Archimandrite Philip (Simonov): The history of the Church does not tolerate hackwork

Archimandrite Philip (in the world Veniamin Vladimirovich Simonov) was born in 1958 in Moscow.
In 1980 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, in 1985 he completed postgraduate studies at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, defending his dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Economic Sciences. He worked at the USSR State Committee for Foreign Economic Relations (1980-1988), the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation (1988-1997). In 1993 he defended his doctoral dissertation “Macroeconomic aspects of the transition economy in domestic economic thought in the late 10s - 20s.” On July 4, 1992, he was tonsured into the mantle with the name Philip in honor of St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. In the same year he was ordained as hierodeacon and hieromonk. From 1992 to 1996 he was the housekeeper of the Mother of God of the Nativity Bobrenev Monastery of the Moscow Diocese. From 1996 to 2013 - Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Missionary Department of the Moscow Patriarchate. In 2000 he graduated from the Belgorod Theological Seminary, and in the same year he was elevated to the rank of abbot. In 2021 he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite. Cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas in Otradnoye.

Since 1996 - employee of the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange, in 1997-2000. — Director of the Department of Macroeconomic Analysis and Methodological Support of the MICEX. In 2000-2001. was vice-president of the Russian Credit bank, in 2002-2004. worked in the Federation Council. In 2004, he was awarded the title of Honored Economist of the Russian Federation. Since the same year he has been working at the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, part-time at Moscow State University. He taught at the Higher School of Business, the Faculty of Physics, and the Higher School of State Audit. In 2007, he headed the revived Department of Church History at the Faculty of History.

“Clericalization” or “status obliges”?

— Father Philip, this year the Department of Church History turned 10 years old. How has the scientific community's attitude toward this discipline changed over time?

— The scientific community is too large and amorphous a category, and I would not argue that it as a whole could have a certain unified attitude towards something specific. In order for an attitude to be formed, it is necessary to have an adequate understanding of the object - at a scientific, and not at an everyday level. And each of us usually masters only his own branch of knowledge at this level. Even among historians, the degree of personal involvement in historical and church issues is very different: we had to make sure of this when we assembled teams of authors for our educational publications.

Of course, there was, for example, the academician-mathematician Boris Viktorovich Rauschenbach, who, from the standpoint of higher mathematics, not only solved the problems of art history, but also proposed a proof of the Trinity of God. But these are rare happy exceptions.

As for the community of specialists, it is very united, including around well-known scientific historical and church centers, such as the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences “The Role of Religion in History”, research centers in academic institutes, in leading secular universities, in St. Tikhon’s University, church-scientific, in recent years, on a personal level, united with the Great Russian Encyclopedia; finally, our faculty archaeographic laboratory is the leading Russian archaeographic center.

Many bright names of church historians are associated with theological schools - Fathers Vladislav Tsypin, Georgy Mitrofanov, Makariy (Veretennikov), Alexey Konstantinovich Svetozarsky, Alexey Ivanovich Sidorov and others. There are certain “backgrounds” that, if handled properly, can become real scientific centers - for example, the Museum of the Bible in the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, which was realized from an idea into reality with the assistance of our specialists (primarily through the work of Professor Irina Vasilyevna Pozdeeva).

There are many interested specialists in the regions, working very fruitfully on different materials (primarily local): some in a certain isolation, others to varying degrees of involvement in the activities of emerging or already established scientific centers.

There are opportunities for international scientific communication, which we have joined as not only participants, but also organizers: we certainly participate in the organization of faculty scientific forums, national and international, we combine our efforts with the archaeographic laboratory, and in November 2011 the department acted as an organizer international scientific conference "Modern problems of studying the history of the Church."

Finally, there is a certain public attention to historical and church issues, periodically stimulated by certain introduced moments that have nothing to do with the history of the Church (such as a discussion about the “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” in a school, as famous as it is fruitless, like most attempts of modern scientific -public discussions).

As for the staff of the history department (this is the closest scientific community to us, of which we consider ourselves members), over the course of 10 years, it seems to me, an understanding has been formed not only of the need and naturalness of historical and church issues in the pedagogical and scientific activities of the faculty, but also the possibility of some kind of interdisciplinary existence - for example, joint discussion of dissertation research (this initiative belongs to the head of the department of modern and contemporary history, Professor Lev Sergeevich Belousov) or participation in the preparation of textbooks for students of the faculty (we put forward such an initiative and were very glad when it was supported not only by the “fraternal” department of history of the Middle Ages, but also by the department of archeology, for example).

— How do the students feel? Were there any conflict situations, and do they exist now?

- Well, how can students feel about a continuous course for which there is no textbook, and everything has to be learned by voice and “by the way”? I think that those who ultimately do not end up in our department are unlikely to experience much pleasure from both the volume of material and our demands. Recently I was told the following story: a student was sitting at the door of the classroom where an exam on the history of the Church was taking place, finishing something that she didn’t have time to read; A senior student passes by and asks fatherly:

- What are you renting?

- History of the Church.

- To whom?

- Simonov.

-...Go get your documents from this university!..

Is it perhaps noblesse oblige - since you got into the history department, if you please...

I think understanding comes with time, especially if the topic of your own research, at least tangentially, coincides with our subject. Moreover, our period is the broadest in the faculty: the history of the Church, the history of Christianity - two thousand years. And the subject is located in the structure of the faculty’s curriculum in such a way that its study precedes many problems that history students will subsequently encounter both within the framework of the history of the Middle Ages, and within the framework of modern and contemporary history, the history of the southern and western Slavs, and the domestic history of the late Middle Ages , new and recent times, etc.

The only noticeable collision that threatened conflict arose on the eve of the beginning of the first academic year, when a certain group of students became seriously concerned about the “problem of clericalization of education” at Moscow University, the manifestation of which they saw in the resumption (after a ninety-year break) of teaching the full-time course “Church History” at the faculty. In this regard, the introductory lecture had to devote some time to explaining what “clericalization” is, what education is and what its scientific and professional foundations are. At this point, as I understood (and I was then teaching the entire course in two departments), the first surge was exhausted.

