained by the fact that the author’s scientific knowledge, by his own admission, was “far from the knowledge and experience” that pre-revolutionary researchers possessed. See: Protasyeva T.N. Description of the manuscripts of the Synodal Assembly (not included in the description of A.V. Gorsky and K.I. Nevostruev). Part I. No. 577–819. M., 1970; Part II. No. 820–1051. M., 1973. Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. No. 5. 1896. P. 261. For a draft copy of the petition, see: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 2. L. 1. On the biography of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1875. No. 3. pp. 156–157. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 20. Unit. hr. 47. L. 1–1 vol. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 22. Unit. hr. 1. L. 3. A. V. Gorsky - to Bishop Leonid (Krasnopevkov) dated March 9, 1860 To the biography of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky. P. 157; Memoirs of P. S. Kazansky about A. V. Gorsky. P. 556; In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 12. P. 4. Irkutsk Diocesan Gazette. 1879. No. 30; Barsukov I. Innokenty, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. M., 1883. pp. 221–220. To the biography of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky. P. 158. Tolstoy D.N. Decree. op. P. 474. Letters from Filaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky. P. 303. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 22. Unit. hr. 17. L. 15. A. V. Gorsky - K. I. Nevostruev dated May 20, 1860 Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 5. P. 263. Letters from clergy and secular persons to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. St. Petersburg, 1900. P. 679. Rimsky S.V. The Russian Church in the era of the Great Reforms. M., 1999. pp. 289–291. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 127–128, approx. Rimsky S.V. Decree. op. P. 292; See: Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 109–150. See about this project in Gorsky’s draft works on religious school affairs: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 19. Unit. hr. 19 – K. 20. Unit. hr. 14. OR RSL. F. 316. K. 66. Unit. hr. 31. L. 12; Unit hr. 22. L. 2, 4 vol.–5 vol., 7. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 146, approx. OR RSL. F. 316. K. 66. Unit. hr. 23. Committee Journals of August 18 and 24, September 1, 15 and 24, October 20 and November 10, 1860. See Gorsky’s drafts on religious school affairs: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 19. Unit. hr. 19 – K. 20. Unit. hr. 14. See: Venediktov V. Yu. Greek-Bulgarian church feud and its reflection in Russian social life of the second half of the 19th century: K. N. Leontiev // Platonov’s readings: Collection of scientific works / Ed. Kabytova P. S. Samara, 2003. P. 137–140; It's him. The Orthodox East in the works of public and church figures of Russia in the 19th century // Church and Time. 2004. No. 4. pp. 240–249. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 26. Unit. hr. 81. L. 7. V. D. Kudryavtsev - A. V. Gorsky dated April 12, 1861; Popov S. // Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 7. P. 48. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues: in 5 volumes. T. 5. Book. 1. M., 1887. P. 3–4. Right there. T. 4. M., 1886. P. 574. Smirnov S. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky. P. 431. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions and reviews... Vol. 5. Book. 1. M., 1887. pp. 323–324. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. T. 2. Sergiev Posad, 1899. P. 795–796; T. 3. Sergiev Posad, 1901. P. 33; Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions and reviews... Vol. 5. Book. 1. M., 1887. pp. 354–355. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 29. 1882. P. 551. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 157–158. Quote by: Popov S. Decree. op. // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 7. P. 53. Popov S. Decree. op. Sergiev Posad, 1897. P. 98. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 158. Right there. pp. 160, 161, 172, 173. Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 433. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 164. Saltykov A., priest. A brief outline of the history of the Moscow Theological Academy. Rector of the Academy prof. prot. A. V. Gorsky // Theological works. 300 years of MDA. M., 1986. P. 90. Diary of A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 35. 1884. P. 243. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. P. 277. Sokolov V. From the memories of A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1900. P. 465; Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 434. Voronets E. N. Decree. op. pp. 10, 14–15, 19. Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 435. Korsunsky I. N. Intercession Church of the Moscow Theological Academy // Theological Bulletin. 