Chapter 1. Stages of formation of a new type of statesman
1.1. Family traditions and family upbringing
1.2. Corps of Pages
1.3. Adjutant to the Moscow Governor General
1.4. Moscow Metropolitan Trusteeship of People's Sobriety
Chapter 2. Activities of V.F. Dzhunkovsky as Moscow governor
2.1. V.F. Dzhunkovsky and the Stolypin modernization program
2.2. Relations with members of the public
2.3. The motto “To God and neighbor” in gubernatorial practice 133 V.F. Dzhunkovsky
Chapter 3. The role of V.F. Dzhunkovsky in reforming bodies 145 of political investigation
3.1. Transformations in political investigation in the context of 146 police reform in Russia
3.2. Changes in the composition of internal and external agents
3.3. Reforming the structures of political investigation bodies
3.4. Relationships with security officials
3.5. V.F. Dzhunkovsky and R.V. Malinovsky
3.6. The case of Lieutenant Colonel S.N. Myasoedova
3.7. V.F. Dzhunkovsky and G.E. Rasputin
Chapter 4. Behavioral strategies of V.F. Dzhunkovsky in the years
World War I and Bolshevik dictatorship
4.1. On the Western Front in the situation of the revolutions of 1917
4.2. In Soviet Russia 356 Conclusion 369 List of sources and literature 376 Appendix Photos by V.F. Dzhunkovsky (1-4)
Recommended list of dissertations
Separate Corps of Gendarmes and the Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs: political investigation bodies on the eve and during the First World War, 1913-1917. 2012, candidate of historical sciences Khutarev-Garnishevsky, Vladimir Vladimirovich
Central (Moscow) district security department in the system of political police of the Russian Empire: 1907-1914. 2012, candidate of historical sciences Opilkin, Alexey Sergeevich
Organizational and legal foundations of the operational investigative activities of the political investigation agencies of the Russian Empire and its features in the Kuban. 1880-1917 2010, candidate of legal sciences Krutova, Yana Aleksandrovna
Local bodies of political investigation of the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries: historical and legal research 2009, candidate of legal sciences Pluzhnikov, Sergey Yurievich
Operational investigative activities in Russia: organization, methods, legal regulation: historical and legal research 2010, Doctor of Law, Zharov, Sergey Nikolaevich
Introduction of the dissertation (part of the abstract) on the topic “V.F. Dzhunkovsky: political views and government activities: the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century."
The relevance of the dissertation is determined by the sustained scientific interest in the problems of the formation and functioning of the bureaucracy, which, in the conditions of post-reform Russia, sought to correspond to the trends of the modernization process. Among these representatives of the bureaucratic elite was Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky (1865 - 1938), whose personality and activities deserve close research attention. The relevance of the topic is determined by the fact that V.F. Dzhunkovsky belonged to the Stolypin-type administrators who realized the need to implement comprehensive transformations of the country. This stable trend was reflected both in his administrative activities as Moscow governor (1905 - 1912) and as a fellow minister of internal affairs (1913 - 1915), when he personally took responsibility for reforming one of the key government structures.
The reforms Dzhunkovsky carried out in the system of state security agencies give rise to different assessments. However, they were still considered, on the one hand, outside the context of his previous activities, and on the other, in isolation from his general reformist plan. In historiography, there are attempts to only fragmentarily illuminate certain aspects of his activities in the political search outside the general system of his value priorities, outside the context of transformations carried out by the bureaucratic elite in conditions of a systemic political crisis. An urgent problem continues to be the analysis of the consequences of Dzhunkovsky’s transformations for political investigation agencies.
The pre-governor period of V.F.’s biography has not been studied at all. Dzhunkovsky, when his personality was developing, the principles of state activity were being formed, and the first administrative experience was acquired.
For researchers, the final stages of Dzhunkovsky’s biography are no less important (service in the active army during the First World War, followed by the October period in Soviet Russia). Recently, many versions have appeared about the demand for V.F.’s professional experience. Dzhunkovsky by the Soviet special services and about his participation in the famous KGB operation “Trust”, etc. In connection with all the questions that have arisen, the main problem of this study is to reconstruct a holistic image of Dzhunkovsky as a person and statesman of the era of Stolypin reforms and to assess his contribution to the process of modernization of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
The degree of knowledge of the problem. Dzhunkovsky is known to researchers primarily as the author of multi-volume memoirs, which, like the memoirs of other famous statesmen (S.Yu. Witte, V.N. Kokovtsev, V.I. Gurko), are the basic source on the history of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. and are used in famous works of domestic and foreign historians1.
Assessments of Dzhunkovsky's political views in the works of Soviet researchers were diametrically opposed. So, A.Ya. Avrekh believed that Dzhunkovsky, appointed to the post of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs" under the patronage of N.A. Maklakov, "was just as extreme right-wing as Maklakov," although he "enjoyed great respect and authority in the liberal-bourgeois circles of both capitals precisely for something that demonstrated the level of respectability and competence necessary for power from the point of view of these circles.”
1 Dyakin B.S. The Russian bourgeoisie and tsarism during the First World War (1914 - 1917). L, 1967; The crisis of autocracy in Russia, 1895-1917. L., 1984; Avrekh A.Ya. Tsarism on the eve of its overthrow. M., 1989; Wortman R.S. Scenarios of power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy. T. 1-2., M., 2004; Robbins R. Famine in Russia 1891-1892, New York, 1975; Robbins R. The Tsar's Viceroys: Russian Provincial Governors in the Last Years of the Empire. Ithaca (N.Y.). 1987.
2 Avrekh A.Ya. Tsarism and the IV Duma. M., 1981. P. 263. opinion, represented a mixture of protective and guardianship ideas, government
J anti-bourgeois liberalism and “police socialism”.
Research interest in Dzhunkovsky as an independent personality arose relatively recently, in the 90s. XX century Thus, A. Semkin was one of the first to emphasize the high moral qualities of Dzhunkovsky4. A series of essays about his life and work belongs to I.S. Rosenthal5, who positively assessed the transformations of Dzhunkovsky, who “did not like provocateurs”6, covered in detail his activities to reform the search authorities on a “completely new basis”, in strict accordance with the law7 and posed an important question for researchers: “Did Dzhunkovsky’s innovations remain in force after about his resignation? . Specialists involved in the rehabilitation of victims of Stalin’s terror also showed interest in Dzhunkovsky’s biography, since he was shot at the Butovsky training ground near Moscow in 1938 on charges of counter-revolutionary activities, and in 1989 he was officially rehabilitated9.
In general monographs and dissertations on the history of the political police of Russia, published in the 90s. XX century and at the beginning of the new century10, we find coverage of individual transformations of Dzhunkovsky on the wanted list. Critical assessments of these transformations are also beginning to appear, which began in the memoirs of the heads of security departments, who accused Dzhunkovsky of weakening the search authorities due to the desire to please the public.
3 Crisis of autocracy in Russia, 1895-1917. L., 1984. P. 413.
4 Semkin A. Such an atypical gendarme // Soviet police. 1991. No. 10. P. 28.
5 Rosenthal I.S. Ill-fated portrait // Soviet Museum. 1992. No. 4. pp. 39-41.
6 Rosenthal I.S. Did he not like provocateurs?//Motherland. No. 2. 1994. pp. 38 -41.
7 Rosenthal I.S. Pages of the life of General Dzhunkovsky // Centaur. 1994. No. 1. P. 94.
8 Ibid. P.99.
9 Butovo training ground. 1937-1938 Book of memory of victims of political repression. Vol. 3. M., 1999.P. 82., Golovkova L.A. Lyubimova K.F. Executed generals. URJL: http://www.martyr.rU/content/view/8/18/
10 Ruud C.A., Stepanov S.A. Fontanka, 16: Political investigation under the Tsars. M., 1993; Peregudova Z.I. Political investigation of Russia (1880 - 1917). M., 2000; Lauchlan I. Russian Hide-and-Seek. Helsinki, 2002.
In the abstract of his doctoral dissertation, the famous researcher of pre-revolutionary political investigation Z.I. Peregudova writes that “serious changes (not for the better) in the Special Department occurred after 1913. They are largely associated with the arrival of Comrade Minister V.F. to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Dzhunkovsky. He weakened the structures of local political investigation and destroyed secret agents in army units and secondary educational institutions. During the same period, there was a change in the leadership of the Special Department, which significantly reduced the capabilities of the department and its role in the fight against the liberation movement."11
In the preface to the memoirs of the leaders of the political investigation Z.I., published in 2004. Peregudova also notes that as a result of Dzhunkovsky’s abolition of security departments and district security departments, an important link in the structure of the political investigation was eliminated, and “the measures taken by Dzhunkovsky did not contribute to either strengthening the political police or improving the situation in relations between its leading cadres”12.
One should especially highlight the monograph of the American researcher J. Daly, in which a separate chapter is devoted to Dzhunkovsky, “The Moralist at the Head of the Police Apparatus”13. Daly believes that for the political police of the last years of the old regime, nothing was more important than the reform program launched by Dzhunkovsky in 1913. “A man with a deep sense of honor, or at least obsessed with the desire to appear as such, Dzhunkovsky directed his energies and attention to cleanse police institutions,” the author writes. - He wanted to protect and maintain public order, but hated the methods by which this was usually done. Perhaps the fact that Dzhunkovsky’s actions caused little resistance from the official authorities, the court and right-wing circles
11 Peregudova Z.I. Political investigation of Russia (1880 - 1917): Author's abstract. dis. Dr. History Sci. M., 2000. P. 67.
12 Peregudova Z.I. "Security" through the eyes of the guards // "Security". Memoirs of the leaders of political investigation in 2 vols. M., 2004. T.1. P. 11.
13 Daly J.W. A Moralist Running the Police Apparatus // The Watchful State: Security Police and Opposition in Russia, 1906 -1917. DeKalb (111.). 2004. P. 136 - 158. testified to the attitude of the elite towards the political police, especially in the wake of the “Azefov-Bogrovshchina”. The police apparatus won the war against revolutionaries and terrorists, but lost the battle with society. Probably, a decent Dzhunkovsky could win the trust of society.”14
Negatively assessing Dzhunkovsky's reforms as weakening the search and emphasizing that they were carried out solely on his own initiative, Daly makes a general conclusion that Dzhunkovsky certainly had the best intentions. The overall police budget decreased, he further writes, the network of semi-autonomous security departments created by Zubatov disappeared, most of the district security departments created by Trusevich were liquidated, officers of the provincial departments dressed in gendarmerie uniforms carried an increased workload, secret agents no longer penetrated gymnasiums and military units, key figures of the “security”, who, according to Dzhunkovsky, were not trustworthy, were dismissed from service. “And yet, it seems that Dzhunkovsky was unable to inspire respect for the gendarmerie uniform, win public confidence for his ministry, improve relations between the political police and the civil administration and eradicate unsavory practices in the secret hiding place of the Police Department, although this hiding place was now called “9 -th Office Work”, and not “Special Department,” Daly continues his thought and sums it up. “The most important question for this study, however, is whether or not Dzhunkovsky’s reforms undermined the government’s ability to defend itself against revolutionaries during the First World War?”15.
Having set such a task, the author, however, does not analyze the consequences of the reforms. At the same time, his position is quite clearly stated in the epilogue of the monograph. “In reality,” writes Daly, “the monarchy did not collapse because of the coordinated efforts of professional or other
14 Ibid. R. 136.
15 Ibid. R. 158. revolutionary activists, but due to incompetence at the highest levels of government and the delegitimization of the monarchy, as well as due to the mutiny of the troops, the discontent of the elite, the fatigue of the population from the war, which was reinforced by constant revolutionary propaganda. There were two other flaws in the system. First, the political police lacked a think tank that would authorize the adoption of special measures. The special department collected a lot of information, analyzed it competently and realistically, and yet could only report on the mood of the people and the general situation, setting out dry facts. To change this situation in a state of crisis, the director of the Special Department had to have access to the emperor’s ears and his trust, but he did not have them. Secondly, when it really mattered, during the First World War, the police did not have informants in the army. This was a huge omission. Nicholas II was deeply confident in the loyalty of the troops and believed that they would be beyond the reach of propagandists. He and Dzhunkovsky both cherished outdated fantasies about the honor and dignity of the armed forces, whose leaders also insisted on their immunity to revolutionary contagion.”16
He also critically evaluates Dzhunkovsky’s reform actions
1 *7 and domestic researcher K.S. Romanov. The most negative impact on all subsequent activities of the political investigation, in his opinion, was the abolition of district security departments by Dzhunkovsky. The author believes that no one tried to recreate them again after Dzhunkovsky left. Romanov claims that the leaders of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the Police Department understood perfectly well that “many of the transformations carried out on the eve of the war, in the new conditions, began to have a negative impact on the activities of the political police,” but they failed to eliminate them. “Thus, the reforms of V.F. Dzhunkovsky due to the sudden change
16 Ibid. R. 224.
17 Romanov K.S. Transformations by V.F. Dzhunkovsky // Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on the eve and during the First World War (1913-1917): dis. Ph.D. ist. Sci. St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 130 - 150. foreign and domestic political situation not only complicated the work of political investigation agencies, but also significantly weakened it”18.
At the same time, Romanov, like Daly, does not believe that the reforms were caused by Dzhunkovsky’s liberalism or voluntarism. “The change in the internal political situation in the state led to the fact that wide sections of society, as well as many dignitaries, considered it necessary to put an end to the “emergency” of the post-revolutionary years, the most striking manifestation of which was the activity of the political police. This prompted Dzhunkovsky to begin her transformation. As a result of those carried out in 1913 -1914. reforms began the process of transforming the political investigation system. It was supposed to end with the formation of a qualitatively new system that carried out its activities on the basis of completely different principles. However, the favorable environment for such transformations did not last long. After August 1, 1914, their further implementation was stopped, but the results of those already implemented were so significant that many features in the work of the political police during the war period were predetermined by them.”19
However, further, Romanov, like Daly, does not conduct a documentary analysis of the consequences of Dzhunkovsky’s transformations, suggesting only that attempts were made to restore the internal agents from the soldiers that had been abolished by Dzhunkovsky, but “it was apparently not possible to restore the destroyed agents. Information about the mood in the army environment in
The police department still did not receive it." His assumptions are more of a hypothesis. Since both Daly and Romanov use in their works the memories of political intelligence leaders who do not agree with Dzhunkovsky’s transformations, it can be assumed that it is their point of view that forces the authors to draw such conclusions. It is also impossible not to notice that, although both authors devote part of their work to Dzhunkovsky,
18 Ibid. P. 148.
19Ibid. P. 150.
20 Ibid. P. 149. He exists for them only as a comrade of the Minister of the Interior, and his transformations are not associated with his previous experience.
At the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century. works appear where Dzhunkovsky appears exclusively as the Moscow governor. So, I.S. Rosenthal gives a more balanced characterization of Dzhunkovsky's political views than his predecessors. “By that time, the idea of primacy in the state of the noble class, which was defended by the ruling elite, not excluding Dzhunkovsky, seemed archaic. This idea could not be reconciled with the economic weight and growing claims of the big bourgeoisie,” writes the researcher. And he adds: “If we use a modern political dictionary, the Moscow governor wanted to be a centrist; he was disgusted by any extremes - both left and right. This infuriated the leaders of the right-wing monarchist Black Hundred groups. He considered their interference in government affairs unacceptable.”21
In his monograph “Moscow at the crossroads. Power and society in 1905-1914.” I.S. Rosenthal concluded: “It would be wrong to say that after the shocks of the first revolution there was no desire in the bureaucratic environment to comprehend their causes and consequences. Apparently, it was impossible to continue a career without fitting into the partially reformed political system.”22 To those who considered changes in the government system irreversible,
1Ch belonged, in his opinion, to Dzhunkovsky.
We find a similar assessment in the work of the American scientist R. Robbins24, who expresses a constructive, in our opinion, idea about a new generation of Russian administrators - the “Stolypin generation”, born during the Great Reforms and reaching
21 Rosenthal I.S. Governor during the state service//Public service. 1999. No. 1. P. 41.
22 Rosenthal I.S. Moscow is at a crossroads. Power and society in 1905 - 1914. M., 2004. P. 45.
23 Ibid. P. 62.
24 Robbins R. Vladimir Dzhunkovskii: Witness for the Defense // Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2 (Summer, 2001). P. 635-54. greatest successes before the First World War, whose career was interrupted by the Revolution of 1917." They, Robbins believes, demonstrated respect for the law and legality, were experienced professionals, felt the importance of the ever-growing connection between government and public organizations. Dzhunkovsky, in his opinion, is
26 example of such an administrator.
In addition to the interest in Dzhunkovsky’s reforms and his bureaucratic practice as governor, in recent historiography, versions about Dzhunkovsky’s participation in the work of the Soviet special services have become unusually widespread. The fact that Dzhunkovsky was in Soviet service since 1924 was first mentioned in the comments to the American edition of A.P.’s memoirs. Martynov, published under the editorship of R.
Enemies in 1973." In the comments of American scientists T. Emmons and S.V. Utekhin to the diary of Yu.V. Gauthier, it is first indicated that Dzhunkovsky "according to some information, later (i.e. after June 15, 1921 - A .D.) collaborated with the GPU (in particular, he was a consultant on carrying out provocative
9R of Operation "Trust")".
The opinion about Dzhunkovsky's liberal bias in the works of some historians has grown into the assertion that he, being a Freemason, consciously worked to destroy Russian statehood. O.A. Platonov and A.N. Bokhanov reinterpreted Dzhunkovsky’s activities in monitoring Grigory Rasputin, believing that he was deliberately engaged in discrediting Rasputin, carrying out the Masonic program
1Q of a conspiracy against the empire." Dzhunkovsky's work in Soviet special agencies, in their opinion, once again confirms his treacherous nature.
25 V.A. was the first to write about the “new formation of bureaucrats” who appeared after the 1905 revolution and realized the need to work together with the Duma. Maklakov in his memoirs “Authority and public at the decline of old Russia.” Paris, 1936. P. 601.
26 Robbins R. Op.Cit. P. 636, 647-643.
28 See Gauthier Yu.V. My Notes // Questions of history. 1993. No. 3. P. 172. See also P. 358.
29 The version that Dzhunkovsky’s speech against Rasputin was connected with the offensive of parliamentarians and opposition leaders is given in his monograph by S.V. Kulikov. See Kulikov S.V.
A.N. is extremely categorical in this sense. Bokhanov. “A considerable number of the highest military officials of the empire in the last period of its existence shared a skeptical attitude towards power. Among them were liberals and even republicans who renounced the oath of allegiance to the Tsar and betrayed their oath long before the last monarch resigned his powers. And then they didn’t prove themselves to be the best. They served in command positions in the Red Army, and some even more: they began to work in the bodies of the workers’ and peasants’ government,” he writes and clarifies. - Among the latter was the former tsarist general V.F. Dzhunkovsky, who worked closely with the Cheka-GPU-NKVD for several years. Although this chapter of the general’s life is not replete with details, the fact itself is beyond doubt. Kneeling before the “people's power,” however, did not allow the former brilliant officer of the Preobrazhensky Regiment to die in peace and quiet. In 1938, by decision of the NKVD, he was shot.” Bokhanov, like other historians, does not provide any documents confirming that Dzhunkovsky was indeed a “Soviet employee,” as if considering this an already proven fact.
In the article “Was Vladimir Dzhunkovsky the father of the Trust?: in search
31 credibility” R. Robbins gives a number of arguments that make Dzhunkovsky’s participation in this operation possible, although in the end he says that this has not been proven.
Thus, the process of studying Dzhunkovsky’s activities went through parallel stages in domestic and American historical science: the study of Dzhunkovsky as an administrator of the era of the Duma monarchy in the framework of biographical sketches, the study of his reforms in the political investigation, as well as other areas of his police activities.
The bureaucratic elite of the Russian Empire on the eve of the fall of the old order (1914 - 1917). Ryazan, 2004. pp. 50-51.
30 Bokhanov A.N. Rasputin. Anatomy of a myth. M., 2000. P. 231.
31 Robbins R. Was Vladimir Dzhunkcvskii the Father of the "Trust"? : A Quest for the Plausible//Journal of Modern Russian History and Historiography. 1 (2008). P.l 13 - 143. R. Robins' arguments are given on page 359.
At the moment, the transition to the next historiographical stage is natural - a systematic study of him as a statesman. This stage is embodied in this dissertation, as well as in the biography of Dzhunkovsky, which is currently being written by the American researcher R. Robbins.
The purpose of the study is to reconstruct the holistic image of V.F. Dzhunkovsky and the study of his political views and government activities as a representative of the bureaucratic elite, directly related to the modernization of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the 20th century.
To achieve this goal, it seems necessary to solve the following research problems:
To trace the process of formation of Dzhunkovsky as a statesman, taking into account the traditions of his family, the education he received and his early administrative experience;
To study the state practice of Dzhunkovsky as Moscow governor in the context of Stolypin’s reforms, to draw conclusions about his political views that had formed by this time, and to trace their possible evolution in 1917.
Analyze the motives for which Dzhunkovsky began reforms in the political police, consider the entire complex of reforms as a single plan of the reformer, and also find out the actions of the heads of the search after his resignation;
Explore myths about Dzhunkovsky related to well-known historical stories (G. Rasputin, R. Malinovsky, “The Myasoedov Case”, Operation “Trust”), based on an analysis of available archival documents.
The object of the study was the political biography and government activities of Dzhunkovsky, captured in personal sources (memoirs, letters, notebooks, photographs) and in various official documents and materials (circulars, orders, reports, instructions, certificates, reports, interrogation protocols, formal lists , official correspondence, surveillance diaries, press materials), as well as the actions of political police officials after Dzhunkovsky’s resignation from the post of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs.
The subject of research in the dissertation is the value system, political views of Dzhunkovsky and the principles of his government activities, implemented by him during public service.
To solve the problems posed in the dissertation, the author used an extensive source base, consisting of unpublished and published documents. Unpublished documents for the study were identified in the collections of six archives - GA RF, RGVIA, OR RSL, RGIA, CIAM, OR GCTM named after. Bakhrushin. The basis for the dissertation was the materials of the State Archives of the Russian Federation (GA RF). Materials from Dzhunkovsky’s personal fund in the RF Civil Code (F. 826. On. 1, 1084 items) contain information about all periods of his life, except for the Soviet period, as well as information about his ancestors. The memoirs of Dzhunkovsky deserve the greatest attention (F. 826. Op. 1. D. 37-59), which are separate volumes in folio of handwritten and typewritten text. Handwritten volumes contain documentary inserts into the text - newspaper clippings, menus, theater programs, letters, telegrams, official documents, which Dzhunkovsky later retyped on a typewriter, so that the typewritten text looks uniform. The memoirs cover the period from 1865 - the time Dzhunkovsky was born - to the end of 1917, when he officially retired. Since Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs are one of the basic sources for this study and, in addition, have independent significance as a source on the history of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, it is necessary to dwell on the history of their creation. The history of the memoirs is, in fact, the history of the Dzhunkovsky Foundation at the Russian Civil Aviation.
After the October Revolution, Dzhunkovsky remained in Russia, was arrested on September 14, 1918, tried by a revolutionary tribunal in May 1919 and spent about 3 years in prison. He was released on November 28, 1921.
We can't say exactly when he started working on the memoirs. So, according to Rosenthal, Dzhunkovsky began to write
32 his memoirs while still in prison. However, according to V.D. Bonch-Bruevich, who bought Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs at the beginning of 1934 for the Central Literary Museum, “the idea of writing memoirs was given to him by representatives of the Cheka when he was sitting in Taganskaya prison after the revolution and it was told to him so well that, upon leaving prison, he At first he began to remember everything, then he was drawn to paper and he began to write notes”33.
Already on February 1, 1934, assistant to the head of the Secret Political Department of the OGPU M.S. Gorb requested M. Kuzmin’s archive and diary, as well as Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs, “for study.” On April 28, 1934, a special commission of the Cultural and Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks checked the work of the State Literary Museum. Particular attention was paid to the museum’s expenditure of funds on the acquisition of manuscripts34.
The commission reported the following to the Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks about Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs: “Acquired materials of the former General Dzhunkovsky for 40,000 rubles. have nothing to do with literature and are of no value to the museum, because consist solely of a description of the general’s life.” Bonch-Bruevich was forced to defend his employees in a letter to the People's Commissar of Education A.S. Bubnov on May 20, 1934: “You yourself looked through these memoirs and know their value. It is unlikely that there will be more than 5 printed pages on the “personality” of the “general” himself in all these eight volumes. The great significance of Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs lies in the fact that he doesn’t turn on anyone, writes in his old manner, and
32 Rosenthal I.S. Pages of the life of General Dzhunkovsky // Centaur. 1994. No. 1. P. 101.
33 OR RSL. F. 369. K. 187. D. 17. L. 40.
34 Bogomolov N.A. Shumikhin S.V. Preface to the diaries of M. Kuzmin // Kuzmin M. Diary. 1905 - 1907 St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 13. Therefore, I most sincerely affirm and will always be able to prove that these
35 memoirs will be an era in the memoir literature of our Russia."
At first, Dzhunkovsky was going to publish his memoirs in the publishing house of his friends M. and S. Sabashnikov in the memoir series “Records of the Past,” published since 1925. We can guess how the work on the memoirs proceeded from the notes that the author himself left in the text . Thus, in a handwritten volume of memoirs for 1912, Dzhunkovsky notes in parentheses that he visited Metropolitan Macarius for the last time “in the past, i.e. in 1922”36. I really always walk everywhere with my stick, I still walk with it now, when I write these lines 7 years later,”37 Dzhunkovsky wrote in his memoirs for 1917. It is not difficult to calculate that these lines were written in 1924.
In the first volume of memoirs, describing his youth in the Corps of Pages and teachers, Dzhunkovsky says that history was taught to them by Menzhinsky, whose son “at the present time, when I am writing these lines,
38 is at the head of the GPU." That is, it is obvious that this was written in 1926.
The memoirs for 1892 were definitely written in 1926 (“Elizaveta Alekseevna Skvortsova has been the midwife from the very foundation of the orphanage to this day (1926)”39).
Finally, in the memoirs for 1904 we find the following paragraph: “At the present time, when I am writing these lines, the icebreaker invented by him (S.O. Makarov - A.D.) is used by the Soviet government and, until recently, one of these icebreakers, renamed “Krasin”, accomplished a feat in the ice, saving several people from the Nobile expedition”40. That is, we can assume that this part was written in 1928 - 1929.
35 Ibid. See Shumikhin S.V. Letters to People's Commissars//Knowledge is power. 1989. No. 6. P. 72.
36 GA RF. F. 826. On. 1. D. 50. L. 335 rev. - 336.
37 GA RF. F. 826. On. 1. D. 59. L. 158-158ob.
38 Ibid. D. 38. L. 26.
39 Ibid. D. 40. L. 71-rev.
40 Ibid. D. 45. L. 414.
In the printed version of the first volume, next to the words “a move to a new apartment took place - also a government apartment in the JI barracks. Guards Horse regiment against the Church of the Annunciation" Dzhunkovsky wrote by hand: "Now this church does not exist, it was destroyed in 1929"41.
Thus, it is logical to assume that Dzhunkovsky began writing memoirs in 1922 from his governorship and in 1924 reached 1918, the time of his retirement. And then in 1925 he began to write from the very beginning of his life and by 1929 he completed the entire manuscript and in 1930 - 1931. started retyping it. By August 1933, most of the manuscripts were typed42.