All the dots were set during the session (again, that year I accepted the entire course) - that half of the course, which was not certified at the first time, served as clear evidence that the new department does not tolerate hackwork, even “ideologically justified” , and puts professional knowledge at the forefront, and their assessment depends only on the degree of their depth and strength.

— Have you ever encountered distrust in what you are doing - they say, this is not science, but religion under the guise of science?

- This could be the case if we were in the field of religious studies. At one time, it was a discovery for me that many major foreign religious scholars (from where this specialty actually came to us) develop their calculations without giving any definition to their subject. In such a coordinate system, there may well be a place for both “religion under the guise of science” and for atheism under its own guise.

But we work at the Faculty of History, and even our students are fully prepared to distinguish science from ideology with propaganda at the level of “religious scholars” from REN TV. Moreover, our section of historical science is very specific and requires very broad knowledge, including knowledge of related historical disciplines, modern and ancient languages ​​(this is already at the level of specialization in the department), the foundations of philosophy and many others.

—What are the most pressing issues in church history (both general and Russian) today?

— The severity of the problem is determined mainly by the personal qualities and preferences of the researchers: every sandpiper praises its swamp.

In addition, in certain historical circumstances, some topics acquire social significance due to purely external (in relation to science) reasons. Take the most recent example - the question of the authenticity of the royal remains. What is the scientific or social problem here? What new turn, depending on his decision, can take, for example, the fact of canonization of the royal family that has already clearly taken place, first in the ROCOR, then in the Russian Orthodox Church? The Church venerates many saints without having the slightest idea of ​​the whereabouts of their relics. On the other hand, the presence of certain remains of a well-established origin does not necessarily indicate holiness.

Nevertheless, there are quite objective reasons for this or that issue to acquire increased scientific significance. To a significant extent, they are related to the degree of study of a particular problem, the state of the source base and the possibilities of its adequate interpretation. Thus, in the history of the Russian Church to this day there are many controversial places, starting with the very problem of the baptism of Rus'. This is not least due to the fact that the study of Russian church history has a very short scientific tradition: one should speak seriously about its beginning, most likely, starting with Makarii (Bulgakov), and make a significant allowance for the forced “timelessness” of the Soviet era.

For me personally, the problem of the modern institutional crisis of Christianity, which affects all its branches, is now very important - the need to study its causes, the degree of influence of modern rapidly secularizing society on it, the production on this basis of many superstitions that replace Christian teaching, and sometimes even the Church . It is also important to identify possible ways of further historical dynamics of this crisis and its consequences for Christian teaching and Christian institutions.

Archimandrite Philip (Simonov): The history of the Church does not tolerate hackwork

Ten years ago, at the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov revived the Department of Church History. Did she manage to become “one of her own” at the faculty? How did students’ attitudes towards the new discipline change? What questions is church history struggling with today? The head of the department, Professor Veniamin Simonov, also known as Archimandrite Philip, answered questions from the online magazine “Tatiana’s Day”.

“Clericalization” or “status obliges”?

— Father Philip, this year the Department of Church History turned 10 years old. How has the scientific community's attitude toward this discipline changed over time?

— The scientific community is too large and amorphous a category, and I would not argue that it as a whole could have a certain unified attitude towards something specific. In order for an attitude to be formed, it is necessary to have an adequate understanding of the object - at a scientific, and not at an everyday level. And each of us usually masters only his own branch of knowledge at this level. Even among historians, the degree of personal involvement in historical and church issues is very different: we had to make sure of this when we assembled teams of authors for our educational publications.

Of course, there was, for example, the academician-mathematician Boris Viktorovich Rauschenbach, who, from the standpoint of higher mathematics, not only solved the problems of art history, but also proposed a proof of the Trinity of God. But these are rare happy exceptions.

As for the community of specialists, it is very united, including around well-known scientific historical and church centers, such as the Scientific Council of the Russian Academy of Sciences “The Role of Religion in History”, research centers in academic institutes, in leading secular universities, at St. Tikhon’s University, church-scientific, in recent years, on a personal level, united with the Great Russian Encyclopedia; finally, our faculty archaeographic laboratory is the leading Russian archaeographic center.

Many bright names of church historians are associated with theological schools - Fathers Vladislav Tsypin, Georgy Mitrofanov, Makariy (Veretennikov), Alexey Konstantinovich Svetozarsky, Alexey Ivanovich Sidorov and others. There are certain “backgrounds” that, if handled properly, can become real scientific centers - for example, the Museum of the Bible in the Joseph-Volotsky Monastery, which was realized from an idea into reality with the assistance of our specialists (primarily through the work of Professor Irina Vasilyevna Pozdeeva).

Archimandrite Philip (Simonov) and Archpriest Vladislav Tsypin at a round table dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the reunification of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad

There are many interested specialists in the regions, working very fruitfully on different materials (primarily local): some in a certain isolation, others to varying degrees of involvement in the activities of emerging or already established scientific centers.

There are opportunities for international scientific communication, which we have joined as not only participants, but also organizers: we certainly participate in the organization of faculty scientific forums, national and international, we combine our efforts with the archaeographic laboratory, and in November 2011 the department acted as an organizer international scientific conference "Modern problems of studying the history of the Church."

Finally, there is a certain public attention to historical and church issues, periodically stimulated by certain introduced moments that have nothing to do with the history of the Church (such as a discussion about the “Fundamentals of Orthodox Culture” in a school, as famous as it is fruitless, like most attempts of modern scientific -public discussions).

