16,951
edits
Changes
m
cleanup - links - spelling
== Problem of periodisation of Russian Church history ==
In the church-historical science there are some points of view on a problem of a periodization of Russian Church history. The most notable have been formulated by such famous historians of Russian Church as [[archbishop ]] of Chernigov Philaret Gumilevsky, Moscow [[metropolitan ]] [[Macarius (Bulgakov) of Moscow|Macarius Bulgakov]], [[Evgeny Golubinsky]] and [[Igor Smolich]].
So, archbishop [[Philaret (Gumilevsky)]] in the work «History of the Russian Church» (M, 1850-1851) has allocated five periods in the history of Russian Church:
Periodization bases have been developed in detail by metropolitan [[Macarius (Bulgakov)]]. He has distinguished three big periods, and also the special period defined as "introduction in history of Russian Church" -"Christianity history in Russia to equal-to-apostles prince Vladimir". The basic periods were distinguished proceeding from canonical status of the Russian Church: 1) full dependence of the Russian Church on the Constantinople Patriarchate (988-1240); 2) gradual transition of the Russian Church from this dependence to independence (1240-1589); 3) the independence (autocephalous) period (with 1589).
Sub-periods in each of three periods were distinguished already on "internal" to signs, were defined by time of primacy of heads of the Church taking into account reignings and reigns, because the church life was defined not only by spiritual and moral authority of hierarchs heading Church, but also and by a policy of the state and its secular ruler. In the third period "Russian Church in period of its [[autocephaly]]" Metr. Macarius has had time to investigate only the initial stage, to the Council 1666-1667. The History of the Moscow Patriarchate is stated in parallel with history West-russian metropolis.
E. Golubinsky has distinguished three periods in Russian church history: Kievan, Moscow and Petersburg. The invasion of Mongols and the establishment of the Synod (1721) became borders between the periods. Howener However, it is necessary to note that Golubinsky proved his allocation on the doubtful precondition of absence of true spiritual education in medieval Russia.
In his opinion, the Kievan and Moscow periods represent actually a single whole characterised by absence of the valid education which we have not acquired with acceptance of Christianity and without which remained to Peter the Great ("''Golubinsky''". Vol. 1, part 1, page XXII). During this period in national religious consciousness "the external more or less prevailed more or less over internal, is conditional-formal ceremonialism - over true belief". However, if during the Kievan period this prevalence still kept measures, during the period Moscow it has gone into extremes». Golubinsky understood the Petersburg period as time of establishing in Russia the present education and more perfect understanding of Christianity.
All three models of the periodization have been subjected to criticism by [[Igor Smolich]]. Estimating Metr. Philaret's work, Smolich named as "very right" a principle of division on the basis of the historical phenomena which have occurred in Russian church life, however Metr. Philaret, according to Smolich, did not try "to connect outside influence on actually church development with church history", did not consider opposition of the Church and the state, constant pressure of the state upon Church; Philaret represented their relations, according to Smolich, in peacefully idyllic tones.
Estimating the periodization of Metr. Macarius Smolich disagreed with the main principle put in its basis, - a [[jurisdiction ]] principle. According to his opinion, the end of the subordination of Moscow metropolis to [[Church of Constantinople|Constantinople]] has not rendered influence on activity and the right of the church authority, on an internal life of the Church and people, and establishment of the Moscow Patriarchy "cannot be explained from dynamics of the previous period; it was most likely only a consequence of Boris Godunov's ambitious policy". Smolich also criticized the periodization of Golubinsky "by a topographical principle", especially without approving division "on metropolitans" (Golubinsky so built the work since the Moscow period). The "a methodological principle" Smolich has considered that «the unique firm basis for a periodization can be only such facts which really defined destiny of the development of Russian Church's organization and life", and it were its relation with the state. According to this principle two basic historical periods are allocated only: the first - till the end of XIII century and the second - till 1917; their border is transfer of a residence of the Russian metropolitan from Kiev in Vladimir and soon after that to Moscow. Here it is possible to see a likeness to "a topographical" periodization of Golubinsky. Hardly probable it is possible to consider question of Smolich as correctful, what was more important for Church - its relations with the Constantinople or own secular authority, and his unconditional choice in favour of the second.
Historically developed coexistence of these two complexes of relations does not allow to oppose, define them their "subordination", because they were inseparable one from another. The author should feel some amorphy of the periodization and also has entered internal division of the second period, however periods allocated by him and key dates practically do not differ from what were suggested by his predecessors: 1589 - establishment of the Patriarchate (though earlier Smolich subjected value of this date as key to doubt), the beginning of the Synod period (1700). Thus, difference of a periodization of Smolich from constructions of his predecessors consists not so much in allocation of new key events, how many in an estimation of the maintenance and value before the allocated periods.