Dzhunkovsky's memoirs are a documented chronicle of the state life of the Russian Empire, which he witnessed. If most memoirists, as a rule, place themselves and their view of current events at the center of the narrative, then for Dzhunkovsky the state is at the center of the narrative, and he himself is only a witness of events, holding one or another government post. Of course, at the beginning of the story, when we talk about childhood, there are not many events in public life. To the greatest extent we can talk about memories - chronicles from the position of governor. But in general, his main goal was to show a panorama of the life of the monarchy and to be as documentaryly accurate as possible. Day after day, apparently using his diary, Dzhunkovsky describes the events that took place in the Royal House (mainly the ceremonies of the highest exits, coronations, burials), events in the State Duma, and, moving to his Moscow province, meetings of the provincial and district zemstvo assembly and city duma, national celebrations, public events, opening of monuments, etc.
Right there. D. 38. L. 8. OR RSL. F. 369. K. 265. D. 12. L. 1.
On the pages of the memoirs we meet many famous personalities - D.A. Milyutina, F.N. Plevako, V.O. Klyuchevsky, Fr. John of Kronstadt and others. The artists of the Maly Theater, with whom he was very friendly, received special attention from Vladimir Fedorovich. Dzhunkovsky usually attended celebrations of famous people and their funerals. But completely unknown residents of the province are also present on the pages of his memoirs - for example, the peasant Galdilkin, who died rushing after the robbers who carried out an armed attack on the house of the merchant Lomtev. Such documentary nature of Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs is not accidental. After all, he had the opportunity to use his archive when writing them, which was deposited in the Pushkin House, which he collected almost from childhood and which later became his personal fund. 4
When the “Academic Case” began in 1929, it was the storage of Dzhunkovsky’s archive in the Pushkin House that served as one of the reasons for accusing S.F. Platonov and his colleagues in anti-Soviet activities. Particularly emphasized was the fact that the former comrade of the Minister of the Interior could freely use his archive. In this regard, 2 searches were carried out at Dzhunkovsky’s place and he was summoned to the OGPU to testify about how his archive got into the Pushkin House. On November 9, 1929, Dzhunkovsky wrote a memo addressed to A.S. Enukidze, in which he outlined in detail the history of his archive. “From the very young years of my life, even from the Corps of Pages, in which I was brought up,” he wrote, “I collected memories of various events, newspapers, letters, and folded them very carefully, continuing this way until my retirement in 1918. Thus, I have accumulated piles of folders from various events. In 1913, at the very beginning, I left Moscow, where I served as governor for 8 years. Moscow saw me off absolutely exceptionally. I received a lot of addresses, bread and salt, gifts, albums, groups, images, I was given scholarships, etc., from literally all segments of the population and from all institutions, among which more than half were not directly related to me, like, for example, theaters. All this formed the basis of my archive.”43
After his resignation from the post of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs in 1915, there was talk of transferring the archive to the Pushkin House. Negotiations about this were held in B.L. Modzalevsky. However, even after Dzhunkovsky returned from the front, the archive could not be transported, and in September 1918 he was arrested. The archive was preserved by the housekeeper Daria Provorova, who lived with the family for more than 40 years, and after Dzhunkovsky was released from prison, he was finally able to transport it for storage to the Pushkin House, having negotiated for himself the right to use it and take it back at any time.
In 1925, upon his arrival in Leningrad, Dzhunkovsky learned that his archive, according to the decree of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee, belonged to the Pushkin House. Every year Dzhunkovsky came to Leningrad to work on his memoirs. Obviously, he took the documents he needed to later rewrite or insert them into the manuscript of the memoirs, and then returned them back.
Among those convicted in the “Academic Case” was S.V. Bakhrushin is one of the editors of “Records of the Past”, and in December 1930 M.V. himself. Sabashnikov was arrested on another case, also fabricated by the NKVD. And although the investigation was terminated after a month and a half and M.V. Sabashnikov was released, the publishing house was on the verge of liquidation, the publication of V.F.’s memoirs. Dzhunkovsky was out of the question.
The V.D. Bonch-Bruevich collection preserved his correspondence with Dzhunkovsky regarding the acquisition of his memoirs by the Central Museum of Fiction, Criticism and Journalism. In his letter dated August 2, 1933, Dzhunkovsky, ceding his manuscripts to the Museum along with the exclusive right to publish them, stipulated the following conditions for publication and royalties: the memoirs should
43 “Memorandum” by V.F. Dzhunkovsky November 9, 1929 A.S. Enukidze about his archive kept in the Pushkin House // Archaeographic Yearbook for 2001. M., 2002. P. 416. be published no earlier than 20 years from the time of the last event, i.e. not earlier than 1938, the royalties and assignment of copyright were estimated by Dzhunkovsky at 80,000 rubles. (400 rubles per printed sheet)44. Bonch-Bruevich wrote to him on January 10, 1934: “...we decided to buy your memories for 40,000 rubles. If you want the payment to be made as soon as possible, then deliver your notes to the working rooms of our museum (Rozhdestvenka, 5) and hand them over to N.P. Chulkov"45.
In 1948, the memoirs were received by the Central State Historical Archive, the current GA of the Russian Federation, and even earlier, in 1941, the materials that made up Dzhunkovsky’s fund were transferred to the Central State Historical Archive from the State Archives of the feudal-serf era. The materials of the fund and memoirs were combined in 1952.46 In 1997, Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs were partially published in 2 volumes, covering the period from 1905 to 1915. The publication was prepared by I.M. Pushkareva and Z.I. Peregudova, who wrote a detailed biographical sketch, as well as A.JI. Panina.
In addition to the memoirs, other matters of the foundation are no less important for this topic: Dzhunkovsky’s family correspondence (letters to him from his sisters and brother), letters from friends and acquaintances, official documents related to the activities of his ancestors (forms), philosophical works by S.S. Dzhunkovsky, a scientist - agronomist, economist, figure of the Enlightenment, as well as a large number of photographic documents. Most of the documents from the Dzhunkovsky Foundation used in this work are being introduced into scientific circulation for the first time.
To characterize Dzhunkovsky’s official activities as governor, we also used other files from his personal fund: copies of governor’s reports, circulars to zemstvo commanders, announcements from the governor to the population, reports on trips around the province, press materials,
44 OR RSL. F. 369. room 265. d. 12. L. 1-2.
45 OR RSL. F. 369. K. 143. D. 51. L. l-1-rev.
46 See Case of the V.F. Foundation Dzhunkovsky in the Civil Aviation of the Russian Federation. (F. 826.) P. 3, 14. collected by Dzhunkovsky himself. In addition, the files of the office of the Moscow governor were used (CIAM. F. 17).
To analyze Dzhunkovsky’s transformations in the political investigation, we used the files of the Police Department fund (GARF. F. 102.), related to the office work of the Special Department, as well as materials from the fund of the Headquarters of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes (GARF. F. 110).
The following cases are of fundamental importance: “The case of the publication of the circular dated March 13, 1913 No. 111346 on the destruction of agents in the ground and naval forces” (F. 102. Op. 316. 1913. D. 210)47, “The case of the abolition of some security departments by circular on May 15, 1913 No. 99149 and 99691 and the renaming of the Don and Nikolaev security departments into search centers" (F. 102. Op. 316. 1913. D. 366), "The case of expanding and changing the staff gendarmerie departments and security departments. 1916" (F. 102. Op. 316. 1916. D. 100)49.
The work used circulars on various issues sent out by the Police Department, signed by N.A. Maklakova, V.F. Dzhunkovsky, S.P. Beletsky, V.A. Brune de Saint-Hippolyte, as well as orders signed by Dzhunkovsky as commander of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes.
To characterize Dzhunkovsky’s activities related to the surveillance of Grigory Rasputin, diaries of external surveillance of Rasputin were used, stored in the funds of the Petrograd OO (GA RF. F. 111.) and the Moscow OO (GA RF. F. 63.), as well as a separate case of the Moscow secret police about Rasputin’s stay in Moscow in the spring of 1915 (GA RF. F. 63. Op. 47. D. 484.)
The work also used a file from the G. Rasputin fund - reports to Dzhunkovsky from the head of the Tobolsk provincial gendarme department (GA RF. F. 612. D. 22).
47 This case is analyzed in full and in the context of Dzhunkovsky’s reforms in the literature for the first time.
48 Some fundamentally important data from this case are presented in the literature for the first time.
49 This case is analyzed in full and in the context of Dzhunkovsky’s reforms in the literature for the first time.
In the fund of the office of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs V.F. Dzhunkovsky (GA RF. F. 270) used official correspondence, as well as “The Shornikova Case” (D. 48) and “About Lieutenant Colonel Myasoedov and others” (D. 135).
Interrogations from the fund of the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government (GA RF. F. 1467) are important for highlighting the role of Dzhunkovsky in the case of R. Malinovsky.
Documents related to Dzhunkovsky’s activities as Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs were also deposited in the RGVIA, in the files of the Fund of the Main Directorate of the General Staff: “Correspondence of the Main Directorate of the General Staff of a fundamental nature” (F. 2000. Op. 15. D. 452), “ About Lieutenant Colonel Myasoedov" (F. 2000.0p. 15. D. 568), "Manual on counterintelligence in wartime" (F. 2000. Op. 15. D. 828.). The collection of service records contains the most complete formal list of Dzhunkovsky, compiled upon his retirement (F. 409. D. 147-521).
The Soviet period of Dzhunkovsky's life is analyzed on the materials of the investigative cases of 1921 and 1937 of the fund of the state security bodies (GA RF. F. R - 10 035, D. 53985 and D. 74952) and materials from Dzhunkovsky's personal fund in the Department of Manuscripts of the State Central Theater Museum named after. Bakhrushin (F. 91), which contains letters from A.F. Koni and E.V. Ponomareva to Dzhunkovsky of the Soviet period.
In addition to archival materials, the study used a wide range of published sources. First of all, these are legislative and regulatory documents: the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire, the Manual on Counterintelligence in Wartime, the Regulations on Field Command of Troops in Wartime, the Regulations on Measures for the Protection of Highest Travel on Railways.
In addition, we involved the Journals of the Council for Local Economic Affairs and various collections of documents50. The study also used the memoirs of Dzhunkovsky’s contemporaries - V.I. Gurko, D.N. Shilova, V.A. Maklakova, S.E. Kryzhanovsky, M.V. Rodzianko. Particular attention in the dissertation is paid to the memories of Dzhunkovsky’s colleagues in the political police - A.I. Spiridovich, A.P. Martynova, K.I. Globacheva, A.V. Gerasimova, P.P. Zavarzina, A.T. Vasilyev, as well as the published testimony that they and other former dignitaries gave to the Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government. In addition to periodicals (newspapers), the dissertation uses materials from the specialized magazine “Police Bulletin” for 1912 - 1915.
The methodological basis of the dissertation is determined by the characteristics of the tasks assigned. According to the principle of historicism, we consider Dzhunkovsky’s activities in the context of specific circumstances and characteristics of the historical era.
However, when analyzing Dzhunkovsky’s world of values, we cannot help but use methodological directions related to understanding the Other. In particular, to correctly assess Dzhunkovsky’s reforms in the political investigation and the reaction of his subordinates to them, it is necessary to understand the peculiarities of the worldview of both Dzhunkovsky and his opponents. Therefore, the application of the principles of the historical-anthropological approach, according to which “the study of mentalities, ideologies inherent in certain groups, their value systems and social behavior is an integral component of research”51, seems to be very productive in this case.
50 Stolypin P.A. Reform program. Documents and materials. In 2 vols., M., 2002; The case of the provocateur Malinovsky. M., 1992; Agent work of the political police of the Russian Empire: a collection of documents, 1880-1917. M. - St. Petersburg, 2006; Revolutionary movement in the army and navy during the First World War. M., 1966. Nikitinsky I.I. From the history of Russian counterintelligence. Collection of documents. M., 1946.
51 Gurevich A.Ya. Historical synthesis and the Annales School. M., 1993. P. 273.
The founder of this movement, M. Blok, defined the subject of history “in the exact and final sense as the consciousness of people”52. He claims that “the relationships that develop between people, the mutual influences and even the confusion that arises in their minds - these constitute true reality for the historian”53. Another prominent representative of the Annales school, JL Febvre, agrees with him, believing that “the task of the historian is to try to understand people who witnessed certain facts, which were later imprinted in their minds, in order to be able to interpret these facts”54.
Since this study is biographical in nature, it is important to take into account the latest methodological guidelines developed in the process of developing the genre of historical biography, where recently there has been a turn of interest from the “typical person” to a specific individual, and the extraordinary individual or, at least, comes to the fore least capable of making non-standard decisions in difficult circumstances55. At the same time, “the personal life and fate of individual historical individuals, the formation and development of their inner world, the “traces” of their activities act simultaneously as a strategic goal of research and as an adequate means of understanding the historical society that includes them and the historical society they create, and is thus used to clarify the social context ."56. This task requires the study of texts “from the point of view of the content and nature of the complexes of interpersonal relationships, behavioral strategies, and individual identities embodied in them”57.
52 Blok M. Apology of history, or the craft of a historian. M., 1986. P. 18.
53 Ibid. P. 86.
53 Repina L.P. Social history in the historiography of the 20th century: scientific traditions and new approaches. M., 1998. P. 58.
56 Ibid. P. 59.
The scientific novelty of the study lies in the fact that for the first time in domestic and foreign historiography, a comprehensive study of the personality and state practice of Dzhunkovsky was undertaken using materials from various funds, which allows not only to create a multifaceted image of one of the prominent representatives of the bureaucratic elite of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, but also to fruitfully solve problems associated with its activities.
For the first time in historiography, previously very briefly covered or completely undescribed periods of Dzhunkovsky’s life are examined in detail (childhood, the Corps of Pages, administrative activities before the governorship, the period of service in the army during the First World War, the Soviet period), which are important for understanding how the his world of values, and assessments of Dzhunkovsky’s behavior in the situation of its destruction.
An important addition to Dzhunkovsky’s biography is information about his ancestors on his mother’s side (Rashetah), presented for the first time in a work about him. The works of Dzhunkovsky’s grandfather, Stepan Semenovich Dzhunkovsky, a famous scientist and statesman of the 18th century, for the first time introduced into scientific circulation by his father, are of independent significance. New information makes it possible to trace the influence of the tradition of serving the enlightened monarchy, laid down by our ancestors, on Dzhunkovsky’s worldview and political views.
For the first time, the attitude of Dzhunkovsky, the governor, to Stolypin’s laws, as well as his relationship with representatives of the liberal public, important for the reconstruction of his political views, is analyzed in detail.
Dzhunkovsky's transformations in the political investigation are considered in the study as a systemic plan of the reformer in the context of Stolypin modernization. For the first time, the problem field of Dzhunkovsky’s communication with representatives of the “security” and the actions taken by Dzhunkovsky’s successors after his resignation are analyzed, and Dzhunkovsky’s contribution to the reform of political investigation agencies is assessed. In preparing this work, new documents were introduced into scientific circulation that are important not only for the study of Dzhunkovsky’s official career, but also for the history of political investigation and counterintelligence agencies as separate institutions related to the history of Russian state institutions.
The dissertation examines little-studied aspects of stories known in historiography related to Grigory Rasputin (Scandal at the Yar Restaurant), S.N. Myasoedov (“The Case of Lieutenant Colonel Myasoedov”), R.V. Malinovsky (Malinovsky’s entry into the IV Duma and his exit from it), Operation Trust, and the myths about the role that Dzhunkovsky allegedly played in them are exposed. When considering these stories, the reliability of the memoirs of the head of the Moscow security department A.P. is analyzed. Martynov and the head of the Petrograd security department K.I. Globachev, recently introduced into scientific circulation.
An analysis of the “extracts” from the diaries of external surveillance of G. Rasputin, establishing their reliability, allows us to refute the version about the slandered “holy elder”, which is based on the assertion that the “extracts” are fake.
The practical significance of the study lies in the fact that its results can be used in the preparation of various manuals and lecture courses on the history of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, in particular on the history of the political police and the bureaucratic elite of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.
Approbation of the research results was carried out by the author in the form of reports at a special seminar for graduate students of the Department of History of Modern Russia of the Russian State University for the Humanities (headed by Prof., Doctor of Historical Sciences L.G. Berezovaya) and at four all-Russian conferences “Russian government institutions of the 20th - 21st centuries: traditions and innovations" (Russian State University for the Humanities, 2008) and "The World in New Times" (St. Petersburg State University, 2008, 2009, 2010).
The research results are also reflected in 10 publications (including three journals from the list approved by the Higher Attestation Commission). The scientific results presented in the publications influenced the opinion of the American scientists J. Daly and R. Robbins about Dzhunkovsky’s activities, with whom the author discussed problems related to the topic, and entered a certain academic context58. The dissertation was discussed at a meeting of the Department of Modern Russian History of the Russian State University for the Humanities and recommended for defense.
The structure of the dissertation corresponds to the main stages of V.F.’s biography. Dzhunkovsky. The work consists of an introduction, four chapters, a conclusion, an appendix (photographs), a list of sources (unpublished and published) and literature.
Similar dissertations in the specialty "Domestic History", 07.00.02 code VAK
The central apparatus and mechanisms for managing the political investigation of the Russian Empire in 1898-1917. 2008, Candidate of Historical Sciences Suchkov, Egor Nikolaevich
The struggle of factions in the court environment of Nicholas II 2005, candidate of historical sciences Novikov, Vladimir Vladimirovich
Moscow security department in the fight against revolutionary terrorism, 1905-1914. 2000, candidate of historical sciences Popov, Illarion Vladimirovich
Regulatory regulation of the activities of the political police of the Russian Empire 2000, candidate of legal sciences Zharov, Sergey Nikolaevich
Formation and development of the system of political investigation bodies in the Russian province in 1880-1914: Based on materials from the Kostroma province 2004, Candidate of Historical Sciences Ryabintsev, Roman Vladimirovich
Conclusion of the dissertation on the topic “National History”, Dunaeva, Anastasia Yurievna
CONCLUSION
Having studied all stages of state activity V.F. Dzhunkovsky, we can draw general conclusions about his personality, political views and government activities.
Of course, Dzhunkovsky proved himself to be an integral, independent and strong-willed person, whose administrative talent was combined with the desire for moral justification of his powers of power, the desire to turn the performance of official duties into service and help to people for the sake of the prosperity of the Russian state. The idea of preserving and strengthening statehood was fundamental in Dzhunkovsky’s activities. However, in the conditions of transformation of the political system of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Dzhunkovsky, remaining faithful to the monarchical model of government, perceived the changes positively and was ready to work constructively with the Duma and public organizations.
As a result of the analysis of Dzhunkovsky’s political views, it seems impossible to unambiguously characterize him as a “liberal” or “conservative”, since Dzhunkovsky himself, unlike his opponents, did not identify himself with these concepts. Modern researchers generally prefer to refrain from strict definitions of the concepts of “conservatism” and “liberalism”, the boundaries of which often overlap. It is no coincidence that the authors of the monograph “Russian Conservatism of the 19th Century” came to the conclusion that “at certain stages of public life, the boundaries between conservatism and liberalism were blurred”932.
This idea is clarified by T.A. Filippova. “In practice, conservatism does not at all appear to be the antipode of liberalism,” writes the researcher. -While correctly opposing him in specific political situations, he still shares many doctrinal and moral values with him.
932 Russian conservatism of the 19th century. Ideology and practice. M., 2000. P. 255 -256.
The conservative will defend the significance of the ultimate goal - protecting the stability of society. The liberal will determine and justify the ways and means of moving towards this goal. The differences will appear at the verbal level. Where a liberal says “law,” a conservative says “commandment.” Where a liberal says “crime,” a conservative says “sin.”933
Analyzing the value and political guidelines of Dzhunkovsky, which guided him throughout his career, we can identify those dominants of his consciousness that characterize him as a conservative. It is safe to say that the basis of his worldview was the Orthodox faith. A strong religious principle was inherited by him from his priestly ancestors; it received concrete expression in the family motto “To God and neighbor,” which, in fact, repeated the two main gospel commandments.
From his father, Dzhunkovsky could adopt the tradition of military service to the monarchy, which was strengthened by education in the Corps of Pages, the most elite and most conservative military educational institution in the empire. The Corps of Pages contributed to the formation of another most important life guideline for Dzhunkovsky - the ideal of a Christian warrior.
Military duty as a defender of the Motherland, military brotherhood, military hierarchy and discipline, care and concern of the commander for the soldier, loyalty to the oath, paying the last debt to the dead - all these concepts associated with the Russian army also played a vital role for Dzhunkovsky at all stages of his service, and they also characterize him as a conservative. After all, “from the point of view of Russian conservatives, the army was not just a military organization or one of the pillars of the monarchical regime. The fate of the army was directly connected with the fate of Russia, its independence and power in the foreign policy arena. She was also
933 Filippova T.A. Wisdom without reflection (conservatism in the political life of Russia)//Centaur. 1993. No. 6, p. 53. bearer of the ideas of rank and discipline, and the army hierarchy, according to conservatives, was associated with the Orthodox spiritual hierarchy”934.
Of great importance for Dzhunkovsky, as can be seen from his memoirs, was the empire and the status of Russia as a great power. In this sense, it is no coincidence, of course, that he especially highlighted the foreign policy successes of Emperor Alexander III. It can be said that in his assessment of Alexander III, Dzhunkovsky was in agreement with the famous representative of Russian conservatism JI.A. Tikhomirov, who called this tsar “The Bearer of the Ideal,” presenting him as the embodiment of the qualities necessary for an ideal sovereign and believing that the personality of the late emperor could serve as a kind of standard for future autocrats935.
The dominant role in Dzhunkovsky’s consciousness was played by the ideal of a people’s monarchy and a patriarchal type of power in general. The key importance for him was trust between the authorities and the people - as the highest expression of the patriarchal ideal. If there was complete trust, there would be no need to protect power from the people, because The people, ideally, would themselves have to protect and preserve the power that takes care of them.
Naturally, the implementation of this ideal presupposed the consideration of public service as a service for the benefit of one’s neighbor, which echoed both the Dzhunkovsky family motto and the conservative doctrine of power as a service dedicated to God936. In this sense, the words of Pobedonostsev, whom Dzhunkovsky treated with great respect, are very characteristic. Pobedonostsev wrote that to be a statesman means “not to be consoled by your greatness, not to have fun with comforts, but to sacrifice yourself to the cause you serve, to devote yourself to work that burns a person, to give every hour of your life, from morning to night to be in live communication with real people, and not just with papers”937.
934 Repnikov A.V. Conservative concepts for the reconstruction of Russia. M., 2007. P. 156.
935 Ibid. P. 143.
936 Ibid. P. 129.
937 Ibid.
Dzhunkovsky fully corresponded to this statement. As Moscow governor, the most important thing for him was the moral connection between the population and the government and the accessibility of power to the people. Dzhunkovsky was the real master of the province - fair, responsive to the needs of the population and protecting the legal rights of every person, regardless of his class. Dzhunkovsky's authority among the population of the Moscow province was so great that even after the October Revolution, people did not forget him and paid him tribute, defended him in a revolutionary tribunal. Dzhunkovsky's farewell address to the residents of the province contained all the main components of the conservative's worldview - he called for strengthening the Orthodox faith, loving and being devoted to the autocratic tsar and the Motherland, obeying the law and the established authorities.
At the same time, at all stages of his activity, values characteristic of liberal ideology were present in Dzhunkovsky’s mind. Dzhunkovsky was fully aware that after the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, having become a Duma monarchy, the country had entered a completely new era. The State Duma has become an integral part of the state body. He was fully aware of the influence that public opinion acquired through the Duma tribune and the press, and was always interested in what was written about him or about various events not only in the Russian but also in the foreign press.
Apparently, it was the coverage of Grigory Rasputin’s behavior in the press, and not his real life, that forced Dzhunkovsky to make a report about him to the emperor in the same way as P.A. had previously done. Stolypin, despite the fact that he did not have all the information about what happened in the Yar restaurant and knew how such a report could end for his career.
The concept of “law” was of utmost importance at all stages of public service for Dzhunkovsky. The influence of ancestors - figures of the Enlightenment era, for which it was fundamental, was probably also reflected here. It can be assumed that “law” for him was not only a legal, but also a spiritual category “a necessary means to
938 achieving the religious goal of human life."
However, real bureaucratic practice and the main vector of further development of Russia, set by P.A. Stolypin “Our fatherland, transformed by the will of the Monarch, must turn into a legal state” - forced us to treat legal norms not only from the point of view of religious and moral obligation, but also purely rationally as a way of protecting the individual and private property. Although in order to defend the rights of the peasants who turned to him for help. Dzhunkovsky had to resort to informal mechanisms, for example, the personal intervention of the emperor.
Despite the fact that Dzhunkovsky earned the respect of representatives of the liberal public, had close contacts with Octobrist leaders Guchkov and Rodzianko, and his contemporaries predicted a career for him as a public figure, he always put the interests of the state first. Dzhunkovsky’s obvious support for the Provisional Government and its cadet representatives after the February Revolution does not indicate his betrayal of the autocracy, but his desire to maintain the combat effectiveness and discipline of his military units for the sake of Russia’s foreign policy interests.
Dzhunkovsky’s activities as head of the political investigation of the Russian Empire - the most problematic page of his biography - perfectly confirm the thesis of T. A. Filippova that “the apology of tradition and the propaganda of reform, as a rule, do not contradict each other.”
939 to a friend."
Indeed, Dzhunkovsky’s reforms in the political search are the most illustrative example of the synthesis of conservative and liberal ideas in T Timoshina E.V. Ontological justification of law in the legal theory of K.P. Pobedonostseva // News of universities. Jurisprudence. 1997. No. 2. P. 101.
939 Filippova T.A. Liberal-conservative synthesis (an attempt at chronopolitical analysis)//Russian liberalism: historical destinies and prospects). M., 1999. P. 202. his consciousness. Dzhunkovsky could not help but respond to the public's complaints against the investigative agencies, since both the Stolypin program and the created commission on police reform assumed a response to the public's request. His reforms in the political investigation became a logical link in Stolypin's modernization. However, they also carried an obvious imprint of the personality of the reformer himself. If on the one hand, Dzhunkovsky, as in the governor’s post, appealed to the authority of law and even wanted political investigations to be carried out exclusively by lawyers, intending to free the gendarmes from him, then on the other hand, he called for remembering the honor of the gendarmerie uniform as a military, officer's uniform. Dzhunkovsky put forward the motto “wipe away the tears of the unfortunate”, taken from the past and more likely dating back to knightly times. It was the idea of military honor that was to become fundamental in the activities of both the gendarmerie and (especially!) security structures.
An analysis of the entire complex of reforms carried out by Dzhunkovsky in the political investigation, as well as an analysis of his relationships with representatives of the “security” allows us to conclude that the moral and material damage he inflicted on the heads of security structures and investigation officers in general (accusing them of provocation, tightening control over the wearing of the gendarmerie uniform, subordination to the heads of the State Housing Department with a reduction in salary, dismissal of the heads of security departments) forced the latter to approach Dzhunkovsky’s reforms with great bias and present them in an exclusively negative light. Despite the fact that, as we have established, after Dzhunkovsky’s resignation, counter-reforms were planned and partially implemented, their implementation, in our opinion, should be associated not with Dzhunkovsky’s actions as such, but, first of all, with the internal political situation that changed due to the First World War.
The accusation of “liberalism” by Dzhunkovsky on the part of the “guards,” implying a desire to gain popularity by weakening the state security system, is as untenable as the desire of modern historians to present Dzhunkovsky as a freemason and destroyer of Russian statehood. The best refutation of this is the behavior of Dzhunkovsky during Soviet times, when he did not hide the fact that in his posts he sought to strengthen the tsarist power.
It is obvious that at all stages of Dzhunkovsky’s government activities, for him, as for his famous grandfather S.S. Dzhunkovsky, was characterized by a synthesis of conservative and liberal ideas and values.