As for the staff of the history department (this is the closest scientific community to us, of which we consider ourselves members), over the course of ten years, it seems to me, an understanding has been formed not only of the need and naturalness of historical and church issues in the pedagogical and scientific activities of the faculty, but also the possibility of some kind of interdisciplinary existence - for example, joint discussion of dissertation research (this initiative belongs to the head of the department of modern and contemporary history, Professor Lev Sergeevich Belousov) or participation in the preparation of textbooks for students of the faculty (we put forward such an initiative and were very glad when it was supported not only by the “fraternal” department of history of the Middle Ages, but also by the department of archeology, for example).

— How do the students feel? Were there any conflict situations, and do they exist now?

— Well, how can students feel about a continuous course for which there is no textbook, and everything has to be learned by voice and “by the grass”? I think that those who ultimately do not end up in our department are unlikely to experience much pleasure from both the volume of material and our demands. Recently I was told the following story: a student was sitting at the door of the classroom where an exam on the history of the Church was taking place, finishing something that she didn’t have time to read; A senior student passes by and asks fatherly:

- What are you renting?

- History of the Church.

- To whom?

- Simonov.

- Go get your documents from this university!

Is it perhaps noblesse oblige - since you got into the history department, if you please...

I think understanding comes with time, especially if the topic of your own research, at least tangentially, coincides with our subject. Moreover, our period is the broadest in the faculty: the history of the Church, the history of Christianity - two thousand years. And the subject is located in the structure of the faculty’s curriculum in such a way that its study precedes many problems that history students will subsequently encounter both within the framework of the history of the Middle Ages, and within the framework of modern and contemporary history, the history of the southern and western Slavs, and the domestic history of the late Middle Ages , new and recent times, etc.

Shuvalovsky building of Moscow State University, where the history department is located

The only noticeable collision that threatened conflict arose on the eve of the beginning of the first academic year, when a certain group of students became seriously concerned about the “problem of clericalization of education” at Moscow University, the manifestation of which they saw in the resumption (after a ninety-year break) of teaching the full-time course “Church History” at the faculty. In this regard, the introductory lecture had to devote some time to explaining what “clericalization” is, what education is and what its scientific and professional foundations are. At this point, as I understood (and I was then teaching the entire course in two departments), the first surge was exhausted.

All the dots were set during the session (again, that year I accepted the entire course) - that half of the course, which was not certified at the first time, served as clear evidence that the new department does not tolerate hackwork, even “ideologically justified” , and puts professional knowledge at the forefront, and their assessment depends only on the degree of their depth and strength.

— Have you ever encountered distrust in what you are doing - they say, this is not science, but religion under the guise of science?

- This could be the case if we were in the field of religious studies. At one time, it was a discovery for me that many major foreign religious scholars (from where this specialty actually came to us) develop their calculations without giving any definition to their subject. In such a coordinate system, there may well be a place for both “religion under the guise of science” and for atheism under its own guise.

But we work at the Faculty of History, and even our students are fully prepared to distinguish science from ideology with propaganda at the level of “religious scholars” from REN TV. Moreover, our section of historical science is very specific and requires very broad knowledge, including knowledge of related historical disciplines, modern and ancient languages ​​(this is already at the level of specialization in the department), the foundations of philosophy and many others.

—What are the most pressing issues in church history (both general and Russian) today?

— The severity of the problem is determined mainly by the personal qualities and preferences of the researchers: every sandpiper praises its swamp.

In addition, in certain historical circumstances, some topics acquire social significance due to purely external (in relation to science) reasons. Take the most recent example - the question of the authenticity of the royal remains. What is the scientific or social problem here? What new turn, depending on his decision, can take, for example, the fact of canonization of the royal family that has already clearly taken place, first in the ROCOR, then in the Russian Orthodox Church? The Church venerates many saints without having the slightest idea of ​​the whereabouts of their relics. On the other hand, the presence of certain remains of a well-established origin does not necessarily indicate holiness.

Round table dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the reunification of the Moscow Patriarchate and the Russian Church Abroad

Nevertheless, there are quite objective reasons for this or that issue to acquire increased scientific significance. To a significant extent, they are related to the degree of study of a particular problem, the state of the source base and the possibilities of its adequate interpretation. Thus, in the history of the Russian Church to this day there are many controversial places, starting with the very problem of the Baptism of Rus'. This is not least due to the fact that the study of Russian church history has a very short scientific tradition: one should speak seriously about its beginning, most likely, starting with Makarii (Bulgakov), and make a significant allowance for the forced “timelessness” of the Soviet era.

For me personally, the problem of the modern institutional crisis of Christianity, which affects all its branches, is now very important - the need to study its causes, the degree of influence of modern rapidly secularizing society on it, the production on this basis of many superstitions that replace Christian teaching, and sometimes even the Church . It is also important to identify possible ways of further historical dynamics of this crisis and its consequences for Christian teaching and Christian institutions.

Ten years of church history

— What do you consider the main achievement of your department over ten years?

— Our team, which, despite its small number, turned out to be capable of organizing a comprehensive educational process, first at the specialty level, then in the “bachelor-master” system, the training of graduate students, as well as conditions for scientific growth, including scientific seminars and conferences. (Our team is indeed small, but unique: these are internationally recognized scientists, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Irina Vasilievna Pozdeeva - leading Russian archaeographer, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Lyudmila Georgievna Khrushkova - prominent church archaeologist, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Zoya Yuryevna Metlitskaya - specialist in the medieval history of the West, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Afanasy Georgievich Zoitakis - a thorough expert on the Greek East; leading specialist of the department on the history of the Russian Church in Modern and Contemporary times, known for his work on Russian monasticism - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Gleb Mikhailovich Zapalsky; Byzantinist Pavel Vladimirovich Kuzenkov, who actively collaborates with the department; Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Elena Vladimirovna Belyakova, who worked with us for a number of years, is a recognized expert in Russian canon law. Well, I am a great sinner).

Our students, postgraduate students, candidates of sciences are still few, but I think we have taught them to work professionally.

