Василий Васильевич Болотов – человек и ученый

1. Life and personality of V.V. Bolotova 1 In the history of church history (and, in general, humanities) science, one cannot find many examples when the greatness of the work being accomplished would be in full harmony with the humility of its author. One of these most striking examples is the personality of Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov 2. He was born on the night of December 31, 1853 to January 1, 1854. 3 His father, Vasily Timofeevich Bolotov, was the sexton of the Ostashkovo Trinity Cathedral. Having been widowed, he married a second time (he had a son and a daughter from his first marriage) to the daughter of the deceased priest of the village of Kravotyni, Maria Ivanovna Vishnyakova. However, on November 16, 1853 (a month and a half before the birth of Vasily Vasilyevich), he accidentally (while driving geese) drowned in Seliger. Maria Ivanovna, having lived with her husband for only a few months and suddenly becoming widowed, was forced to return to her native village of Kravotyn. This is where the future great historian was born. What awaited the young widow was not just poverty, quite common for the rural parish clergy of Russia at that time, but practically poverty. Having no means of subsistence, Maria Ivanovna, relying on the will of God, obtained them by baking prosphora for the local Kravotyn church and sewing clothes for the peasants. Extremely gifted by nature, Maria Ivanovna taught herself to read and write as a child and devoted almost all her free time to reading spiritual books. Possessing an amazing memory, she, according to one of her acquaintances (N.M. Berzin), “always conveyed everything she heard at different times with literal accuracy. She couldn't forget anything." This character trait of Maria Ivanovna and her natural talent was inherited by Vasily Vasilyevich. He also received from his mother another essential feature of her personality - sincere, and therefore discreet and not prone to external bright manifestations of piety. Every day of mother and son began with fervent prayers with prostrations to the ground, they spent Sunday morning at the Liturgy, and on major holidays they went to the Nilova Hermitage, which is not so far from Kravotyn. In other words, Orthodoxy was the air that V.V. breathed. Bolotov from infancy. His childhood games are also noteworthy: usually with his peers he either built a monastery out of sand, depicting the abbot, or erected a small church out of brick, for which he himself painted an icon of the Savior. Having devoted her entire life to her son (whom she affectionately called “sonny” and “Vasilyushka”), Maria Ivanovna laid the foundations of his education. By the age of seven, little Vasily already “read perfectly and, having a naturally phenomenal memory, conveyed what he read with amazing accuracy” 4 . Education started at home by V.V. Bolotov continued at the rural school, also reading all the books that came into his hands. In 1863, a new stage began in the life of Vasily Vasilyevich: he entered the Ostashkovo Theological School, where his studies lasted six years. The life of the provincial-patriarchal Ostashkov was not much different from the village, proceeding in measured splendor and labors for his daily bread, and therefore little Vasily did not experience a “psychological shock” when moving to this city. The only thing that undoubtedly caused him grief was the separation from his beloved “mama,” whom he visited only on vacation and who herself very rarely went to Ostashkov (it was 15 versts along Lake Seliger, and 30 versts by land). Teaching at the school was well done, and, as stated in the report of its superintendent for 1869, the teachers used a method “visual, rational and developmental, constantly causing independent thinking and activity in students, and not forcing them to memorize only from memory.” The school's library, although not distinguished by the richness and variety of literature, gave students with an inquisitive mind the opportunity to find here enough books for their development. One episode that happened to V.V. is indicative. Bolotov in second grade. When he returned after the Easter holidays, the teacher (Father Lev Preobrazhensky) asked what he did on Easter: did he ring the bell or roll eggs. And he was surprised by the answer: it turns out that the boy did neither one nor the other, but “read a book.” To the question: which one? came the answer - “The dispute between Justin the Philosopher and Tryphon the Jew.” The teacher was even more amazed when little Vasily sensibly and knowledgeably recounted to him the contents of this essay. No less characteristic is another episode conveyed by M.A. Ryazantsev, a childhood friend of Vasily Vasilyevich: “We often, especially in the spring, after classes and exams, went to watch Jewish prayers (the house in which V.V. Bolotov rented a “corner” was located next to the Jewish chapel), and sometimes we played pranks with their children. Here and from them, Vasily Vasilyevich became acquainted with the Jewish book language for the first time and learned to read and write in it.” This episode is clear evidence that the extraordinary linguistic abilities of the future great scientist were clearly evident already in childhood. Other languages ​​- Greek, Latin and Slavic - were also easy for the hardworking boy. In any case, he, practicing them, compiled an extensive canon of his Saint Basil the Great in Greek, Slavic and Russian, without even having a Russian-Greek dictionary at hand. At the school, Vasily Vasilyevich shone brightly as the first student, and graduated with honors. However, we must not forget that any, even the most outstanding talent, can flourish only if there is soil that nourishes it with life-giving juices. And provincial Russia of the second half of the 19th century, despite the sometimes outward unsightliness of its way of life, was precisely such fertile soil, for it was Orthodox Russia. After graduating from the Ostashkov School, at the age of fifteen, Bolotov entered the Tver Seminary in 1869, where, as an orphan, he was accepted into government support and placed in a seminary dormitory (bursa). At that time, 65–80 pupils lived in it, the rest (more than 500) lived in “free apartments”. Life in Bursa cannot be called sweet: “the premises were dilapidated, damp and not warm enough and without warm corridors; the washroom was cold.” The food was by no means full, and even hot water was for innocent “comfort” - tea had to be obtained with difficulty, sometimes using force, since there were more people who wanted to “indulge in tea” than the capacity of the cube in which the water was boiling allowed. They put “three tea leaves” into the teapot, and a piece of sugar was a great joy. Despite this (and perhaps because of this?), the life of the seminarians was rich and spiritually rich for those who sought first of all the Kingdom of Heaven. V.V. got involved in this life. Bolotov. His classmate at the Tver Seminary M. Rubtsov describes his first impressions of meeting him as follows: “He was a short, stocky and dark-skinned young man, with dark, but not black eyes, ears that were somewhat more prominent than they should be for general harmony, a wide mouth, a melodious voice, and an intelligent expression on his face. Already from the first acquaintance with him, we, comrades, saw in him an “all-knowing” student and immediately felt in him a comrade with whom it would be very difficult to compete, and after a short time we were convinced that it was completely impossible... Without arguments and conversations, we all unanimously recognized him as our first-born, and soon fell in love with him. In relation to us, his comrades, Vasily Vasilyevich was an irreplaceable and invaluable assistant and leader in all difficult student circumstances. There was no question, there was no task, there was no such difficult translation from languages ​​that he would not explain, resolve and interpret with incomprehensible ease for us, who often needed his help.” As in school, young Vasily achieved great success in studying languages ​​at the seminary. The same M. Rubtsov recalls: “He freely read Latin and Greek books at the seminary. German is the first of the new languages ​​that he thoroughly studied in seminary. In his opinion, it is possible to learn to understand a foreign language very quickly: to do this, you only need to buy a lexicon and spend two weeks using it to do some kind of translation, but about grammar, etc. Don't worry too much." Thus, Bolotov independently studied French and English, also beginning to independently study Syriac and Arabic; By the end of the seminar course, he was already completely fluent in Hebrew. Such outstanding abilities of the young seminarian soon made him an indispensable teaching assistant. It should be noted that the composition of teachers at the Seminary was selected very well; for example, the description of one of them, Ivan Stepanovich Vasilievsky (teacher of biblical history), allows us to imagine the spiritual climate that reigned in this educational institution: “The lessons he taught were not official, dry, put into a certain frame, but were conversations between a father and his children: they were simple, understandable, lively and breathed warmth of feeling and sincerity. He was one of those mentors who, although they do not have comprehensive knowledge, try to understand and clarify the truth right there in front of their students: they seem to think out loud and develop their