The priority for Dzhunkovsky was the idea of the state, a powerful empire, but at the same time, the responsibility of the state to the individual, its obligations to the individual and the moral principle as the basis of the state structure were extremely important for him. Considering his religious worldview and monarchical ideal, it would probably be correct to call Dzhunkovsky a liberal conservative, whose conservatism was “not a fortress to which we retreat under the onslaught of change, but an open field of experience in which we meet these
940 changes".
However, the uniqueness of Dzhunkovsky did not lie in this, but in his moral qualities, in his attitude towards people and in his loyalty to duty. Therefore, based on his own value system, V.F. Dzhunkovsky can also be called a patriot who served Russia with dignity and embodied the Christian commandments of love for God and neighbor in his state activities.
940 Filippova T.A. Liberal-conservative synthesis (an attempt at chronopolitical analysis)//Russian liberalism: historical destinies and prospects). M., 1999. P. 203.
List of references for dissertation research Candidate of Historical Sciences Dunaeva, Anastasia Yurievna, 2010
2. General provincial institution // Code of laws of the Russian Empire. -SPb., 1892.- T. 2.2. Regulatory acts
3. Regulations on measures to protect the highest travel on railways. St. Petersburg, 1914.
4. Regulations on field control of troops in wartime. St. Petersburg, 1914.
5. Office materials
6. Journals of the Council for Local Economic Affairs. 1908 Autumn session. - St. Petersburg, 1909.
7. Orders for the Separate Corps of Gendarmes for 1915. Petrograd, 1916. 9. Collection in honor of the leaving of V.F. Dzhunkovsky positions of Moscow governor: Moscow 1891 - 1913. - Petrograd, 1915.
8. Transcripts of interrogations and testimony
9. The fall of the tsarist regime. Verbatim reports of interrogations and testimony given in 1917 by the Extraordinary Commission of the Provisional Government. M.; L., 1924-27. - 7t.5. Periodicals
10. Exchange statements. - Petrograd, 1915.
11. Police Bulletin. Weekly magazine, publication of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Petrograd, 1913-1915.
12. Moscow Gazette". Moscow, 1913.
13. Morning of Russia. Moscow, 1913.
15. Undercover work of the political police of the Russian Empire: collection of documents. 1880-1917/ Comp. Shcherbakova E.I. M.; St. Petersburg, 2006.
16. The case of the provocateur Malinovsky. Collection of documents / Comp. Kaptelov B.I., Rosenthal I.S., Shelokhaev V.V. M., 1992.
17. From the history of Russian counterintelligence. Collection of documents / Comp. Nikitinsky I.I. M., 1946.
18. The revolutionary movement in the army and navy during the First World War. Collection of documents/Ed. Sidorova A.L. M., 1966.
19. Stolypin P.A. We need a great Russia. Complete collection of speeches in the State Duma and State Council, 1906-1911/ Comp. Felyntinsky Yu.G. M., 1991.
20. Stolypin P.A. Reform program. Documents and materials / Under general. ed. Pozhigailo P.A. M., 2002. - 2 vol.7. Memories
21. Vasiliev A.T. Security: Russian secret police // “Okhranka”. Memoirs of leaders of political investigation. M., 2004. - T.2. - P. 345-515.
22. Voloshina-Sabashnikova M.V. Green snake. The story of one life. M., 1993.
23. Gerasimov A.V. On the cutting edge with terrorists // "Security". Memoirs of the leaders of political investigation in 2 vols. M., 2004. - T.2. - P. 141 - 342.
24. Globachev K.I. The truth about the Russian revolution. M., 2009.
25. Golitsyn S.M. Notes of a survivor. M., 1990.
26. Gurko V.I. Features and silhouettes of the past. Government and public during the reign of Nicholas II as portrayed by a contemporary. M., 2000.
27. Dzhunkovsky V. F. Memoirs. M., 1997. - 2 vols.
28. Zavarzin P.P. Gendarmes and revolutionaries // "Security". Memoirs of the leaders of political investigation in 2 vols. M., 2004. - T.2. - P. 7 - 138.
29. Kryzhanovsky. S.E. Memories. Berlin, b.g.
30. Lockhart R. G. B. History from the inside. Memoirs of a British agent. M., 1991.
31. Maklakov V. A. Second State Duma. Memoirs of a contemporary. February 20 June 2, 1907 - M., 2006.
32. Martynov A.P. My service in the Separate Corps of Gendarmes // “Security”. Memoirs of the leaders of political investigation in 2 vols. M., 2004.- T.1.-S. 29-408.
33. Protopopov A.D. Suicide note // The voice of the past on the wrong side. 1926. No. 2. pp. 167 - 171.
34. Rodzianko M.V. The collapse of the empire and the State Duma and the February 1917 revolution. New York, 1986.
35. Secret meetings of the Council of Ministers on July 16, September 2, 1915, compiled by A.N. Yakhontov // Archive of the Russian Revolution. - Berlin, 1926. -T. 18. - P. 10-88.
36. Spiridovich A.I. The Great War and the February Revolution. New York, 1960.-3 vols.
37. Tikhmenev N.P. General Dzhunkovsky, retired. Petrograd, 1915.
38. Trubetskoy S.E. The past. M., 1991
39. Shipov D.N. Memories and Thoughts about the experience. M., 2007.1. Unpublished
40. State Archive of the Russian Federation (GA RF)
41. F. 63 (Moscow security department).
42. Op. 44. D. 3794, 6281. Op. 47. - D. 484.
43. F. 102 (Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs).
44. OO. 1913.- D. 117, 119,291.4.58.
45. OO. 1914.- D. 117, 118, 130, 139,291.4.57,291.4. 58.L.B, 360, 362.
46. OO. 1915.- D. 116. T. 1,292.4.58.L.B.
47. OO. 1916.- D. 291.4.58.L.B.
48. OO. 1917.- D. 293.4.58.L.B.1. Op. 316. 1910.- D. 381.
49. Op. 316. 1913. D. 50. 4.1, 51. 4. 1, 210, 366.
50. Op. 316. 1914. D. 51.4.1, D. 366.4.1.
51. Op. 316. 1915.- D. 356.4.1-2.1. Op. 316. 1916.- D.100.1. Op. 316. 1917.- D.114.
52. Op. 260. D. 77,78,331,332.1. Op. 261. D. 240.
53. F. 110 (Headquarters of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes).
54. Op. 2. D. 17203, 17484, 18362. Op. 19.-D. 122, 123 4.2.
55. F. Ill (Petrograd security department). -
56.On. 1. D. 2973 -2981, 2981-a, 2981-6, 2981-v. Op. 5. - D. 548.
57. F. 270 (Office of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs V.F. Dzhunkovsky). On. 1. - D. 2, 46, 48, 49, 132, 135.
58. F. 564 (A.F. Koni). Op.1. - D. 1756.
59. F. 601 (Nicholas II). On. 1. - D. 940, 1246.
60. F. 612 (G.E. Rasputin). On. 1. - D. 22, 36.
61. F. 810 (M.V. Chelnokov).-Op. 1.-D. 496, 631.
62. F. 826 (V.F. Dzhunkovsky). On. - 1. D. 11, 14, 37-59, 107, 118, 121, 139, 166, 431, 448, 512, 527, 529, 530, 541, 541-a, 659, 724, 732, 769, 731 , 803, 803-a, 834, 836, 838, 839, 848, 1048.
63. F. 1467 (Extraordinary Investigative Commission of the Provisional Government). Op.1. - D. 39, 401 L.A, 401 L.Zh., 401 L.E.
64. F. R-10 035 (State Security Fund). D. P-53985, P-74952.
65. Russian State Military Historical Archive (RGVIA)
66. F. 409 (Collection of service records). On. 1. - D. 147-521.
67. F. 2000 (Main Directorate of the General Staff).
68. Op. 15,- D. 452, 568, 828. Op. 16.-D. 176.
69. F. 2048 (Headquarters of the Commander-in-Chief of the Armies of the Western Front). Op. 1.- D. 218.
70. Russian State Historical Archive (RGIA)
71. F. 797 (Office of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod). Op. 35. 2nd department - D. 224.
72. F. 1284 (Department of General Affairs of the Ministry of Internal Affairs). Op. 194. 1913. - D. 75.
73. Russian State Library. Department of Manuscripts (OR RSL)
74. F. 231/II. (M.P. Pogodin). K. 53. - D. 11.
75. F. 233 (S.D. Poltoratsky). K. 25. - D. 10.
76. F. 253 (S.A. Romanov). K. 8. - D. 6, 12.
77. F. 369 (V.D. Bonch-Bruevich).
78. K. 187. D. 17. K. 265.- D. K. 143. - D. 51.
79. F. 440 (D.N. Shipov). K. 6. - D.55.
80. F. 456 (E.A. and A.M. Vereshchagin). K.1. - D.27.
81. State Central Theater Museum named after. Bakhrushina.1. Manuscript Department
82. F. 91 (V.F. Dzhunkovsky). D. 30-36.
83. Central Historical Archive of Moscow (CIAM) 61. F. 17 (Office of the Moscow Governor). -Op. 86. D. 67, 87. Op. 56. - D. 209. Op.96. - D. 7531. Literature
84. Avrekh A.Ya. Tsarism on the eve of its overthrow. M., 1989.
85. Avrekh A.Ya. Tsarism and the IV Duma. M., 1981.
86. Aleksushin G.V. Development of gubernatorial power in Russia (1708 - 1917): historical experience and lessons: author's abstract. dis. . Dr. History Sci. M., 2008.
87. Antonov V., Karpov V. Secret informants of the Kremlin. M., 2001.
88. Arkhipov I.L. Russian political elite in February 1917. -SPb., 2000.
89. Astashov A.B. Institutions to combat desertion during the First World War // State institutions of Russia in the XX-XXI centuries: traditions and innovations. M., 2008. pp. 130 - 138.
90. Berberova N.N. People and lodges. Russian Masons of the 20th century. M., 1997.
91. Blinov A. Governors. Historical and legal essay. St. Petersburg, 1905.
92. Blok M. Apology of history, or the craft of a historian. M., 1986.
93. Bogomolov N.A. Shumikhin S.V. Preface to the diaries of M. Kuzmin // Kuzmin M. Diary. 1905 1907 - St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 3 - 18.
94. Bokhanov A.N. Rasputin. Anatomy of a myth. M., 2000.
95. Bokhanov A.N. Rasputin. Fact and fiction. M., 2006.
96. Butovo training ground. 193 7-193 8y. Book of memory of victims of political repression. Vol. Z.-M., 1999.
97. Gladkov T.K. Reward for loyalty - execution. - M., 2000.
98. Gladkov T.K. Artuzov. M., 2008.
99. Gurevich A.Ya. Historical synthesis and the Annales School. M., 1993.
100. Gurkovsky V.A. Cadet corps of the Russian Empire. M., 2005. - 2 vols.
101. Dolgopolov N. From Savinkov to Ramsay // Moscow. 2004. - No. 3. - P.165 -174.
102. Dyakin B.C. The Russian bourgeoisie and tsarism during the First World War (1914-1917). - L., 1967.
103. Dyatlova N.P. Reports of governors as a historical source // Problems of archival and source studies. L., 1964. - P. 222 - 248.
104. Jacques-Dominique Rachet (1744 1809). State Russian Museum. -B.m. - B.g.
105. Zdanovich A.A. Domestic counterintelligence. 1914-1920. Organizational building. M., 2004.
106. Zyryanov P.N. Pyotr Stolypin: political portrait. - M., 1992.
107. Empress Maria Feodorovna. Life and destiny. Exhibition catalogue. -SPb., 2008.
108. Kabytov P.S. P.A. Stolypin: the last reformer of the Russian Empire. M., 2007.
109. Kamensky A.B. From Peter I to Paul I. M., 2001.
110. Kobeko D.F. Sculptor Zh.D. Rashet and his works//Bulletin of Fine Arts. 1883. - T.1. - Vol. 4. pp. 636 - 646.
111. Kozlovtseva E.N. Moscow communities of nurses in the second half of the 19th and early 20th centuries: dis. Ph.D. ist. Sci. - M., 2006.
112. Korelin P.A. Political program of P.A. Stolypin: liberal-conservative synthesis // Liberal conservatism: history and modernity. M., 2001. - P. 43 - 53.
113. Crisis of autocracy in Russia, 1895-1917. L., 1984.
114. Kuzmina I.V. Progressive bloc in the IV State Duma, 1915-1917: dis. Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 2000.
115. Kulikov S.V. The bureaucratic elite of the Russian Empire on the eve of the fall of the old order (1914-1917). - Ryazan, 2004.
116. Leontovich V.V. History of liberalism in Russia. M., 1995.
117. Lysenko L.M. Governors and governors general of the Russian Empire (XVIII early XX). - M., 2001.
118. Makarevich E. East-West: Stars of Political Investigation. M., 2003.
119. Manko A.V. Guardians of the supreme power. Institute of governorship in Russia. M., 2004.
121. Minakov A.S. The most loyal reports of governors as a source for studying the relationship between central and local authorities in Russia in the 2nd half of the 19th and early 20th centuries // Domestic History. - 2005, - No. 3. - P. 170-175.
122. Minakov A.S. Formation of the gubernatorial corps in post-reform Russia/LZoprosy istorii. 2007. - No. 12. - P. 3 - 13.
123. Mirolyubov A.A. Political investigation of Russia in 1914-1917: dis. . Ph.D. ist. Sci. M., 1988.
124. Mogilevsky K.I. Soloviev K.A. P.A. Stolypip: personality and reforms. -Kaliningrad, 2007.
125. Mogilevsky K.I. Stolypin reforms and the local elite. Council for Local Economic Affairs (1908 1910). - M., 2008.
126. Models of social reconstruction in Russia. M., 2004.
127. Corps of Pages of His Imperial Majesty. M., 2004.
128. Peregudova Z.I. Political investigation of Russia (1880 1917). - M., 2000.
129. Peregudova Z.I. Political investigation of Russia (1880 1917): abstract. dis. . Dr. History Sci. M., 2000.
130. Peregudova Z.I. "Security" through the eyes of the guards // "Security". Memoirs of the leaders of political investigation in 2 vols. M., 2004. -T.1.- P. 5-26.
131. Peregudova Z.I., Pushkareva I.M. Dzhunkovsky and his memories//Dzhunkovsky V.F. Memoirs. In 2 volumes. M., 1997. -T 1.-P.5-27.
132. Pireev A.I. P.A. Stolypin, governor of Saratov (1903 - 1906): author's abstract. dis. . Ph.D. ist. Sci. - Saratov, 2000.
133. Platonov O.A. Life for the Tsar: the truth about Grigory Rasputin. St. Petersburg, 1996.
134. Platonov O.A. Russia's crown of thorns. Nicholas II in secret correspondence. M., 1996.
135. Plekhanov A.M. VChK-OGPU. 1921-1928 M., 2003.
136. Pozhigailo P.A. Stolypin program for the transformation of Russia (1906 -1911). - M., 2007.
137. Radzinsky E. Rasputin: Life and Death. M., 2000.
138. Rakhshmir P.Yu. The evolution of conservatism in modern and recent times // New and recent history. 1990. - No. 1. - P. 48 - 58.
139. Repina L.P. Social history in the historiography of the 20th century: scientific traditions and new approaches. M., 1998.
140. Repnikov A.V. Conservative concepts for the reconstruction of Russia. M., 2007.
141. Romanov K.S. Police Department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia on the eve and during the First World War (1913-1917): dis. . Ph.D. ist. Sci. St. Petersburg, 2002.
142. Rosenthal I.S. Ill-fated portrait // Soviet Museum. 1992. - No. 4. -WITH. 39-41.
143. Rosenthal I.S. Pages of the life of General Dzhunkovsky // Centaur. -1994.- No. 1.- P. 90-103.
144. Rosenthal I.S. Did he not like provocateurs?//Motherland. No. 2. - 1994. - P. 38-41.
145. Rosenthal I.S. Provocateur. Roman Malinovsky: fate and time. M., 1996.
146. Rosenthal I.S. Governor during the state service//Public service. 1999. - No. 1. - P. 39 - 44.
147. Rosenthal I.S. Moscow is at a crossroads. Power and society in 1905 1914 - M., 2004.
148. Rosenthal I.S. About the Tsarist secret police and the “departmental” history // Russia XXI. 2006. No. 6. P. 146 179.
149. Roshet S.N. Rashets // Noble calendar. Notebook 9. - St. Petersburg, 2001. - pp. 94-107.
150. Russian conservatism of the 19th century. Ideology and practice. M., 2000.
151. Ruud C.A., Stepanov S.A. Fontanka, 16. Political investigation under the Tsars. -M., 1993
152. Semkin A. N. Such an atypical gendarme // Soviet police. 1991. -№10.-S. 28-31.
153. Senin A.S. Alexander Ivanovich Guchkov. M., 1996.
154. Sibireva G.A. A.A. Samborsky: on the history of the formation of the Russian intelligentsia and its connections with the West (late 18th - early 19th centuries) // Dialogue with time: an almanac of intellectual history. - Vol. 24. - M., 2004.- P. 210-234.
155. Soloviev K.A. Circle "Conversation": in search of a new political reality. M., 2009.
156. Timoshina E.V. Ontological justification of law in the legal theory of K.P. Pobedonostseva // News of universities. Jurisprudence. 1997.- No. 2.- P. 99-106.
157. Tumanova A.S. Public organizations and the Russian public at the beginning of the 20th century. M., 2008.
158. Wortman R.S. Scenarios of power. Myths and ceremonies of the Russian monarchy. M., 2004. 2 vols.
160. Filippova T.A. Wisdom without reflection (conservatism in the political life of Russia)//Centaur. 1993. - No. 6. - P. 49 - 60.
161. Filippova T. A. Liberal-conservative synthesis (an attempt at chronopolitical analysis) // Russian liberalism: historical destinies and prospects. M., 1999. - P. 201 -209.
162. Frenkin M. Russian army and revolution 1917-1918. Munich, 1978.
163. Shatsillo K. “The Case” of Colonel Myasoedov // Meetings with history. -Issue 2. M., 1988.- P. 142 148.
164. Shelokhaev V.V. P.A. Stolypin - synthesis of intellect and will // Domestic history. 2005. No. 4. - P. 77 - 85.
165. Shelokhaev S.V. Dmitry Nikolaevich Shipov // Shipov D.N. Memories and Thoughts about the experience. M., 2007. - P. 3 - 37.
166. Shumikhin S.V. Letters to People's Commissars//Knowledge is power. - 1989. - No. 6. - P. 71 - 74.
167. Shchegolev P.E. Security guards. Agents. Executioners. M., 1992.5J5 5jC >)s
168. Cross A.G. “By the Banks of the Thames”: Russians in Eighteenth-Century Britain. Newtonville, 1980.
169. Daly J.W. The Watchful State: Security Police and Opposition in Russia, 1906 -1917. DeKalb (111.), 2004.
170. Hasegawa T. The February Revolution: Petrograd, 1917. Seattle, 1981.
171. Lauchlan I. Russian Hide-and-Seek. Helsinki, 2002.
172. Litvin A.L. The Cheka.//Critical Companion to the Russian Revolution. 1914 -1921.- London, 1997.
173. Robbins R. Famine in Russia 1891-1892. New York, 1975.
174. Robbins R. The Tsar's Viceroys: Russian Provincial Governors in the Last Years of the Empire. Ithaca (N.Y.), 1987.
175. Robbins R. Vladimir Dzhunlcovskii: Witness for the Defense // Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History. 2 (Summer, 2001). - P. 635-54.
176. Robbins R. Was Vladimir Dzhunkovskii the Father of the "Trust"? : A Quest for the Plausible//Journal of Modern Russian History and Historiography. 1 (2008).- P.113-143.
177. Reference and information publications
178. Encyclopedic Dictionary: in 86 volumes. St. Petersburg. : Ed. F. Brockhaus - I.A. Efron, 1890-1907.- 2 vols.
179. Russian biographical dictionary: in 20 volumes. Rep. playback ed. 1905 - M., 1991 - 1999. - 2 volumes 1. Internet Resources
180. Russian noble assembly Electronic resource. Electron. Dan. - [M], sor 2004 - 2006. - Access mode: http://www.nobility.ru/upload/sherbach/rodoslov/djun.html
181. Institute of Russian Literature (Pushkin House) of the Russian Academy of Sciences Electronic resource. Electron. Dan. - [M], sor 2006 - 2009. - Access mode: http://www.pushkinskijdom.ru/Default.aspx?tabid=765
182. Archives of Russia Electronic resource. Electron. Dan. - [M], sor 2001 - 2009. .- Access mode: http://www.rusarchives.ru/publication/diunk.shtml#
183. Library of Russian religious, philosophical and fiction literature “Vekhi” Electronic resource. Electron. Dan. - [M], sor 2000 - 2009. - Access mode: http://www.vehi.net/blok/dni/02.html.
184. Church of the New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Butovo Electronic resource. Electron. Dan. - [M], sor 2006 - 2009. - Access mode: http://www.martyr.ru/content/view/8/18/.
Please note that the scientific texts presented above are posted for informational purposes only and were obtained through original dissertation text recognition (OCR). Therefore, they may contain errors associated with imperfect recognition algorithms. There are no such errors in the PDF files of dissertations and abstracts that we deliver.
Dec. 13th, 2010 | 07:28 pm
Hello! I am Anastasia Dunaeva, Candidate of Historical Sciences,
email mail [email protected]
Dear friends,
February 26, 2013 Public Relations Committee of the Moscow Government, parish of the Church of the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia in Butovo and the Butovo Memorial Center officially celebrated the 75th anniversary of the execution of V.F. Dzhunkovsky at the Butovo training ground as the day of his memory. See more details here
IN September 2012 in the publishing house "United editorial office of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia" my monograph about
Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky, Moscow governor (1905 - 1912), comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs and commander of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes (1913 - 1915).
The book can be purchased from the publishing house (publishing price 330 rubles) at the address: Moscow, Ivanovsky proezd, 18. (in the territory of the Dubki park),
phone: 8-499-977-31-16., Viktor Vasilievich Kirsanov
You can get acquainted with her in the library of the House "Russian Abroad"
http://www.domrz.ru/?mod=phpopac&lang=&action=lire.livre&cle_livre=0338533
The book can be purchased here
It is also available here
in 2010 I defended my PhD thesis on the topic
"V.F. Dzhunkovsky: political views and government activities (late XIX - early XX centuries)" at the Russian State University for the Humanities.
Continuation of the program on radio "Grad Petrov" (2.3)
http://vk.com/wall-1109146_627
Article from the collection "XIV Elizabethan Readings" (Moscow, 2012).
http://ricolor.org/history/mn/romanov/serg_romanov/25_10_12/#_edn6
Publication in the magazine "Rodina" with V.F. Dzhunkovsky on the cover (210 years of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) - No. 11, 2012
http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=4997&n=197
Publication in the magazine "Rodina" No. 8, 2012
http://www.istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=4882&n=194
I suggest you get acquainted with the publication about the Soviet period of the life of Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky.
Magazine "Rodina" 2010 No. 3, pp. 105 - 109.
http://istrodina.com/rodina_articul.php3?id=3427&n=155
"ONE CANNOT FOLLOW THE LORD CRUSADER WITHOUT A CROSS..."
Vladimir Dzhunkovsky in Soviet Russia
Photo from 1911.
Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky - Moscow governor (1905-1912), comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs and commander of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes (1913-1915) - was a talented administrator who earned the respect and love of the inhabitants of the province; he showed himself as a reformer, heading the political police of the empire.
Without leaving Russia after the October Revolution, Vladimir Fedorovich left multi-volume memoirs in which he not only covered his activities, but also painted an extensive panorama of life in Russia at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, completing the story with his retirement at the end of 1917.
Dzhunkovsky could not even imagine how much interest his descendants would have in that stage of his life when he retired from government affairs.
The Soviet period turned out to be the most difficult and tragic in his life: he was arrested in September 1918, he survived participation as a witness in the trial of Roman Malinovsky3, a revolutionary tribunal in May 1919, imprisonment (September 1918 - November 1921), and in 1938 he was shot at the Butovo training ground.
But interest was aroused not so much by the ups and downs of the life of the “former man”, but by his alleged collaboration with the bodies of the Cheka - OGPU - NKVD and his possible development of the famous Operation Trust. Claims of such collaboration, not supported by hard evidence, appear not only in the works of fiction writers, but also in the works of professional historians.
In 2000, the writer and popularizer of the history of domestic special services, T. Gladkov, described in detail the beginning of Operation Trust. According to his version, F. E. Dzerzhinsky summoned Dzhunkovsky from the Smolensk province and convinced him that his patriotic duty was to serve the new Russian state. “Time has left no documents that would explain the motives that brought Dzhunkovsky to the service of the Cheka. And the archives are silent,” says another writer, E. Makarevich, who attributes to Dzhunkovsky, allegedly summoned to the Cheka from his Smolensk estate, both cooperation on technical issues and the development of the “Trust” and “Syndicate-2” operations. However, the archives are not silent; it’s just that not all researchers have access to secret FSB documents. At the moment, we have at our disposal materials from Dzhunkovsky’s investigative cases for 1921 and 1937, transferred from the FSB to the GARF, and we can restore the chronology of his relationships with the Cheka - OGPU - NKVD. In file P-53985, a draft letter to the chairman of the Cheka, Dzerzhinsky, was preserved from the arrested citizen Vladimir Dzhunkovsky, who was brought from Smolensk on November 4, 1918, where he was detained for seven weeks without interrogation or charges. He described his arrest as follows: “Since the beginning of this year, I have lived in Petrograd all the time, without hiding my past service, impeccably treating all orders of the Soviet government... I survived the entire period of the Red Terror after the murder of Comrade. Uritsky and was neither arrested nor searched during this time. I decided to go to Ukraine solely to take a break from the Petrograd deprivations in terms of lack of food supplies and high prices, with the intention of settling with my relatives in the city of Putivl, Kursk province, or in the village of Poltava province. And if you managed to settle down there with your relatives for the winter, then return for your sister and niece. I had no intention of entering the service in Ukraine, because firstly, I am a sick person, and secondly, I am primarily Russian, and not an independent person, I myself come from the Poltava province, which is why I received a Ukrainian passport, but about leaving Russian citizenship, I did not submit a petition and had no claims to any benefits of a Ukrainian citizen... In Orsha, the commission, having looked at my documents, recognized them as correct, but then one employee of the Extraordinary Commission appeared and asked me if my former comrade was a relative . minister. Having received the answer that it was me, he suggested that I go with my things to the Extraordinary Investigative Commission, where I was detained.”
At the end of the letter, Dzhunkovsky added: “Everyone who knows me, and almost the entire Moscow province knows me, will confirm that I could make mistakes, but I never lied. I always told everyone the truth in the face under the old regime, and has not changed now under Soviet power.”
V.F. Dzhunkovsky. Costume ball in the Winter Palace. February 1903.
On January 16, 1919, doctors who examined Dzhunkovsky found degeneration of the heart muscle, general arteriosclerosis, enlargement of the aorta with attacks of angina pectoris and other diseases. They stated that Dzhunkovsky “due to the state of his health is incapacitated, and any physical labor may be life-threatening.” On May 5 and 6, 1919, he was tried at the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal. The chairman of the court, J. H. Peters, issued a wide notification to all persons who could testify against him. The trial was open and took place in the hall of the former Merchant Assembly. M.V. Voloshina-Sabashnikova recalled that Dzhunkovsky’s appearance made a great impression: “A long beard, which he had never worn before, and large shining eyes made his face look like an iconographic face. It radiated majestic calm. When he entered the hall, he was surrounded by peasants, with whom he greeted cordially. They gave him milk, bread, eggs.” Answering questions from the court, Dzhunkovsky confirmed that, as a comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs, he opposed Rasputin in order to strengthen the tsarist power, because it would be low and simply vile on his part if, while serving the sovereign, he did not want to strengthen his power .