Our place in the faculty: our subject fits organically into the system of historical education, we ourselves try to live the scientific life of the faculty and the university, finding application for the results of our research not only in special conferences, but also in events related to general historical topics - such as the history of the Second World War. World War or the revolutions of 1917, which were the subject of recent international scientific conferences organized by the faculty.

Finally, our printed materials: ten years ago, I promised the rector and dean to prepare educational materials that would support the educational process in departmental disciplines - continuous and special. This year, the 4-volume textbook “General History of the Church” was finally published, aimed at continuous courses for bachelors and masters; several years earlier, textbooks on source study and historiography of the general history of the Church were published; Finally, next year we want to finish this cycle with the publication of a textbook on source studies of the history of the Church in Russia, which has already been sent to the publishing house.

— Is student interest in the department growing, decreasing, or remaining at the same level?

— Interest in the department is a difficult concept to measure. Judging by the number of students coming to the department to specialize, it is more or less constant. Our department is complex and requires serious language training (both new and ancient languages), which not everyone is ready for. At least in our faculty, Greek in its ancient and middle versions has always been the prerogative of the departments of history of the ancient world and the history of the Middle Ages, but not of modern and recent history, and few people have even heard of Church Slavonic. But there is also Latin in a more in-depth version than all students take in the first year. And new languages, at least two in number, otherwise there is nothing to do with literature at all, but it is more than extensive in the history of the Church.

It is also difficult to decide on chronology and issues: awareness of the fact that we are working with time from the beginning of the new era to the period of modern history also does not come immediately; traditionally, the history of the Church in the head is limited to antiquity and the Middle Ages, and this legacy is not even the Soviet period - the pillars of our Church historical science of the 19th-20th centuries, for example, Bolotov, Lebedev or Posnov, limited church history to the year 1054, and this was firmly stuck in the minds.

So for now, we, just like historians of the ancient world or the Middle Ages, are preparing “piece goods.” However, in recent years, diplomas related to the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries have begun to appear. This is especially pleasant for me - I myself mostly work with the modern period.

But what really surprised us was the interest that our interfaculty course related to the place of Christianity in European civilization has been arousing for several years now. It is attended not only by students from humanities faculties, which is generally natural, but also by representatives of natural science specialties. This is very good - both in terms of developing a general cultural level, and in terms of mastering the generally complex professional language that the science of church history, which is still non-standard for a secular university, operates with.

— Are those who come people in the church or “outsiders”? Has their level changed?

— Nowadays, not all seminaries can be proud of the fact that they accept internally “churched” applicants. And sometimes it is not possible to release such people - otherwise we would not have disciplinary problems in the clergy.

And then - can “church involvement” be the main criterion at Moscow University? People come here for knowledge, but how they then use this knowledge is their own business. So our task is to provide the opportunity to obtain this knowledge to the maximum extent.

And this, by the way, is not so simple. For example, as a result of all the latest academic reforms, we simply lost one pair per day, which is equal to one foreign language. And in general, what we previously successfully placed in a 5-year specialty, now, according to the new schedule, is difficult to pack into a 6-year “bachelor-master”: something has to be cut, something has to be transferred (for example, the in-line We were forced to send a course on the history of the Russian Church to the master's program, so that those who complete their education with a bachelor's degree will be left without this course, whereas in the specialty it was taught perfectly in the second semester of the second year), something to completely refuse.

As for the general level of students, it changes in some waves. Once, a couple of years ago, I asked for a “stronger” group session. They were given to me, and at the end of one of the exam days, it suddenly turned out to me that I had not fully certified the “strongest” group in the course. At the same time, there were years when “weak” groups suddenly bore much fruit (John 12:24). In addition, the university, despite everything, still somehow maintains a system of “artificial selection” during admissions, which complements the school’s “natural selection”. And this is completely useless, as an element of the system of training highly qualified scientific personnel, which has been carefully and deliberately destroyed for 25 years, but historical traditions still turn out to be stronger. And these traditions are much older than the modern “education reform”, and even the far from mediocre system of personnel training that developed during the Soviet period - by the way, if this system were as bad as it is painted, if its result would not be highly professional specialists, where would our “reformers” come from? After all, we should have raised the question of their professional suitability if the Soviet diplomas (including candidate and doctoral degrees) that they all have in their hands would be of absolutely “zero” quality and would be worthless from the point of view of the international community...

And the roots of these traditions go back to the deep Middle Ages, to which we should be grateful for the university system as such. And, by the way, the Church played a significant role in the formation of the latter.

Between history and theology

— Recently, the state recognized another discipline traditionally studied in theological schools - theology. You are on the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission on Theology. Have you followed the controversy surrounding the defense of your first dissertation?

- Stop. “Theology” has never been studied in domestic theological schools. There they studied its Russian translation - “theology”. Moreover, there was no simple “theology”; it was in certain sections: basic, comparative, accusatory, etc. Within the theological cycle there were “auxiliary theological disciplines”: church archeology (part of which was, for example, liturgics, which sometimes became a separate auxiliary discipline), the same church history and others.

Further, theology and secular sciences have certain differences at the level of the methodology of knowledge: the basis of scientific knowledge is a material experiment, on the basis of the data of which scientific analysis and synthesis are carried out, the basis of theological knowledge is very clearly expressed by the Apostle Paul - this is knowledge by faith: faith is the knowledge of hoped-for things reproof of the invisible (Heb. 11:1). In Latin it sounds a little more clear: faith is sperandarum rerum substantia - the ability to determine “the essence of things that are expected, foreseen” and argumentum non apparentium - “externally revealed evidence (with some stretch - a syllogistic conclusion) of something that has no external expressions." And here we are not talking about faith in its vulgar understanding, which was actively propagated by atheistic materialism (he was very fond of talking about “blind faith” and the like - in general, I take your word for it, and I don’t need any proof), but about faith as a way of knowledge. Let us pay attention: even for the very existence of God, theology has developed a whole series of specific evidence!