1898. No. 11. P. 211. Voronets E. N. Decree. op. P. 16 Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 436. Klyuchevsky V. O. Decree. op. P. 316; See lectures on dogmatics: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 8. Unit. hr. 4–7, 9. Quote by: Glubovsky N.N. Decree. op. P. 54. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. pp. 44–45. Klyuchevsky V. O. Decree. op. P. 309. Sushkov N.V. Notes on the life and times of St. Philaret, Met. Moscow. M., 1868. P. 139. Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Collection of opinions and reviews... Vol. 5. Book. 2. M., 1887. P. 624. Collection published by the Moscow Theological Academy on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. M., 1864. pp. 28–33. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1898. P. 409. From letters of N. I. Subbotin to his relative Archpriest M. V. Milovsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 702. Katansky A.L. Memoirs of an old professor. Pg., 1914. P.173. Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 437. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. P. 22. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 12. P. 7. Korsunsky I.N. Decree. op. pp. 188–189; 200–201. From the memories of a student // Theological Bulletin. 1915. No. 9–11. pp. 725–726. Rules of the Holy Fathers with interpretations. M., 1884. P. 430. Florovsky G. Decree. op. P. 360. Saltykov A., priest. Decree. op. P. 92; Rimsky S.V. Decree. op. P. 494. A brief recollection of the Moscow Theological Academy in the period 1876–1880. // At Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 174. Russian writers-theologians. Church historians. Researchers and interpreters of the Holy Scriptures. M., 2001. P. 338. Mikhail (Luzin), archimandrite. About the Gospels and Gospel history: Regarding the book “The Life of Jesus”. Op. Renana: Experience in reviewing and analyzing the so-called negative criticism of the Gospels and Gospel history. M., 1870; It's him. About the text of the Sinai manuscript of the Bible. M., 1863; It's him. A century from the history of Bible interpretation in Russia: Actual speech / Annual act at the Moscow Theological Academy October 1. 1877 M., 1878; It's him. Explanatory Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. M., 1870–1874; It's him. Intelligent Apostle. Acts and Epistles of the Apostles with the Apocalypse. M., 1876. Lebedev A.P. A brief outline of the development of church historical science in Russia // Theological Bulletin. 1895. No. 7. pp. 289–321. The most popular spiritual magazines: Soulful Reading. M., 1860–1917; Kyiv antiquity. Kyiv, 1882–1906; Orthodox Review. M., 1860–1891; Orthodox interlocutor. Kazan, 1855–1917; Additions to the works of the holy fathers. M., 1843–1891; Wanderer, St. Petersburg, 1860–1917; Christian reading. St. Petersburg; 1821–1914; Pg., 1914–1918; Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. M., 1863, 1867–1916. The humane (enlightened) lived in a few by origin. Glubokovsky N. N. Decree. op. P. 55. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. S. 192–193; Quote from: Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 438. Nechkina M. V. V. O. Klyuchevsky. M., 1974. S. 170–173; Golubtsov S., protodeacon. Moscow Theological Academy at the beginning of the 20th century. Professorship and staff. M., 1999. P. 53. Glubokovsky N. For thirty years (1884–1914) // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 742. OR RSL. F. 78. K. 1. Unit. hr. 4. L. 1–1 vol. Quote by: Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. pp. 335–336. See: OR RSL. F. 78. K. 24. Unit. hr. 68. L. 3. Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 439. Tolstoy D.N. Decree. op. P. 476; In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. S. 5. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Decree. op. T. 3. Sergiev Posad, 1901. pp. 348–349. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. P. 6. Excerpts from the diary of A.V. Gorsky // At Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. pp. 486–492; Quote from: Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 440. Troitsky N. Decree. op. pp. 444–445. Zaozersky N. Parting communion of the Holy Mysteries by A.V. Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 493. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. P. 6; Smirnov S. Decree. op. P. 440. Collection by T. Filippov. P. 283. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. pp. 6–7, 11–14. Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Collected works: in 2 volumes. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1899. P. 464. At Trinity at the Academy. 1814–1914 Yub. Sat. pp. 7–8. Troitsky N. Decree. op. P. 425. Postnikov P., priest. Decree. op. P. 340. Saints A. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky (1812–1962) // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1962. No. 10. P. 80. Holy Rus'. Chronological list of canonized saints, revered devotees of piety and martyrs of the Russian Orthodox Church (1700–1917) // Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. Part 2. M., 1997. P. 64. See: Moskovskie Vedomosti. 