thoughts, lead, direct, indicate the goal and final conclusion of thinking, so that the whole class forms, as it were, one thinking person, and, to the best of their ability, the question is resolved, the truth is clarified and becomes the property of the whole class.” The teachers of the Tver Seminary at that time did not strictly adhere to the programs, preferring a free presentation of their subject in lectures, often close to improvisations. The course of study lasted 6 years, during which seminarians went through three stages: rhetorical, philosophical and theological classes (two years in each). The number of subjects was not very large (22), and the seminarians had enough free time for independent reading and reflection, especially since they could use not only the seminary, but public and private libraries in Tver. This spiritual climate largely shaped young Bolotov. Of course, he stood out very much from the background of other pupils, and one story told by M is noteworthy. Rubtsov: “Reverend Philotheus, present at the Seminary for a theological examination and listening to Bolotov’s answers on patristics and the quotations from the Greek and Latin church fathers he cited by heart, protected himself with the sign of the cross, as if marveling at an extraordinary marvelous phenomenon.” But such a “phenomenon” only in a concentrated form reveals the “substance” of the spiritual life of its environment, revealing its hidden possibilities. Although young Vasily lived as a chaste hermit among the noisy “students,” spending all his free time reading books, his personality lacked the traits of a “boring beech.” M. Rubtsov recalls: “Always even-tempered, always friendly, always ready to talk and tell something, never smoking or drinking vodka or wine, and at the same time always being among his comrades, who sometimes allowed themselves words and actions that were not approving, and showered him with streams of tobacco smoke, he unwittingly won everyone over in his favor. He did not shy away from anyone, did not say a word of reproach or condemnation to anyone. On the contrary, pretending that he neither saw nor heard anything, he joked, quoted Homer, Cicero, recalled some incidents from his life and, generally speaking, he himself was complacent and forced others to be complacent.” Another incident is noteworthy: Bolotov shunned all parties and all social society, especially the society of young ladies. But one day his friend, who had three brides in mind and could not decide to make a choice, asked Vasily to help him. Together they went on a date with three young ladies and, according to a friend, “Vasya was reborn: an uncontrollable flow of conversations and questions poured out - that the river had broken the dam! He talked about different subjects and moved from one to another so consistently that it was simply a miracle!.. He asked their opinions and conclusions on various issues... So, I think, how cunning he is! Where does he get all this from? That’s how the hermit is: I’m used to it, and I should have been silent and listened more!” In the evening, a friend asked Bolotov which of the young ladies he liked best? The answer followed: “N is the best: she is both smart and a housewife; a little hot, but that’s okay – life will cool you down!” According to M. Rubtsov, “comrade groom acted on the advice of Vasily Vasilyevich and still has no reason to complain about his friend’s choice.” ·)ίοτ touch complements the image of the young Bolotov: living an intense mental life, he by no means fell into gloomy isolation. Lively and sociable when needed, Vasily was always ready to help his friends, equally equal with everyone, but without becoming attached to anyone. After graduating from Tver Seminary (in 1875), Bolotov had to make a choice. Some friends advised him to go to university - it was very “prestigious” and, given Bolotov’s outstanding abilities, more than realistic. But he refused, saying that his nature somehow contained the desire to “go with the flow” (by this, apparently, with his usual humility, he meant following the will of God). The rector and inspector of the Seminary convinced his best student to continue his studies at the Moscow Theological Academy, but he chose the St. Petersburg Academy. In the body of Russian Orthodox culture and science of the second half of the 19th century. – beginning of the 20th century both Academies occupied first place and there was an invisible “good rivalry” between them. Choice V.V. Bolotov was hardly accidental: the St. Petersburg Higher Theological School, with its style of strict, even somewhat dry scientific approach, was more akin to his psychological type and scientific interests. In August 1875 V.V. Bolotov passes the exams and, enrolled as a student at the Academy (as one of the best, he was accepted for government support), chooses to study in the church history department. Each student at the Academy was also required to study one new and one ancient language, and Bolotov's choice fell on English and Latin. The first three years of study were very rich in lectures and practical classes, both of a general nature (in addition to two languages, courses: the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, basic theology, logic and psychology, history of philosophy, metaphysics and pedagogy) and specialization (ancient general and new general church history, biblical history, Russian church history, history and exposure of schism, - mainly in the second and third course - as well as subjects of civil history: ancient, modern, Russian, Byzantine history). Bolotov's life at the Academy was not much different from his life at the Seminary. He writes to one of his acquaintances: “Your most humble servant leaves the Academy almost as often as a bear leaves its den in winter.” Outside the walls of the Academy, he could only be found in the Imperial Public Library. Vasily Vasilyevich continued to pay great attention to the study of languages, not only new ones, but also such “exotic” ones as Armenian, Georgian, Turkish and Hungarian. This case is noteworthy: at the request of one comrade, Bolotov wrote a translation of the Lord’s Prayer into Ethiopian in a few minutes, providing notes on transcription and pronunciation. To understand the creative development of V.V. Bolotov and his development as a scientist, his student works (published in the appendix to this volume), which, fortunately, have been preserved and are currently in the Manuscripts Department of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg (RNB) are of no small importance. Their character was quite varied, which depended on the subjects in which Vasily Vasilyevich had to submit written essays. Here, two works devoted to his future specialty (“Church-ritual differences in the second century” and “What was the probable order of celebrating Easter among the first Christians”) touch on a topic to which Bolotov repeatedly returned throughout his academic career. Characteristic is the attention to these works on the part of Vasily Vasilyevich’s mentor, Professor Ivan Vasilyevich Cheltsov (see notes to these two works). Among the works there is a rhetorical exercise (“A Homily for the Birthday of the Blessed Empress Tsesarevna and Grand Duchess Maria Feodorovna”), a philosophical work (“Pythagoras in the view of Porfiry”), a psychological nature (“On what is the doctrine of the heredity of talent based?”), works on basic theology (“On the difference between religious, moral and aesthetic feelings”), and, finally, quite deep (considering his youth writer) research in the field of New Testament scholarship, revealing the almost formed critical instinct of the future scientist (“Is it possible to prove from the very gospels of Mark and Luke the validity of that ancient tradition that the first is an abbreviation of the sermon of the Apostle Peter, and the second - the sermon of the Apostle Paul”). Of course, these works are now of only purely scientific interest, but without them the picture of the internal evolution of V.V. Bolotova would clearly not be complete. From his third year (autumn 1877), he began writing his dissertation on the topic: “Origen’s Teaching on the Holy Trinity.” By June 1878, it was ready, defended, highly appreciated by reviewers and awarded the Metropolitan Joseph Prize. Having received the academic degree of candidate of theology, Bolotov remains at the Academy for another year in order to prepare his master's thesis and almost immediately begins its preparation, revising his candidate's thesis. A new dissertation (under the same title as the previous one) by Pyla was presented in June 1879, and in a review of it, Professor I.E. Troitsky writes that, although it was written on the same topic as the candidate’s essay, but “according to a new plan and with such a significant expansion of the program that his candidate’s thesis is a little more than a tenth of his new dissertation, so that this latter, without exaggeration, can be considered as a new work both in concept and in execution.” Such an outstanding personality of a young man could not, naturally, fail to attract the attention of the academic corporation and his superiors. When in March 1878 the professor of the department of ancient church history I.V. unexpectedly died. Cheltsov, then, bypassing several worthy candidates, Bolotov, then still a third-year student, was appointed to the vacant department. The teaching of ancient church history was temporarily entrusted to I.E. Trinity, and the Academy Council addressed a petition to its