By the way, this is exactly what Father Paul had in mind when he wrote that “the scientific-theological method is constituted by: 1) a specific (unique) subject and source of theological knowledge; 2) the personal experience of faith and life of the theologian implied by them; 3) a set of rational operations characteristic of all humanities.” One more nota bene: I would believe that the “scientific-theological method” that the dissertation candidate spoke about is not a single, cumulative method, but a combination of methods - scientific and theological. And we are talking here not about some “subjective worldview principles”, but about personal experience in using various methods of cognition, about mastery of them, about professional acumen, so to speak, about the craft of a scientist (apparently, it is not only possible, but also necessary : at least, the term “historian’s craft” was confidently used by the pillar of the “Annals school” Mark Bloch almost seventy years ago).

In fact, it was around this methodological collision that a discussion arose regarding the theological dissertation prepared by Father Pavel Khondzinsky (which, by the way, fully complies with scientific criteria: the scientific basis of the dissertation is a historical and theological analysis of the work of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), quite traditional for world science with methodology point of view). Unfortunately, this discussion was conducted in different languages, according to the principle recently proclaimed by our television advertising: “Learn foreign languages? Let them teach us!” It turns out that we are bilingual, and we know the scientific language, like “ours,” well, but our opponents do not even want to admit the existence of another language.

But science, in my opinion, is not so much a dictate of unshakable truths (which, by the way, science does not have - it does not have the ultimate truth, and no one has ever denied this, even the Marxists with their claim to the exclusivity of their knowledge), but rather an attempt to understand paths that lead towards this truth. And there can be many of them. And on different paths, it turns out, one can come to the same conclusions - the other day, for example, I read excellent calculations by physicists about the relativity of space and time in the universe, which completely coincide with the information received by the Apostle Peter two thousand years ago, clearly “unscientific” methods: Do not let this one thing be hidden from you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet. 3:8).

Still, a discussion that claims to be scientific must be conducted in at least one language that is understandable to all participants and pursue the goal of studying (before refuting) the methods and arguments of the parties. Study - that is, practically, experimentally understand the technique and content of the process. And this requires a certain level of knowledge in the subject under discussion: I think it’s unlikely that anyone could be seriously interested in my personal opinion, say, in the field of evidence-based medicine, no matter how justified it might seem to me.

— By the way, is the history of the Church a purely secular, historical discipline, or a theological one (there is such a point of view)?

— The historiography of church history began in the tradition of the ancient “Histories” (Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch, Diodorus and others) and the medieval “Chronographies”. The “father of church history” Eusebius Pamphilus and his successors wrote in this genre.

When the history of the Church began to be included in the range of academic subjects, it was constituted as an auxiliary theological discipline. Both the Magdeburg Centuries and the multi-volume response to them written by Cardinal Baronius provided material on the basis of which theological discussions were to be developed. In those days, even philosophy (and philosophy then was a synthesis of all worldly sciences) was just a “handmaiden of theology,” whose task was to provide properly systematized and generalized scientific material for subsequent theological discourse. What can we say about the history of the Church...

Only the 18th-19th centuries became a time when church history gradually acquired a relatively independent character. Actually, at the same time, history as such gradually became a scientific discipline, and not a collection of entertaining and instructive stories. In Russia, such a peculiar emancipation of the history of the Church from the theological cycle actually occurs with the introduction of the university charter in 1863 and the formation of departments of church history in the main universities, which were no longer headed by teachers of the law, but by serious historians - in Moscow these were Father Ivantsov-Platonov, Lebedev and others .

As a result, a kind of dualistic system was formed: in theological academies, church history continued to develop in the theological cycle (and it really developed here through the efforts of many enthusiasts, the same Father Gorsky in the MDA, for example, not to mention a number of Eminences - Macarius (Bulgakov), Sergius (Spassky ) and others, and not only secondary, based on Western Protestant historiography, but also quite original, especially with regard to the history of the Russian Church), in secular universities - as part of historical science, but still in some way - next to it.

At the same time, specialists in Church history were traditionally certified separately from theologians - there was (and now exists in theological schools) the degree “Doctor of Church History”, separate from both doctor theologiae (DTh), and from “Doctor of Church Law”, and , especially from a PhD.

We at the department consider ourselves to be continuers of the old university tradition. It seems to me that this attitude is fully understood at the faculty.

A monk is a monk everywhere

— A few questions for you personally. You are a monk, and not a secret one. On the other hand, while working at the university and other organizations, you always presented yourself with a secular name. Do you feel a split: there you are Veniamin Vladimirovich Simonov, and here you are Archimandrite Philip? Is it difficult to “switch”?

- As people say: “Even if you call it a pot, just don’t put it in the oven!” A name, even a Christian one, is nothing more than a sign. The prudent thief does not have a name at all (for us, at least), but it was to him that it was said: Today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43). A monk has the right to change his name even three times: in the ryassophore, in the small schema and in the great image. But whether there or here, everywhere he remains who God created him to be. As they say, God and soul - that’s the whole monk.

But everyone has always known about my monasticism, and my name is no secret, so it is up to him to decide what it is more convenient for the interlocutor to call me.

— Your colleague and brother, Professor Stepan Sergeevich Vaneyan (aka Archpriest Stefan), told us in an interview: “Strictly speaking, a cassock or cassock is a kind of overalls. A diver does not always wear a spacesuit - only when he is diving. It’s even worse when a kind of professional-class dress code is observed: they say, pay attention - I’m a little different from you, I’m special, slightly chosen - a cleric, not some kind of laik...” You have the same attitude towards priests clothes?