All the witnesses who spoke in court spoke in defense of Dzhunkovsky. A representative of handicraftsmen from the village of Vladimiro-Dzhunkovsky told how Vladimir Fedorovich helped them get land. The village was named after the benefactor. An employee of the Moscow Guardianship of People's Sobriety claimed that he cared about “good and cheap” food for the people. Actors at the Art Theater said that Dzhunkovsky lifted the censorship ban on the play “Julius Caesar.” In his last word, Dzhunkovsky said: “I came to the revolutionary tribunal with a clear conscience, with a clear conscience I am leaving and will accept any sentence, no matter how severe it may be.” Despite the fact that the judicial investigation did not establish the facts of executions of workers and peasants on the direct orders of Dzhunkovsky, he, being a convinced monarchist, in the opinion of the court, was dangerous for the Soviet government in the context of the Civil War. The court sentenced him to imprisonment in a concentration camp until the end of the Civil War without applying an amnesty."
Apparently, for health reasons, Dzhunkovsky was placed in the Taganskaya prison, where he was in charge of the rabbit breeding department. According to the memoirs of Prince S.E. Trubetskoy, he enjoyed exceptional respect from the prison guards. They still remembered his visits to the prison as governor. “It was funny to see how, when the prison governor passed, the guards casually saluted him (sometimes while sitting!),” the prince later wrote, “and how these same old-timers stood up to attention and clearly saluted Dzhunkovsky, who walked through the prison in his dirty work apron.” . In June 1920, due to an aggravated illness, he was placed in a hospital of the city health department and was given bail to his sister Evdokia Fedorovna.
According to agent reports, Dzhunkovsky “went out for a walk in the city every day without an escort, went to his sister’s apartment, dined there, attended all-night vigils, visited prominent counter-revolutionary clergy... he was often visited by high-ranking officials such as Count Tatishchev, Prince Muratov, Sabashnikov M V., Prince N.S. Shcherbatov, who serves as director of the historical museum, generals and people who previously held prominent positions... Dzhunkovsky maintains a very unlimited correspondence, escaping attention due to the use mainly of human mail... Dzhunkovsky has relations with counter-revolutionary elements who are trying with all their might to undermine the authority of the authorities, enjoys serious authority and can thus provide guidelines for possible counter-revolutionary machinations.”
As a result of the searches conducted at Dzhunkovsky, Samarin and Shcherbatov, nothing was found, but despite this, on February 9, 1921, Dzhunkovsky was again placed in Taganskaya prison. On February 18, the Presidium of the Cheka issued a resolution: “...to be taken into custody to serve further punishment, according to the verdict of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal.”
On March 23, by order of the Cheka, Dzhunkovsky was transferred to the internal prison of the Special Department of the Cheka, and on April 4 - to Butyrskaya prison. “For what reason I was placed first in the internal prison of the Cheka, and then 12 days later in Butyrskaya, I don’t know, because. k. nothing was announced to me, and I was not interrogated...” -
Dzhunkovsky wrote to Samsonov, a member of the Cheka Board, on May 21, 1921. By this time, Dzhunkovsky’s sentence had already been changed: on November 7, 1920, the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal replaced his term of imprisonment - until the end of the Civil War - with five years. On June 3, 1921, a meeting of the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal was held on his early release based on the decree of March 25, 1921, but the release was temporarily rejected until the suppression of gangs in the Far East.
V. F. Dzhunkovsky during his imprisonment in Taganskaya prison (1919-1921).
The portrait is kept by Olga Valentinovna
Savchenko, great-granddaughters 0.F.Gershelman, sisters of Dzhunkovsky.
On July 2, 1921, the All-Russian Central Executive Committee issued a resolution on the release of Dzhunkovsky, and on July 4, a warrant from the Moscow Revolutionary Tribunal with a resolution from the All-Russian Central Executive Committee was received in Butyrka prison. The Butyrka prison asked the Cheka if there were any obstacles to his release. The answer was that he could not be released temporarily. “I ask the Moscow Department of Justice to find out how I should now be registered, on what rights,” Dzhunkovsky wrote on September 25, 1921 from the Moscow prison hospital, where he was placed on August 31.
On November 28, according to the coupon received by the head of the Butyrskaya prison, Dzhunkovsky was to be immediately released from arrest “according to the resolution of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee of November 25. and the order of Comrade Unschlicht dated November 26, 1921.”
According to the memoirs of Voloshina-Sabashnikova, before Dzhunkovsky’s release, his deeply religious sister Evdokia Fedorovna heard in a dream the singing of a prayer service addressing three saints, whose names she had never heard before. It was written in the church calendar that these saints are the patrons of prisoners, and she sent a prayer to her brother in prison so that he himself could pray to them. On the day of the celebration of these saints, she asked the priest to serve them a prayer service at her home. During this service, Dzhunkovsky entered the room. He was suddenly ordered to pack his things and announced that he had been released. “The cab driver who was taking him from the prison saw that both the higher and lower staff of the prison came out of the gates, seeing him off, and asked him on the way: “Who are you that all the staff are seeing you off with honor?” - “I am Dzhunkovsky.” - “Are you a relative of our governor?” —
“I am the one.” - "How! - The driver stopped his horse and got off the box. - Let me look at you...
With that beard, I would never recognize you. Today I will visit all the tea shops and tell all the cab drivers that our governor has been released.”
On Easter, April 16, Dzhunkovsky was in the Temple of the Iveron Community, and on April 24 he was again summoned to the Lubyanka and interrogated, and in the interrogation report in the column “political beliefs” it was written “monarchist”, and in the column “occupation” - “ home teacher (now).” To the question: “Have you ever campaigned while reading a poster about the confiscation of church valuables?” - Dzhunkovsky replied: “I say in the affirmative that I have never carried out such campaigning and have never been in the crowd.”
On August 16, 1922, on the basis of a GPU warrant, his house was searched. “Various kinds of correspondence and photographic cards” were confiscated. The note to the protocol says: “...gr. Dzhunkovsky is currently lying sick with a broken leg.” In January 1923, Sheshkin, an employee of the GPU SO, wrote in his conclusion on the Dzhunkovsky case that, according to intelligence data, he was dealing with counter-revolutionary elements, but the search and investigative development did not confirm this data. At a meeting of the GPU Collegium on January 31, it was decided to terminate the case and put it in the archives. Thus, the change in the conditions of Dzhunkovsky’s detention at the beginning of 1921 and his sudden release in November of the same year were not associated with his participation in Operation Trust, as the American historian R. Robbins suggested in his article. There were real reasons for the tightening of Dzhunkovsky’s prison regime, although he himself obviously did not consider communicating with friends and visiting church to be counter-revolutionary activities. It is difficult to believe that a person recognized by the court as a “convinced monarchist” and later suspected of anti-Soviet machinations could be involved in a secret operation. At the same time, the process of his release was underway. The Cheka granted Dzhunkovsky’s request to be transferred to solitary confinement and ultimately to a prison hospital, i.e. it cannot be said that unbearable conditions were created for him.
Until September 25, 1921, Dzhunkovsky knew nothing about his new position. Surveillance and searches after his release indicate that he was not trusted. Despite his loyalty to the Soviet regime, Dzhunkovsky, still remaining a deeply religious man, of course, could not approve of the closure and destruction of churches, as indirectly evidenced by the note in his memoirs about the destruction of the church he went to as a child with his parents.
In addition, there is evidence of a contemporary of the events who took part in the “Trust” operation, B.I. Gudz, who in an interview with N. Dolgopolov stated: “...if Dzhunkovsky had worked for the “Trust”,™ Artuzov and Styrna would have told me this is said
V. F. Dzhunkovsky with his niece 0. D. Gershelman in the last years of his life.
The photograph is kept by Olga Valentinovna
Savchenko, great-granddaughters 0. F. Gershelman, Dzhunkovsky’s sisters. Reproduced for the first time.
they said, but I’ve never heard anything like that from them in my life.” The President of the Society for the Study of the History of Russian Special Services, Doctor of Historical Sciences A. A. Zdanovich, who thoroughly studied the archives of the Trust while working on his doctoral dissertation, also claims that Dzhunkovsky had nothing to do with this operation. There is no mention of Dzhunkovsky in the Trust case. In his secret note from 1932 about this operation, written for internal use, V. A. Styrna also says nothing about consultations or participation of Dzhunkovsky.
In 1922, the woman whom he loved all his life, Antonina Vasilievna Evreinova, left Russia forever. On March 26, 1923, Dzhunkovsky sent her a postcard with an image of the icon, on which he wrote: “You cannot follow the Lord Crusader without a cross. What is a cross? All kinds of inconveniences, hardships and sorrows that come from outside and inside on the path of conscientious fulfillment of the Lord’s commandments in life in accordance with the spirit of his instructions and requirements. Such a cross is fused with a Christian in such a way that where there is a Christian, there is this cross, and where this cross is not, there is no Christian. All-round preferential treatment for life's pleasures does not suit a true Christian. His task is to cleanse and correct himself...”
Dzhunkovsky also corresponded with A.F. Koni. On January 26, 1927, Vladimir Fedorovich, congratulating Koni on his birthday, wrote: “Dear, revered Anatoly Fedorovich, I often mentally transport myself to you, especially in some difficult moments, which I often have to experience now. There are fewer and fewer people with whom one could talk and be understood, and not because they leave, but because rarely does anyone not change and begin to look at things with different eyes.”
In the 1920s, Dzhunkovsky gave private French lessons. According to some reports, he served as a watchman in the church29. For more than 10 years, Vladimir Fedorovich worked on his multi-volume memoirs, which in March 1934 were acquired by the Central Museum of Fiction, Criticism and Journalism. At the same time, Dzhunkovsky sold to the museum the famous portrait of A. S. Pushkin’s daughter Natalya Alexandrovna Pushkina-Merenberg, painted by I. K. Makarov, which is now in the Pushkin Museum-Apartment on
Moika in St. Petersburg. Vladimir Fedorovich maintained friendly relations with M. A. Pushkina-Hartung.
To write his memoirs, Dzhunkovsky used his personal archive, which he collected throughout his life and, after the revolution, transferred for storage to the Pushkin House.
When the “Academic Case” began in 1929, it was the storage of Dzhunkovsky’s archive that served as one of the reasons for accusing S. F. Platonov and his colleagues of anti-Soviet activities. In this regard, two searches were carried out at Dzhunkovsky’s place, and he was summoned to the OGPU to testify about how his archive got into the Pushkin House.
Evdokia Fedorovna, who dearly loved her younger brother and always took care of him, died on November 8, 1935. After the issuance of Order No. 00447 of July 30, 1937 on the repression of former kulaks, criminals and other anti-Soviet elements, which included former officials of Tsarist Russia, Dzhunkovsky’s fate was sealed. On the night of December 3–4, 1937, he was arrested on charges of counter-revolutionary activities. During the interrogation on December 5, Dzhunkovsky did not hide the fact that he served in the tsarist army and led an active struggle against the revolutionary movement. However, he did not plead guilty. The reason for his accusation was the testimony of two janitors of the house on Begovaya Street, where Dzhunkovsky spent his last years - Abdula Khasyanov and Sergei Zhogov. The latter testified that Dzhunkovsky told him: “Well, Sergei Afanasyevich, you yourself see what the Bolsheviks brought the people to, to hunger and poverty, but before it was, it’s nice to remember - cheap food, cheap clothes and shoes... now they are not leaders , but bonzes who live on people’s money.”
Dzhunkovsky's nieces, N. Sheba-shova and E. Makarenko, sent a letter to I.V. Stalin, in which they asked for his release, pointing out that he had never opposed Soviet power, and was currently “sick with angina pectoris and heart disease and needs constant medical supervision and care, he, of course, does not have long to live.”
The letter did not reach Stalin. However, the mention in the letter of consultations that Dzhunkovsky gave to the OGPU delayed the inevitable end for some time. After all, already on December 19, 1937, an indictment was drawn up with a resolution: “Submit the case for consideration by the “troika.” On December 28, answering the investigator’s question: “When and why were you called to the OGPU - NKVD?”, Dzhunkovsky stated: “I was called to the OGPU 3 times, the first time I was called in 1928 to OGPU employee Andreeva on the issue of the arrival of foreigners, Andreeva was interested in what the procedure for the arrival of foreigners was before 1917. Moreover, during the conversation with Andreeva, another OGPU employee was present (I don’t know his last name, with 4 diamonds - insignia). The second time I was called in 1932 to Andreeva and the same employee to whom I was called in 1928, but I did not have a conversation with Andreeva, because she took me to another office to Mikhail Sergeevich (I don’t know his last name) ... my conversation with Mikhail Sergeevich lasted up to 4 hours on the issue of the passport system. The third time I was summoned in 1933 to the OGPU to Mikhail Sergeevich on the issue of the structure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where I gave detailed information on the structure of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and on the issue of security when traveling on the emperor’s railways. I was no longer called to the OGPU-NKVD.”
The famous writer R.V. Ivanov-Razumnik left memories of Dzhunkovsky’s last days in Butyrka prison: “He was a charming old man, lively and vigorous, despite his seventy years, who treated his Butyrka situation with irony. During the three days of our proximity, he told me so many interesting things about the past days that it would be enough for a whole book. To my great regret, he was taken away from us, where - we could not guess.” In the absence of any material evidence, according to the decision of the judicial “troika” of February 21, 1938, Dzhunkovsky was shot at the Butovo training ground on February 26, 1938. There is no separate grave for him.
Based on Article 1 of the Decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated January 16, 1989, Dzhunkovsky was posthumously rehabilitated. On May 8, 1994, the Poklonny Cross was consecrated at the Butovo training ground.
In 2007, Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Alexy II blessed the river procession to transfer from Solovki to Butovo the Great Cross of Worship, made in the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Solovetsky Monastery. This cross was installed next to the Church of the Resurrection of Christ and the Holy New Martyrs and Confessors of Russia. The event had a great public resonance.
On August 8, 2007, on the seventieth anniversary of the start of the executions at the Butovo training ground, hundreds of people came to honor the memory of the victims.
Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky served Russia with dignity all his life. The cross, consecrated in memory of all victims of terror, completed the story of his earthly life.
Text and photographs by A. Dunaev, Ph.D. When using, a link to the magazine is required!
Rodina magazine is available at all distribution points
Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, Grand Duchess
Elizaveta Fedorovna and Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky:
a story of friendship and spiritual communication
Moscow Governor, His Majesty's Retinue, Major General V.F. Dzhunkovsky
(GA RF. F. 826. Op. 1. D. 890. L. 6, 19.)
Vladimir Fedorovich Dzhunkovsky (1865 - 1938) was an outstanding statesman of the Russian Empire at the beginning of the twentieth century. He is known to historians as the Moscow governor (1905 - 1912), comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs and commander of the Separate Corps of Gendarmes (1913 - 1915), as well as the author of multi-volume memoirs - a kind of chronicle of late imperial Russia. Dzhunkovsky's memoirs cover the period from 1865 to 1917. Memoirs for the years 1905 - 1915 were published in 1997. However, beyond the scope of this two-volume publication there remained a very interesting period in the life of Vladimir Fedorovich, associated with his formation as a statesman. From 1892 to 1905, Dzhunkovsky served as adjutant to the Moscow Governor-General, Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, and constantly communicated with both the Grand Duke and his wife, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna. Dzhunkovsky’s memoirs, as well as his correspondence with his sister Evdokia Fedorovna, allow us to penetrate into the world of friendly communication that has developed between Vladimir Fedorovich and the grand ducal couple, to see those informal episodes of this communication that best characterize the personalities of its participants.
It should be said that the Dzhunkovsky family was officially recorded in the Nobility Book of the Poltava Province only in 1845. Under the coat of arms, the motto was written in Latin - “Deo et Proximo”, which translated means “To God and Neighbor”. The motto of the Dzhunkovsky family reproduced in abbreviated form the two main commandments left by the Savior.
“This motto,” wrote Vladimir Fedorovich, “my parents carefully kept in their hearts and followed it throughout their lives, trying to educate us in the same spirit, and if any of us did not observe it in all severity, then it is our fault no longer our parents, but ourselves.”
The family motto was organically supplemented by the commandments of the Knights of Malta, on which he was raised in the Corps of Pages of His Imperial Majesty, an elite military educational institution where Vladimir Fedorovich received his education.
Serving as an aide-de-camp to the Moscow Governor-General, the instructions given to him by Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, allowed Vladimir Fedorovich not only to develop administrative abilities, but also to bring to life the motto of the family. Subsequently, Christian charity and the desire for moral justification of his powers of power were always present in Dzhunkovsky’s activities, in his attitude towards his subordinates and the population. It seems that in this sense he was influenced by communication with the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess, those examples of merciful attitude towards his neighbor, which he could observe in relation to himself.
In 1884, after graduating from the Corps of Pages, Vladimir Fedorovich was released into the Preobrazhensky Regiment, commanded by Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. Relations with the regiment commander and his wife, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna, developed well. Subordination on the part of Dzhunkovsky in relation to them as representatives of the Royal House was never violated, but these relations later grew from official to friendly.
Elizaveta Fedorovna struck Dzhunkovsky with her beauty even during her wedding to Grand Duke Sergei in 1882, when he accompanied her carriage as a page.
“Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna was charming, she talked to everyone with such attention, she captivated everyone with her beauty, grace and amazing modesty and simplicity, that it was impossible to look at her other than with admiration,” recalled Vladimir Fedorovich. His archive contains a poem by the poet K.R. that he rewrote. :
I look at you, admiring you every hour.
You are so inexpressibly beautiful!
Oh, true, under such a beautiful appearance
Such a beautiful soul!
In Ilyinsky. Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna surrounded by members of their retinue.
Right: V.S. Gadon (standing), V.F. Dzhunkovsky (sitting), Count F.F. Sumarokov-Elston.
To the left of the Grand Duke is Princess Z.N. Yusupova. (GA RF. F. 826. Op.1.D. 889.L.2.)
Dzhunkovsky's position could have changed significantly already in 1886, when he was first hinted at the possibility of becoming an aide-de-camp to Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. While taking his leave to the Grand Duke on the occasion of his departure on vacation, he unexpectedly received an invitation to stop by for a few days at Ilinskoye, and the Grand Duke made him promise to telegraph so that horses would be sent for him. Dzhunkovsky, not without embarrassment, drove up to the estate and felt very embarrassed at first; out of excitement he spilled vodka on the tablecloth during lunch, despite the fact that the environment in which he found himself was the most friendly. Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna said that she had already been waiting for him all these days. Gradually, thanks to the naturalness with which the grand ducal couple behaved, his stiffness passed. “I was struck by the simplicity with which Their Highnesses behaved, from the very first evening I did not feel not only any fear, but also any embarrassment, everything was so simple, family-like, no one stood up when the Grand Duchess or the Grand Duke passed by, just like in a simple family home, even simpler than in other aristocratic houses. I was always amazed by the special simplicity that was characteristic of members of the imperial house outside of official receptions,” recalled Vladimir Fedorovich.
During his stay at Ilyinsky, Professor V.P. Bezobrazov, a former teacher of political economy for the Grand Duke, asked Dzhunkovsky how he would react to the offer to become the Grand Duke’s adjutant, “after all, in essence, this position is unpleasant, lackey.”
“I replied,” Dzhunkovsky wrote, “that I would consider it a great honor if the choice fell on me<…>that you can bring a lot of benefit by holding such a position, that everything depends on yourself, you just don’t have to lose your self and behave with dignity, then the position of adjutant will be far from being a lackey.” Bezobrazov’s words made a strong impression on him and made him think; his peace of mind was disturbed by these thoughts. “On the one hand, this kind of appointment flattered my pride, on the other hand, it was terribly painful for me to leave combat service in the regiment, which I more than liked, which I was passionate about and found satisfaction in regimental life,” he recalled.
Subsequently, it turned out that the Grand Duke really had such thoughts, and that is why Dzhunkovsky was invited to Ilyinskoye. However, at the same time, Countess Tizenhausen asked Count Sumarokov-Elston for her nephew, who was appointed to this position. “I think it saved me. If I had been appointed adjutant then, in such a young age,” Dzhunkovsky wrote, “then nothing decent would have come of me. I didn’t know life at all then, and court life would have completely captivated me.<…>She would have sucked me in. And I thank God that this didn’t happen then.”
On February 9, 1891, the Grand Duke was appointed Moscow Governor-General. On the day of the regiment’s surrender, he gave an order in which he said goodbye to the regiment and “surprisingly cordially, without a stereotype, thanked everyone for their service.” Dzhunkovsky expected to be appointed to the post of adjutant of the Governor-General, since he enjoyed great attention from the Grand Duke throughout his entire service.
However, the offer came only at the end of December. Moreover, before agreeing, Vladimir Fedorovich turned to the Grand Duke with a request to receive his mother’s blessing. “The Grand Duke treated me like family,” he recalled, “and touched me very much, saying that without my mother’s blessing I should not decide anything.<…>As a result, my mother blessed me to take this step." On December 14, 1891, the Highest order on the appointment of Dzhunkovsky was issued. The lower ranks of the company in which Vladimir Fedorovich served blessed him with the image of St. Vladimir. Dzhunkovsky received a reception from Emperor Alexander III, who asked him to bow to his brother. Empress Maria Feodorovna also expressed her pleasure at his appointment. But Vladimir Fedorovich himself was uneasy in his soul, it seemed to him that he had changed his regiment, his new life was confusing with complete uncertainty.
On December 26, 1891, Dzhunkovsky arrived in Moscow. Straight from the station he went to venerate the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God on Red Square. Then he went to Neskuchnoye, the residence of the Grand Duke, who, according to Vladimir Fedorovich, “moved him to tears,” accepting him as his own. “He hugged me, kissed me, saying that he was very happy to see me at his place, sat me down and talked with me for half an hour, asking me with the most heartfelt sympathy about everything: how I parted with the regiment, how I left my loved ones, how my mother’s health and etc.,” recalled Dzhunkovsky. At about one o'clock in the afternoon there followed an invitation to the Grand Duchess, who also accepted him as her own.
“She was amazingly sweet and attractive,” Vladimir Fedorovich wrote in his memoirs, “it seemed to me that she had become even prettier. At breakfast she sat me down next to her.”
At that time, the nephews of Sergei Alexandrovich lived in Neskuchny - Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna and Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich. The Grand Duke treated them “like the most tender, loving father, and he and the Grand Duchess surrounded the children with the most touching care.”
Dzhunkovsky made a detailed plan of his new apartment for his elder sister Evdokia Feodorovna, for which she thanked him in a letter dated February 18, 1892, and added: “I’m sorry that I have not yet fulfilled your instructions regarding the photo of V. Kn. Ate. Fed. “I’ll do it today.”
In Ilyinsky. Interior of Evdokia Fedorovna's room.
Portrait of V.F. Dzhunkovsky, written by Grand Duchess Elizaveta Fedorovna. (GA RF. F. 826. Op. 1. D. 1009. L. 29.)
On January 5, coming to dinner at 8 o'clock in the evening, Dzhunkovsky was very embarrassed when he saw only three devices; it turned out that Stenbock, Gadon and Stepanov had gone to the English Club, and Princess Trubetskoy had gone to see her sister. “I wondered if I had made a tactlessness by not also leaving somewhere and, when Their Majesties went out to the dining room, I apologized that I didn’t know that everyone had left,” recalled Vladimir Fedorovich. - The Grand Duke, noticing my embarrassment, very affectionately said: “On the contrary, it is very good that you stayed, at least we are not alone.” But still, while the three of us were having lunch, I felt somehow awkward<…>" After lunch, the Grand Duke went to study in his office. Dzhunkovsky was left alone with the Grand Duchess. “I was extremely shy, it seemed to me that maybe she wanted to either read a book or write a letter, but because of me she was sitting and working,” he wrote in his memoirs. - Thanks to my embarrassment, I did not know where to start the conversation, and we were silent for some time. But then she started talking, began to remember England and told me a lot that was completely new and extremely interesting to me about life in England, about her grandmother Queen Victoria, etc. The two hours that I sat with the Grand Duchess passed doubly unnoticed. Then the Grand Duke came, they served tea and soon dispersed.”
Court social life and the routine duties of an adjutant never attracted Vladimir Fedorovich. “Such a monotonous, idle life did not satisfy me and was very burdensome to me, which did not escape the Grand Duchess and the sensitive Grand Duke, who was always looking for some kind of assignment for me so that I would not be so sad.<…>they often wondered why I was dissatisfied.<…>Then they got used to the idea that I would never become a real courtier, that I would always be looking into the forest, and they no longer fought against this, but on the contrary, they tried to make my life easier in this regard,” he recalled.
From the very beginning of his service, the Grand Duke gave Dzhunkovsky special assignments in which he could prove himself as an administrator and organizer, and when describing each such assignment, Vladimir Fedorovich noted how happy he was to escape from the court environment. The first task was directly related to helping others and the national disaster - the famine relief campaign of 1891-1892.
Already in February 1892, Dzhunkovsky was sent to the Saratov province as an authorized representative of the Committee of Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna for the distribution of aid among the famine-stricken.
Dzhunkovsky was supposed to visit the districts affected by the crop failure, check the needs locally, and distribute the aid sent from the Committee.
Evdokia Fedorovna wrote to him on February 23, 1892: “My friend, Vadyusha, we beg you, take care of your health, always think about your dear mother, who, of course, will mentally accompany you everywhere and worry about your health. “Of course, Vadyusha, each of us should be happy to help our neighbor and you, undoubtedly, can bring a lot of benefit, but it’s hard for us to let you leave the house without equipping you for the journey.” May the blessing of the Lord be upon you; pray to the Lord and we will pray for you every minute<…>Take a warm sweatshirt and warm clothes with you, it’s necessary. Take your mattress with you."
Dzhunkovsky successfully completed the assignment given to him. His elder brother Nikolai expressed his approval for this trip: “I think that you fulfilled the instructions given to you in the best possible way to distribute money, bread and hay.”<…>, because I know your attitude towards every task entrusted to you, and since your actions are animated by love for the work, then it will be good.”
December 14, 1892 marked exactly one year since Dzhunkovsky was appointed adjutant to the Grand Duke, and this was the day of his duty. "<…>when I entered the office to report on Prince Shcherbatov’s arrival,” he wrote in his memoirs, “the Grand Duke told me that he was congratulating himself on the anniversary of my appointment to him. These words confused me and moved me to tears, I was completely at a loss.”
The Grand Duke's trust was manifested in the fact that he entrusted Dzhunkovsky to look after his nephews Maria and Dmitry in Ilyinskoye when he himself was away. “Of course, I couldn’t even think of refusing,” he recalled, “knowing that children were the most precious thing in life for the Grand Duke, he always trembled over them.” In a letter dated July 22, 1893, Dzhunkovsky wrote: “I was very happy that I could personally congratulate her (Maria Pavlovna - A.D.) and hand over your doll and watering can. If you saw her delight at the sight of a doll with a lot of clothes, she immediately wanted to take everything off, change her clothes and kept saying very pretty<…>I’m extremely happy that I stayed with the children.”
E.F. Dzhunkovskaya and her pupil Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna. 1908 (GA RF. F. 826. Op. 1. D. 917. L. 19.)