hierarchy. The Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, sending this petition to the Synod, provided it with the following note: “The candidate indicated in the department’s submission for filling the vacant department of ancient general church history is a fourth-year student at the Academy, Vasily Bolotov, whose remarkable talents and knowledge, as well as his exemplary behavior and hard work, attracted the attention of most academic teachers and really shows the best hope for the church history department at the Academy.” The Synod's response was positive. In October 1879, the public defense of V.V.’s master’s thesis took place. Bolotov, who, according to his colleague P.N. Zhukovich, was “a true celebration of the chosen one of science, which had no such thing in subsequent academic life.” The next month, the young assistant professor took the chair assigned to him, from which he did not leave until his death. This turning point in his life was V.V. Bolotov describes it this way: “The transition from the relationship of a student to a professor to the relationship of a colleague in the service, of course, is not an easy and awkward thing. I, of course, did not acquire equality in the full sense (and, of course, I will never acquire it): in the correct, normal course, the moral difference always remains between senior teachers and (former students of) juniors, - between associate professors and professors; the claim of the former to complete equality with the latter would be an indicator of arrogance, enthusiasm - generally hostile, unhealthy relations in the corporation... In general, from this side of my affairs the situation is such that nothing more can be desired: my appearance in the teaching circle was accepted - as far as my insignificant experience allows us to judge - very cordially by everyone and everyone with whom I had to meet. Indeed, the scientific corporation of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy received Bolotov very kindly, and his academic career was unexpectedly easy. Since October 1885 Bolotov is an extraordinary professor. He himself writes the following about this: “Being an “associate professor” for 14 years is in the traditions of our Academy. Meanwhile, since October 1885 I have already been extraordinarius. My competitor was... A.I. S[adov] (from whom I listened in 1877–78, as a student, lectures on the Latin language and took an exam (as an assistant under V.I. Modestov in 1878). The situation is delicate, and it is not surprising that the Council kept postponing the choice between us... But the relationship between me and S[adov] turned out to be unspoiled." Vasily Vasilyevich did not defend his doctoral dissertation (although materials for it he had them ready), but, at the request of his teacher I.E. Troitsky, the Academy Council awarded him the academic degree of Doctor of Church History “in view of his numerous and thorough works in the field of church history.” On this occasion, his friend and colleague P.N. Zhukovich notes that V.V. Bolotov himself “did not seek a doctorate. both for the Academy and for all scientific circles, he is, as it were, a born doctor. But the doctorate itself seemed to be diminished by the fact that Vasily Vasilyevich did not have it.” In September 1896, he was elected by the Council of the Academy to the position of ordinary professor, and even earlier (in 1894) the Imperial Academy of Sciences elected him as its corresponding member. However, all these positions and titles did not in the least affect his lifestyle and activities. He lived unpretentiously and in the last years of his life he occupied a small apartment on Nevsky with two rooms and a hallway. M. Rubtsov describes it as follows: “The decoration of the apartment was very modest: in the living room there was his desk, littered with notebooks and a lot of books in all kinds of languages, a sofa and a small number of chairs; in another room there were shelves with books - Vasily Vasilyevich’s own library, which he spared no expense in acquiring.” Bolotov himself said in this regard: “In terms of books, I’m used to living like a gentleman, spoiled by luxury.” He divided his time between lectures, preparation for them, linguistic research and other scientific works. Vasily Vasilyevich was a brilliant lecturer. According to I.E. Troitsky, “his lectures are distinguished not only by their strict scientific character, but also by their remarkable elegance of presentation and positive beauty of speech. Therefore, they always listened with unflagging attention, even if they revealed dry and abstract subjects.” A.V. Kartashev, who listened to lectures by V.V. Bolotova, when he was a student at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, recalls: “His lively speech flowed freely, like a river, and it was wonderful to combine a ponderous mind with the playful beauty of wit, a peculiarly majestic one that did not in the least violate the scientific importance of the subject. With this wonderful gift, the former life in his teaching appeared before us in a whole series of meaningful and living pictures, and therefore his word was often listened to directly with bated breath, as if an aria from a beloved singer.” But Bolotov revealed himself in such a brilliant way only in his lectures, scientific debates and interviews, observing ascetic restraint and truly monastic humility in other manifestations of life. His colleague M. Orlov reports that Vasily Vasilyevich once casually said: “Bene vixit, qui bene latuit. Speaking in Russian, by this he wanted to say: the one who was well hidden in life lived well. God alone knows how many people there are, or how many there may be, on earth who, throughout their entire lives, through hard work, steadily strive to achieve some high ideal - and yet only the Lord knows their works and names.” The Lord revealed Bolotov’s works and name, but he himself did not strive for this, striving only for many rewards in heaven. The greatest joy and consolation during the St. Petersburg period of Vasily Vasilyevich’s life were trips to his native village for summer vacations. His spiritual connection with his beloved “mama” was never interrupted. M writes well about this. Rubtsov: “If we allow ourselves some hyperbole, we can say that he almost never for a minute forgot this creature dear to him - and that “dear point on the globe” where she lived. He wrote letters to her almost every month... and these letters were filled with ardent love for his parent and heartfelt concern for everything concerning her needs. He talks in them about all sorts of his affairs and his acquaintances, gives advice and instructions, asks not to be bored when separated from him, sends her, and through her to other people, various gifts, and lately he has been filled with special concern for her on the occasion of her illness.” One can imagine how great joy filled both of them when they finally met... The dilapidated house in Kravotyn was then illuminated with the warm light of the mutual love of mother and son. Vasily Vasilyevich helped his mother with household chores, took long walks, and went swimming in Seliger in the mornings. According to his close friend, “Vasily Vasilyevich attended every service, on Sundays and holidays, with his sweet, dear mother, in his village church. Vasily Vasilyevich did not like to sing, and in church he stood either in the altar, or on the left choir when there were no singers, or in a distant corner of the church.” In August, before Bolotov left for St. Petersburg, they went to venerate the relics of the great Pleasant of God in the Nilova Hermitage. “Despite the length of the service, Vasily Vasilyevich stood through the entire Liturgy and listened to the prayer service of St. Nilu, after which he went, being a student and professor at the Academy, to the rector, Fr. Archimandrite Arseny to receive a blessing and for a conversation. Spiritual life of Archimandrite. Arsenia could not help but influence the soul of Vasily Vasilyevich, who knew him from childhood and received his blessing at every meeting. Conversation between Vasily Vasilyevich and Fr. archimandrite dragged on for 1–2 hours. from noon to evening, and the hospitable host, intoxicated by the sweet speeches of a rare, dear guest and irreplaceable interlocutor, when he was already a professor, ordered him to be taken back in a carriage or carriage to Kravotyn.” The discreet and genuine ecclesiastical personality of Bolotov appears with utmost clarity in these memoirs of a person close to him. In the last two years of his life, a serious change occurred in Bolotov’s inner spiritual world (which was also reflected in his external habits), which the Kravotyn priest subtly grasped. As this priest recalls, Bolotov had never visited anyone before, inviting everyone to his place. And in the summer of 1898, he began to “often and without any call” go to the priest and sit there for quite a long time. “It seems to us that the reason for this was that from this year and even earlier Vasily Vasilyevich no longer looked at everything earthly with earthly eyes: before, his penchant for solitude and avoidance of female society could still make him shy away from appearing in the company of unfamiliar people, and especially noisy ones, but now the illness of his mother, already a venerable old woman, 73 years old, and his health, broken by labor, could not help but lead him to the idea of intimacy both for his mother and for him that very fateful moment before which all earthly sympathies and antipathies pale. Anticipating the