— It’s a little different: overalls are not a cassock, but a chasuble, a liturgical vestment, in which, in fact, the “immersion” is carried out. The cassock and cassock are a tribute to tradition, because then, when they appeared to the world, they represented, one must think (at least in the 19th century, Professor Barsov thought so), ordinary everyday clothing, over which a “spacesuit” was put on: a phelonion was put on (or put on, according to modern usage) over an everyday chiton or tunic (they were worn in ordinary life with a belt), and to grab the wide sleeves, which obviously interfered with the performance of worship, handrails were used.

Habitas religionis, the specific clothing of clergy, appeared in the West only in the 5th-6th centuries. - for use by clerics in everyday life. In the VI century. the style of secular clothing is changing to a barbaric pattern: the Roman long “ceremonial” suit is becoming a thing of the past and is being replaced by short clothes, more convenient for everyday work (remember: in Rome, those who worked were mainly those who were destined for this: slaves, colonists, peasants, etc. similar, and the citizens either ruled or expected “bread and circuses”, accordingly, the clothes were in keeping with everyday activities), but the Church retains ancient habits: the Council of Agde in 506 instructs clergy to wear the same clothes and shoes.

In the East, the clothing of clergy began to differ from secular costume only in the 7th century, and this custom was consolidated by the Trullo and VII Ecumenical Councils.

And all this is the time of the formation and flourishing of the European class society.

So the basic everyday clothing of clergy from the moment of its inception (at least from the 9th-10th centuries for sure) served as a class dress code, and, moreover, disciplinary obligatory for members of the clergy. So obligatory that a manatean monk who left his cell in his “home clothes” (that is, in a cassock and a hood, and not in a cassock and hood, unbelted and without a mantle) was subject to serious reprimands, even cutting off his hair.

At the same time, for household work, a robe with a hood, for example, was clearly unnecessary (a robe is not for work at all, it is a sign of complete abolition from all worldly labor, rather a funeral accessory), and the work monks worked, dressed approximately like peasants of their time: in short cassocks and covering their heads with a skufiya. So everything has its use in different conditions. You can scatter stones quite solemnly, but it’s better to collect them by wearing simpler clothes: it’s still dirty.

In a society that is not structured according to class principles, the content of specific clothing, as a sign of class affiliation, is blurred, and, Father Stefan is right, it sometimes becomes the subject of certain specific desires, which is hardly useful. The Church is exclusively expedient, in it there is a place and time for everything, and the main expediency is determined by the principle of usefulness - usefulness for salvation, which clearly does not depend on the style of clothing.

— Did your university colleagues address you as a priest?

- What do you mean: “Father Philip”? Certainly! Or how about a confessor? In this regard, no - I think my colleagues had developed relations with the Church at this level long before my return to the faculty.

- What about the students?

- I serve in Otradnoye - if someone has a need...

— Does it happen that people come up with complaints? Do media scandals affecting the Church affect your work?

—Where is the Church and where is Moscow University? This is the first thing.

Then, I love accuracy: the craving for an exact definition is, apparently, a professional need. Media scandals do not affect the Church: where is Christ and where is the mass media? They affect individuals, and the Church has long separated Christ and His servants taken separately, establishing that the sacraments of the Church are performed, even if they are performed by an unworthy priest. What can we say about what does not concern the mysterious life. This is secondly.

Well, thirdly, in modern secular society there is a certain tendency, in relation to church people, to generalize on the basis of the presumption of guilt, but usually the results in such cases only cause a smile. Let's say, at one time, someone on the Internet, apparently in the heat of passion for his own pathos, fired the following Parthian arrow at me: he said, look how much the watch he wears costs! I don’t know what exactly the pathos of this philippic should have been, but I haven’t worn any watches at all for about thirty years...

Interviewed by Daniil Sidorov

***

Archimandrite Philip (in the world Veniamin Vladimirovich Simonov) was born in 1958 in Moscow. In 1980 he graduated from the Faculty of History of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, in 1985 - postgraduate study at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University, defending a dissertation for the degree of Candidate of Economic Sciences. He worked at the USSR State Committee for Foreign Economic Relations (1980-1988), the Ministry of Foreign Economic Relations of the USSR, and then the Russian Federation (1988-1997). In 1993 he defended his doctoral dissertation “Macroeconomic aspects of the transition economy in domestic economic thought in the late 10s - 20s.”

On July 4, 1992, he was tonsured into the mantle with the name Philip in honor of St. Philip, Metropolitan of Moscow. In the same year he was ordained as hierodeacon and hieromonk. From 1992 to 1996 he was the housekeeper of the Mother of God of the Nativity Bobrenev Monastery of the Moscow Regional Diocese. From 1996 to 2013 - Deputy Chairman of the Synodal Missionary Department. In 2000 he graduated from the Belgorod Theological Seminary, and in the same year he was elevated to the rank of hegumen. In 2021 he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite. Cleric of the Church of St. Nicholas of Myra in Otradnoye.

Since 1996 - employee of the Moscow Interbank Currency Exchange, in 1997-2000. — Director of the Department of Macroeconomic Analysis and Methodological Support of the MICEX. In 2000-2001 was vice-president of the Russian Credit bank, in 2002-2004. worked in the Federation Council. In 2004, he was awarded the title of Honored Economist of the Russian Federation. Since the same year he has been working at the Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation, part-time at Moscow State University. He taught at the Higher School of Business, the Faculty of Physics, and the Higher School of State Audit. In 2007, he headed the revived Department of Church History at the Faculty of History.

"Tatyana's Day"

Share:

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Send link to Odnoklassniki (Opens in new window)
• Send link on VKontakte (Opens in new window)
• Send link to My World (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window)

Ten years of church history

— What do you consider the main achievement of your department over ten years?