Confidence was also given to Dzhunkovsky's sister Evdokia Fedorovna. In November 1895, she was invited to become the teacher of Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna. And although Evdokia Feodorovna, who was also officially considered a maid of honor to Their Majesties the Empresses, was busy with her work in the Evgenievsky community of nurses of the Red Cross, she could not refuse. In a letter to her brother, she relayed a story to one of the court ladies: “Yesterday I was with the Empress and the Empress asked me what are the children of Pavel Alex.? - I answered that I had not been there yet and was afraid to go there, I heard a new person there in front of the children - a stranger. - To this the Emperor said: “Don’t be afraid, go and you will see what kind of gentleness this is, there won’t be a second one like her, she will positively be a mother - everyone loves her terribly.” Vadyusha, it just makes me scared – such reviews! Help me Lord!
In a letter to her brother dated August 20, 1896, Evdokia Feodorovna quoted from the Grand Duke’s letter sent to her from abroad: “Dear Evd. F., I have just received your dear letter. Alas! the last one from Ilyinsky, and from the bottom of my heart I thank you for everything that is so touchingly stated in it! I am infinitely glad that you fell in love with Baby (Grand Duchess Maria Pavlovna - A.D.) and that she treats you so trustingly. – Your wife thanks you from the bottom of her heart for your letter.<…>Be kind enough to write to me sometimes - if only you knew how much you would please me with this. Heartfelt bow to your brother<…>» .
Brother and sister earned universal respect and love due to their conscientiousness, seriousness and deep religiosity.
General sympathy was especially clearly manifested during Vladimir Fedorovich’s unexpected illness - rheumatism of the knee joint, due to which in the spring of 1894 he was forced to spend more than one week sitting in a chair or lying down. On May 29, Dzhunkovsky received a “huge bouquet of lilies of the valley” from the Grand Duchess. May 31 – 3 bouquets of lilies of the valley and one of the cornflowers. The Grand Duke hung funny pictures in Ilyinsky in Dzhunkovsky’s room so that he would not be bored lying there. “What an attentive Grand Duchess that she sent lilies of the valley,” wrote Evdokia Fedorovna on June 2, 1894, and in the next letter she added: “And how the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess are attentive to you, but it cannot be otherwise.” “The Queen of Greece asked about you, about your health, and was sorry that you were sick,” her sister reported on July 27. - And in response to my answer that Their Highnesses were so merciful to my brother and surrounded him with attention, the queen said: “Everyone loves and appreciates your brother so much that this cannot be otherwise.” Here, my dear, they give you your due." Grand Duke Mikhail Nikolaevich also shared his opinion about her brother with Evdokia Fedorovna: “I love (like everyone) your brother dearly, he is so sweet<…>here is Vel. Book I visited him every day, I regret that I could not spend whole days with him, he is so good. Bow to him."
In 1894, Vladimir Fedorovich’s mother Maria Karlovna became seriously ill. Dzhunkovsky went to see her in St. Petersburg and even invited Fr. John of Kronstadt to pray at her bedside, after which Maria Karlovna felt much better. The Grand Duke and Grand Duchess showed active participation in his personal misfortune. “The Grand Duchess met me so joyfully, she said that she was so happy that my mother was getting better, that she kept thinking about her, and if she weren’t afraid of being annoying, she would send dispatches every day,” Dzhunkovsky wrote in his memoirs. “The Grand Duke was also touching, asking the most detailed details about the state of my mother’s health.”
In his memoirs, Vladimir Fedorovich cited two letters from the Grand Duke to him, “serving as proof of his unusually sensitive soul.” On May 16, 1895, the Grand Duke wrote to him:
“Dear Vladimir Fedorovich,
Today I received both your letters and I sincerely thank you for them.<…>I want you to know that there is a person who with all his soul sympathizes with your grief and who is praying for you, so that the Lord will help and calm you. The wife sends her heartfelt regards.<…>God bless you. Yours Sergei."
Nina Vasilievna Evreinova
Vladimir Fedorovich could fully feel the cordial support of the grand ducal couple in 1897, when he was experiencing a serious emotional drama related to his personal life. Dzhunkovsky fell in love with Nina Vasilyevna Evreinova, who came from the famous merchant family of the Sabashnikovs. The famous pianist N.G. Rubinstein spoke of her like this: “This young lady has three dowries - talent, beauty and wealth, as long as they do not interfere with each other.” However, her marriage to Alexei Vladimirovich Evreinov, which produced four children, was not happy. The meeting with Dzhunkovsky took place in 1893. The friendship that initially arose between them grew into a strong feeling, and raised the question of choice, which caused a strong internal struggle.
At the beginning of 1897, the lovers decided to separate for a year in order to cool down and calmly make a decision, which we can judge from Evdokia Fedorovna’s letter dated January 18, 1897: “May the Lord give you the strength to endure the test - it seems to me that such a decision is the best - the year will show you everything - and the Lord will arrange everything for the better.” The topic of Nina Vasilievna’s official divorce and remarriage to Vladimir Fedorovich is constantly present in his sister’s letters in 1897. Evdokia Fedorovna believed that a divorce would not bring them happiness. “Others may not have had the reproaches of divorced people,” she wrote to her brother on January 10, 1897, “but you are both such believers. Will you be completely happy - I’m telling this only to you, my Vadya - I’m telling you alone what I think.”
On January 13, 1897, Evdokia Fedorovna informed her brother that Nina Vasilievna was praying for him, and added: “You write that Vel. Book As a brother, that means you told him;<…>Vadya, don’t lose heart. You haven’t done anything criminal, and the Lord will arrange everything for the better.”
In a letter dated February 19, 1897, she wrote to the Grand Duke: “Thank you for the information about my brother - I am very, very sad about his moral suffering.<…>It’s terribly difficult for both of them not to write to each other now, but it seems to me that it’s better this way. “It is a great consolation for me to know that Your Highness understood my brother and treats him cordially.” The letter dated April 28 is also filled with gratitude: “Your Highness, I cannot find words to express to you how deeply I feel everything you have done for my brother. I know what prompted you to appoint him on this business trip - I thank you and the Grand Duchess for your kind and cordial relationship with him. God grant that the work entrusted to him will force him to take it seriously - work and activity are the best means for his moral state.”
Indeed, the new business trip was completely unexpected for Dzhunkovsky - he was to lead the medical detachment of the Iveron community of nurses, equipped by the Grand Duchess from the Russian Red Cross Society. A detachment of 19 people was supposed to organize a hospital to help the Turkish wounded at the theater of the Greco-Turkish War. The new assignment was fully consistent with the Dzhunkovsky family motto “To God and neighbor.”
Evdokia Feodorovna wrote to her brother on April 24, 1897: “It’s your destiny to work in my dear Red Cross<…>, I bless you for your journey, for a good deed - in good time - happy journey! Write everything to your friend and sister." And the next day - the day of departure - the sister served a prayer service for the travelers in the Znamenskaya Church of Tsarskoe Selo and admonished her brother: “The Lord is sending you to such activity in which you can bring many, many benefits to your neighbor - and I am sure that you will fulfill your duty ".
The farewell to the Grand Duke and Grand Duchess was very cordial. "<…>I went to Their Highnesses, first to the Grand Duchess, and then to the Grand Duke, received a pattern from them, and the Grand Duke gave me 2 dozen wonderful silk shirts, which he made for himself while going to war in 1877 and which he only once I put on or two, completely new,” Dzhunkovsky recalled. -<…>I wore them even during the last world war and now, when I am writing these lines, I still have one of them, I keep it as a dear memory.” This farewell excited Vladimir Fedorovich very much; all the way to the station he could not utter a word. “The way they said goodbye to me, it was possible to say goodbye only to those closest to me,” he wrote in his memoirs.
In Turkey, Vladimir Fedorovich continued to receive letters from his sister. On May 23, 1897, Evdokia Feodorovna wrote to him: “I read and reread your lines<…>. Take care of yourself, I’m afraid that in caring for others, you completely forget yourself.” “You can’t imagine how V. Prince. Eliz. F. praised you in front of the Empress. It was so gratifying to listen to this, because... these were not empty words!” she continued further.
At the conclusion of his official report, Vladimir Fedorovich wrote that thanks to the united efforts of the entire detachment, he had to not only fulfill his direct task, but also bring awareness of the height of Christian help among the Muslim population.
The meeting with their Highnesses was joyful and touching. The Grand Duke, without waiting for him in Ilyinsky, went to meet Dzhunkovsky’s crew along the road. “He hugged me,” recalled Vladimir Fedorovich, “he was terribly sweet, said that he was so afraid for me, that he was so glad that I returned healthy.” On January 1, 1898, Vladimir Fedorovich once again specially thanked the Grand Duke in a letter. “The past year began so painfully for me,” he wrote, “and all of it was very difficult for me morally, and only thanks to Your Highnesses I could live it so relatively easily.<…>Your participation in me, in everything that I experienced last spring, will remain until the end of my life the most precious memories and proof of your infinitely cordial attitude towards me. May the Lord reward you and help me prove my devotion to you. My assignment to the theater of war with the Red Cross detachment saved me from melancholy and despair, made me perk up, and forget for a while my personal suffering.”
However, he was never able to resolve the problem that tormented him in the way he desired. Dzhunkovsky mentions in his memoirs that he received news in Turkey from Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna, who met Nina Vasilievna in Paris, which was a great joy for him. We can only judge how events unfolded in Paris during the business trip and after it from Evdokia Fedorovna’s letters. The sister mentioned the conversation between Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna and Nina Vasilievna in a letter to her brother dated September 7, 1897 from the resort town of Saint-Jean de Luz in France, where Evreinova was also vacationing at that time: “... about the arrival of A.V. N.V. doesn’t know whether he’ll come here or to Paris. He writes to children. N.V., as I wrote to you, is much calmer, physically healthy, she talks about the future that she hopes to achieve freedom - but knowing about A.Vl.’s divorce, she believes that he will never give it to her. N.V. I was told that V. Kn. she told her that he would surely give if she demanded; but N.V. V. Kn. told me. she says this because she doesn’t have children, “I will never part with my children.” Now she is happy with the general structure at home, the children are healthy, cheerful, cheerful and everything is going well with their activities.”
Nina Vasilievna’s divorce from her husband never took place. In 1903, Alexey Vladimirovich died, but for some reason Nina Vasilievna no longer wanted to get married. However, the friendly relationship between Vladimir Fedorovich and Nina Vasilievna continued until her emigration to France in 1922. After her departure, they maintained correspondence. Moreover, Vladimir Fedorovich always took touching care of Nina Vasilievna and helped her children. Evreinova’s granddaughter Nina Rausch de Traubenberg recalled that he was a kind of guardian angel for her grandmother, which was happiness for her and for the whole family.
Since 1901, Vladimir Fedorovich was involved in the new activity of the Moscow Metropolitan Trusteeship for People's Sobriety.
Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich entrusted the position of Comrade Chairman to Dzhunkovsky, telling him: “I know how much you always crave work<…>all the work will be on you<…>this appointment is quite compatible with your position as adjutant under me and I will not lose you in this way.” People's houses, teahouses, Sunday schools and hospitals run by Dzhunkovsky provided the people with healthy and cheap food, educated the residents of Moscow, and provided assistance to the sick. The administrative and economic experience accumulated in this post (Dzhunkovsky oversaw the work of 13 people's houses) allowed him to confidently assume the post of governor.
Changes in his career followed the tragic death of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich. In his memoirs, Dzhunkovsky cited the Grand Duke’s last letter dated January 1, 1905, a month before his death: “Dear Vladimir Fedorovich, you deeply touched my wife and me, blessing us with the icon of the Guardian Angel, which, of course, will always be with us. Good relationships are always especially felt in difficult moments: such is the current one. Thank you from the bottom of my heart. Hugs. Yours Sergey. January 1, 1905."
Dzhunkovsky, as usual, was working in the office of the Guardianship when he was informed about the murder of the Grand Duke. Taking the first available cab, he rushed to the Kremlin. “It is difficult to describe the sad picture that presented itself to my eyes,” he wrote in his memoirs, “complete silence around, few people, soldiers and officers are carrying something covered with a soldier’s overcoat, to which the Grand Duchess with a calm face is holding. There are retinues and several strangers around the person. I ran up, took the Grand Duchess’s hand, kissed it and, holding onto the stretcher, walked after them.”
The Grand Duchess received many letters, which she entrusted to Dzhunkovsky to read. “All the mail came to me,” he recalled, “I put aside letters from relatives and friends, which I handed over immediately, and opened other letters and reported their contents; Then, on behalf of the Grand Duchess, I answered them, which is why not a single letter was left unanswered. But, unfortunately, there were also letters that I directly burned without reporting them; these letters, almost all anonymous, were full of curses addressed to the late Grand Duke, and some contained threats regarding the Grand Duchess. I did not leave the palace the entire time before the funeral, and throughout the day they brought me various items from the clothes of the Grand Duke, as well as particles of his body and bones.<…>I put all this together, the things were handed over to the Grand Duchess, and the particles of the remains were placed in a metal box and placed in a coffin.”
Participants in the debate: candidate of theology, priest and candidate of historical sciences, philologist and translator A. G. Dunaev. The moderator of the meeting is M. Shpakovsky.
A.M.:– Greetings to all of you, venerable fathers, brothers and sisters. My name is Alexey Makarov, I am one of the organizers of this debate. I am also the administrator of the Sacred Texts group and the creator of the English language courses named after St. Felix. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the Losev House and the people who welcomed us here and helped organize this event. Among them is Mikhail Viktorovich Shpakovsky, a student at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University, who will moderate this debate. I also thank the participants in our debate today: candidate of historical sciences Alexei Georgievich Dunaev and candidate of theology priest for agreeing to take part in the upcoming debate. The topic that will be discussed is “in the Orthodox Tradition.” Questions will be raised as to whether it exists at all, and if so, in what form. I also thank you all for coming. May the Lord give reason to those speaking and listening so that we can all draw the right conclusions and get closer to the truth through today’s dialogue. Now I give the floor to Mikhail.
M. Sh.: – My speech will be technical. Regarding the regulations. For us, this whole event takes three hours, two hours of which will be a conversation between these two opponents, and an hour will be your questions. Regarding specific technical aspects of the dispute. The first word speaks about. George - he pronounces, by mutual agreement, an apology for consensus patruma for 15 minutes, strictly. Then we begin to conduct a discussion according to the weaving principle - that is, everyone speaks, answers each other - for about 15-20 minutes. I will strictly control this. I ask listeners to maintain order in the hall, all questions are postponed until the second part, until the question part, and accordingly, between these two parts we will have a short break of 5 minutes. I give the floor to Fr. George. Get started.
O. G.M.: – Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak here. I wanted to remind you that, in fact, two months ago I published an article called “The principle of the consent of the fathers and modern attacks on it on the website “Orthodoxy. ru,” and after the publication of this article, Alexey Georgievich proposed holding such a debate. In my speech, I am not going to read out my article, and in principle I will talk and speak based on the fact that the majority of those interested in this debate are familiar with this article, so that I do not have to repeat what I already wrote in it. I will try to briefly report on the topic of our meeting today.
Actually, the principle of the consent of the fathers is the principle of the general testimony of the saints as a criterion for establishing which opinion is Orthodox teaching. The principle of the consent of the fathers itself is not a dogma, it is a means of defining dogmatic teaching. I will repeat somewhat briefly - in order to avoid any misunderstandings - some of the things said in the article, but very briefly, regarding the principle of the consent of fathers. The principle of the agreement of the fathers does not presuppose or imply that all the saints who have ever lived in the Church, who have ever been in the Church, that they all said the same thing on any occasion. Moreover, such a view precisely contradicts the need for the emergence of the principle of fathers’ consent. If all the saints always said the same thing, none of them could be mistaken in anything, there would be no need to establish the agreement of the fathers, it would be possible to take any of them and follow him.
This phenomenon in itself is the principle of the agreement of the fathers, its emergence in Orthodoxy is precisely connected with the idea that the holy fathers do not possess infallibility, but their common concordant testimony of such infallibility and such, at least, doctrinal authority, possesses. This is not the case when we talk about the agreement of the fathers on issues that they wrote about and that do not relate to the topic of dogma, the moral teaching of the Church. The Holy Fathers were people of their era and wrote on a variety of issues. Of course, what they wrote on various issues does not belong to the dogmatic sphere, and was never, anywhere and by anyone declared infallible and was not declared to be what should be included in the concept of the principle of the consent of the fathers.
Also, the third point is that even when we talk about dogmatic issues or the sphere of doctrine, we are talking about the main issues, about issues that affect salvation. It is no secret that in the field of religious doctrine one can find issues that the holy fathers themselves declared to be of secondary importance, and on some issues there was and is not a consensus of the fathers; on some issues one can assume and put forward questions that were not covered at all by the holy fathers, and on some issues one can find statements from the holy fathers, so to speak, equally - on both sides. And all this, again, as explained by the holy fathers themselves, is a sign that this question does not relate to the dogmatic sphere, and when it comes, strictly speaking, to that church teaching, which is the main thing, which is obligatory, then, according to I am convinced that at the Councils of the Orthodox Church, which have church-wide status, this doctrine was formulated to a significant extent, and those issues that subsequently, in the future, may arise - if they were not resolved within the framework of these council decisions, then in this case, according to It is possible for them to resort to the principle of the consent of the fathers in order to determine whether this or that teaching corresponds to church teaching, and whether it can be called Orthodox teaching or not.
I would also like to comment on those statements that can sometimes be heard - that the very principle of the consent of the fathers is something alien to the Orthodox Church, and in fact, in the article I mentioned I analyze and give examples of what exactly The Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church repeatedly refer to the authority of the Patristic Tradition, its authority and high authority in matters of doctrine are repeatedly proclaimed, and many examples of this can be found in the acts of the Ecumenical Councils. It must be said that this did not remain just some abstract idea that the holy fathers proclaimed. The principle of determining the consent of the fathers was one of the procedures of the Ecumenical Councils, which at each Ecumenical Council - at least those from which the acts were preserved, was carried out, the holy fathers read out excerpts - and not only excerpts cited by supporters whose opinions were recognized at Orthodox Council, the arguments of the exile and quotes were read out, including those put forward by the side that was subsequently condemned by the Council as heretical. This was a mandatory procedure for the Ecumenical Councils, starting from the 3rd to the 7th exactly. Therefore, this is not something, to put it mildly, alien to the Orthodox Church - this is the principle that, if an Orthodox Christian recognizes the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, then it is difficult for me to imagine on what basis he would reject the principle on the basis of which these Ecumenical Councils and made decisions.
I also wanted to say that I personally, in the process of studying certain issues of interest to me, resorted to this principle, and I can testify that this is a completely feasible procedure, and it does not depend on the opinion with which a person begins research into these issues. I have had situations when, for example, I approached the study of this issue, having my own opinion, and the result of my study of the patristic Tradition on this issue led me to the conclusion that the agreement of the fathers does not indicate the opinion that I would like, with which I approached the study. So I'm just giving an example that in fact this is a thing that is quite detectable and quite detectable, it is not some kind of abstraction.
And if we, in principle, consider the fundamentals of the teaching of an Orthodox Christian, the fundamentals of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, then it is necessary to understand what it is based on, what a person who wants to consider himself an Orthodox Christian relies on. If he relies on the fact that revelation is given to everyone individually, and therefore the personal opinion of each person, his personal relationship with God is the basis for his presentation - in this case, of course, there is nothing to talk about here. If he relies on the authority of Holy Scripture, the question immediately arises: on what basis should we, for example, agree with what is written in the Gospel of John, and for example, not in some Gospel of Thomas. Ultimately, we come to the conclusion that the very composition of Holy Scripture was approved within the framework of this principle - the principle of the consent of the fathers. Of course, this did not happen immediately. Of course, among the early fathers there were different lists of what should be included in the body of Holy Scripture, but the completion of this issue and the establishment of Holy Scripture in the form in which we have it now is, in fact, what was accomplished by the Church as a product, as a result of the consent of fathers.
And again the question arises: if we believe the agreement of the holy fathers in how they collected, compiled, selected, and approved the canon of the New Testament, then why shouldn’t we believe them in other matters? If we reject this principle itself, this ultimately serves to cast doubt not only on the patristic Tradition, but also on the status of Holy Scripture itself. Finally, the last thing I would like to say is that I am very glad of the opportunity that this debate has given me, because I have always wanted to ask those who question the principle of paternal consent: what would they suggest as an alternative? If the principle, we are talking specifically for the Orthodox Christian who wants to have criteria for determining what is the teaching of the Orthodox Church and what is not the teaching of the Orthodox Church. If the principle of the consent of fathers is not suitable for this, is not suitable for one reason or another, then I would very much like to know what kind of alternative the opponents offer, what criterion, what principle is better, more reliable and more reliable than this one. I finished even earlier than the regulations suggest.
M. Sh.: – Thank you, Father George. Alexey Georgievich, now let’s listen to your answer. Please allow 15–20 minutes.
A.D.: – As far as possible. I think that I will answer and structure my speech in several stages, after a certain stage I will stop, and Father George will have the opportunity to express his opinion, object, etc., in order not to accumulate it all. As far as I understand, Father George stated that if we do not observe any statements by the holy fathers about something, or at least half of them affirm one thing, half another, then these questions are not dogmatically significant - as I understand it, Father George , Your thought? Okay, then in further examples I will try to give those examples that I personally consider dogmatically significant. If Father George has any objections to this, then I ask you to voice them.
I would build my objections to Father George in three stages. The first is to consider the well-known formula of Vikenty Lerinsky, and discuss some methodological things. And then move on to the very concept of “consensus”, and consider it from two points of view - Scripture and Tradition. Moreover, Tradition - then we will limit ourselves to the Ecumenical Councils, since Father George based his article on them. Naturally, in each case, examples will be given of the lack of consensus on many very important, significant dogmatic issues.
So, the principle of the consent of the fathers - as a rule, it is traced back to Vikenty Lerinsky. He is not a saint of the Eastern Church, he is a saint of the Western Church, but, nevertheless, he wrote a few years after the Third Ecumenical Council, and uttered the famous phrase that the faith of the Church is faith in what has always been believed, by everyone, everywhere: Quod ubique, qoud semper, quod ab omnibus. But you need to understand what Vikenty Lerinsky was talking about. He spoke precisely about those things that were not decided by the Ecumenical Councils. That is, the Ecumenical Councils have infallible significance for him, but those issues on which the Ecumenical Councils have not yet had time to speak out - that’s where, according to Vincent of Lerinsky, this principle of the consent of the fathers operates. We can reformulate this principle this way: the agreement of the fathers is the agreement of all or the majority of the holy fathers on basic dogmatic issues. I would reformulate this principle of consensus of the Patrum as follows - I think that Father George will not object to such a formulation.
Now let's look at this formulation in each of its components: what are the main dogmatic questions, what and who are the holy fathers, what role does the majority have, and what is consensus. I will speak out on all these issues, and after each part I will give Father George the opportunity to argue.
So, let's start with the question of what are the main dogmatic questions, and this question directly intersects with the problem posed by Father George - what, if not consensus patrum - then what, then where is the teaching of the Church? So, everyone, always and everywhere recognizes the infallibility of the Ecumenical Councils alone. In the Rite of Baptism in general, as we know, only the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Rite is provided for, therefore ecumenical meetings are generally limited to the Creed and even the Apostolic Creed, including the fact that subsequent decrees of the Ecumenical Councils are not required at Baptism. The announcement is another matter, but as we know, it is not always and not carried out everywhere. Therefore, if we talk about those who are baptized, their knowledge is often limited to just the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Symbol. But nevertheless, again, all scientists admit that the seven Ecumenical Councils are indisputable, and therefore, in essence, the entire dogma of the Orthodox Church comes down to two pages of text - these are all the decisions of the seven Ecumenical Councils. Apart from the Symbol, they are all quite short. What else do we have then? And we seem to have no other choice, because where is this dogma of the Orthodox Church clearly formulated and generally accepted? Catholics have it, their Ecumenical Councils, as they believe, were not interrupted, they have the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which has already existed for many centuries and a new edition was recently adopted, and accordingly, all dogmatics are spelled out in sufficient detail and completeness.
What does the Orthodox Church have? In the Orthodox Church there are more or less authoritative codes on certain dogmatic issues - the most authoritative is John of Damascus. There were some other attempts like “Panoplia” by Euthymius Zigaben and so on, but this did not enjoy authority. There are authored dogmatists from pre-revolutionary times - the most authoritative is Makarii Bulgakov, Sylvester Malevansky's multi-volume one, but again: what status do they have? Where do we have the common dogma of the Orthodox Church, approved by an authoritative body - in this case, the Ecumenical Council or, in the absence of Ecumenical Councils, the Pan-Orthodox Council? Until recently, for two centuries we had only “” Metropolitan Philaret. Now the task has been set to create a new catechism, that is, the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church understands the need for such a code of dogma - authoritative, the most complete. But again, even if this catechism is accepted - I doubt that it will be in the near future, but even if it is accepted - what authority will it have as a creed of the Universal Church? Dogmatics, dogmatic questions, can be accepted and approved as an unchangeable, eternal and true decision only by Ecumenical Councils.
The voice of the Church is the single mouthpiece that can accept this. And when you ask: what then? – I answer: the voice of the Church. The voice of the Church, represented by the hierarchy of the Councils, must indicate and define certain dogmas and respond to certain issues of our time. If we do not have an Ecumenical Council, at least a Pan-Orthodox Council, then, accordingly, we do not have the voice of the Church and the mouthpiece of the Church. The church is silent. And such a conclusion is a little annoying for ordinary believers, and therefore they prefer to say “the holy fathers say” - this is the very notorious consensus patrum. I won’t talk about the historical aspect now, we will touch on it. I am now talking about a purely methodological principle. This principle of consensus patrum is actually a Protestant principle. Only the Protestant principle is Sola Scriptura - to interpret the Holy Scriptures as the source of faith, to your taste. We say no, there is a rule of the Ecumenical Councils, which is proposed precisely by the Holy Scriptures according to the Fathers of the Church. Okay, consensus is patrum, but how are we going to interpret this consensus of patrum and the Fathers of the Church? But here there is no agreement. Everyone brings the holy fathers to the best of their understanding. That is, this is the same principle of Sola Scriptura, only transferred to the Fathers of the Church solis patribus, and what’s next, what’s next, and this is an attempt to disguise the absence of Ecumenical Councils during the 13th centuries. Vincent of Lerins, of course, could not have imagined such a situation, although, however, he was a saint of the Western Church, in the Western Church there are these Councils, there are catechisms and all dogma is in order - at least as it is presented in the Roman Catholic Church .
But Orthodoxy has big questions here, and when we ask ourselves the question: where is this body of dogmatic problems, dogmatic dogmas, we don’t know which are basic and which are not basic, and who will decide this - you or anyone, Do you understand? In the absence of the teaching of the Church, you and I can get into trouble: today we consider this or that dogma insignificant, but tomorrow it will turn out to be significant. Therefore, when we now talk about this principle, we must understand that consensus patrum, from my point of view, is an attempt to avoid questions, the answer to which poses very big problems for the Orthodox, that is, the absence of the teaching of the Church and the clearly expressed voice of the Church in the form of Ecumenical Councils – or Pan-Orthodox Councils – is a separate issue. Actually, this is the first question, I tried to answer the opinion with which Father George ended his speech. I ask Father George to speak out right away, perhaps, if possible.
M. Sh.. : – Yes, I will now give the floor to Father George. Note to you: if you correct each other, then do not interrupt each other and do it in a corresponding speech. Father George, speak up.
O. G.M.: - Thank you. First, I wanted to point out that in my opening remarks I did not refer to or mention St. Vincent of Lerins. This, of course, is not because I do not pay attention to what he wrote, but because I wanted to consciously avoid a situation in which it would seem that everything we are talking about is this very principle, is based on the words of one little-known saint of the Western Church, which Alexey Georgievich just mentioned.