imminent death of his mother and anticipating his own, his view of worldly affairs and people expanded, became spiritualized and involuntarily transformed.” Premonition V.V. Bolotov did not deceive him: on May 27, 1899, his “mama” died, and after only 10 and a half months he himself rested in Bose. Judging from the point of view of earthly realities, the death of Vasily Vasilyevich makes a somewhat strange impression. Of course, exorbitant labor undermined his naturally strong body, and he acquired various physical ailments: leg disease (from the habit of crossing his legs while working and holding many books weighing up to 6 kg on his left leg), chronic nephritis, etc. However, it is noteworthy that an examination conducted by a prominent St. Petersburg doctor, Professor Sirotinin, less than a year before the death of V.V. Bolotov, gave comforting results (according to Bolotov himself, Professor “doesn’t consider my illness very serious”). Therefore, the idea arises that the reasons for Vasily Vasilyevich’s departure to another world lie in the spiritual sphere. One can even assume that with the death of his mother, the main thread that tied Bolotov to this mortal existence was interrupted. It was as if the beloved “mama” had called her “son” to her, so that together with him they could taste the blessed rest in the “place of health”, in the bosom of Abraham... Vasily Vasilyevich died during Great Lent, on April 5, 1900, having received the Holy Mysteries several times before his death. Three hours before his death he said: “How beautiful are the dying minutes!”, and then: “I’m dying!” The last words that those around him could still make out were: “I’m going to the cross,” “Christ is coming,” “God is coming.” The great scientist and ascetic parted with earthly hardships and worries forever... 2. Vasily Vasilievich Bolotov - Orthodox scientist V.V. Bolotov was sometimes compared to his contemporary Adolf Harnack (b. 1851). Thus, I. Brodovich, in a review of the first volume of “Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church,” wrote: “This was our dear, Russian Harnack, who possessed amazing scientific erudition and phenomenal mental gifts” 5 . To a certain extent, such a comparison is justified: both scientists, indeed, possessed phenomenal erudition, outstanding linguistic abilities and the rare gift of amazing ability to work. And yet Vasily Vasilyevich was the “Russian Bolotov” and not the “Russian Harnack”, for, despite certain similarities, there are significant differences between the two scientists. Firstly, A. von Harnack, who survived V.V. Bolotova by more than a quarter of a century (d. 1930), certainly surpasses our church historian in the volume and quantity of her scientific works. One has only to remember his monumental works such as “A Textbook of the History of Dogmas”, “The Mission and Spread of Christianity in the First Three Centuries”, “The History of Christian Literature before Eusebius”, “Chronology of Christian Literature before Eusebius”, etc., as well as numerous monographs and articles touching on various areas of the history of the Church and ancient Christian writing, to clearly understand this. Of course, if the Lord had extended the days of Vasily Vasilyevich’s earthly life, his talent would have blossomed magnificently, but the Lord did not extend it... Secondly (and most importantly), A. von Harnack was the heir to an already well-established centuries-old tradition of both German and European church-historical science in general 6 . Originating in the 16th century. as a weapon in the struggle between Protestants and Catholics, this science, starting with the “Magdeburg Centuries” of Matthew Flaius and the “Church Annals” of Caesar Baronius, has come a long way of development. The development of German Protestant science was especially powerful: already in 1650. The first department of church history opens at Helmstedt University, followed by similar departments in other German Protestant universities (they appear in Catholic universities in Austria a century later). Therefore, it is not surprising that in the 18th century. such a large figure as I.L. appears. Mosheim (d. 1755), sometimes called the "father of Protestant church history"; The Catholic scientist M. is not much inferior to him. Dannenmeier, who wrote the four-volume Guide to Church History. First half of the 19th century is marked by the activities of such outstanding scientists working in the field of church history as August Neander (1789–1850) and Ferdinand Christian Baur (1792–1860). Thanks to them, first of all, that stable tradition of church historical science was created in Germany, the heir and continuer of which was A. von Harnack. The situation was completely different in Russia. Here, only at the beginning of the 19th century, mainly thanks to the efforts of the Moscow Metropolitan Platon, the course of church history was introduced into the curriculum of theological schools. The first textbook in Russian, called “The Outline of Church History from Biblical Times to the 19th Century.” and written by Innokenty Smirnov, published in 1817. But created on the basis of the already outdated Protestant works of Spangheim and Weismann, it could only claim the most superficial familiarization of students with the main facts of the history of the Church. Things have changed somewhat since the 60s of the 19th century, when the teaching of Church history was introduced in the historical and philological faculties of universities (since 1863), and according to the new charter of the Theological Academies (1869), the range of church historical disciplines taught in them expanded. Therefore, by the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century. Several significant figures appear on the horizon of Russian church historical science 7 . Of these, one cannot fail to note Archpriest Alexander Mikhailovich Ivantsov-Platonov († 1894), professor of the Department of Church History at Moscow University, whose works (for example, “Heresies and Schisms of the First Three Centuries of Christianity”) have not lost their significance even today; his successor in the department, Alexei Petrovich Lebedev († 1908), who in his numerous works covered almost all areas of general church history 8; professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Fyodor Afanasyevich Kurganov (t 1920), famous for his outstanding works on the history of the Byzantine church; Professor of the Moscow Theological Academy Anatoly Alekseevich Spassky († 1916), who devoted himself to the study of dogmatic movements in the era of ecumenical councils; finally, teachers V.V. Bolotov - Ivan Egorovich Troitsky († 1901), whose book “Exposition of the Faith of the Armenian Church” and work on the history of the Arsenite schism have not been surpassed even in modern times. Along with the study of general church history, related disciplines also developed, such as, for example, patrolology (started by the famous work of Archbishop Philaret Gumilevsky “Historical Doctrine of the Fathers of the Church” and continued by the works of K.I. Skvortsov, D.V. Gusev, etc.) and Byzantology (the names of V.G. Vasilievsky, Yu.A. Kulakovsky, F.I. Uspensky, A.A. Vasiliev, etc.). Therefore, one can hardly completely agree with the words of the famous philosopher Vladimir Solovyov, who in the obituary of V.V. Bolotova 9 wrote: “In other countries, theological and church-historical science represents a powerful collective whole, where every mental force finds comprehensive support and a comprehensive framework for its activity, and, freely developing its personal capabilities, at the same time constantly applies them to the common cause; there is, from the legends of the past and modern systematic work, an emerging, living and correctly growing science, and individual scientists, to the best of their ability, enter into this common work, participate in this growth of the whole. In our country and in other sciences, especially in theological-ecclesiastical science, this growth of the whole is absent...” V.S. Solovyov reviewed “this growth of the whole” of Russian church-historical and theological science. However, it should be noted that by the time V.V. matures. Bolotov as a scientist, this growth was just beginning. Largely thanks to the works of Vasily Vasilyevich, Russian church historical science made a powerful leap forward, and by the time of the disaster of 1917 it reached the level of Western European science, and in some ways surpassed the latter. According to A.I. Brilliantov (said in a speech at a ceremonial meeting of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy on the occasion of the opening of the bust of the great scientist in 1912), “the significance of V.V. Bolotov in the history of the development of Russian church-historical science and lies in the fact that he raised it in his own person to the highest level that is generally possible for Western historians, he acted as its representative, equal in competence to the best Western scientists, and not only in relation to some limited department of his science, or a special issue that was little studied by others and was the subject of his own long-term study, but in relation to the entire broad area of ​​the history of the ancient Church, which he dealt with.” What attracts Bolotov the scientist first of all is the amazingly harmonious combination of facets of his scientific activity, which ideally should be present in every researcher of the history of the Church, but which in reality is found in very few. Firstly, Vasily