1875. No. 265–266. In memory of the rector of Moscow. Spirit. Academy, Doctor of Theology, Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 12. P. 1–61. Postnikov P., priest. Essays on the life and work of Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // At the Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. P. 253. Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 47–48; Filippov T.I.A.V. Gorsky // Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. 1875. Book. 182. No. 11–12; Collection by T. Filippov. pp. 276–286. Modern news. 1875. No. 353; Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. Collected Works. T. 2. St. Petersburg, 1899. pp. 464–465. Tolstoy D. N. Alexander Vasilievich Gorsky // Russian archive. 1875. T. 3. P. 472–476; On the biography of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, A.V. Gorsky // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1875. T. 3. Don Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 21; Minsk Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 23; Tambov diocesan bulletin. 1875. No. 21; Tula Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 21; Yaroslavl Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 47–48; Priest Chojnacki. Requiem service for A.V. Gorsky in the institute church // Volyn Diocesan Gazette. 1875. No. 22–23; Letter to the editor, in memory of A.V. Gorsky // Ibid. 1876. No. 2; Archpriest A.V. Gorsky and Archpriest E.I. Popov. Church Chronicle // Spiritual Conversation. 1875. No. 42; Memories of A.V. Gorsky // Ibid. No. 45. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Wanderer. T. 4. No. 10. 1875; Mikhail (Luzin), archimandrite. In memory of A.V. Gorsky // Soulful reading. 1875. Part 3. No. 11; N.Z. (N.I. Subbotin). Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1875. No. 10. Modernity. 1875. No. 120, 126; Gatsuka. 1875. No. 41; Voice. 1875. No. 298; Home conversation. 1875. No. 43; Illustrated week. 1875. No. 44; Niva. 1875. No. 45; Citizen. 1876. No. 4; Necrologie A. Gorski // Polybiblion Revue bibl. Universelle. No. 2. R. 171–173. Church newsletter. 1875. No. 44; N.V. On the occasion of dismantling the library of A.V. Gorsky // Ibid. 1876. No. 3; Kalinnikov N. A. V. Gorsky. Several personal memories // Church and Public Bulletin. 1876. No. 1. Smirnov S.K. Memories of the late rector M.D.A. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Orthodox Review. 1876. No. 11. pp. 461–491. It's him. Sortes Sanctorum // Ibid. pp. 605–610. Kazansky P. From my memories of A.V. Gorsky regarding the speech of Professor S. Smirnov // Ibid. No. 12. pp. 845–848. Lavrov A. Word on the day of the annual commemoration of the rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky // Ibid. No. 12. pp. 714–722. Belyaev A. D. A. V. Gorsky. M., 1877; Voronets E. N. To the memories of Archpriest A. V. Gorsky who died in Bose. Kharkov, 1877. Lebedev A.P. Several memories of the late Gorsky as a professor of church history // Readings in the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1879. T. 1. pp. 122–150. At Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. pp. 342–354. Smirnov S.K. History of the Moscow Theological Academy. pp. 36–42, 124–128, 285–289. Troitsky N. Memories of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky † 1875 Oct. 11th day // Readings at the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment. 1881. T. 3. pp. 421–450. Smirnov-Platonov G.P. From the field of memories and dreams // Children's help. M., 1885. Sokolov V. A. Rector M. D. Ak. prot. A. V. Gorsky // Sunday afternoon. 1887. No. 3–6. Smirnov A.P. Page from a student’s diary // Soulful reading. 1891. T. 3. pp. 273–286. Voskresensky G. A. A. V. Gorsky // Slavic Review. 1892. T. 3. Book. 10. pp. 165–180. Popov S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy Archpriest A.V. Gorsky // Theological Bulletin. 1896. No. 1–12; It's him. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, Rev. A. V. Gorsky. Sergiev Posad, 1897. Subbotin N. Memoirs, notes and letters. A. V. Gorsky // Russian Review. 1896. T. 37. Lebedev A.P. Archpriest A.V. Gorsky, rector and professor of the M.D. Academy // Faith and Church. 1900. No. 11; It's him. Church historiography in its main representatives from the 4th to the 20th centuries. M., 1903; St. Petersburg, 2000. Theological Bulletin. 1900. No. 11. Evseev E.I. Antiquities // Proceedings / Slavic Commission of the Imperial Moscow Archaeological Society. 1902. T. 3. pp. 58–65. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky in the memoirs of him by the Moscow Theological Academy on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his death, October 11 and 22, 1900, with the attachment of some unpublished papers from the archive of A. V. Gorsky. St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1900. Orthodox theological encyclopedia. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1903. pp. 541–550; Yagich I.V. History of Slavic philology. St. Petersburg, 1910, pp. 634–635; Vysotsky N. G. A. V. Gorsky in the memoirs of one of his students // Russian Archive. T. 1. 1913. pp. 762–768. At Trinity at the Academy, 1814–1914: Yub. Sat. historical materials / Publication by former students of the Moscow Theological Academy. M., 1914. Decree ed. pp. 254–341, 355–359, 480–482, 486–492, 493, 495–510. In memory of deceased mentors. Sergiev Posad, 1914. pp. 58–94; Hilarion (Troitsky), archimandrite. Church of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy at the beginning of the second century of its existence. Sergiev Posad, 1914; Klyuchevsky V. O. Reviews and answers. Pg., 1918. P. 306–310. Glubokovsky N. N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. Warsaw, 1928; M., 2002. P. 50, 53–56, 97–98, 107, 130–131. Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917. Part 1. M., 1996. pp. 433–436. Florovsky G. Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937. pp. 366–372. Zhukovskaya L.P. Lexis of the collection of 1073 in the “Description of manuscripts of the Synodal Library” // Collection of Svyatoslav 1073, M., 1977, pp. 152–169. Saltykov A., priest. Decree. op. pp. 90–92. Christianity: Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 2 volumes. T. 1. M., 1993. P. 427. Kirillin V. Alexander Gorsky and Russian archeography // Historical newspaper. 1996. No. 0. P. 5, 9. Vorobyov M. N. Decree. op. pp. 268–277. Rimsky S.V. Decree. op. pp. 291, 293, 298–300. Melkov A.S. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A.V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Platonov readings. Samara, 2002. pp. 198–200. Melkov A. Rector of the Moscow Theological Academy A. V. Gorsky and his contribution to the development of Russian church historical science // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 2002. No. 12. pp. 47–52. Melkov A. S. History of “Descriptions of the collection of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev // Church and Time. 2004. No. 2. P. 195–215; It's him. Methodology of church history in the scientific views of A. V. Gorsky // Materials of the Second Scientific and Methodological Conference “Humanities and Orthodox Culture”. M., 2004. S. 164–171; It's him. About the Pannonian Lives of Saints Cyril and Methodius // Philological science in the 21st century: the view of the young. Proceedings of the Third International Conference of Young Scientists. M.; Yaroslavl, 2004. Gennady (Gogolev), archimandrite. A giant of learning. The life and works of Archpriest A.V. Gorsky. M., 2004. Gaidarenko P. Archpriest Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky as a researcher of Slavic-Russian books and literature. (Typescript). Sergiev Posad, 2004. Kirillin V. M. Scientific works of Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and the development of Russian archeography // “To the honest and formidable Ivan Vasilyevich”: on the 70th anniversary of Ivan Vasilyevich Levochkin. Sat. Art. M., 2004. pp. 25–30. Melkov A. S. From the history of the publication “Descriptions of Slavic manuscripts of the Moscow Synodal Library” by A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev // Philological science in the 21st century: the view of the young. Materials of the Fourth All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists. M.; Yaroslavl, 2005. Melkov A. S. “Their deeds follow them”: St. Philaret of Moscow and Archpriest Alexander Gorsky // Church and Time. 2005. No. 4. Diary of A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 34, 35. 1884. Diary of A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885. Letters from Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow to A.V. Gorsky // Additions to the edition of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 29, 30. 1882; Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. Letters to the late Archbishop of Tver Alexy. 1843–1867. M., 1883; Letters from clergy and secular persons to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. St. Petersburg, 1900; Filaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan. A collection of opinions and reviews on educational and church-state issues. T. 4. M., 1886; T. 5. Book. 1–2. M., 1887. Letters from Philaret, Archbishop of Chernigov to A.V. Gorsky / With notes. prot. S. Smirnova. M., 1885; Additions to the publication of the works of the holy fathers in Russian translation. Part 31. 1883; Part 33. 1884; Part 36. 1885. Savva (Tikhomirov), archbishop. Chronicle of my life: in 3 volumes. Sergiev Posad, 1897–1901. Barsukov N.P. Life and works of M.P. Pogodin: in 22 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1888–1910. Vorobyov M. N. A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Nevostruev (on the issue of co-authorship) // Theological collection. M., 1997. No. 1. Issue. 1. pp. 277–295.