— Our team, which, despite its small number, turned out to be capable of organizing a comprehensive educational process, first at the specialty level, then in the “bachelor-master” system, the training of graduate students, as well as conditions for scientific growth, including scientific seminars and conferences. . (Our team is indeed small, but unique: these are internationally recognized scientists, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Irina Vasilievna Pozdeeva - leading Russian archaeographer, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor Lyudmila Georgievna Khrushkova - prominent church archaeologist, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Zoya Yuryevna Metlitskaya - specialist in the medieval history of the West, Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Afanasy Georgievich Zoitakis - a thorough expert on the Greek East; leading specialist of the department on the history of the Russian Church in Modern and Contemporary times, known for his work on Russian monasticism - Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Gleb Mikhailovich Zapalsky; Byzantinist Pavel Vladimirovich Kuzenkov, who actively collaborates with the department; Candidate of Historical Sciences, Associate Professor Elena Vladimirovna Belyakova, who has worked with us for a number of years, is a recognized expert in Russian canon law. Well, I am a great sinner.)

Our students, postgraduate students, candidates of sciences are still few, but I think we have taught them to work professionally.

Our place in the faculty: our subject fits organically into the system of historical education, we ourselves try to live the scientific life of the faculty and the university, finding application for the results of our research not only in special conferences, but also in events related to general historical topics - such as the history of the Second World War. World War or the revolutions of 1917, which were the subject of recent international scientific conferences organized by the faculty.

Finally, our printed materials: 10 years ago, I promised the rector and dean to prepare educational materials that would support the educational process in departmental disciplines - continuous and special. This year, the 4-volume textbook “General History of the Church” was finally published, aimed at continuous courses for bachelors and masters; several years earlier, textbooks on source study and historiography of the general history of the Church were published; Finally, next year we want to finish this cycle with the publication of a textbook on source studies of the history of the Church in Russia, which has already been sent to the publishing house.

— Is student interest in the department growing, decreasing, or remaining at the same level?

— Interest in the department is a difficult concept to measure. Judging by the number of students coming to the department to specialize, it is more or less constant. Our department is complex and requires serious language training (both new and ancient languages), which not everyone is ready for. At least in our faculty, Greek in its ancient and middle versions has always been the prerogative of the departments of history of the ancient world and the history of the Middle Ages, but not of modern and recent history, and few people have even heard of Church Slavonic. But there is also Latin in a more in-depth version than all students take in the first year. And new languages, at least two in number, otherwise there is nothing to do with literature at all, but it is more than extensive in the history of the Church.

It is also difficult to decide on chronology and issues: awareness of the fact that we are working with time from the beginning of the new era to the period of modern history also does not come immediately; traditionally, the history of the Church in the head is limited to antiquity and the Middle Ages, and this legacy is not even the Soviet period - the pillars of our Church historical science of the 19th-20th centuries, for example, Bolotov, Lebedev or Posnov, limited church history to the year 1054, and this was firmly stuck in the minds.

So for now, we, just like historians of the ancient world or the Middle Ages, are preparing “piece goods.” However, in recent years, diplomas related to the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries have begun to appear. This is especially pleasant for me - I myself mostly work with the modern period.

But what really surprised us was the interest that our interfaculty course related to the place of Christianity in European civilization has been arousing for several years now. It is attended not only by students from humanities faculties, which is generally natural, but also by representatives of natural science specialties. This is very good - both in terms of developing a general cultural level, and in terms of mastering the generally complex professional language that the science of church history, which is still non-standard for a secular university, operates with.

— Are those who come people in the church or “outsiders”? Has their level changed?

— Nowadays, not all seminaries can be proud of the fact that they accept internally “churched” applicants. And sometimes it is not possible to release such people - otherwise we would not have disciplinary problems in the clergy.

And then - can “church involvement” be the main criterion at Moscow University? People come here for knowledge, but how they then use this knowledge is their own business. So our task is to provide the opportunity to obtain this knowledge to the maximum extent.

And this, by the way, is not so simple. For example, as a result of all the latest academic reforms, we simply lost one pair per day, which is equal to one foreign language. And in general, what we previously successfully placed in a 5-year specialty, now, according to the new schedule, is difficult to pack into a 6-year “bachelor-master”: something has to be cut, something has to be transferred (for example, the in-line We were forced to send a course on the history of the Russian Church to the master's program, so that those who complete their education with a bachelor's degree will be left without this course, whereas in the specialty it was taught perfectly in the second semester of the second year), something to completely refuse.

As for the general level of students, it changes in some waves. Once, a couple of years ago, I asked for a “stronger” group session. They were given to me, and at the end of one of the exam days, it suddenly turned out to me that I had not fully certified the “strongest” group in the course. At the same time, there were years when “weak” groups suddenly bore much fruit (John 12:24). In addition, the university, despite everything, still somehow maintains a system of “artificial selection” during admissions, which complements the school’s “natural selection”. And this is completely useless, as an element of the system of training highly qualified scientific personnel, which has been carefully and deliberately destroyed for 25 years, but historical traditions still turn out to be stronger. And these traditions are much older than the modern “education reform”, and even the far from mediocre system of personnel training that developed during the Soviet period - by the way, if this system were as bad as it is painted, if its result would not be highly professional specialists, where would our “reformers” come from? After all, we should have raised the question of their professional suitability if the Soviet diplomas (including candidate and doctoral degrees) that they all have in their hands would be of absolutely “zero” quality and would be worthless from the point of view of the international community...

And the roots of these traditions go back to the deep Middle Ages, to which we should be grateful for the university system as such. And, by the way, the Church played a significant role in the formation of the latter.

Between history and theology

— Recently, the state recognized another discipline traditionally studied in theological schools - theology. You are on the expert council of the Higher Attestation Commission on Theology. Have you followed the controversy surrounding the defense of your first dissertation?

- Stop. “Theology” has never been studied in domestic theological schools. There they studied its Russian translation - “theology”. Moreover, there was no simple “theology”; it was in certain sections: basic, comparative, accusatory, etc. Within the theological cycle there were “auxiliary theological disciplines”: church archeology (part of which was, for example, liturgics, which sometimes became a separate auxiliary discipline), the same church history and others.