Vasilyevich was an excellent philologist. In one of his letters, he writes that from the very beginning of his teaching career, “he recognized the languages ​​of the primary sources of ancient church history as obligatory for himself: Greek, Latin, Syriac, Arabic, Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian.” Of the new languages, in addition to the common German, French, English and Italian, V.V. Bolotov still read fluently in Dutch, Danish-Norwegian and Portuguese. In addition, being generally interested in comparative linguistics, he was well acquainted with many other Eastern and European languages: ancient Egyptian, Sanskrit, Assyro-Babylonian cuneiform, Persian, Gothic, Celtic, Turkish, etc. With the gift of a linguist, he also combined mathematical abilities, rare for historians. In addition to the field of historical chronology, which he studied for purely scientific purposes, these abilities manifested themselves when V.V. Bolotov was appointed as a representative from the spiritual department to the Commission for Calendar Reform in Russia. One of the participants of this Commission recalls a speech at its first meeting: “Quotations, numbers, dates, comparisons, comparisons fell like from a cornucopia. The brilliant improvisational lecture continued with unflagging interest. As if the huge famous dictionary of Larousse opened up and spoke in a human voice. The listeners were stunned. It was hardly believed that human memory is able to preserve such a mass of learning and lay it out at the first request, with crystal clarity.” It should be said that Vasily Vasilyevich disagreed with the majority of the members of the Commission on the fundamental issue - the introduction of a new style in Russia. He called himself “an irreconcilable Julianist,” considering the Gregorian calendar reform to be absolutely unscientific and without “not only justification, but even an apology.” Therefore, the report of V.V. Bolotov, included in the materials of this Commission, where he brilliantly debunks the “newest style,” undoubtedly requires publication, taking into account the relevance of this issue at the present time. Secondly, Vasily Vasilyevich was a profound theologian, versed in numerous subtleties of dogmatic issues. This, of course, was required by the very subject of his studies. As A.I. points out. Brilliantov, “due to the very essence of the subject he is developing, the demands placed on a church historian are, in a certain sense, higher than those that can be presented to a civil historian. If nothing human - humanum - should be alien to the latter, then the divine - divinum - should not be alien to the former, to the extent that it has manifested itself in positive revelation and has been assimilated by the thought and life of mankind throughout the historical existence of the Christian Church. In other words, a church historian cannot present the history of the Church without at the same time being a theologian. A thorough knowledge of Christian dogma is absolutely necessary for him because the history of dogma is the most important part of the history of the Church. If he is not a theologian, he will stand below his subject and will wander, so to speak, along the periphery of church life, without touching its center.” Abilities V.V. Bolotov as a theologian was clearly demonstrated already in his master’s thesis “Origen’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity” (published, by the way, in only 50 copies). The choice of personality of this Alexandrian thinker was not accidental. Vasily Vasilyevich himself speaks about this in one of his letters. “Who is Origen, you have not had a chance to find out; I'll try to be more vague. This is a star of the first magnitude among the catechetes (professors of theology) of the Alexandrian catechetical school (in the 1/2 of the 2nd century of the first Christian academy) and perhaps the most glorious name in the Christian world of his time, a man whose works constitute an era in the history of theological thought, “diamond and “brass from the inside,” as he was called, a 70-year-old confessor and, perhaps, only in a refined way the prudence of the tormentors is not a martyr for Christ († 254). He was highly valued by St. Athanasius the Great; “The three great Cappadocians” (Saints Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and Gregory of Nyssa) were ardent admirers and - in essence - students of Origen. But the Arians also ascribed to themselves the honor of being his followers, and St. Epiphanius of Cyprus considered him the source of all heresies of the 4th century; and the excitement raised over Origen finally turned into a storm, ending in the exile of St. John Chrysostom almost to our Caucasus. Two and a half centuries have passed, and the Council of Constantinople in 543 proclaims not eternal memory, but anathema to Origen. From this you, of course, did not know who (quis, qualis) Origen was, but perhaps you felt how great (quantus) he was, and how knotty (to put it this way) his teaching was, if the holy universal teachers revered him and cursed his councils.” With these words, “to put it more vaguely” (i.e., without issuing a categorical verdict), V.V. Bolotov outlines the contours of Origen’s ambiguous personality, which still causes heated debate and lively scientific discussions. The dissertation itself is characterized by a similar attitude. In it, Vasily Vasilyevich sets himself a historical and dogmatic task, i.e. clarification, firstly, of the dogmatic meaning of Origen’s triadology, and secondly, its church-historical context, the first being clarified through the second. Therefore, his work has a strict architectonics: the first part sets out the philosophical doctrine of the first and second principles of existence of Philo of Alexandria and Plotinus, as well as the doctrine of the Holy Trinity of Christian writers before Origen, the second part analyzes in detail the triadology of Origen himself, and, finally, the third tells about the fate of this triadology before the era of Justinian. In his work, Bolotov clearly shows that by the time of Origen, “Church Tradition outlined only the main points in the doctrine of the Trinity. A very wide area remained for free research, but the more difficult was the position of the writer, left to his own strengths, given the height and incomprehensibility of the subject being studied.” Origen himself assessed his own experiences in this area very modestly: “The tone in which he expresses his opinions can least of all be called dogmatic. Often he only poses questions or draws the attention of readers to some point. In the external features of Origen’s speech one can hear the voice of a thinker who experiences more than decides, who concerns the high mysteries of theology, but with full awareness of the limitations of his powers” ​​10. A subtle analysis of Origen’s triadology and, especially, its most important point - subordinationism - leads Vasily Vasilyevich to the conclusion that “Origen’s teaching is not completely free from contradictions, and it is hardly possible to indicate such a point of view from which the logical necessity of each position admitted by Origen in this part of his theology is clarified” 11. This inconsistency of Origen’s triadology, according to V.V. Bolotov, had the consequence of the fact that in the Arian disputes Origen found himself, as it were, “between” the disputing parties: on the one hand, “in the content of the Arian doctrine there were points of contact with the doctrine of Origen, but not all parties of the Arians stand in the same relation to it; one can say that the view of the extreme Arians is as far from Origen’s as the teaching of the moderate Arians is close to it”; on the other hand, “for Athanasius the Great, Origen remains the ancient witness of Nicene truth. For Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian, the study of Origen’s exegetical works was a preparatory school for the fight against the Arians, apparently of an Anomean direction” 12. As can be seen from these words of V.V. Bolotov, in his dissertation he appears both as a theologian and as a historian. The role of a judge passing a sentence is internally abhorrent to him; he acts rather as an objective “investigator” (i.e., researcher), impartially weighing all the pros and cons. Moreover, at the center of his research was the question of the relationship of Origen’s triadology to Arianism, and the problem of the ideological origins of this heresy was one of the most controversial in church historical science of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. 