My thesis is that these are not the words of any one saint of the Western Church - this is the principle that can be seen many times in the actions of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, I would like to draw attention to this fact. The second point is that Alexey Georgievich said that the resolutions of the Ecumenical Councils will fit on two pages. In general, if we talk about decrees about the decisions of the Councils, then maybe, but the acts of the Ecumenical Councils contain, for example, a statement of faith, which was presented by bishops, and these statements of faith cover a lot of issues, and these statements of faith by these Ecumenical Councils were recognized as setting out the correct Orthodox faith. And the very acts of the Ecumenical Councils at subsequent Ecumenical Councils were also considered doctrinal authority. They were appealed to, they were quoted, so the Ecumenical Councils are, excuse me, not only two pages, they are actually several volumes, and I believe that throughout these volumes the main issues of Orthodoxy are covered quite fully.
Alexey Georgievich also said that we had the “Catechism” of St. Philaret, and after the Ecumenical Councils, after John of Damascus, there was nothing in Orthodoxy that would have general authority. But I would like to remind you that there were, for example, texts such as “,” written by St. Peter (Mogila), these texts have conciliar authority, that is, they were recognized by councils, and more than one council recognized this as an authoritative statement of faith, and More than one local Church has recognized this, and I see no particular reason to ignore these texts. To say that after St. John of Damascus and before St. Philaret we had nothing, it seems to me, is somewhat untrue.
In addition to these texts - the “Confession of Faith”, there were other texts signed by the Eastern patriarchs, which cover a fairly wide range of dogmatic issues, and to a large extent they are exhaustive. Of course, some questions may arise that have not been covered or are not sufficiently covered in these texts, but I think that the number of such questions is unlikely to be significant. And again: if such questions arise, of course, in my opinion, it would be quite correct on our part to resort to the principle of the consent of the fathers.
As for Alexey Georgievich’s answer to my question, what is the alternative to the principle of the consent of the fathers for determining an Orthodox Christian of the teaching that he should profess, which can be called Orthodox, Alexey Georgievich said that this should be the voice of the Church. But in my opinion, this is still not the answer, because the question arises as to how exactly this voice of the Church can be recognized. The principle of the consent of the fathers presupposes a procedure for recognizing the voice of the Church. If this principle is not suitable - in fact, as far as I understand, Alexey Georgievich, if I am wrong, I hope he will correct me - his answer is that the principle of the consent of fathers has no alternative. If we reject the principle of the consent of the fathers, there is no other procedure for determining now, before some new Ecumenical Council appears, in matters that would be relevant so that we can understand what is Orthodox teaching and what is not, no alternative principle does not exist, and the opponent cannot offer it. If this is the answer, then I accept it, I am completely satisfied with it. If I got it wrong, I hope my opponent will correct me.
As for the thesis that this is a Protestant principle, well, I understand what Alexey Georgievich is talking about, but I still wanted to remind you that we are talking about a principle that was developed at the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, it seems to me that calling it Protestant is somewhat bold. But I understand what we are talking about, and I can say that unlike the Holy Scripture, the text of which is laconic in many things and allows for significant interpretations, the text of the corpus of holy fathers is much less susceptible to the problems that a Protestant faces in case of Sola Scriptura. That is, it is possible, of course, to reinterpret the holy fathers or somehow attribute to them opposite opinions than those they expressed, but this will already be done with violence in relation to the text. And in my opinion, the principle of the consent of the holy fathers both warns and protects a sincerely believing Orthodox Christian, who is really interested in what teaching he should profess, from such a trap, because with one holy father, or maybe two holy fathers, we we can find phrases that can be misunderstood, that allow for different interpretations, but if we collect a whole range of sayings of the holy fathers, then taking them and reinterpreting them, or saying that they do not give unambiguous answers, is possible only with violence against the text.
And the last thing I wanted to emphasize is that I am glad that Alexey Georgievich recognizes for an Orthodox Christian the need for the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, and I remind you that in this case, if this authority exists for us, it means that the authority of the consent of the fathers as a principle must also exist for us , on the basis of which the Ecumenical Councils developed these very two pages that Alexey Georgievich mentioned, and in which it is directly stated not only in the acts of the Councils, but also in the resolutions of the Councils, the principle of following the holy fathers is directly proclaimed.
A.D.: Maybe I should have answered right away and reassured Father George that if I spoke about Vincent of Lerins, it was because the main dogmatists, as a rule, refer to him, and the fact that he is a saint of the Western Church does not at all detract from the fact that indeed consensus patrum is a Byzantine paradigm. And you can find opinions on the Internet that this was borrowed from Catholics after Pisa, I completely 100% agree with Father George - the principle of consensus patrum is the principle of the Byzantine Church. It developed over the centuries and was declared, including by Ecumenical Councils - I am not going to argue with this. We will talk about something else: about assessing this consensus patrum, and establishing the fact whether it really existed, and whether it was not a purely nominal statement of the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils. Therefore, I am not going to argue, returning in a circle to the arguments that Father George puts forward, I believe that it is simply more important for the audience to get an idea of the train of thought and the arguments of each of the disputing parties, and to achieve some specific solution or go into particular , I believe may be inappropriate in this debate. This could become the subject of some separate debate on some specific specific narrow topic. So, as I said, the principle of consensus patrum for me personally is not an alternative to the Ecumenical Council, because the principle of consensus patrum is a myth, and this is what I will try to prove in the future. We will go further to analyze the formula of Vikenty Lerinsky, - holy fathers. So, who are the holy fathers and what is this - this is a big problem. If Father George studied the holy fathers here, and he got the impression of a consensus patrum, then I have been studying the holy fathers for 30 years, and I got the completely opposite impression that there is no consensus patrum. But this will be the conclusion of our debate. For now we will find out who the holy fathers are. So, if in the Western Church there is a clear division into patres [church fathers] and doctores [teachers], and the border is drawn approximately by the Seventh Ecumenical Council [and] before the division of churches, then in Orthodoxy there is no such division. And what the holy fathers were for Vincent of Lerins is one thing, what was for Photius is another, what was for Gregory Palamas is the third, and for us this is the fourth. Photius and the entire anti-Latin polemic go beyond the scope of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Are they holy fathers? – but it’s just that a lot of time has passed. An additional criterion is usually put forward: antiquity. So, is Photius ancient for us? – ancient, Palamas ancient? - ancient. Okay, but let’s say Joseph Volotsky or Nil Sorsky? The ancients seem to be holy fathers, but what authority do they have for the Greeks? And in general, which Russian saint has an authority comparable to the great Greek theologians - the Cappadocians, Maximus the Confessor, Gregory Palamas - but there is not a single such Russian saint. Let's go further - what about the saints of the 19th century: Theophan the Recluse, Ignatius Brianchaninov - what to do with them? Are they ancient enough or not? Are they holy fathers or not? Should we take their opinion into account or not? And the new martyrs and confessors of the twentieth century - well, okay, they even appear in a separate line in the calendar, but, nevertheless, what should we do with them? And here we have this lump of holy fathers - and all or most of them need to be taken into account, growing over time to some kind of enormous mass. And when you say that all or most of the holy fathers agree, I naturally have a question: who determined this list, are there any advantages, is there some kind of canon of fathers that should always be indicated for any reason, or will we elect those fathers we like and omit those we don’t like? And where is the limit to the authority of time? This is one of the questions that arises when we talk about the representation of the holy fathers in Orthodoxy. Another question: how does canonization happen in general, and are our ideas about the holy fathers generally correct? A specific example – please, Nikita Stifat. My friend Abbot Dionysius (Shlenov) translated and published the works of Nikita Stifat. I ask him: Father Dionysius, why did you write the Monk Nikita Stifat, where did you get the idea that he is a saint, look at the Saints published by the Moscow Patriarchate - he is not there. He says: I’m not interested in this, I know that the holy fathers on Mount Athos consider him a saint. And that’s it, for him it’s a saint, a book with the title “Reverend” is published. In general, the process of canonization in the Orthodox Church is such a murky, complex and incomprehensible process, unlike the Catholic Church. And therefore, many of us begin to consider and accept those who do not exist as holy fathers. Or, for example, take Gennady Scholarius. Well, why do many people call him a saint, why on earth? They are confused with Gennady of the 5th century or for some other reason, for example, I don’t understand. Nevertheless, many consider him a saint and bring him. There are also other problems. There are also pseudo-saints. I won’t go far, I will now give an example of my opponent himself, who invented a new saint. Father George published the book “Byzantine Authors on Islam” - the first volume. And there he has such an interesting publication, which he first had on the Internet, and then he included it in a book about a certain Samon of Gaz. And so Father George, in the preface, refutes the opinion of the Catholic theologian Zhuzhi that this is a Catholic forgery from the era of late polemics with Protestants, refers to the modern researcher Dick, gives his counterarguments in favor of Zhuzhi, and then translates this very treatise. It turns out that there was a certain saint in the 11th century in Byzantium, whom one scientist identified with an Arab author with Suleiman al-Ghazzi, and this identification is proposed, and it is said that he is a saint. And why is he a saint? Because, firstly, he is a martyr, and in a certain book by a certain Greek Papadopolus, this Samon of Gaza is included in the catalog of saints. Here, sitting in front of you, is a man who introduced to the general public some new data that refute generally recognized scientists and great scientists - such as Martin Jugy. At the same time, Father George’s argument is absolutely untenable. I will not analyze all his arguments now; here sits Mikhail Mikhailovich Bernatsky, an expert on Eucharistic disputes in late Byzantium, the post-Byzantine period. If you want, Father Georgy, then discuss some issues and details with Mikhail Mikhailovich, please, for God’s sake. I will only say the most basic things. Firstly, when you analyze Zhuzhi, you yourself incorrectly translated the text of Samon of Gaz. The very end of it - you didn’t understand anything there, and so you inserted some words in square brackets that supposedly allow you to do something like that, but everything is clearly said there. And it says there that the division of grain, the fragmentation of grain, is an accident, and that’s all. Such a formulation of the question could not have happened in the 11th century - this is Thomas Aquinas, and if we are talking about Byzantine authors - this is only after the reception of Gennady Scholarius. Zhuzhi understood this very well. You did not understand this text, you translated it incorrectly, you could not even follow the course and logic of the author even at the level of such argumentation. At the same time, there is also a pre-revolutionary translation - you apparently did not know this. In the pre-revolutionary translation, in the “Orthodox Interlocutor,” everything was translated correctly there. But there's truth symbebecota not like accidents translated, but quite clearly and clearly. Therefore, yes, you are polemicizing with Zhuzhi, but you yourself do not know the Greek text well, you do not understand the logic of the text. And such mistakes are unacceptable when you publish a scientific book. I don’t know how you conduct polemics with Islamists if you make these kinds of mistakes. But more than that, I’m not even interested in this now, these are specific things about the Eucharist, but why do you consider him a saint? Father George has a very interesting argument. He writes that there is such a Popadopulus, who, since he is a martyr, ranked him, called him a saint in a certain catalog of saints. This interested me, what kind of Popadopool is this, what’s the matter. Yesterday I looked, was not lazy and found this book. It’s interesting to me that Father George never even saw this book. Why? Because he made as many as three mistakes in the bibliographic description. This is not Popadopul, but Popadopol, Father George gives the place of publication in French, not in Latin, so it is clear where you copied this bibliographic reference from - from some French article. And finally, you also missed the date of publication by one year. You have never seen this book. As for the catalog, it’s actually a little book that contains one quote from Simon of Gaza and speaks of him as a martyr, that’s all. There is no catalog of saints there, it’s just that Father George did not understand the scientists who wrote in Latin. So they wrote that Popadopulus ranked among the saints, considered Samon of Gaza to be a holy martyr, this is what he “ranked” - you did not understand the Latin text, and you considered that we were talking about a catalog of saints, and they wrote it all like that. And here we have a text that Paliokappa created for purely polemical purposes with Protestants, all this has long been known to everyone - you present it as the text of the Holy Father, point to a certain catalog of saints, and it may seem that several centuries ago there was some -canonization, or something else of this saint. And this is a fictitious thing, even many scientists doubt whether Suleiman was actually still a martyr. And now, in a reputable book, in the reputable publishing house of St. Tikhon's University, a new holy author, a new text by the holy father, is being published. This is me talking about what the holy fathers are and how Orthodox mythology is created. But we will go further than this. What if among our saints there are heretics? This is quite interesting. Or some kind of semi-heretical texts in general, or some kind of pseudepigrapha in general. Here is a classic example, of course, for us it is the pseudo Dionysius the Areopagite. What he is doing in Orthodox tradition is completely incomprehensible, because starting from the Fifth Ecumenical Council, texts appeared and became authoritative. Gregory Palamas generally says that his theology is the development of the Areopagite. Gregoras believes that his duty in polemics with Palamas is to refute the incorrect interpretation of the Areopagite and give his own. And the doctrine of the heavenly hierarchy in general has almost become part of our catechisms and the Laws of God. At the same time, some such shyness remains. For example, in the “Orthodox Encyclopedia” they stubbornly refuse to write about the pseudo Dionysius Areopagite - only the Areopagitikum corpus, nothing else. Pseudo - this is something, well, what an authoritative author, and Lorenzo Valla proved to them, and what - will we follow him? Or a textbook on the history of religion comes out, there is a section on Christianity written by Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeev) - a very recent publication, and there, among the descriptions of the apostolic men, Dionysius the Areopagite is also listed. True, on the next page it is written bashfully “inscribing with the name,” but this is on the next page, already at the end, but so, in principle, we already have Dionysius the Areopagite among the writings of the apostolic men. So what should we do with the Areopagite, and after all, its celestial hierarchy has remained with us and remains so? Although it must be said that if we were consistent, we would then leave his church hierarchy, but the church hierarchy corresponded to the century when Dionysius the Areopagite wrote it. And somehow it did not correspond to the further development of the church hierarchy - I don’t know whether you consider Nikita Stiphatus a saint or not, but Nikita Stiphatus rewrote the earthly hierarchy of the Areopagite, created his own, and then Gregory the Sinaite - already an undisputed saint - he didn’t like this one , he creates his own earthly hierarchy. So here we call it consensus patrum - a certain pseudo-author, a Christianizing follower of the Neoplatonists, creates his work and attributes it to the apostle, and then it begins to have such a history among us. Isaac the Syrian - well, this is actually a classic. If you want, we, of course, can talk separately about this - about Isaac the Syrian. Why did such a deception occur, why the Nestorian bishop of the Church of the East, who quotes Nestorian authors with great respect in the first volume, whose chapters contain passages that can only be interpreted in a Nestorian way. The author, whose fourth and fifth volumes have now been discovered - G. M. Kessel just gave a report that he finally found the fifth volume of the Areopagite [Isaac], which was considered lost, and there many purely Nestorian texts are attributed to the Areopagite [Isaac] . This is a separate question: do they belong to the Areopagite [Isaac] or not. Now there will be an article on this matter; Grigory Mikhailovich [Kessel] is preparing the fourth volume for publication. The third volume was published recently, there is no Russian translation. And so people who don’t speak Syriac, who don’t know all this material, haven’t studied it - they say that: “you know, I read it in a Russian translation of the 19th century from a Greek translation, and then compared it with the second volume - also in Russian translation, already modern, and stylistics - somehow it doesn’t seem to me that it is from the same author.” This, of course, is also a separate question, because the Orthodox Church borrowed the Areopagus [Isaac] corpus from the Melkites, and they thought that this was an Orthodox author, but that’s why the Melkites borrowed these texts from the Nestorians and did not change anything there - this separate question. Let's take Evagrius. Well, it's actually a classic. Condemned as a heretic, and, nevertheless, in order to save him, his texts, his Syriac versions are created - this is all clear; and the Orthodox author Nicodemus the Svyatogorets and Theophan the Recluse include it in the Philokalia, and quite deliberately. Modern, by the way, publishers of the Philokalia understand that Evagrius is a heretic, and they did not draw him with a halo, but Nicodemus the Svyatogorets, in his brief biographical information, completely passes over in silence that Evagrius was condemned by the Church. Theophan the Recluse takes other texts, he omits the texts of Nicodemus, takes the text “On Prayer”, the text generally begins with the Pythagorean theory of the symbol of numbers and everything is fine, this is considered a classic. The ugly theory of prayer generally became the basis of the foundations of Orthodox asceticism... To finish, let’s take the Makarievsky corps. In general, it was a shock for Orthodoxy when in the twentieth century it was established - although it could have been understood earlier - that the Third Ecumenical Council, under the name of Asceticon, actually condemned the Makarievsky Corps. But the Makarievsky Corps was actually saved, attributed to Macarius of Egypt, and in Byzantium, somewhere in the 10th century, it became widespread. After the 10th century, the Makarievsky Corpus became almost a model and measure of Orthodoxy; for ten centuries it was an undisputed authority - and now it turns out that this, of course, is partly a hypothesis, this is a separate conversation, I analyzed everything in detail about the Makarievsky Corpus. But when John of Damascus, when he refutes the Messalian heresy, he quotes Macarius the Great. How can this be? The infallible Ecumenical Council condemned the Orthodox text, but the fact that the text of the Macarius Corpus is Orthodox is beyond doubt. Here you can accept different hypotheses, but my hypothesis is that the fathers of the Ecumenical Council were presented with a tendentious summary, and the fathers of the Ecumenical Council, of course, did not read this body, they trusted this summary and condemned. Church Tradition could not, of course, remove such a pearl, and nevertheless saved it, thus attributing it to another author. So, here we have such a complex of problems that are associated with the concept of holy fathers. If we talk, in general, not even Father George, but everyone present here: how will you study the Holy Fathers? If we take Minya, then a third of the texts there are forged. There is a big science - patrolology, which determines the authorship and forged texts. Translated into Russian - even if we take with you the great Cappadocians, or take with you the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, to which we are addressing you today. At my request, it was specially organized, and it was published in the Theological Bulletin; Albert Grigorievich Bondach is present here, who also began to do it at my request. So what happens? It turns out that even for the Cappadocians, taking into account modern reference books and oriental translations, only a third of the total has been translated. And what language is it translated into? – to an outdated one, and how accurately is it translated? And here Albert Grigorievich summed up the calculations for the Third Ecumenical Council. It turned out that even in Muncie about 12–14% were not transferred. And if we take CPG and modern ACO publications, it turns out that up to 36% have not been translated. And if you, Father George, study the Ecumenical Councils from Russian translations, then you should know that modern critical editions are very different from what is there. I’m not talking now about tendentious errors in Russian translations. Just now one book by Evgeniy Firsov has been published, he made some summary there, but as far as I understand, it is incomplete. It is not so critical, but there is, undoubtedly, a tendentious distortion in the Russian translation of the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils. But the worst thing is that all Russian translations are based on old collections, and there is a random selection of texts. The publishers grouped the texts according to their own understanding, and there are collections for these Ecumenical Councils, and each collection is now published independently. Therefore, how will we study the Holy Fathers in such a situation? So you say consensus patrum - let's start with the primary sources. Only narrow specialists can study and discuss this. Let's take what is common among us. In the Orthodox catechism, which is currently under review, the Greek Ephraim is quoted among the holy fathers. But what is this, because it is known that in Greek Ephraim there is not a single authentic work of Ephraim the Syrian. And among those volumes that were translated from Syriac, at my special request, G. M. Kessel in the same “Theological Bulletin” made a list for the use of all people, and there he indicated which were translated from Syriac, where the exact authorship was, where it was forged, where it was dubious . And who uses it, where? Nobody uses this, there are no new translations made with critical text. Where is the project that the current Patriarch Kirill, the then Metropolitan, discussed with Source Chrétien(SC) – he was given the opportunity in our Church to publish Greek and Latin texts, accompanied by Russian translations, this was almost 15 years ago. And where is this project, where is the purposeful publication of the sayings of the holy fathers in our academies, as it was before the revolution? And in such a situation, when there are a lot of pseudepigraphs, a lot of forged texts, when my opponent himself is trying to create the impression that this is a real holy father, while not really mastering the necessary methodology and argumentation - even if my opponent is not always right, then What can we say about our audience, about all those numerous Orthodox believers - how can they figure it all out - despite the fact that they are not specialists, despite the fact that there are no good normal translations, and any translation cannot replace the original. So, I analyzed only the second point from the formula of Vincent of Lerins - the holy fathers. I believe that we can finish this part here and give the floor to Father George.
M. Sh.: Father George, answer this.
O. G.M.: Firstly, I would like to make a remark to our presenter, because when we discussed the rules for conducting a dispute, one of the criteria that both presenters agreed with was that during the dispute, personalization is not allowed. And when Alexey Georgievich, as we heard, asked here a question about how I conduct, for example, polemics with Muslims - this is a clear violation of this principle, and you should have paid attention to this.
A.D. I'm sorry.
O. G.M. : Therefore, I would like to remind you of the obligations you have assumed to lead the discussion so that you pay attention to this. And I will try to comment on what Alexey Georgievich pointed out to us. As for what he pointed out to us from the very beginning - which of us are the holy fathers, that for Vincent of Lerins there were some saints, for Photius there were other saints - but, again, for me to answer this question it is enough to turn to the Ecumenical Councils, because that in the same way, for the fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council there were only saints, for the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council there were other saints, they referred to those saints who lived after the Third Ecumenical Council. Therefore, the principle of some kind of limitation on the life of the holy fathers for the Ecumenical Councils themselves is not inherent in the principle of their work. Regarding the answer to the question, what kind of fathers should we be guided by, which ones should we recognize? Can Russian saints, for example, be considered authoritative holy fathers? Here, again, it is enough to turn, in my opinion, to answer this question to the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, because the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, on the one hand, carried out, presented lists of saints who are the most authoritative, but at the same time quoted not only these saints from these lists. Moreover, during the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, saints who were unknown to the majority of those present at that time were also read, and these saints, these references, these quotes were recognized by the Ecumenical Councils. I can add my personal opinion that in my opinion, if such a question arises, then those saints whose authority is confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils seem to me personally to be more authoritative than the saints who do not have such confirmation. Although, for example, I have not encountered situations where this would have been critical. As for the fact that at the end Alexey Georgievich mentioned pre-revolutionary translations of the Ecumenical Councils - for example, I selectively checked those quotes from the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils that I cite in my article, and which relate specifically to the principle of consensus patrum, with the English translation - with I didn’t check the Greek, but nevertheless, in the English translation the same quotes say the same thing. That is, the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils on the authority of patristic tradition is not an interpolation of pre-revolutionary authors - I think this can be clearly stated. Now I would like to move on to a more fundamental issue that Alexey Georgievich spoke about. Probably, in particular, it is necessary to comment on Samon Gazsky in my publication. I do not proclaim or canonize, I quite honestly explain to the reader where the information about this author came from, and I quite honestly present the range of scientific issues on this issue to the reader and do not hide anything. Alexey Georgievich also partly referred to the fact that this is written in my text, so to say that I present someone as a saint, I think, would not be entirely correct here in the full sense of the word. I present the text to the reader, I present the state of the scientific debate about this text, I make my own judgment and introduce the reader to it. I don’t know, but it seems to me that this, in principle, is not very different from the work that Alexey Georgievich carries out with the texts on which he worked - he also presents on the Makarievsky corpus - let's call it that, different hypotheses, and also introduces the reader to his my own opinion, with my own hypothesis, so I don’t see any particular crime in this approach itself. It's kind of like, well, a scientific approach. As for Zhuzhi, for example, and the general state of this issue - I think that this is, of course, off-topic, but since we started talking about this, I’m not the only one holding this opinion, I was convinced by the arguments offered by Dick, a non-Orthodox researcher, and they I am more convinced than the arguments that Jugi offers. At the same time, I understand that, in principle, regarding the decision about how much a specific Greek text belongs or does not belong to this author, it is not possible to prove, say, with 100% scientific certainty and solve it unambiguously, but, nevertheless, I believe that both versions have serious problems, there are questions that I don’t see how the traditional answer – what Juzhi wrote – can be answered. Specifically, what was, indeed, the author - Alexey Georgievich called him Byzantine, not Byzantine, it is described that he was the bishop of Gaza, in most manuscripts he is described as Samonas, in one of the manuscripts, Trap seems to mention, it is written Solomonas, that is Suleiman in Arabic, and Dick is just paying attention, because there really was a bishop in the same century with the same name, with the same title. I don’t see how a 16th-century forger could have learned all this data from what Zhuzhi writes. As for the fact that Alexey Georgievich points out that I haven’t read some books personally - of course, this is not a secret or news for the scientific world, since I remember, Alexey Georgievich, you, too, are far from reading all the books on the issues that you write, read it personally, and there is nothing seditious in this, this is normal practice - especially on an issue that is not the most important, you can refer to a retelling, a presentation that was available in one or another secondary source. Although, of course, the critical comments that Alexey Georgievich expressed on the translations can be expressed by someone else - I accept with pleasure, I thank them for them, and I do not think that this is some kind of fundamental problem for the very principle of the consent of the fathers. Now, as for other examples to which Alexey Georgievich appeals, I would like to speak from a principled point of view. When Alexey Georgievich says that it was proven there, it was established that this was like this, and that was like that, he mentions patrolology. Patrology is, in principle, one of the subsections of history, a historical discipline, and here I would just like to recall some of these common truths. In principle, history is not an exact science, and for more than a hundred years there has been a debate about whether history is and can be called a science in principle. That this question is not somehow marginal is evidenced, for example, by the fact that five years ago Yale University published a book by John Lukács, in which this question is again raised, and those who put forward the point of view that history cannot be considered a science, various arguments pointed out there - that they do not observe the subject of their research, study, are unable to test the hypotheses put forward, always deal with obviously incomplete information, do not identify any general laws, and in fact, very, very many points . I do not take the side that believed that history cannot be called a science. Therefore, I would not like it to be interpreted in this way - that the priest is persecuting some kind of obscurantism, rejecting history. This is not about rejecting history. Of course, this is not about declaring that everything that historians have written does not deserve attention and does not represent anything. That's not what this is about. We are talking about the problem of history as a whole, as a discipline. Even those who in this polemic, in this discussion on the mentioned issue, adhered to the view that history can and should be called a science, they did not question the statement that history is not one of the exact sciences. I would like to emphasize that this does not mean that historians are less conscientious scientists than, for example, physicists or chemists. It is simply that the very subject with which they work imposes a limitation on the application of the scientific method, at least to the extent that it is applied in the exact sciences. And when we talk about the fact that, as Alexey Georgievich mentions: this is proven and this is proven, when we talk within the framework of the historical discipline, we are still not dealing with some things that are irrefutably proven, but with more or less probable hypotheses, with more or less probable assumptions. Therefore, I would insist on the absoluteness of the knowledge that is in some of the books presented; I did not see any serious grounds, at least not so serious as to pose it as some kind of fact. We are not dealing with facts, we are dealing with hypotheses - hypotheses of serious people, hypotheses that have, perhaps, quite a serious basis in their favor, but nevertheless, these are just hypotheses that can be refuted at any moment by new research, and this is a fact that must be taken into account when we hear that patrolology has proven this, patrolology has proven that. Let me emphasize once again: I’m not saying that this should be denied, it doesn’t deserve attention - that’s not what we’re talking about. We are talking, in principle, about appealing to such sources. And here I would like to move on to one fundamental problem related to this, because Alexey Georgievich gives examples that may sound very bright and interesting, but does not offer anything significant for the essence of the discussion we are talking about. In particular, I will explain why. There is such a concept - Alexey Georgievich himself operates - scientific consensus. And this is the concept of scientific consensus, the opinion of authoritative scientific researchers on this or that issue, that this scientific consensus, from the point of view of Alexei Georgievich, as I understand it, is what really exists, what is detectable, what has the authority with which it is necessary be considered. Regarding consensus patrum, I have a similar position - that which exists, that which is discoverable, and that which has an authority that must be respected. Alexey Georgievich gives examples, and maybe those who wish can give more examples, when Orthodox researchers of the Holy Fathers or non-Orthodox, some texts and much, much of what I gave in relation to historical science, I can give similar examples. At least, I have not come across, and I have not heard now, a single example that would be offered as something that should refute the principle of the consent of the fathers, for which I cannot find an analogue in the historical discipline. That the holy fathers were wrong, but the historians weren’t wrong, or what? The Holy Fathers contradicted each other, but historians did not contradict? The Holy Fathers interpreted the Holy Scriptures differently, but historians never interpreted the same texts differently? And this can be continued, and there are many examples of this in history. Excuse me, there are so many examples of bias, so many examples of falsification in the historical discipline - I think this is also no secret to anyone. Let me emphasize: I am not saying this in order to reject history, nor in order to doubt the authority of the scientific consensus. I like that Alexey Georgievich appeals to him, I point out the problem itself. If these things that Alexey Georgievich mentions, let’s say I was mistaken about Samon of Gaza, but how can the very principle of the holy fathers be rejected? Let's say Father Dionysius Shlenov was mistaken about St. Nikita - how does this reject the very principle of the holy fathers? Errors on the part of scientists - well, excuse me, there are plenty of them - if we open not a textbook, if we open a monograph, we will see just examples of such disputes, and this is good, this is correct, this is normal. But if this does not disprove the principle of scientific consensus, why should it disprove the principle of paternal consent? And if this refutes the principle of the consent of the fathers, then there is no need to talk about any consensus, because, excuse me, but, in my opinion, there is more chaos of conflicting opinions among certain learned historians than among the patristic heritage. Regarding the question of the corps of all the saints who have been translated - in my opinion, we find the answer to this in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, my position, which I have voiced from the very beginning - for us, what we find in the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils is sufficient. . In the Acts of the Ecumenical Councils, the concept of the consent of the fathers was not raised as the finding of absolutely all saints who have ever been, who have ever lived, who wrote in any language; the bringing of a sufficient number of holy fathers was considered quite sufficient. And the figures that Alexey Georgievich brought - I am very grateful to him for bringing them, he points out that a third of the Holy Fathers have not been translated into Russian, but excuse me - that means two thirds have been translated? In my opinion, this is also something that can refute the very principle of the agreement of the fathers, because no one has ever formulated the principle of the holy fathers as, without exception, everything that has ever been written, including in any manuscripts that are kept in one monastery, etc. A reference to this kind of argument is simply reducing the discussion to absurdity. Since Alexey Georgievich mentioned Firsov’s book, which was published, on the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I did not read it, and as I understand, in this meeting, except for Alexey Georgievich, no one read it; but from that one page that was published from this study, as is known, there was an analysis of the positions expressed there, and this analysis in itself shows that what is asserted there is not indisputable and impartial. This does not mean that I reject science and obviously say that Firsov’s research does not give us anything useful, it is just another reminder that, excuse me, problems exist not only with the corps of holy fathers, but also with historians themselves - and problems , in my opinion, of the same type. MS: Regarding the stone in my garden: Alexey Georgievich did not use the Ad hominem argument, because in this case your research methods were criticized, regardless of the person
A.D. – Yes, if you understand that if I get personal, then this is only about science and the methods of science. I think that we still need to move on, because people understand both my argument and the arguments of my opponent. But I will still say a couple of things that, in my opinion, are characteristic of Father George’s discussion. He moves the needle a little. For example, he told me: well, it’s just to quote through second or third hands - you do that yourself. That’s what I do, but unlike you, Father George, I indicate “cit. by…”, when I don’t see this book, or I put an asterisk, and the reader always knows whether he can trust me or not, or, at least, whether I have seen it and whether my adequacy can be trusted. But when you refer, you do not write “cit. by...”, that’s the whole difference between us. And the second, also a typical example: if there is a consensus patrum, then there is a consensus verorum doctorum and vice versa. You see, the consensus virorum doctorum can be revised at any moment - if an unknown manuscript is discovered, from the first century, then Dionysius Arepagitus wrote - everything has been completely proven, using all sorts of paleographic methods - well, where can one go? But the consensus patrum cannot be revised, because this is a dogmatic truth, it is given once and for all, it is needed by the Holy Spirit and cannot be revised. This is the difference between the two consensuses, which is why you, Father George, confuse different things; when you discuss, you shift the emphasis somewhat. We will return to the analysis of the formula of Vikenty Lerinsky: “Majority of all or majority.” Even Orthodox theologians disagree on this matter. One can cite, for example, the opinion of Archpriest Georgy Florovsky, who wrote: “what a strange formula, what a strange principle.” We all know very well that Maxim the Confessor could have been right, but all the fathers who were later even called saints were wrong - with the exception of Western ones. That is, the principle, the truth itself is the truth - it doesn’t matter who says it at all - one person, many, or the majority, the truth does not cease to be the truth. Therefore, the principle of verification of truth by some quantitative measurements by the majority or all is an unthinkable thing, and Florovsky writes about this. However, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev agrees with him, at the beginning of this century there is a report on the problems of Orthodox theology, and there he also examines the consensus patrum, writes approximately the same thing in the same vein as Archpriest G. Florovsky. I will not dwell on this now, because there is not much time left for our discussion, and finally, I will move on to the promised analysis with examples of consensus patrum. So, let's start with Scripture, and then move on to Ecumenical Councils - either Councils claiming to be such, or vice versa, the merits of which are disputed. Let's start with the Bible. My example will be very close to Father George, who dealt with the problems of evolutionism and is a traditional fundamentalist here. So let's look at the Bible. There is a biblical chronology, it differs in the Septuagint and in the Masoretic Text, but it is still approximately clear that we are talking about the order of 7000 years from the creation of the world. So what do we find in the Bible? There are deuterocanonical books, there is the Apostle, which say that God did not create death, that death entered the sinful world through Adam. Now I won’t say that perhaps man was created not seven, but let’s say fifty thousand years ago, I won’t talk about any archaeological excavations, but recently in Russia they found a needle that dates back 50 thousand years. This is all clear, that for archaeologists this is one thing, but for us it’s all so much less, okay, fine, even if man was created 7 thousand years ago. But death... You see, how does it happen that if death entered the world through the sin of Adam, and before that there was no death, but there is a consensus patrum here. There are, of course, some MDA teachers who wanted to approximately present 50/50 - that some of the fathers agree that there was death before Adam, but it was actualized [through him], and some did not. I still believe that the majority of the holy fathers strictly follow, naturally, the Bible and believe that there was no death before the fall of Adam. Even if you can somehow compare anthropology with archeology, then I think even you, being such a fundamentalist and traditionalist, cannot argue with the fact that death happened long ago than 7 thousand years ago. And then what do we have? We have that not only the holy fathers, but also the Bible in chronology clearly gives the time from the creation of Adam. Death occurred no earlier than 7 thousand years ago, while death is the main driving principle of the organization of matter. You will not say that this is some kind of important dogma, because then the problem of theodicy arises in full force. So does this mean that God created death? This is a cardinal theological question. Here I gave you an example from the Old Testament, I don’t just want to give many examples - only the most striking ones. Let's take the New Testament. You say consensus patrum - so we do not have a consensus of evangelists. Here is the most traditional example - the disagreement between the weather forecasters and the evangelist John about the Last Supper of Christ, what He ate: whether the Jewish Passover was legal or not, the 14th Nissan - was it Thursday or Friday. The weather forecasters contradict John, and, of course, Augustine and many holy fathers tried to somehow reconcile all this, but nothing worked. Modern scientists are trying to reconcile, there are already dozens of hypotheses, and they can’t do anything. Recently, a hypothesis has been proposed that the Jews had several chronological systems, and they were reflected differently by weather forecasters, but again there is no scientific consensus on this hypothesis. So, here we are in disagreement about the date of Christ’s death and whether He ate the legal Passover supper or not. This is also an important question. Okay, let's move on. I give the most obvious examples. This is the question of Christ's knowledge or ignorance. Christ says to the Apostle Peter about the Apostle John: “If I want him to remain until I come, what do you want? " This means that Christ assumed that He would come in the near future. And when the apostle says: “we will all die, but on the clouds we will move towards the Lord” - and the apostles assumed that He would come, He would come soon - this was the concept of parousia, which was characteristic of the first centuries of Christianity. Everyone was waiting for the imminent coming of Christ - how could it be, He couldn’t have been mistaken. But it turned out that he didn’t come. This means, therefore, that Christ was ignorant, ignorant of His human nature, the so-called heresy of the Agnoites, and some agree with it, it was not condemned by the Ecumenical Council. But time passes, the first two centuries, Origen already sees that nothing is happening, and then he says that yes, there will not be a second coming now, because there is another promise in the Gospel, that it should be preached to all ends of the earth. And now, how much time has passed, but the passages of the Gospel, the passages of the Apostle remain, the faith of the early Christians in the imminent parousia remains - this is attested in many texts. And we no longer find this faith - apostolic, evangelical - in the following centuries. Also associated with the belief in parousia is the belief in chiliasm. And we find it not only in Papias - there are even modern Orthodox priests who even published a booklet in support of chiliasm. That is, there will be the first resurrection of the righteous, when there will be wild abundance for a thousand years, and the righteous will enjoy, even now some of us believe. Some try to understand this allegorically, that this was the millennium of the Byzantine Empire - when there was such a kingdom. I have given some examples from the Bible. There are many such examples. But let's look at the situation as a whole. Tradition says, Ecumenical Councils say that it is necessary to interpret Scripture, guided by the holy fathers, but the holy fathers understood Scripture differently. There is no consensus there - this is obvious to anyone who is at least basicly familiar with patristic literature. , for example, let’s take - they just recently translated a multi-volume collection of catenas from English, where, using a computer search, they chose different places, the most interesting ones - they all interpret different places differently, there is no consensus. If we look at the ancient catenas, there is also no consensus. Even worse, if we look at the catenas, then we will see that interpretations and interpretations of Origen were included, the same Theophylact of Bulgaria, whom our Orthodox public loves so much. Even worse, Philo of Alexandria - a Jew, not a Christian - was actually equated with the holy fathers, even there is a modern article “How Philo of Alexandria became a holy father.” In the catenas it occupies a place of honor. What is the result of such an interpretation? I generally keep silent about the fact that initially there were two completely different schools, Antiochian and Alexandrian, with completely different principles of interpretation of the Holy Scriptures. They are compatible with each other, but I don't know how, some kind of goat deer. And these two trends existed mechanically; they were later, with the help of catenas in late Byzantium, somehow transferred to each other, but one might say, superficially and unconvincingly. But let’s move on and give another example of the absence of fathers according to biblical interpretation. Here is the soul of a person - you probably won’t say that this is some kind of insignificant dogma. Nevertheless, whether a person is three-component or two-component - dichotomists and trichotomists - should the soul be united with the mind or with the spirit, or should it not? Absolutely different opinions are 50/50, but you think that it cannot be 50/50, which is only due to insignificant dogmas. See Cyprian Kern's preface to The Anthropology of St. Gregory Palamas,” he outlined his view in detail there; there are a lot of works on this topic. But this is a fundamental point - if we are trichotomists, then naturally, like Origen, we will definitely distinguish three levels of Scripture. I believe these things are related. Is it possible for Apolinarius’ heresy to replace the fact that the mind of Christ was not human? Given dichotomism, this is impossible. So, there is no consensus patrum on dichotomism and trichotomism. Let's go further through the human soul. Is the image of God in the soul or in the body? Completely different opinions. Here is the Antiochian school, starting with Melito of Sardis and Irenaeus of Lyons, the image of God in the body is also included, the later anthropology of Palamas and everything else, and so-called holism, fashionable in modern philosophy. But some fathers say: no, only the soul. There is no consensus pathrum. This is the second moment to my liking. The third point I like: when is the soul actually created? Here again we have no consensus. God rested from all His days - which means one of the theories: all souls are created, they wait in advance in a certain place, and then they are only sent by God, not created. It’s good to explain all sorts of adultery and so on there: does God really condescend to such things - no, if He created all this, the pre-existence of souls, not the transmigration of souls, the pre-existence of souls - it’s because He rested. But on the other hand, He also created Eve from a rib - but what about Eve, where did the soul come from in her rib - did she have it or something else? Unclear. Even worse: 1 Genesis and 2 - also at different times, first he created man, and then he breathed in the soul. Are these two different absolutely fundamental moments, or are they two different stories, but chronologically coinciding? And here our opinions differ again. And the third point - ch. 3 Exodus () - here a well-known place is explored - if a miscarriage occurred as a result of a blow - then what to do - if the baby is not formed, then no penalty is charged for murder. In general, an absolutely wonderful passage is on the question of consensus in the Bible. In the Bible we have two texts: Hebrew and Septuagint, and in this very important place in Exodus it says nothing about non-representation - different texts, different traditions. And what to do here - the fathers mainly worked with the Septuagint, at best with the Peshitta, and the Masoretic text or just the Hebrew text, and then Qumran, even new versions of the text. We can find the Bible itself as a consensus in the Bible. Well, okay okay. And these three moments determined - the Antiochian school believes that on the 40th day the soul is infused by God into the baby, while others believed that no, God creates it at the moment. There are special studies - I don’t know whether you read it or not about the embryo. She examines the first six centuries BC, shows all the trends of the ancient world, and then examines the opinions of the Church Fathers until the 6th century. After the 6th-7th centuries, she believes that it has more or less settled down, this is all somewhere, starting with Maximus the Confessor - creationism already prevailed there - at the moment of the creation of the body, the soul is created, but before that there was no consensus patrum. The Antiochian school is basically the 40th day. The Latin fathers have the same thing for the most part, then it prevailed in Thomas Aquinas and at one of the Latin councils. And as Congurdo writes, it also influenced later Byzantine authors, but she does not study this because it is beyond the scope of her study. Here I have given you three examples concerning the human soul. I don't think you would say that they don't have some special dogmatic significance - they have fundamental dogmatic significance. However, according to it we do not see any agreement between the fathers in the interpretation of this topic. As a last resort, I will say that the creation of the soul at the moment of the creation of the body occurs only after the 7th century, but not earlier. I think that, in principle, as such brief illustrations, perhaps from individual holy fathers, this is enough. In the next part I want to move on to a very brief, selective analysis of some Ecumenical Councils. And in order not to burden Father George with unbearable burdens, I invite him to speak out now - just try to be concise enough, following the examples that I gave.
M.Sh.: Father George, will you do it in 15–20 minutes, as always?
o.G.M.: Yes.
M.Sh. Thank you.
o.G.M.: If we go to the beginning of Alexey Georgievich’s speech, then the example that he indicated - that for the consent of the fathers it should be a problem that scientists date the creation of the world and the occurrence of death in a different way - this is not a problem for the principle of the consent of the fathers, because this is offtopic for our discussion. Because if you want to talk about this topic, you can arrange a special debate about it - about the attitude towards scientific material, about the attitude towards hypotheses that are well known to everyone, and I think, in principle, not with me - you can invite a person to this debate with a natural science education, I think that such a debate would be quite interesting, but for our discussion this is off-topic - Alexey Georgievich himself pointed out that for the holy fathers there is agreement between the holy fathers regarding the issue of the emergence of death, but that the holy fathers did not recognize the appeal to external wisdom as some kind of serious theological argument - I think Alexei Georgievich is well aware. Therefore, within the framework of the logic of the principle of consent of fathers, this does not pose a problem. Although this in itself is a problem, and it is quite possible to discuss it, but this is a separate topic.
As for the principle of majority verification, which Alexey Georgievich pointed out and confirmed that this principle seems untenable to him, I fully understood his point of view, but once again I was forced to remind that this is the principle that the Ecumenical Councils offer us, on the basis of which they were the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils have been developed, and if we, as Orthodox Christians, consider ourselves to follow these decisions, it is also presupposed to follow this principle.
As for the opinion of Fr. Georgy Florovsky, Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeev - their opinion can be taken into account, but still, this is just the private opinion of individual modern and relatively modern authors. This is what Alexey Georgievich said before he began to give examples that, in his opinion, refute and show that there is no consent of the fathers. I am sincerely grateful to him for the examples that he gave, and I believe that this speech serves as the best confirmation of the theses that I expressed at the beginning. Because Alexey Georgievich, as well as me, had two months of preparation before this debate. This topic is the topic of the consent of fathers, Alexei Georgievich, as well as me, has been interested not only in these two months, but probably for several years now. That is, the fact that during this time, during these years, during these months, Alexey Georgievich did not prepare, find, or offer a single example of divergence and lack of consensus on truly serious doctrinal issues, in my opinion, just confirms my statement, what was said at the beginning of our meeting.
Let's just see - the date of Christ's death, excuse me, a dogmatic question? Date of death of Christ, i.e. on what day did Christ die, that is, on the basis of this, salvation is obtained, right? So, if we say that He died on this day, then those who say that He died on another day are not saved, is this a dogmatic question? This is the main fundamental dogmatic question, as Alexei Georgievich used, this is a question of fundamental importance, but such questions of fundamental importance, excuse me, have not been established anywhere in the Church conciliarly. It’s not just about conciliarity, it’s a different matter there - trichotomists and dichotomists, but excuse me, but this is a school example, this is a thing that has been known for a very long time and how is the position of people who distinguish the spirit as a separate part of a person, while others say that the spirit this is the highest part of the soul - how can this difference be called a fundamental dogmatic difference? For example, I don’t understand. To say that if you isolate the spirit as a separate part of the human being, then you are a heretic and you will burn in fire - excuse me, this is obscurantism. Attributing this to issues of salvation does not stand up to criticism. The same applies to the question of the image of God in the soul, or in soul and body. Excuse me, how can this be related to fundamental dogmatic issues related to salvation? Then - when the soul is created there - I will not go into details here, there were also some Council decisions regarding the principle of the preexistence of the soul - let's say, offtopic.
I also wanted to say a little more about the catenas. Alexey Georgievich mentions that catenas have been known for a very long time, of course, this is a product, among other things, of the Byzantine tradition, although they were not only in Byzantium, of course. So, a reasonable remark arises - if the Byzantines compiled these catenas and used them, and at the same time did not believe that they refute the principle of the consent of the fathers - why should we come to the same conclusion? I won't limit myself to this. At one time, for the sake of personal interest, I compared a variety of patristic interpretations of the Council Epistles of the Apostles. Of course, what came out as a result of my work does not claim to be the status of some kind of scientific research - I repeat, I did it for my own purposes, but when I worked with these interpretations, firstly, I paid attention - and it was amazing , - that sometimes the holy fathers, belonging not only to different schools, but, say, the West and the East, give the same interpretations, surprisingly consistent with each other, on the same texts. Sorry, it's there. And the discrepancies - that is, the fact that different interpretations are given - is no secret to anyone, there is no ripping off the veil of mystery here, everyone knows that the holy fathers interpret differently. And these discrepancies are largely described by the principle that Holy Scripture has different levels of understanding, and Holy Scripture itself allows for different interpretations - again, this has all been spelled out, this is all known, and therefore I don’t quite understand what the point is in citing on this. There are, indeed, I came across - and it’s true, when there were not just different, but contradictory interpretations from the holy fathers, it’s true, I came across such interpretations, but to say that there were a lot of them, that they were the majority, I I can’t, and the very fact of the existence of such fundamentally different and even contradictory interpretations, in my opinion, does not have a fundamental issue, this is a rather rare case, this is not some kind of huge global problem when we turn to the interpretations of the holy fathers.
The quotes that Alexey Georgievich mentions - that both Origen and Evagrius were quoted there - there are no problems in quoting heretics. Condemning a person as a heretic does not mean that the name itself and its entire legacy become bad. Sorry, there was no such attitude in the Church. Origen, calling him erring, and fallen into error, and a heretic, was nevertheless quoted by the same saints who called him that - this is not a secret, this is not a problem for them, because these are all common truths, but it is well known that the holy fathers believed - if they could find something good - whether in Origen, in Evagrius, or in anyone else - that this good was completely permissible so that a person could use it. Blessed Jerome has a whole justification, an explanation for why he translated Origen, and he explains everything well there, so I’m here in the very fact that there are quotations from Origen in the catenas, I don’t see at all how this can undermine the very principle of agreement holy fathers?
As for chiliasm and other such issues - this is all within the framework of the examples that we talked about - this is what was expressed in ancient times by a minority of authors, and regarding the unacceptability of which subsequent holy authors spoke quite clearly. That is, a modern Orthodox person, faced with such opinions, if he uses the principle of the consent of the fathers, has full criteria to separate them, to determine the status of these opinions in line with Orthodox traditions.
M.Sh.: Before I give the floor to Alexey Georgievich, I want to say that there are about 23 minutes left until the end, we need to slowly wrap up with the most important part, so I propose to chop these 20 minutes - each person has 10 minutes, and each participant is given 10 minutes to answer. I think Father George started it, Father George will finish it. Alexey Georgievich, as I understand it, wanted to offer even more material.
A.D.: No, I’ll shorten it, it’s not important. The main thing for me is that the audience understands the principle of argumentation, the answers, the process of thinking, there are a lot of arguments that can be given here. Therefore, I will not respond to all of Father George’s comments - of course, I absolutely disagree with them, I could counter-argument every point of his. As an example, I will give - “I think, for example, when Easter was, it doesn’t matter” - excuse me, this led to the division of the Churches, the controversy about unleavened bread - leavened bread or unleavened bread - this was one of the main moments of the schism of 1054 - neither filioque nor something else, namely this. And after this you say that such moments have no dogmatic significance? Father Georgy, we can debate on every point, I’m not going to do that now, I want to convey my point of view to the audience.
Let us finally move on to the Ecumenical Councils - what Father George always appeals to. We have an obvious gap between the theology of the first three centuries and the era of the beginning of the Ecumenical Councils, before Nicene theology and after Nicene theology. The principle of consensus patrum implies that the faith was originally placed in the apostles of the Church. Of course, sometimes a concession is made to the theory of dogmatic development, it is said that it was such a small seed that then grew, but it is still a fig leaf, because if it is an embryo, and we do not know whether it is a boy or a girl, what color the hair is, the eyes - then we, in fact, know nothing about this dogma. Therefore, the theory of dogmatic development cannot be refuted in this way. Therefore, either the theory of dogmatic development, or the entire faith of the Church was given to the apostles by Jesus Christ from the beginning. I will then move on to a general global idea of what is hidden behind the principle of consensus patrum. It’s probably better to say this now, so as not to forget later with small examples. So, Christ Himself did not tell the apostles everything, He says, “you cannot contain it, then you will accommodate it after Pentecost and the descent of the Holy Spirit.” The Holy Spirit constantly acts in the Church - so why is it necessary for the apostles to have all the faith from the beginning, and for all the fathers, who are presented in this form as a kind of instrument of the Holy Spirit, to initially agree on everything. This is a very interesting picture, which actually suggests a consensus patrum. This is one that, so to speak, is a reinforced concrete mass, which was initially created by God, parts of which are somewhat draped, then they open, but in fact the action of the Holy Spirit and people is implied quite mechanically. And this concept is the whole concept of consensus patrum; it does not appear earlier than the 4th century. This is precisely in the Constantine period, the imperial period, here its own history begins, a lot of time has passed and now such a concept arises. Why it occurs - I still cannot understand. The fact that it arose is a fact, the fact that it was in Byzantium is a fact, but for some reason, by the way, the consensus of patrum in theory is not very interested in modern science. In dogmatists, for example, I did not find this principle - consensus patrum. There is a polemic with dogmatic development, a consensus patrum none of our great dogmatists declares in the preface, because they understand, they work with the fathers and understand that this is different material and cannot be harmonized.
Why did it arise, I think so - my purely personal hypothesis - that it was a transfer of Scripture to the Fathers of the Church, and what was in Scripture? - This is the famous letter of Aristaeus. How could Jews argue with pagans? Christ did not yet exist, there was no appeal from the main Fathers of the Church to the incarnation of the Messiah, that the incarnation of Christ is the fulfillment of the Old Testament - this is a typological method. It didn’t exist then - but how could the Jews argue with the pagans in order to prove the Divine inspiration of the Septuagint? So the theory appears that 72 interpreters - they translated directly word for word, and it all coincided - according to the special assurance of the Holy Spirit. I think that this principle was transferred, starting somewhere in the 4th century, to the patristic tradition that - yes, the Holy Spirit initially inspired, all the holy fathers speak by the Holy Spirit, therefore, since they speak under the influence of the Holy Spirit, they do not may contradict each other. This concept - I would call it a “monophysite” bias, mainly in the Byzantine Church, the European Church, of course, it was less common, but, nevertheless, this is a false idea of the synergy of God and man, a false idea of the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit can work in any number of ways. He can work through heretics, He can exploit the basest interests of saints - even saints, He can do anything, He can use the commands of the emperor, and yet will still get his way, some decisions that are binding, that are considered decisions of the Universal Church. For this, some kind of mechanical coincidence of the holy fathers is not at all necessary.
And naturally, if it is a living organism, it must develop, it must respond to everything that happens, and therefore it must develop new and new dogmas. Naturally, you said: “if the holy fathers did not speak out, then this is as if insignificant, insignificant” - but, excuse me - the filioque - this is after the seven Ecumenical Councils, and the Eucharist, which many Orthodox Christians now deny - they deny the significance - is the same The Greek Ecumenical Councils did not take place in the 17th century - here you are, new dogmas developed in connection with polemics with Protestants - this did not happen in the Ecumenical Councils. What if there are new dogmas that the holy fathers did not talk about at all? Here are examples I will give you. Let's say about the procession of the Holy Spirit. There is a traditional Greek formula: “from the Father through the Son” - not “and from the Son,” but “through the Son.” I’ll tell you - why is the dogma impossible that the Son is born from the Father through the Holy Spirit? Fathers don't have that. I didn’t find Bolotov, Lurie doesn’t know, I don’t know, and yet, for example, in Joseph Bryennius, a late Byzantine writer, one can already find such reasoning. If this dogma is brought up for consideration, should it be immediately anathematized as a heresy, because the Holy Fathers never spoke, or should it still be considered at the Ecumenical Council? And if we look at it, then how, if the fathers did not talk about it at all, but this is a dogma. Therefore, there are certain ideas, but now I will still briefly give some examples so as not to be unfounded.
The Third Ecumenical Council accepts as genuine Apollinarian forgeries - “the one nature of God the Word incarnate”, attributed to Athanasius, well, the works of Apollinaris were also attributed to the Roman popes, and this led to numerous problems. The Church Fathers illuminated this in a modern publication, and it appears many times in the acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Cyril of Alexandria thinks that this is the patristic formula of Athanasius the Great, and here we begin to have problems. This formula forms the basis for the development of the Monophysite movement. Trying to somehow squeeze it in, interpret it - that, it turns out, is the problem. Then, however, the Church realized that - yes, there were forgeries, but that this somehow changed the Ecumenical Councils - no, please, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, the forged letter of Theodoret, for example - we recently discussed here - most likely, by order of Justinian made. The Holy Fathers accept him.