Further, theology and secular sciences have certain differences at the level of the methodology of knowledge: the basis of scientific knowledge is a material experiment, on the basis of the data of which scientific analysis and synthesis are carried out, the basis of theological knowledge is very clearly expressed by the Apostle Paul - this is knowledge by faith: faith is the knowledge of hoped-for things reproof of the invisible (Heb. 11:1). In Latin it sounds a little more clear: faith is sperandarum rerum substantia - the ability to determine “the essence of things that are expected, foreseen” and argumentum non apparentium - “externally revealed evidence (with some stretch - a syllogistic conclusion) of something that has no external expressions." And here we are not talking about faith in its vulgar understanding, which was actively propagated by atheistic materialism (he was very fond of talking about “blind faith” and the like - in general, I take your word for it, and I don’t need any proof), but about faith as a way of knowledge. Let us pay attention: even for the very existence of God, theology has developed a whole series of specific evidence!

By the way, this is exactly what Father Paul had in mind when he wrote that “the scientific-theological method is constituted by: 1) a specific (unique) subject and source of theological knowledge; 2) the personal experience of faith and life of the theologian implied by them; 3) a set of rational operations characteristic of all humanities.” One more nota bene: I would believe that the “scientific-theological method” that the dissertation candidate spoke about is not a single, cumulative method, but a combination of methods - scientific and theological. And we are talking here not about some “subjective worldview principles”, but about personal experience in using various methods of cognition, about mastery of them, about professional acumen, so to speak, about the craft of a scientist (apparently, it is not only possible, but also necessary : at least, the term “historian’s craft” was confidently used by the pillar of the “Annals school” Mark Bloch almost seventy years ago).

In fact, it was around this methodological collision that a discussion arose regarding the theological dissertation prepared by Father Pavel Khondzinsky (which, by the way, fully complies with scientific criteria: the scientific basis of the dissertation is a historical and theological analysis of the work of Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov), quite traditional for world science with methodology point of view). Unfortunately, this discussion was conducted in different languages, according to the principle recently proclaimed by our television advertising: “Learn foreign languages? Let them teach us!” It turns out that we are bilingual, and we know the scientific language, like “ours,” well, but our opponents do not even want to admit the existence of another language.

But science, in my opinion, is not so much a dictate of unshakable truths (which, by the way, science does not have - it does not have the ultimate truth, and no one has ever denied this, even the Marxists with their claim to the exclusivity of their knowledge), but rather an attempt to understand paths that lead towards this truth. And there can be many of them. And on different paths, it turns out, one can come to the same conclusions - the other day, for example, I read excellent calculations by physicists about the relativity of space and time in the universe, which completely coincide with the information received by the Apostle Peter two thousand years ago, clearly “unscientific” methods: One thing must not be hidden from you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day (2 Pet. 3:8).

Still, a discussion that claims to be scientific must be conducted in at least one language that is understandable to all participants and pursue the goal of studying (before refuting) the methods and arguments of the parties. Study - that is, practically, experimentally understand the technique and content of the process. And this requires a certain level of knowledge in the subject under discussion: I think it’s unlikely that anyone could be seriously interested in my personal opinion, say, in the field of evidence-based medicine, no matter how justified it might seem to me.

— By the way, is the history of the Church a purely secular, historical discipline, or a theological one (there is such a point of view)?

— The historiography of church history began in the tradition of the ancient “Histories” (Herodotus, Thucydides, Plutarch, Diodorus and others) and the medieval “Chronographies”. The “father of church history” Eusebius Pamphilus and his successors wrote in this genre.

When the history of the Church began to be included in the range of academic subjects, it was constituted as an auxiliary theological discipline. Both the Magdeburg Centuries and the multi-volume response to them written by Cardinal Baronius provided material on the basis of which theological discussions were to be developed. In those days, even philosophy (and philosophy then was a synthesis of all worldly sciences) was just a “handmaiden of theology,” whose task was to provide properly systematized and generalized scientific material for subsequent theological discourse. What can we say about the history of the Church...

Only the 18th-19th centuries became a time when church history gradually acquired a relatively independent character. Actually, at the same time, history as such gradually became a scientific discipline, and not a collection of entertaining and instructive stories. In Russia, such a peculiar emancipation of the history of the Church from the theological cycle actually occurs with the introduction of the university charter in 1863 and the formation of departments of church history in the main universities, which were no longer headed by teachers of the law, but by serious historians - in Moscow these were Father Ivantsov-Platonov, Lebedev and others .

As a result, a kind of dualistic system was formed: in theological academies, church history continued to develop in the theological cycle (and it really developed here through the efforts of many enthusiasts, the same Father Gorsky in the MDA, for example, not to mention a number of Eminences - Macarius (Bulgakov), Sergius (Spassky ) and others, and not only secondary, based on Western Protestant historiography, but also quite original, especially with regard to the history of the Russian Church), in secular universities - as part of historical science, but still in some way - next to it.

At the same time, specialists in Church history were traditionally certified separately from theologians - there was (and now exists in theological schools) the degree “Doctor of Church History”, separate from both doctor theologiae (DTh), and from “Doctor of Church Law”, and , especially from a PhD.

We at the department consider ourselves to be continuers of the old university tradition. It seems to me that this attitude is fully understood at the faculty.

Used materials

• Website page of the Metochion of the Russian Orthodox Church in Sofia (Bulgaria):
• Page of the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church:

[1] Biography on the official website of the Russian Orthodox Church in Beirut,

[2] A meeting of the commission on the canonization of Archbishop Seraphim (Sobolev) was held in the capital of Bulgaria // official website of the Russian Orthodox Church, December 5, 2015,

[3] Journal No. 15 of the meeting of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church dated March 7, 2021, official website of the Russian Orthodox Church, March 7, 2021,