13 and remains so to this day 14 . It is noteworthy that almost simultaneously with the dissertation of V.V. Bolotov in Russia another work is published, devoted to almost the same topic. Its author (F. Eleonsky) sets himself an apologetic task - to prove that Origen’s teaching about the Holy Trinity is completely Orthodox. If F. Eleonsky comes to the conclusion that in this part of his dogmatic system Origen was “an exponent of the general church faith and its faithful interpreter” 15, then V.V. Bolotov does not dare to make such a categorical conclusion. The role of a lawyer is as alien to him as the role of a judge. His main desire is to understand, and he leaves the final judgment to God - the highest and impartial Judge of all. However, it is necessary to make a reservation that absolute impartiality is hardly the highest goal to which an Orthodox historian of the Church and Christian doctrine should strive, for he is obliged to make his own judgment on fundamental issues, although he should try to avoid condemnation. And if V.V. himself Bolotov refrained from such an unambiguous judgment, then Father Georgy Florovsky, who highly appreciated his master's thesis 16, does it as if for him. He clearly states that “Origen’s system contained an unresolved contradiction. And this led to a hidden conflict, and in the end resulted in an obvious split among those theologians who were strongly influenced by the outstanding theologian. It can, of course, be argued that Origen’s Trinitarian views were essentially Orthodox, that is, Pronicaean, and their interpretation by St. Athanasius and the Cappadocians expressed his own point of view absolutely correctly. Indeed, Origen energetically defended the pre-eternity of the Birth, undoubtedly taking an anti-Arian position on this issue... And yet, on the other hand, in many key points his theological model was completely untenable. One way or another, the debates of the fourth century can only be properly understood based on the theology of Origen and an analysis of the difficulties he faced. The most important philosophical problem underlying these theological disputes was the question of time and eternity. There were only two possibilities: either to reject the eternity of the world, or to doubt the eternity of the Logos. The latter was chosen by Arius and all those who, for various reasons, took his side, and their opponents were forced to defend the temporary nature of this world” 17. Origen, if we consider him from the perspective of the 4th century, took a kind of intermediate position: he did not choose the “Arian option”, nor was he inclined to the point of view of the “Nicene orthodoxy”. For, “recognizing the world as beginningless in time, Origen at the same time places eternity above time, above the world of God: just as time flows from eternity and returns to it, being lost in it in countless and continuous moments, so the world is affirmed and lost by its existence in the eternal, unchanging God, and not in something temporary, changeable; and this for Origen means the same thing: that the world has neither a temporal beginning nor a temporal end, but always exists from the eternally existing God” 18. Nevertheless, Origen tried to outline the difference in the act of the birth of the Son and the creation of the world, which is well shown in his dissertation by V.V. Bolotov (p. 217 ff., ed.), although he failed in this attempt. However, the problem of eternity and time was at least posed in ancient Christian theology, and this is the undoubted merit of the Alexandrian thinker. It is no coincidence that St. Athanasius, who made a kind of “breakthrough” in solving this problem, speaks approvingly of Origen, referring to him as a “hardworking man” 19. It can also be noted that the extreme scrupulousness of Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov as a researcher and in some other respects developed into extremes and sometimes led to a violation of the harmonious unity of the historian, philologist and theologian in him. This is manifested, for example, in his work “On the Question of the Filioque,” ​​which at one time gave rise to heated debates in Russian theological scholarship 20 . This work (more precisely, a collection of several works) was prompted by Vasily Vasilyevich’s participation in the commission established by the Holy Synod to clarify the conditions for union with Old Catholics seeking communion with the Orthodox Church. In his preface to the “Theses on the Filioque,” ​​which opens the collection, V.V. Bolotov notes that he offers “for the judgment of supportive readers the private opinion of an individual person” 21 . The starting point of his reasoning is the difference between “dogma”, “theologumenon” (θεολογούμενον) and “theological opinion”. He does not define the first concept, saying only that regarding its content “there is and should not be any disagreement between us and the Old Catholics.” By “theologumenon” is meant “the same theological opinion, but only the opinion of those who for every Catholic are more than just theologians: these are the theological opinions of the holy fathers of the one indivisible Church.” According to Bolotov, “theologumenon” differs from “dogma” “quite sharply”, because the content of the latter is “true”, and the content of the former is “only probable”. As for “theological opinions,” they are the private opinions of other theologians besides the Church Fathers, and therefore lack authority 22 . In the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, the dogma in the proper sense of the word, according to Bolotov, is only that the Spirit “comes from the Father and is consubstantial with the Father and the Son.” Everything else belongs to the area of ​​“theologumenon”, including the position: “The Spirit comes from one (one) Father (έκ μόνου του Πατρος)” and the expression: “comes through the Son (δι՚ 'Υιού).” The Western thesis: “comes from the Father and the Son” (ex Patre Filioque)” Bolotov denies equality with the eastern “through the Son” and therefore considers it a “private theological opinion”, first expressed by Blessed. Augustine, but not supported by the authoritative testimony of the fathers even in the West itself. In other words, in the opinion of our respected scientist, the Filioque is simply a small detail in the motley spectrum of “theological opinions” of the Church Fathers, in itself insignificant, but acquiring an inappropriate significance due to the confluence of certain historical circumstances. From this, Vasily Vasilyevich concludes that it was not the question of the Filioque that caused the division between the churches, and therefore it cannot be considered an insurmountable obstacle to the restoration of communication between them 23. The unity of the Catholic Church, in his opinion, was dissolved by “the Roman papacy, this old hereditary enemy of the Catholic Church, one must think - an enemy even until the very last times, which will only cease to exist when the last enemy - death - is abolished” 24. These are the theses of V.V. Bolotov, who at one time caused a “little storm” in Russian theological science, and Vasily Vasilyevich’s opponents were most embarrassed by the fact that he included the expression “from one Father” in the category of “theologumenons.” Now the true reasons for this “storm” are not entirely clear, because they are largely explained by the conditions of a specific historical moment. In Orthodoxy V.V. It’s unlikely that any of his opponents doubted Bolotov then, and now hardly anyone would dare to doubt him. But in our opinion, Vasily Vasilyevich gave rise to the indicated “storm” by some ill-conceivedness of his theological premises, caused, as strange as it may sound, by his extreme thoroughness as a “researcher”. Without delving into this discussion and without at all pretending to make any categorical judgments, we can only say that, firstly, V.V.’s three-part scheme itself is hardly justified. Bolotov (“dogma” – “theologumenon” – “private opinion”), in which the second term seems to us completely unnecessary. Secondly, although V.V. Bolotov does not define the content of the concept of “dogma,” but one can understand from the context that, in his opinion, it is contained in the definitions of some ecumenical councils. Therefore, this concept takes on certain unshakable edges of a static value. But how true is this? – If we proceed from the classical definition of “dogma”, then it is 1) “revealed truth, and, therefore, contained in Holy Scripture, or Holy Tradition, or both together”; 2) “the truth taught by the Church,” and 3) this truth is taught by the Church “as an indisputable and unchangeable rule of saving faith” 25. In other words, the concept of “dogma” has two main aspects: it is, on the one hand, the unchanging Divine Truth given in the experience of Revelation (i.e., a static value), but, on the other hand, the Truth is gradually revealed in the Tradition of the Church (i.e., a dynamic value). This means that the revelation of dogma is still ongoing in the Orthodox Church, and has not ended with the era of the Ecumenical Councils. The Tradition of our Church is a living Tradition, not a dead one, and in it the “self-revelation” of the Divine Truth constantly occurs (remember at least such an important moment as the era of hesychast disputes, during which there was a dogmatic awareness of the difference between the Divine essence and “energies”). Consequently, to say that there are no differences between Orthodox and Catholics in defining the content of the concept of “dogma” would be erroneous. We should not forget that the Filioque, being originally the “private opinion” of Blessed. Augustine, later turned into a “dogma” (more precisely, a “pseudo-dogma”) in the West. But even in the Orthodox East, “dogma” (in its “dynamic aspect”) did not remain in some kind of stable immobility, otherwise the Councils of Constantinople of 1341 and 1351 would have They did not draw a line under the hesychast disputes and did not make dogmatic definitions affirming the complete Orthodoxy of the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. Hence the uselessness of the concept of “theologumenon”: the “theological opinions” of the holy fathers, recognized by the Church, seem to “crystallize” into “dogma” (although it happens that some of these opinions are rejected). The moment of such final “crystallization” is not always captured by our gaze: here a kind of “dialectical leap” occurs, which is not immediately recorded by the “statics of concepts.” This is what happened with the dogma of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone. The fact noted by V.V. Bolotov, that in its literal and extremely precise expression (έκ μόνου του Πατρος) before Patriarch Photius is rarely found in the patristic works and it lacks the “sanction of the Ecumenical Council”, is quite understandable, for a voluminous and comprehensive understanding of this dogma began only after the era of the Ecumenical Council cathedrals But such awareness went in line with the previous Church Tradition and was a revelation of the implicit meaning of this Tradition. Metropolitan Macarius, speaking about ancient symbols, notes that nowhere in them is added “from the Father alone,” although the thesis about the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father is clearly stated. “But when expressing the thought about the personal property of the Son, the same symbols are expressed only: “who was born of the Father,” and do not add: from the Father alone. Who will begin to deduce from this that the Son of God is not born from the Father alone, but is born together from the Holy Spirit?” 