But best of all, the Seventh Ecumenical Council is before any Firsov. Let's see whether it is important for the consensus patrum that veneration has always been there since the very first centuries. But this did not happen, they give examples of which from the first three centuries - the Old Testament - cherubim, and the same quote from the Old Testament by the Apostle Paul - and that’s all, there is not a single writer of the first three centuries, because there was no veneration of icons. Yes, there were some images of Christ as the good shepherd, symbolic images, which were later banned by the Trullo Council, but there was no veneration. Where does it say that cherubim were revered, where does it say that God was depicted? No, of course not, because it was a pagan practice and Christians did not want even the slightest hint of it. Then, from the 4th century, the situation changed, it became official, imperial, pagan cults penetrated - naturally, the Church had to react, and veneration arose again, how should it be correctly interpreted? And the Church interpreted it correctly; it could and had the right to do this.
But what was the mistake of the holy fathers of the [Seventh] Ecumenical Council? The fact is that they wanted to present this precisely as the legacy of their fathers, as continuous development, as a consensus patrum, but there was no need to do this. And if the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council began to do this, then, firstly, for the first three centuries (I am simply fulfilling your request to analyze one Ecumenical Council), they could not bring anything for the first three centuries. When they cite one piece of evidence from our great theologians from the 4th century, whether it is convincing or unconvincing is a separate question. That's all. What follows is a bunch of pseudepigraphs. Pseudo-Athanasius, for example, “the miracle of the icon in Berita.” The holy fathers quote without any problems, the miracle of Abgar - well, this legend arose in the 4th century, the inscription on the gate, then two centuries later - that this is an image. Then Evagrius Scholasticus. Our modern scientists generally think that this is an interpolation of Evagrius Scholasticus - no, it is taken as a true story. And a lot of others like that. And “Donatio Constantini” is generally wonderful; if the Areopagite was identified by Valla, then “Donatio Constantini” was also exposed by Valla. "The Gift of Constantine" And so the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council quote Donazio Constantine, that is, thereby justifying the text that defines papal secular power. And the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council are so infallible for our Old Believers that there was a very interesting discussion in A.V.’s LiveJournal. Muravyov, who is also an Old Believer. He says that “Donatio Constantini” is a clear and definite fake for a long time - the Old Believers do not believe him, they say: how is it that they quote him in the Seventh Ecumenical Council, this discussion is still going on. And Firsov’s merit is that he finally made a sign, and at least determined whether the work was genuine or not. And I will take the Palamite Cathedral and the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral. Palamite Cathedral - there is a whole selection of texts that the Tabor light is uncreated, and where on many pages there is no word “uncreated”. This whole collection – why was it made? Because the fathers needed to point out that this was a tradition. They did not dare to say that this was a new dogma, that this was a new revelation of the Holy Spirit - no, they had to be sure to point out that this was tradition. But in these texts there is no word “uncreated” - a key word, just as there was no word “consubstantial” in the ante-Nicene texts - on the contrary, it was compromised by Paul of Samosata.
Let's take the Ferraro-Florence Cathedral - this is what your notorious consensus patrum led to. He led, from your point of view, the Greeks to heresy. Because Photius did not know Latin or knew it poorly, the sources were not available to him, he did not know that the filioque was a deep tradition, and before Augustine, look at the monographs of A.R. Fokine and after Augustine. And yet it is said - and Alexei Georgievich knows this well - that it is postulated that they do not develop. Further - regarding the fact that the holy fathers cannot contradict each other, etc. - I say again that I also spoke about this in my article and at the beginning - there is no such situation that all the holy fathers must necessarily agree on everything and say the same thing. There were holy fathers who could contradict others, and this was also indicated at the Ecumenical Councils.
The question of the texts of pseudepigrapha - this topic itself was known to the holy fathers, St. Amphilochius of Iconium wrote about books falsely inscribed by heretics, this problem was known. The problem, as far as it was possible to solve it in the conditions in which the holy fathers found themselves, they tried to solve it. Subsequently, scientists also try to resolve issues of authorship of certain texts, and this process is not over, this process will continue further - as some new sources are introduced into circulation, as some new information is discovered or reading old sources, i.e. the question of the attribution of texts really exists, it was known to the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils themselves, this topic was not considered a sign because of which the principle of consensus patrum should be rejected, and accordingly, I also do not see it as such. The fact that the holy fathers could accept the question of the authorship of texts - how true or incorrect it was, how much they accepted forged texts - I cannot attribute this question to dogmatics in itself; the question of who exactly wrote what text - the holy fathers did not relate to this either, the question was about What It is written which teaching is correct and which teaching is incorrect.
As for the veneration of icons, indeed, Alexey Georgievich points out that they could not provide quotations from the first three centuries, but from the first three centuries, as Alexey Georgievich well knows, not many texts have survived, although no - I’ll say it differently: not all texts , created in the first three centuries, have reached our time. Therefore, this is a limitation that existed among the holy fathers, which also exists among modern authors who are trying to reconstruct church beliefs at that time. Again, the five books written by Papias of Hierapolis and what the holy fathers say - it may well be that icon veneration could be mentioned there. But since the text has been lost, how can one refer to something that does not exist? In addition, the assumption that icons appeared later, etc., is the subject of scientific discussion, but in the same scientific discussion, some authors draw attention to the fact that in fact the ancient Jewish synagogues had paintings - the Dura-Europos synagogue, talk about what they took from paganism, etc. - the question, of course, is that even if the paintings were in the catacombs of the early period, we are not talking now about those paintings that arose later, or, let’s say, they were in some Christian churches that were at that time - for example , there was a Golden Octagon, which has not survived - we don’t know whether there were paintings there or not. We do not know how these paintings were treated from the point of view of historical discipline; we, of course, cannot prove this with absolute reliability - like many things that historians are forced to talk about. But for me, as an Orthodox Christian, it is quite enough that the holy fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council even quote from those texts that modern scientists do not consider pseudepigrapha.
I can’t say much about the Florence Cathedral because of time. The same Saint Mark of Ephesus examines the issue of consensus patrum in the light of what Catholics argue in favor of purgatory - this is in his “Two Replies to the Latins”, anyone who is interested can look it up. But this is not a question that did not receive coverage, and everything was not as clear as one might get the impression after the words of Alexei Georgievich.
For me, perhaps the most important conclusion from the discussion that took place is that, as Alexey Georgievich demonstrated, the rejection of the principle of the consent of the fathers ultimately leads to a refusal to recognize the doctrinal authorities of the Ecumenical Councils, as was voiced in regarding the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, and I believe that this is a truly consistent and logical position, I thank Alexei Georgievich for demonstrating this. I'll probably finish with this.
M.Sh.: The main part - the debate itself - has ended, so now there is a break of 5 minutes, after which the question part
HELL.:: Yes, so, Father George, as always, distorts a little, because everyone knows that the literature of the early three centuries is poorly preserved. But the problem is not that all the works that would affirm the worship of icons have not been preserved. The problem is that works have survived that deny such worship. Well, you can read this in the classics of any Protestants - there will be quotes from Tertullian, from Origen, from many other authors, which clearly state that Christians do not worship the image, that God is invisible, etc., etc. Therefore there are no problems here. As for pagan practice, already in the 4th century Epiphanius of Cyprus began to fight and composed several works against those who worshiped icons. This is already evidence that the practice has begun to be introduced into the Church. And when the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council seemed to read the acts of the Council of Hieria - but it is not clear in what completeness, but such individual acts were read from the holy fathers. By the way, it is typical for Ecumenical Councils that opposing anthologies, opposing statements of the holy fathers were then destroyed and burned. The Palamite Council is especially interesting because it all came to light there. So, when the fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council encountered these quotes from the Council of Hieria, they took a very curious path - they said: “And this is a forged work of Epiphanius of Cyprus (in fact, it is genuine), but even if they are genuine, then we do not we will accept. Just as the fathers of the Ecumenical Council did not accept, say, Theodoret of Cyrus against Cyril of Alexandria.” That's all, this is very simple logic. Even if it’s genuine - “We still won’t accept it.”
M.Sh.: So, now according to the regulations. I ask you to formulate your questions briefly, clearly and to the point. Please do not ask questions for clarification, you can ask questions specifically to the topic or some examples, or a question-comment - please be very brief, and a brief introduction before I ask the one who raises his hand.
HELL.:: Should I alternate questions between me and Fr. George, or whatever you have to do?
M.Sh.: And it’s whatever you want. To whom you are addressing the question, also say so. Or you can ask both. So come on, who's first?
D.S: Dmitry Vladimirovich Smirnov, scientific editor of the Orthodox Encyclopedia church-scientific center. I would like to ask a question about. Georgiy, well, and if Alexey Georgievich then, perhaps, comments on this answer. Because this concerns precisely the topic with which the previous statement of position ended. This is a question of how Fr. George proposes to apply the principle of the consent of the fathers to solve the filioque problem. It is known that the filioque problem divides Western and Eastern, this is a fact. That is, somehow, if we negotiate with both Protestants and Catholics, we will have to develop some kind of Orthodox position on this issue. But, as Alexey Georgievich really correctly referred to, in the book of Alexey Ruslanovich Fokin it is shown that the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is a Latin tradition. That is, in the Latin tradition we need to struggle to find a father who would not speak like that, but we don’t need to look for fathers who would speak like that - this is all too often. That is, this is precisely the patristic tradition, coming from quite ancient times, continuing through all the holy fathers, the Latin tradition. And it is opposed by the Eastern tradition. That's how Fr. In this case, does George propose to use the principle of fathers’ consent to solve this problem? It cannot be said that this is not a dogmatic question - this is a fundamentally dogmatic question, this is a question that divided the Churches, and still divides them, Christian churches. This is the question, if Alexey Georgievich comments.
M.Sh.: Yes, according to the regulations. I give the person answering the question no more than 5 minutes, give 3-5 minutes maximum, 3 in total.
o.G.M.: Thanks for the question. Regarding this problem, I am aware of it. In my opinion, since you are asking for my opinion, it is quite possible to use the principle of paternal consent, although this really is what you are talking about. And - yes, in my opinion, it is possible to compare, identify, and analyze those patristic statements in one favor or the other, in order to determine which ultimately is the teaching that truly meets the principle of the consent of the fathers. Despite what you mentioned, well, let’s put it this way, in general the problem here is quite big, because not always, when an ancient author mentions the procession from the Son, he does not always mean the same thing that, for example, was put into this understanding later Latin authors. Therefore, yes, in my opinion, such work should be carried out and the results could well be familiarized with.
HELL.: And carried out by whom?
o.G.M.: Well, I think, those who are interested in this question
HELL.:: And he interests us all. Should we all be doing this work?
o.G.M.: The question was: what to do, I’m telling you how to do it.
HELL.:: Thank you.
A.Ch.: Chernyavsky Alexander Leonidovich, translator of literature on New Testament biblical studies. I would like to give an example of a theological problem, regarding which you will all agree that it has fundamental dogmatic significance, and on which there was no agreement of the fathers, and what there was was erroneous. This is the so-called problem of ignorance of Christ. Answering the disciples’ question about the time of the end of the world, the Savior said (): “But no one knows about that day or hour, not the angels of heaven, not the Son, but only the Father.” Matthew does not have the words “neither the Son,” but this does not change the meaning. So, this is what this problem has reached - to the point that if we understand these words of Christ in their literal sense, then the Christological dogma collapses. Because if Christ knew as God, but did not know as a man, then we cannot talk about the presence of a unifying center in the hypostasis of Christ. Simultaneous knowledge and non-knowledge do not allow us to talk about the presence of a unifying center in the hypostasis of Christ, which means we cannot talk about a face, we cannot say that human and divine nature are united in Christ so that they form one person. First, do you agree that this issue matters? If you don't agree, I won't continue.
HELL.:: A question for both of us, or what?
A.Ch.: K o. George.
o.G.M. Regarding this example, when I read and became acquainted with the works of the holy fathers, I saw that they did not ignore it, that there were some answers. Personally, I have not studied what kind of consensus there was on this issue.
A.Ch.: I'll tell you now. We can judge the consensus on this issue thanks to the fact that in 1896 the English theologian G. Powell did colossal work. He compiled a complete summary of all the opinions on this issue of all the fathers and church writers, starting from the 3rd century. What can we say from this summary? First: almost all the fathers and church writers, apparently, did not formulate for themselves, did not come to a consensus on this issue, because they have several options for answering this question. For example, Basil the Great has four answers, and some of them contradict each other. This is the first. In order to judge the consent of fathers under such conditions, we can do this: we divide all fathers into two groups. Those who considered it acceptable to accept the words of Christ in their literal sense, and those who considered this unacceptable. Then we have the following picture. We see that fathers' opinions have changed greatly over time. This is what Alexey Georgievich was talking about. And the milestone here will be approximate - the Council of Chalcedon. This means that before the Council of Chalcedon, twelve theologians considered it permissible to directly understand the words of Christ in the literal sense. Among them are all the Cappadocians, Cyril, Athanasius, Eustathius, Origen and others - twelve in all. After the Council of Chalcedon, only two remained: Leontius of Byzantium and Photius. Then these debates continued, and finally, two hundred years after the next discussion arose, the opinion that one can accept the words of Christ in their literal sense was recognized as heretical and was called the Agnostic heresy. But even after this (Leontius of Byzantium was no longer alive), Photius, nevertheless, remained unconvinced. I saved the most interesting for the end. The fact is that already in the twentieth century, New Testament biblical studies, based on a detailed analysis of the entire text of the New Testament, and not only, came to the conclusion that the Savior, as a person, really did not know the time of His second coming. And moreover, I expected it in the very near future. What follows from this? From this it follows, firstly, that everyone who agreed was wrong, and Photius alone was right. I’ll even say more. Let us imagine that it was possible to gather a council of all - both those who had lived before and new theologians, and the new theologians would have convinced those who had lived before that they were dogmatically wrong, and that these words of Christ cannot be understood in their literal sense, then in this case they would all be Everyone is wrong, even Photius. In my opinion, from this example we can conclude that the point is not even whether the fathers have consent or not. In principle, it cannot be used as a criterion for assessing the correctness of theological judgments.
V.M.: Vyacheslav Mitsuk, 1st year graduate student at MIPT. I have the next question. In the Orthodox Church after the Seventh Ecumenical Council there were many local councils that examined important dogmatic issues - including, for example, the Council of 1691 examined the issue of the Eucharist and adopted the exact formulation. Can we say that in fact in the Orthodox Church after the Seventh Ecumenical Council there were other Ecumenical Councils, but they were simply not yet formally recognized. This is a question for both participants in the discussion.
o.G.M.: There is a point of view that - yes, there really are not only Seven Ecumenical Councils. But here, in order to finally accept it, confirmation of the Pan-Orthodox Council is still needed - in this I agree with Alexei Georgievich - therefore, these councils that took place, which meet the characteristics of the Ecumenical Councils, which called themselves “ecumenical councils” - I think that their authority, of course, exists for an Orthodox Christian, but it is the question of whether to equate them with the authority of the Ecumenical Councils - this must be accepted by a Council equal in status to the Ecumenical Council.
HELL.: I would answer this question like this. We know the point of view recently expressed by our hierarchy, and by the highest hierarchs, who said that all dogmatic issues were resolved at the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and there is no longer a need for Councils of the appropriate level in order to consider dogmatics. Dogmatics is settled once and for all. From this point of view, the answer to your question is clear. I strongly disagree with this point of view. I believe that, undoubtedly, the Orthodox Church must determine its attitude towards all the councils that took place after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, but for this, of course, a Pan-Orthodox Council must gather, and, secondly, of course it must all- to decide whether it is Pan-Orthodox or Ecumenical. That is, whether Catholics are heretics or not heretics, and whether Philaret of Moscow was right when he said that an Ecumenical Council is impossible without the participation of the pope, or wrong. When the Pan-Orthodox Church finally decides on what it considers the Councils to be obligatory for the doctrine, and decides on its own status, then - yes, then I believe that this is undoubtedly necessary, that this is the primary task. As you can see, the Cretan Council, although it did not initially set itself the task, in the final statement still listed a number of Councils. But again, this means nothing, because it was not a Pan-Orthodox Council - once; and, secondly, to recognize the Council and not repeat its dogmatic precise formulations - this does not mean anything, this is half the battle. Undoubtedly, it is necessary to clearly and clearly repeat the form in which the dogmas were adopted by all subsequent Councils. This is my answer.
F.Ch.: Philip, DECR employee, postgraduate student of the All-Church Postgraduate and Doctoral Studies. Alexey Georgievich, thank you for your speech today.
HELL.:I think about. George too.
F.Ch.: And about. George, too, of course. With your permission, I would like to ask such a two-part question.
HELL.: To me?
F.Ch.: Yes, that's absolutely right. At the beginning of your speech, you said that you consider the voice of the Church to be the Ecumenical Councils, and not the consensus of the Patrum, with the theory of which you do not agree. Later you criticized the Ecumenical Councils themselves. And in principle, the impression that has formed is that the Ecumenical Councils are also not some kind of criterion for determining the correctness or incorrectness of faith. You referred to the Holy Scripture, applying, as I understand, the methodology with which you approach the study of the Ecumenical Councils, you also came to the conclusion that there are errors in the Holy Scripture, these are errors, as you said, that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself is mistaken that the apostles are mistaken. Please tell me, did I understand correctly that your position is as follows: in fact, Orthodox Christians do not have any criterion for determining the correctness or incorrectness of the Orthodox faith?
HELL.: Thank you. No, you misunderstood me.
F.Ch.: Then please clarify.
HELL.: Yes, apparently I need to explain it one more time. I believe that for Orthodox dogma the infallible and final criterion is the dogmatic definitions of the Ecumenical Councils - and only they; on all other issues that are not fixed by the Ecumenical Councils, there may be some differences of opinion and discrepancies. As for my criticism of the Ecumenical Councils, this concerned exclusively the consensus patrum, the methodology of decision-making and the attitude towards this methodology, our perception, but in no way the resolutions of the Ecumenical Councils. I hope I answered your question.
A.M.: O. Georgiy, in your speech you mentioned that you do not recognize the principle of dogmatic development. In this regard, please tell me whether you think that the holy apostles were Palamites, that they had developed Mariology (in the form in which it now exists), that they revered icons, and also that they believed in equivalence, equivalence persons of the Holy Trinity, and no subordinationism? Also, why did the ancient apostolic men write so often about chiliasm - if there is no dogmatic development, then where did it go? And with this I’ll end with a series of examples - of course, many more can be given, but for now we’ll limit ourselves to this. And the question is: if, after all, there was some progress, some more detailed formulations, the introduction of something new that was not in the ancient Church, then how can we talk about the absence of dogmatic development? Thank you.
o.G.M. When you ask whether the apostles there professed Palamism in its entirety, I think you understand the answer. The topic of dogmatic development, which was touched upon during this discussion, is a topic that can become a separate topic for discussion; there was no time to express my position; I, of course, cannot fully present it here. But I think that you are well aware - at least, you have heard that despite the fact that the formulations themselves, clarifications of faith took place, of course, it is absurd to say that those formulations that arose later were precisely fully present in early period. As for the fact that there were certain problems with discrepancies, for example, in the formulations of the doctrine of the Church among different ancient authors, this is obvious. I wanted to refer to my book, which is called “The Teaching of the Holy Spirit in the Early Church” - this, by the way, also slightly relates to the first question regarding the filioque. When I was working on this book - maybe imperfect, maybe incomplete - nevertheless, I tried to look through all the references in general to the Holy Spirit, and accordingly periodological references as well - about which and which authors have statements - they are mentioned in this study. The fact that all ancient authors had such an understanding is not evident from the texts. Some actually did, but this is not a problem for the consensus patrum, because the consensus patrum does not assume that everyone always says the same thing.
As for the filioque, in all the references to the Holy Spirit during the specified period, I have never been able to come across wording that would be identical to the filioque. Therefore, if about this first question - that this teaching arose later - this is also a fact and St. Photius, who admitted that this teaching arose in the West in the 7th century, if we correct his position and shift it to earlier centuries, his very argument does not fundamentally deny it. His argument may be the same, but shifted to an earlier period. The fact that the filioque does not occur in the early Church - at least, I compared all possible, all available to me references in ancient texts about the Holy Spirit. The development of formulations - there is a teaching about what exactly was revealed to the apostles, we can only assume, because the apostles communicated directly with the Lord Jesus Christ, they directly experienced what happened on Mount Tabor, for example, and much, much more. Therefore, in answer to your question, I say that the apostles themselves had the main principles of faith, the main ones in apostolic times. Of course, they were expressed differently from the way they were expressed later. But in this case, if everything had been expressed by the apostles, there would have been no need for subsequent patristic writing and the traditions of the Councils.
HELL.: Can I give you a little remark? Firstly, binitarianism was adopted in the Latin Church, where the Holy Spirit was generally leveled as the common nature of the Father and the Son, and secondly, are you really unaware of the completely clear and frank statements of Epiphanius of Cyprus not ek Patros di "Hyioy [from the Father through the Son] , and ek Patros kai Hyioy [from the Father and the Son]?
o.G.M.: I know the statement of Epiphanius of Cyprus, but I am talking about my work, which is dedicated from the 1st to the beginning of the 3rd century.
HELL.: I read it - this work, I am familiar with it.
o.G.M.: Epiphanius of Cyprus lived after this period.
HELL.: It’s just that if you are talking about early fathers, this is a wording that may be somewhat confusing for the audience.
M.B: Mikhail Bernatsky, Church historian. O. Georgy, I really wanted to support you in this meeting. I bow to your calm, restraint, and correctness. Dunaev came with his philological arguments - some surname was spelled incorrectly - You react to this completely calmly, this is actually very commendable. As for your position, I believe that it is absolutely justified and is an absolutely traditional position of a church person for many centuries. Actually, indeed, the church position, which uses the term “fathers of the Church,” and those people who gathered at the Councils, those who defended church teachings, used it. Yes, indeed, consensus patrum - either its imitation, or some variation of it - this term has always been used at Councils, including at the Councils of the second millennium, which are now such a rather serious stumbling block for ecclesiological consciousness. I’ll even retreat a little from my speech now. For example, I can even take here the mentioned “District Epistle” of the Pan-Orthodox Council - this question was raised there. Yes, thank God, the Russians did not participate in this, because, firstly, those councils that the “District Epistle” lists (and these are five or six Councils of Constantinople in the 17th century). Firstly, why is there no Jerusalem Council of 1672? Probably because the Patriarch of Constantinople does not like this. Secondly, why is there the Council of Constantinople of 1638, which begins to anathematize Lucaris, although the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 lifts this personal anathema. At the same time, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who canonized Lucaris several years ago, sits nearby and signs such a document. That is, what attitude do we see in the church consciousness towards these councils: the depth, seriousness of the attitude of the Greeks, whom our church intelligentsia loves, because with us everyone is divided, as usual, into Westerners and Slavophiles - “any of these”, because everyone intellectuals are usually Westerners (in this case, Grecophiles), and all “these” are Old Believers and others with them - those who have not achieved any special achievements in the historical sciences. So this is really a big problem. And for the second millennium this problem is simply global.
And the problem of these pseudo-canonizations, which Alexey Georgievich spoke about, is also global. Why is Rev. Nikita Stifat needed? It’s not Shlenov who needs him, who wants to paint an icon of him, hang it in the walls of the MDA and publish a book, and be the publisher of the Holy Father, no. Behind this there is a certain consciousness, truly church consciousness, in fact. I'm not saying whether it's good or bad, I'm saying there's a problem there. Why? Because Stiphatus was the main polemicist with Humbert in 1054 - a failed polemicist, this is recognized by the very historical-critical science to which I indirectly belong, and which I will talk about later. There was a failed polemicist, a polemicist who did not present the Orthodox side in the best light. And instead of dogmatic arguments against the completely insignificant issue of unleavened bread, he gave out symbolic argumentation, which in fact led this issue into even greater jungle, and formed the degree of misunderstanding between the Churches that still exists, even before the filioque issue arose in the polemics of the 12th century . He is made holy, he is proclaimed holy, although even the Greeks did not think of this. Moreover, they call him a venerable only on the basis of the fact that he is called osios in Philokalia. Well, then Patriarch Kirill is a saint, because he is His Holiness. That is, you see, the argument is completely wild - right? This is from a personal conversation with my friend Father Dionysius Shlenov, one of the most enlightened representatives of the Russian priesthood. Do you understand? That is, behind all this there is some kind of specific ideology - always. Here is Stifat, there he is, the reverend. Why is the saint Samon of Gaza needed? I understand this perfectly well. I'm dealing with this period. What is Samon Gazsky needed for? I’m telling you that it’s like in the subconscious, you know, like a psychoanalytic method - for the fact that these are the fathers of the 17th century. When we also take the Council of 1691 regarding transubstantiation, with which - and I participated in this - with which they wanted to “kill” Osipov, forgive me for the expression. The fathers of the 17th century are absolutely consistent in their consciousness: if they needed to approve the term “transubstantiation” - and this was really necessary - for dogmatic reasons, in polemics with Protestantism, etc. etc., they used the term consensus patrum. They couldn’t do it any other way; they needed the Greek fathers who used this term. It was impossible to say at the Council that this term, by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was received by us through the enlightened Gennady Scholarius from Saint Aquinas. It was impossible to say this, it was impossible. Historical logic is impossible here, and this is the contradiction of historical-critical science now, as we will see. It was impossible to say, for this it was necessary to Gennady Scholarius, a learned man, to say that this is not a Latin term, but it was already used by Gennady Scholarius, what was behind it. Do you think that Dositheus of Jerusalem did not know what was behind this? He knew and published these texts very well, he knew Thomas Aquinas very well, he knew the decisions of the Council of Trent very well. But no, this could not be done. But the term consensus patrum was also needed.
Let's take the current controversy that is taking place. Well, there was a controversy surrounding Osipov - finally, some kind of controversy in the life of the Church. But how did it end? The fact that everyone began to throw around - according to the term (again one of the interpretations) consensus patrum - quotes from fathers, and completely different ones: here Brianchaninov, and Theophan the Recluse, and Photius, and in Mark of Ephesus, transubstantiation was found - through, by the way, bad translation of the 19th century. It was actually good, it’s just that for those translators the terms “transition” and “transubstantiation” were synonymous - according to the decision of the same 1691 year. And they attacked and attacked, but what did it lead to? This did not lead to anything, no approval. The Church itself does not know what to do with this, that is the problem.
The problem is that the historical-critical science that Dunaev represents here actually also has its own weakness - it is also capable of generating myths. But historical-critical science has posed a number of questions to our modern church consciousness regarding the consensus patrum: that everything is not as simple as we would like, that we cannot say that if there is no consensus patrum on the issue of the death of Christ, then this is a question unimportant. This is a really important question - as they said, this was one of the main arguments in the 11th century polemics about unleavened and leavened bread. And the church consciousness believes that this is an important issue. Therefore, here, it seems to me, we need to think about it, in principle, and take the discussion to some other level. What historical-critical science gives to the church consciousness, and to what extent the church consciousness is ready to accept the facts that historical-critical science gives, and church science, in particular, because I consider myself one of the church scientists, I belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, I work in church institution, in particular, and I am doing this not so that it will be disputed in some Western circles, but so that it somehow influences the life of the Church. Even Taft, a famous historian of the Liturgy, Uniate, etc. - but look at his works, at these fundamental volumes on the history of the Liturgy. In each volume he makes a postscript: what he outlined is good, but if it is not used for the benefit of the Church, for comprehension, for the formation of ecclesiological consciousness, for the further movement of the Church forward, then it is all useless. So, to the extent that the church consciousness is ready with what historical-critical science offers, to live - you see, we live in a new time - and not to brush aside quotes from the fathers and the fact that the question is important, not important, etc. Something like that.
M.Sh.: Is this a question or a critical comment?
Nutrition for the family of the Prophet Muhammad Prof.
The human soul after death
Equipment involved in eliminating the consequences of the nuclear power plant accident (20 photos)
Faculty of Foreign Languages
University of Central Florida