26. Such a precise disclosure of the implied content of this dogma was required only when the Orthodox Church first encountered the Latin error regarding it. It prompted the conciliar mind of the Church to begin its dialectical work, just as in its time the heresy of Arianism forced the holy fathers to an extremely precise formulation of the Orthodox teaching about the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit 27 . As for V.V. Bolotov as a historian himself, we can say that he worked primarily in the genre of “monumental miniatures” (if, of course, such a paradoxical phrase is permissible). He expressed his scientific credo in one of his letters, where he said that from the beginning of his research activities he set himself the task “to give something novum in each article, i.e. either a new position (thesis), or a new justification for the old one and for that aaa) or not to write at all about what others wrote about, bbb) or to write others against them, at least correcting and supplementing them.” And Vasily Vasilyevich remained faithful to the goal he set for himself. During his lifetime, a large number of studies appeared in print, published mainly in Christian Reading (the organ of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy). They were inaccessible to the general public, because, according to Bolotov himself, they were intended for “readers of the highest flight” or “peers in position and arms.” The talent of Bolotov as a researcher was revealed in all its brilliance. The main subject of his scientific research was the field of the history of the Eastern churches, which at that time was still largely a terra incognita for Russian science. The largest Russian orientalist B.A. Turlev characterizes this facet of V.V.’s scientific activity as follows. Bolotov: he “left major works on the church history of three Eastern Christian peoples: Copts, Abyssinians and Syrians, or, in other words, he worked with glory in three areas of Oriental studies: Hamitic, Semitic and Iranian, since when researching the Persian church he had to constantly turn to the Persian and Armenian languages” 28. In these works, Vasily Vasilyevich demonstrates a refined technique of scientific research, and to an outsider it may seem that here such a technique sometimes exists for its own sake. Was it worth, for example, writing a long paper to find out just one date? - However, the question is resolved by itself if this date is the day of the martyrdom of St. Evangelist Mark, who laid the foundation for the Christian Church in Egypt. A notable and characteristic feature of Bolotov the scientist is the fact that, while studying individual “trees” with detailed care, he does not lose sight of the “forest,” and therefore, in his concrete historical “studies,” precious pearls of deep “philosophical” observations are constantly found. For example, in one of the works included in a series of studies on the church history of Egypt, he, reflecting on Monophysitism, makes the following remark: “There are historical phenomena that, in addition to the powerful force of habit, stand for ignorance and even outright ignorance. Not to know, to be firmly convinced of one’s own and to strongly hate what is alien – this is the psychological content of their religious and polemical existence. This hatred, which gives special sharpness and strength to conviction itself, is created in a special way. The general outline of such work is as follows: after the historical day of the great dogmatic struggle comes (chronologically, and sometimes only spatially) a historical night, sometimes impenetrably dark for knowledge. Unknown jackals emerge to replace the lions of history or behind their close ranks and defend their lost cause in their own way. They do not know the truth, and they are only a little interested in it: it would even be inconvenient for them to do. It is not loud, but it is often incomparably more harmful than the struggle of the heresiarchs who died against the historical noise: these latter tried to clearly eradicate what seemed to them wrong in the religious understanding of their opponents; the first in a dark corner plant gullible followers in the souls. Far from being squeamish in the choice of means, but at least adapted to the understanding of the dark masses, a polemic against the triumphant enemy begins, in which an unceremoniously invented fairy tale takes the place of proof and slander instead of refutation” 29 . It is precisely such talent, such God’s gift to see the whole that allows Vasily Vasilyevich to correctly and clearly determine the place of each specific phenomenon in the general system of the whole. One example: in his review of his doctoral dissertation, A.I. Sadov, dedicated to the Christian writer of the second half of the 3rd – beginning of the 4th century. Lactantius (and V.V. Bolotov’s reviews, as a rule, turned into independent and very valuable studies), he expresses a fairly reasoned assumption that this writer was only a “catechumen”. From here Bolotov makes a more general conclusion: “there is a place for the name and opinions of Lactantius only in the histories of dogmas, but not in the systems of Orthodox dogmatic theology. Lactantius is, of course, not a heretic; but he is not always catholic. We simply have to see him as a Christian with insufficient knowledge of theology; and therefore his views are completely unauthoritative where they are not confirmed by a large and sufficient authority, and are unnecessary if they stand next to another authority” 30. This bright and clear characteristic adds another significant touch to the portrait of Bolotov as a scientist. However, it should be recognized that if about V.V. We could judge Bolotov only by those works that were published only during his lifetime, then his image would appear to us somewhat pale and incomplete. Glory and fame among the general public were brought to Bolotov mainly by the four volumes of “Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church,” which, after the unexpected death of Vasily Vasilyevich, were edited and published by his student Alexander Ivanovich Brilliantov. Himself an outstanding scientist and true successor to V.V. Bolotov 31, he took on a truly titanic task: to sort through the papers of the late teacher, systematize them and “bring to a finished form” sometimes still raw materials. Otherwise, this work of A.I. is a feat. You can't call it Diamond. And he did it with true Christian humility, retreating into the shadow cast by the great figure of his mentor. It is thanks to A.I. Brilliantov published a monumental and very detailed work on the history of the ancient Church in Russian. We will not talk about its merits - they are so obvious that they catch the eye of even an inexperienced reader. Let us only note that in Western science, rich in church-historical research, few works can be found that could stand comparison with the work of V.V. Bolotova. Of course, the works of Louis Duchesne 32 , Hans Litzmann 33 and others deserve all respect, but they are clearly inferior in depth and breadth of coverage to the work of Vasily Vasilyevich. Perhaps only the multi-volume “History of the Church from Its Origin to the Present Day” (Histoire de l’Eglise), published under the editorship of Augustine Fliche and Victor Martin (its sixth volume covers the Carolingian era: 756–888), is a worthy rival to Bolotov’s work and even surpasses it in a number of points, but here it should be taken into account that this multi-volume series was created by the collective work of the largest Catholic scientists (Jules Lebreton, Gustave Bardi, Louis Breuer, etc.), and Bolotov’s creation is the fruit of only his personal efforts... I would also like to note that Vasily Vasilyevich’s work is a recording of his lectures, which in this form were not intended for publication, but were a kind of “working material” for the scientist. What amazes us even more is the “Lectures” of V.V. Bolotov with its greatness. At the same time, of course, we must not forget that he was a man of his era: that time when the charm of positivism clouded the heads of many representatives of the Russian intelligentsia, and Protestant science often shaped some aspects of the worldview of professors and teachers of theological schools, which was especially evident, for example, in A.P. Lebedev and A.A. Spassky. For completely objective reasons, V.V. could not avoid such “charming trends” (albeit to a much lesser extent than others). Bolotov. This, for example, is manifested in his definition of the concept “Church”, where he, in particular, says: “Christ preached the Kingdom of God, but founded the Church on earth... The Church is not identical with the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven. Its member should only strive in every possible way to realize the ideal of his society, i.e. Kingdom of God" 34. This definition reveals the motive of a certain “ecclesiological dualism”, a gap between the Church and the Kingdom of God, which, of course, are not identical, and yet are closely linked and inseparable. This dualism can be traced throughout the Lectures, for the history of the Church here is often viewed as the history of the earthly society of Christians. Using the terminology of M.A. Novoselova, we can say that V.V. Bolotov sees the Church primarily as an “organization.” And “according to the teachings of the Church, the Church of Christ is not only an organization, but it is also a living Organism, a Living Personality of the Body of Christ” 35. In addition, “although in the earthly life of Christian humanity the Church-organization and the Church-Organism are often opposite to each other and seem to be mutually exclusive, in reality they are inseparable from each other: we can say about them that they are unmerged and inseparable” 36. If we understand by “Church-Organism” that mystical reality that (even if not completely) coincides with the Kingdom of God, then it follows that the historian of the Church has no right to ignore this mysterious reality. It is no coincidence that the priest felt this acutely. Sergius Mansurov, who stood in sharp opposition to “purely scientific” church historiography. Therefore, he says: “The Kingdom of God on earth is the Body of Christ, animated by the Holy Spirit - this is how the Church recognizes itself. This is the subject of Church history.” As a result, “the first place in the history of the Church should belong to those who directly in life and teaching corresponded to this purpose (to unite people with God in internal unity - A.S.), they themselves strived for it and achieved it, they united themselves and others with Christ and in Christ - a unity of grace, predetermined by the Gospels of Christ and the teachings of the apostles, into a single Kingdom - the Body of Christ. Therefore, speaking essentially, the “Lives of the Saints” of St. Demetrius of Rostov are much more scientific than modern church historians, for it is they who acquaint us with how the Church fulfilled its purpose in history. There is nothing to fear that the history of the Church will turn to a large extent into the history of asceticism or even (horribile dietu) a lot of space will be devoted to monasticism” 37. Naturally, there is an extreme in this judgment, but there is also a serious moment of truth. Church history cannot be confused with hagiography, but they cannot be completely separated. In any case, the mysterious life of the “Church-Organism,” no matter how difficult it may sometimes be to revel in it in the earthly bustling existence of the “Church-Organization,” should not escape the gaze of a church historian. V.V. Bolotov, being himself, as already mentioned, a deeply pious man, in his scientific activities occasionally seemed to distance himself from this piety. For example, he devotes virtually no space to the history of monasticism in his Lectures, although perhaps this omission is explained by the absence of a section on monasticism in the program on the history of the ancient Church. Sometimes a certain tragic gap between science and spiritual life is felt in his personality... Perhaps this was not only the personal tragedy of our great scientist, but also of some of his contemporaries... After the death of V.V. Bolotov, in periodicals and in separate books, responses to the unexpected death of the great scientist appeared, thanks to which one can quite fully imagine his image as a person and a scientist. Of these, the most significant are: Rubtsov M. Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov (biographical sketch). Tver, 1900; A wreath for the grave in Bose of the deceased ordinary professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, doctor of church history, Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov (January 1, 1854 - April 5, 1900). St. Petersburg, 1900; In memory of Professor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov. St. Petersburg, 1912. Two works by A.I. should be considered especially important. Brilliantov, student and successor of V.V. Bolotova; Brilliantov A. On the characteristics of the scientific activity of Prof. V.V. Bolotov as a church historian. St. Petersburg, 1901; Brilliantov A. Professor Vasily Vasilievich Bolotov. Biographical sketch // Christian Reading, 1910, No. 4, p. 421–442; No. 5–6, p. 563–590; No. 7–8, p. 830–854. We mainly rely on these publications (without specifically specifying references; references to other works are indicated). Surname V.V. Bolotova was initially pronounced with the stress on the second syllable, but then it became customary to pronounce it with the stress on the first syllable. He himself writes about this in one of his letters (published: Tver Diocesan Gazette, 1900, No. 11, p. 280): “Above I wrote my last name twice with an emphasis: Bolotov. In Ostashkov and Tver I was a real Bolotov. I had to get used to responding to such a nickname.” One episode during the entrance exams to the Ostashkov Theological School is also associated with the name of Vasily Vasilyevich. The examiner (Archpriest I.P. Saltykov), amazed by the very reasonable and sensible answers of the boy with clear and pure eyes, asked: “What is your last name?” - “Bolotov.” - the boy answered. “Well, brother, you should give the last name Ozerov, not Bolotov.” Vasily Vasilyevich himself writes about this watery letter: “I myself am recorded [in the register of births] as born on January 1, 1854, but in reality I was born during the time when vespers are being served in the Nile Desert (a detail etched in the memory of the mother) on December 31, 1853.” (Belyustin I. From memories of the childhood of the late professor V.V. Bolotov // Christian Reading, 1900, vol. 2, p. 280. Belustin I. Decree, op., p. 286–287. Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, 1908, vol. 1, p. 140. See: Lebedev A.P. Church historiography in its main representatives. St. Petersburg, 1903, p. 258–517. For a brief overview of Russian church historical science, see the book: Glubokovsky N.N. Russian theological science in its historical development and the latest state. M., 1992, p. 49–59. N.N. Glubokovsky (ibid., p. 54) characterizes him as follows: “He was a learned ascetic, distinguished by a rare ability to work and who developed exceptional literary productivity, far from being common even for the West.” “Bulletin of Europe”, 1900, No. 7, p. 416–418. See: Lebedev D. A. The question of the origin of Arianism // Dep. reprint from the Theological Messenger. Sergiev Posad, 1916, p. 4–19. See: Sagarda A.I., Sidorov A.I. Antiochian Theological School and its representatives. Stage of formation // Scientific notes of the Russian Orthodox University. John the Theologian, vol. 3, 1998, p. 159–161. F. of Olives. Origen’s teaching about the Divinity of the Son of God and the Holy Spirit and their relationship to the Father. St. Petersburg, 1879, p. 176. “This work remains to this day the best presentation of Origen’s Trinitarian views, in no way surpassed by later research” (Archpriest George Florovsky. Dogma and History. M., 1998, p. 84). Malevansky G. Dogmatic system of Origen // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy, 1870. vol. 1, p. 522. Saint Athanasius the Great. Creations in four volumes. T. 1. M., 1994. p. 436–437. For an overview of the discussion, see A. Brilliantov’s preface to the publication: V.V. Bolotov. On the issue of Filioque. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 1–27. Metropolitan of Macarius (Bulgakov). Orthodox dogmatic theology, vol. 1. St. Petersburg, 1868, p. 7–10. The most important stage in revealing the dogmatic meaning of the expression from one Father" are the works of St. Mark of Ephesus. See: Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin). Saint Mark of Ephesus and the Florentine Union. See his obituary: Journal of the Ministry of Public Education, 1900, August, p. 95–96. Bolotov V.V. From the church history of Egypt. Vol. 1. Stories of Dioscorus about the Council of Chalcedon // Christian Reading, 1884, part II, p. 585–586. Bolotov V.V. Review of the essay by A.I. Sadova. St. Petersburg, 1900, p. 100–101. The brilliance of A.I.’s scientific talent Brilliantov is especially clearly manifested in the recently republished work: Brilliantov A.I. The influence of Eastern theology on Western in the works of John Scotus Erigena. M., 1998. L. Duchesne. Histoire ancienne de I'Eglise, 3 vv. Paris, 1906, 1907, 1910. There is a Russian translation: Duchesne L. Lectures on the history of the church. T. 1–2. M., 1912–1914 (the third part was not published). Lietzmann N. Geschichte der alten Kirche, Bd. 1–2. Berlin; Leipzig, 1932. Bolotov V.V. Lectures on the history of the ancient church. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 13. Novoselov A.A. Letters to friends. M., 1994. p. 36. Priest Sergius Mansurov. Essay on the history of the Church. M., 1994, p. 9–10. You might be interested in: