Translate this page:
Please select your language to translate the article


You can just close the window to don't translate
Library
Your profile

Back to contents

Genesis: Historical research
Reference:

Understanding Church History in monographs and thematic collections in the Ukrainian SSR in the second half of the 1980s.

Savchuk Ruslan Aleksandrovich

Scientific reviewer of the Publishing Council of the Russian Orthodox Church

119435, Russia, Moscow, Pogodinskaya str., 20/3, p. 2

russ_sav@mail.ru

DOI:

10.25136/2409-868X.2022.7.36195

EDN:

DKFOXI

Received:

30-07-2021


Published:

03-08-2022


Abstract: The subject of the study is the main directions of intellectual search in the field of church history among Ukrainian scientists of the second half of the 1980s, which were reflected in monographs and thematic collections. The Ukrainian national intelligentsia of the era of "perestroika" forms images of the Church, which will be actively interpreted in different approaches of one or another part of society to the construction of church life in Ukraine as an independent state. With the help of historical-genetic and ideographic methods, the publications of Ukrainian scientists of this period concerning the issues of understanding the role and place of the Church in the past and present of the country are analyzed.   The analysis undertaken allows us to identify the ideological foundations of various trends in modern Ukrainian historiography concerning church history. The conclusions about the formation of several directions for understanding the church past of the country are substantiated. The first direction should be characterized by the desire to remove church-historical issues from the periphery of scientific research into a full-fledged sphere of scientific research. A separate group includes works whose authors, when considering the issues of the history of the Orthodox Church, largely relied on Marxist methodology and used characteristic scientific tools. Finally, representatives of the third direction are characterized by a focus on the ideological side of historical search and personal experience, which often prevailed over an objective scientific approach.


Keywords:

church history, Ukrainian historiography, resentment, nationalism, secularization, The Baptism of Russia, ideology, atheism, perestroika, methodology

This article is automatically translated.

Introduction

The historiographical process in the Ukrainian SSR in the second half of the 1980s developed under rather ambiguous and contradictory conditions. On the one hand, the official Soviet ideology with its negative attitude to church history and Ukrainian nationalism retained its influence. On the other hand, democratization and publicity contributed to the softening of the publication regime for historical works devoted to the "pre-revolutionary" era, the development of the local history movement [39, pp. 408-409]. The creation of informal associations, the activation of the dissident movement in the second half of the 1980s, the widespread celebration of the anniversaries of I. Frank, M. Shashkevich and Les Kurbas, the return to folk traditions and national symbols, contributed to a sharp strengthening of national-patriotic issues in the self-consciousness of the Ukrainian intelligentsia [14, pp. 394-395]. If we talk about understanding the historical role of the Church, then at this time there is an intensification of research activities in this direction. There are a number of publications, monographs, collections of documents related to church history. Of course, the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus in 1988 also contributed to the increased attention to the life of the Church.

These features of the socio-political life of the country contributed to the formation of different approaches to understanding the role and place of the Orthodox Church in Ukrainian history. This article attempts, based on the analysis of monographs and thematic collections, to identify the main directions of intellectual search in the field of church history among Ukrainian scientists of the second half of the 1980s. The relevance of this study lies, firstly, in the fact that it was at this time that the national intelligentsia forms images of the Church, which will be actively interpreted in different approaches. one or another part of society is ready to build church life in Ukraine as an independent state. Secondly, the historical features of the understanding of church history in the context of the activation of nationalist slogans and patriotic upsurge are consonant with the current situation in Ukrainian society. The choice of monographs and thematic collections as a subject area of scientific analysis is justified by the fact that it is in such publications that the features of the worldview of individual researchers are more fully reflected, which allows us to identify the necessary layers of views for a general analysis of the intellectual process in a given space-time frame.

The methodological basis of this study consists of both general methods of scientific analysis and specific approaches of historical research. Among the latter, we can single out the historical-genetic method, which allowed us to trace the relationship between Soviet ideology and approaches to understanding church history in the conditions of an independent Ukrainian state. An ideographic method occupies a significant place in the study, with the help of which it was possible to identify individual features of the worldview of Ukrainian authors of the specified period.

The historiographical process of the second half of the 1980s in the Ukrainian SSR, the trends of public thought of the intelligentsia were comprehended both in general works [14] and in special studies devoted to this period [2, 18, 33, 40] and individuals [5, 31, 32]. However, unfortunately, among the questions raised in the works of researchers, the problem of understanding church history has not found any noticeable reflection.

Results

The analysis of monographs and thematic collections dealing with the issues of the church history of Ukraine, published in the second half of the 1980s, allows us to identify several approaches to understanding the church past of the country. First of all, it should be noted the approach in which, with some degree of conditionality (taking into account the realities of the official atheistic ideology), the authors sought to consider church history within the framework of a scientific paradigm that presupposes a desire for objectivity and neutrality in judgments. Another approach to understanding the church past of Ukraine is presented in the publications of authors who, to one degree or another, continued the traditions of the Soviet atheistic methodology when considering the issues of the history of the Orthodox Church. It should be particularly noted that in this case we are not talking about a purposeful distortion of historical realities, but rather about genetic dependence on Marxist ideology, deep mental attitudes of researchers, methodological features that sometimes affect the quality of the conclusions drawn. Finally, the third approach to understanding the church past of Ukraine is presented in the works of researchers who allowed ideologically or ideologically motivated distortions of the historical context to one degree or another. Church history within the framework of this direction could easily move from a scientific problem to the field of ideological struggle. At the same time, it should be noted that the presence of such features in the author's presentation does not deprive the work of scientific value, but rather sets a certain emotional tone and ideological vector that can be used depending on the historical situation and public opinion. In general, it can be said that the authors presenting this approach were often motivated in their judgments by personal experience of opposing the official ideology. In fact, the work of this direction in a certain sense can be called based on resentment, which determined the significant influence of personal relationships and experiences on the vector of scientific research.

More details about the features of these approaches can be judged when considering specific publications. At the same time, it should be noted that the choice of a particular publication to characterize one of the approaches does not mean that other approaches are not used in it. We are not talking about the ratings of publications or authors. The paradigm of scientific analysis allows us to judge the characteristic features of the authors' worldview reflected in the published texts, and the prospects for the development and interpretation of the ideas expressed.

Within the framework of the first approach, first of all, it should be noted the work of S. N. Plokhia "Papacy and Ukraine. The policy of the Roman Curia on Ukrainian lands in the XVI-XVII centuries..". The book is written on the basis of a wide range of sources. The monograph is distinguished by the desire for balanced conclusions and great attention to the analysis of historical sources proper. The author examines the policy of the Roman Curia in the broad context of religious, national, social and political contradictions of the region in the second half of the XVI – mid-XVII centuries. The scientist shows the historical role of the Church Slavonic language in the fight against polonization and Catholic expansion [25, p. 16]. The author claims that the main opponents of the union were philistinism, as well as small and medium-sized gentry led by some of the large magnates. At the same time, we are not talking about a class approach to the analysis of historical data, the scientist manages to maintain scientific balance in this context. S. N. Plokhy shows that the peasantry in the first years after Brest "turned out to be practically neutral" in view of the preservation of Eastern rites. And only with the beginning of active anti-Uniate uprisings of the Cossacks in the early 1620s showed its negative attitude to the union [25, p. 98-100]. Having considered a wide range of sources on the history of the Liberation War led by B. Khmelnitsky, the scientist came to the conclusion that "the broad masses of the people and the emerging Ukrainian statehood rejected the union as a form of social and national oppression, for the first time fully raising the question of its destruction" [25, p. 206]. The analysis of this monograph suggests that the high scientific level of work allowed S. N. Plohiy to get away from value judgments and ideological cliches, and to consider the problem of the introduction of the union on Ukrainian lands exclusively as a historical fact with specific prerequisites and consequences.

The monograph by V. M. Zubar and Yu. V. Pavlenko "Tauric Chersonese and the spread of Christianity in Russia" should be recognized as sufficiently balanced in tone of presentation and versatile in methodological content in the context of official Soviet historiography. The authors sought to "show the spread of Christianity in the southern half of Eastern Europe against the broad background of the world-historical process, as well as to identify the social prerequisites and ideological origins of those changes in the worldview of people who first in Crimea and then in Russia determined the possibility of transition from paganism to Christianity" [12, p. 4]. Undoubtedly, the positive side of the monograph is the desire to adhere to a strictly scientific approach in the interpretation of complex historical phenomena and processes. V. M. Zubar and Y. V. Pavlenko, within the framework of scientific discourse, even decided to openly oppose the monosyllabic ideological approach to the study of Christianity in official Soviet historiography. Thus, the authors, proceeding to the presentation of the question of "supporters and opponents" of Christianity in Russia, indicate that to confine themselves to the traditional view that "Christianity was beneficial to the ruling classes, and therefore its adoption as an official ideology strengthened the power of exploiters over the exploited", "would mean simplifying the problem" [12, p. 123]. Scientists put forward three important arguments to justify their position. Firstly, Christianization was also opposed by influential groups among the ruling class. At the same time, the most developed and cultured "layers of the working people" for their era - the trade and craft people of the Kiev posad - "turned out to be quite receptive to the new religion." Secondly, Christianity still objectively "to some extent prevented the manifestation of cruelty in the treatment of people." Thirdly, the consolidation of ancient Russian society within the framework of a single Church "was for the benefit not only of representatives of the ruling class" [12, p. 123-124]. Having thoroughly analyzed the data available at that time on the essence and forms of Slavic paganism [12, p. 86-122], the authors conclude that the adoption of Christianity was "progressive, bringing the East Slavic society of the early Middle Ages to a new stage of socio-economic and cultural development" [12, p. 125]. At the same time, scientists associate the opposition and resistance to Christianization in Russia with the presence of two cultures in ancient Russian society – "feudal-urban, open to the outside world and actively assimilating the achievements of more developed, mainly already Christian peoples, and patriarchal-rural, stubbornly holding on to its traditional way of life, beliefs and cults" [12, p. 127]. Finally, the authors note the presence of personal factors that also influenced the position of representatives of certain population groups regarding Christianity [12, p. 129]. As for the presentation of historical facts related to the spread of Christianity in Russia, here the book is not original. The authors rely in the narrative on the existing historiography (A.M. Sakharov, M. Yu. Braichevsky et al.) with minimal criticism of written sources. At the same time, it should be noted the rather balanced attitude of V. M. Zubar and Y. V. Pavlenko to the pagan reaction against Christianity in the XI century, which is uncharacteristic for official Soviet historiography, which used these facts to confirm the idea of widespread resistance of the common people to Christianization. The authors of the monograph, on the contrary, do not present this phenomenon as a fact of unconditional rejection by the common people of the imposed religion, but consider it in the context of ideological differences between the two cultures of ancient Russian society [12, p. 190-197].

Of particular interest in the context of the topic under consideration is the collection of scientific papers "Ancient Slavs and Kievan Rus", published by the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR. The church-historical theme is presented in the collection only as an accompanying one. Nevertheless, the general nature of approaches to its coverage by different authors indicates the formation in the second half of the 1980s among individual representatives of the academic community of a balanced and scientifically grounded attitude to church history. It is noteworthy that the Church in the publications of this collection often fit into the context of the socio-political life of ancient Russia as its natural component, without ideologically colored assessments. Thus, P. P. Tolochko in the article "The city and the agricultural district in Russia in the IX – XIII centuries" [35] partially deals with the problem of church land ownership and economic activity of monasteries. The author avoids value judgments, following the strict scientific logic of the presentation of facts. Summarizing P. P. Tolochko only points out: "There is no doubt that in the XII – XIII centuries. feudal land ownership becomes the main source of existence of the church" [35, p. 122] – without any negative characteristics and ideological stamps. In the center of S. A. Vysotsky's publication [6] is the problem of determining the historically justified date of Princess Olga's trip to Constantinople, which is often associated with the baptism of the saint. The author managed to professionally separate the subject of the publication and issues arising directly in the field of church history, carefully taking the latter out of the context of the article without any value judgments. Article by Yu . S . Aseeva [1] is devoted to understanding the stylistic features of the temple architecture of Kiev in the second half of the XI – XII centuries. within the framework of changes in the inner life and worldview of different social groups, which left an imprint on architecture. At the same time, the author refers to the peculiarities of the worldview of the monks of the Kiev-Pechersk monastery as a neutral historical fact and an objective phenomenon of the epoch. Even more characteristic in this context is the publication of G. Yu . Ivakina [13], dedicated to the study of the Kiev Cathedral of the Assumption of the Most Holy Theotokos Pirogoshcha. The author sought to present a broad picture of historical reality, thereby indicating the special place of the temple in the religious and political life of the country, its ideological perception in the context of the mentality of contemporaries.

A. B. Golovko also deals with issues of church history in his monograph "Ancient Russia and Poland in political relations of the X – first third of the XIII centuries." The conclusions of the monograph are interesting in the context of the discussion about the Western roots of "Kievan" Christianity. The author, in particular, finds no confirmation of the assumptions about the significant influence of Rome on the establishment of Christianity in the Russian lands. The scientist refers to the activities of Bishop Bruno of Querfurt in connection with his trip to Russia. After analyzing the historiography of the issue and available sources, A. B. Golovko came to the conclusion that the activity of the Western bishop in Russia was not connected with missionary work, but was exclusively a diplomatic mission with a specific political implication [10, p. 17-19]. Also, regarding the stay in the Russian lands of the confessor of the Polish princess, Bishop Reinburn, the researcher considers the proposals that he "propagandized Catholicism among the Eastern Slavs" to be untenable [10, p. 22].

The presented review of publications, the authors of which sought to generally adhere to a scientifically objective approach, indicates that in the context of this paradigm, the church history of Ukraine was perceived as an exclusively scientific problem, without having an ideological intensity and emotional-colored judgments.

Now let's consider typical examples of the implementation of the author's scientific search within the framework of a genetically dependent approach to understanding the church past of Ukraine.

One of the luminaries of the Ukrainian philosophical thought of the second half of the 1980s, V. S. Gorsky, in 1988 published a monograph "Philosophical ideas in the culture of Kievan Rus of the XI - beginning of the XII century." A significant place in the publication is given to the Christian heritage, in the depths of which the national philosophy was formed. The author's approach to the analysis of the Christian worldview is characterized by reliance on the official Marxist ideology and materialistic criticism of Christianity. The author considers characteristic of the initial period of the spread of Christianity in Russia the absence of "dogmatic integrity of Christian doctrine" in the works of Russian scribes, "an extraordinary variety of approaches to solving certain problems concerning the ultimate foundations of being" [11, pp. 28-33]. V. S. Gorsky believes that "Old Russian philosophical thought does not show much interest to abstract constructions within the framework of Christianized thought." And finally, the author sees in it a tendency "tending to materialism" [11, p. 34]. Regarding the sources of the Christian worldview, V. S. Gorsky, without denying the significant influence of Byzantium, substantiates the original character of Russian book thought. In this context, we can still note a certain inferiority of the presentation. The author's position is justified on the basis of internal trends in the history of Kievan Rus without in-depth analysis of church tradition and on the basis of Marxist ideology, which recognizes Christianity exclusively as a class ideology, which is a consequence of the development of socio-economic relations. In general, V. S. Gorsky comes to the conclusion about the significant influence of the "realistic", "naturalistic" approach to the interpretation of philosophically significant problems on the Old Russian scribes along with the Christian worldview." Such an "active" approach to philosophizing, according to the scientist, determined the significant attention of Russian authors to human life in this world, to issues of socio-political life [11, pp. 193-194]. As we can see, the author's understanding of the essence of the Christian worldview and the Church is formed under the influence of Soviet materialist ideology. Obviously, this explains the special emphasis on the dependence of the church's worldview on specific socio-political conditions, the actual subordination (in the author's interpretation) of the Christian worldview to the demands of the time.

The problems of understanding the Christian worldview of medieval Russia are largely devoted to the collection of scientific works "Domestic Social Thought of the Middle Ages", published by the Institute of Philosophy of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR in 1988. From the point of view of methodology, many of the works presented in the collection are based on Marxist ideological schemes, presenting Christianity exclusively as a product of certain socio-economic conditions. Nevertheless, in general, the collection contains publications of a fairly high academic level and is a very interesting phenomenon in the context of the historiographical process of this period. Among the positive trends in the understanding of church history among Ukrainian academic philosophers of the second half of the 1980s, one can single out the professional approach to criticism of historical sources reflected in a number of articles, when scientists sought to analyze historical sources from the point of view of the historical and cultural context, rather than modern ideological, political and social realities [3, 24], concentration considering a specific scientific problem without broad ideological interpretations [34].

On the other hand, among the articles in this collection, those general trends in approaches to understanding church history that negatively affected the quality of the conclusions made and testified to a serious distortion of professional skills under the influence of the experience of creating ideologically motivated texts are quite clearly manifested.

First of all, it is necessary to note the low level of acquaintance of some scientists with the Christian worldview and theology, which was expressed in fairly free author's interpretations and unfounded judgments. For example, in one of the publications Joshua is called an "Orthodox theologian", while the author tries to describe the attitude of the Church to paganism with the help of individual quotations from the Old Testament, ignoring the millennial experience and patristic heritage [30, p. 158]. Another researcher as one of the confirmations of his hypothesis about the March baptism of the Kievans in 990 refers to the fact that "the most important holiday" in honor of the Virgin "is celebrated in March and is also the only one of the twelve non-transitory holidays of the year" [37]. This statement testifies only to the author's rather vague ideas about church life. Obviously, the general problem is not in the lack of professional skills, but rather in the usual approach to Christianity and church life, as a fairly simple and monosyllabic historical phenomenon that does not require special attention to its internal content.

Another characteristic negative trend in the consideration of church history by Ukrainian philosophers of this period, which was reflected in the collection, was a kind of parochialism, ideological limitation, consideration of the historical realities of Russia in isolation from the general cultural context, ignoring obvious interdependencies and interaction with the outside world. For example, in one of the publications, the author, on the basis of literally several indirect evidence, presents Slavic paganism as a developed worldview system similar to ancient culture, and justifies the conclusion about the "broad interdependence, reaching paradoxical" between Christianity and paganism in Russia [8, p. 95]. At the same time, literally in the article preceding this publication, it is shown that "the interpretation of "paganism" as an equivalent of ancient philosophy completely contradicts the totality of modern knowledge about ancient Russian culture" [27, p. 81]. In another article, the author speaks about the process of "the formation of dual faith" in Russia based on Soviet ideological cliches that the struggle between Christianity and paganism, followed by mutual intertwining, "was a confrontation of antagonistic classes, a struggle in which paganism, having a powerful ally in the face of the people, did not want to give up, and Christianity, supported by the ruling classes, could only angrily threaten God's punishment, and even then leaving the possibility of repentance" [30, p. 155]. An example of unfounded historical analogies can also be attributed here, when one of the authors, with a stretch and on the principle of a simple analogy, speaks about the influence of the Socinian ethical teaching on I. Gizel's worldviews, although he admits that solving this problem "requires a deeper study of the philosophical heritage of Ukrainian thinkers" [17, p. 273].

It is genetically connected with the experience of working in conditions of rigid ideology and reading church monuments exclusively through the prism of socio-political ideology. Such disregard of the historical context and the desire to confirm certain ideological messages leads to a distortion of the meaning of historical monuments and the activities of hierarchs, clergy. For example, in one of the publications Kirill Turovsky turns practically into a revolutionary author, the value of whose works is determined by the fact that he "examines class and social relations", "touches on a wide range of social problems", "analyzed a wide range of socio-political ideas" [16].

In the context of the above considerations, the work of one of the most famous philosophers of independent Ukraine M. V. Popovich "The Worldview of the ancient Slavs" seems interesting. The author focuses on the reconstruction of various aspects of our ancestors' understanding of the surrounding world and man's place in it. By the end of the study, the scientist comes to a logical question, what contributed to the establishment of Christianity among pagan Slavs? M. V. Popovich's answer can be considered in several sections. Firstly, in the paganism-Christianity dichotomy, the author speaks about the depth and power of the pagan understanding of the world, which comes into a state of crisis only because of socio-economic changes, and Christianity, allegedly unable to provide the bulk of our ancestors with a closer and more understandable model of the world for them, had to put up with and even merge with pagan worldview. Secondly, Christianity and the Church are presented in a one-dimensional form – as an ideology of the upper classes, which only with the help of "state violence" "in a very coarsened and close to paganism form" and only over time "mastered the mass consciousness" [28, p. 157]. As we can see, the scientist draws conclusions, neglecting a deep analysis of the Christian worldview proper, looks at it from the "height" of Marxist ideology, distorting its internal content. Such disregard for the internal content of Christian ideology, as was shown in the analysis of publications of this direction, can be considered a characteristic feature in the attitude of the Ukrainian secular scientific intelligentsia of the second half of the 1980s to the national church history.

Finally, it is necessary to analyze publications in which ideologically motivated distortions of the historical context of church history are traced. We repeat that the presence of such features in the author's presentation does not deprive the work of scientific value.

In 1986, the publishing house "Naukova Dumka" published a monograph by P. K. Yaremenko "Meletiy Smotritsky. The life and work of the Ukrainian and Belarusian scholar-philologist, church and public figure of the XVI-XVII centuries.". The author presents Meletiy Smotrytsky, first of all, as a significant humanist who, among other figures of the Ukrainian renaissance, actively fought "for the emancipation of the spiritual life of society from the ideological oppression of the church, for the development of new, Renaissance forms of ideological and creative thinking" [38, p. 3]. It is noteworthy that among the topics covered by the activities of Meleti Smotritsky P. K. Yaremenko pays special attention to the struggle against "church feudal lords" under the slogans of "reforms of the national church and school" [38, p. 5]. It should also be noted that the issue of "national" revival quite often pops up in the author's rhetoric. At the same time P. K. Yaremenko associates the national revival with the demands of the democratization of the church structure, which "acquired distinct reformation-Protestant features" [38, p. 5]. A certain emphasis is also placed on the protection of "national, cultural and religious freedom and independence of the Ukrainian and Belarusian peoples" [38, p. 40]. The scientist believes that "the truth of the native people, their legitimate interests" were the highest social value for Meleti Smotrytsky [38, p. 11]. The Church in the main work of the humanist – "Trenos", according to P. K. Yaremenko is not just crying, but she has the courage to actively protest, "even rebel" against the feudal-ecclesiastical rule of both Uniates, Catholics and Orthodox aristocrats, who "with their criminal policies and immoral acts harmed the social and national interests of their people." The author of the monograph examines the union in the context of the reformation movement, adding the class struggle. According to P. K. Yaremenko, the Orthodox hierarchs sought to come under the protection of the Vatican, fleeing from the pressure of the "petty-bourgeois-peasant reformation, which demanded a pious life and apostolic preaching from the church lords" [38, p. 18]. The author emphasizes that Smotrytsky is characterized by "not only a moral, but also a socio-class approach in assessing church feudalism" [38, p. 21]. At the same time, the scientist notes with regret the inherent attraction of the polemicist to the "utopia of a humanist of the Western European type", which was expressed in the hope of correcting church pastors [38, p. 24]. In general, the monograph is characterized by a specific approach to the analysis of church issues. It consists not only in the application of a class approach, but also in a significant emphasis on civic morality and the protection of polemicist national interests, awareness of their "national patriotic duty" [38, p. 27]. In the author's rhetoric, a fairly clear emphasis is formed on the secular interpretation of the role of the Church in society and, as a result, the incorporation of exclusively secular national interests into the religious sphere is traced.

One of the most significant works for Ukrainian Soviet historiography concerning the understanding of the historical role of Christianity was the book by M. Yu. Braichevsky's "The Establishment of Christianity in Russia". This work was written by a scientist back in the 70s of the twentieth century, but was published only in 1988. The author begins consideration of the topic with the question of the acquaintance of the Eastern Slavs with Christianity until the middle of the IX century. The scientist interprets the indications of many sources on the preaching of Christianity among the Goths and Scythians as evidence of the penetration of faith in Christ among the Slavs. Very ambiguous from the point of view of scientific reliability is the interpretation of the so-called "Constantine legend", preserved in a fairly late retelling by Nikifor Grigora, according to which the "ruler of Russia", among other rulers, came to Emperor Constantine to receive symbols of power. M. Braichevsky, comparing this legend with the mention in the manuscript of the XVIII century of the legendary date of the foundation of Kiev in 334, he comes to the conclusion that this is "some kind of ancient tradition that pushes the beginning of Old Russian Christianity to the first half of the IV century." [4, p. 18]. The author is inclined to interpret some features of archaeological monuments, calendars preserved on clay vessels, differences in the funeral rite as evidence of the Christianization of the population [4, p. 18-25]. Even a well-defined description of the pagan beliefs of the Slavs by Procopius of Caesarea, the author, contrary to the "common point of view", interprets as evidence that Christianity among the Slavs of that time was closely intertwined with local pagan ideas [4, p. 28]. Finally, the scientist believes that at the turn of the VIII – IX centuries. "the new faith confidently and actively made its way, having received significant support in Russia" [4, p. 36]. After such a conclusion, it is natural that M. Braichevsky devotes a lot of space to the baptism of Rus under Askold. What is noteworthy in this case is not the fact of attention to this event itself, but the scale that the author attaches to it. According to the scientist, it was a large-scale Christianization with the organization of the "young Russian Church". The researcher believes that in the early 60s of the IX century. "Russia was already Christian" [4, p. 46]. M. Braichevsky even undertakes to talk about the structure of the Kiev diocese under Askold. At the same time, it is mainly based on the information of the Nikon Chronicle about the "six bishops" allegedly sent by Patriarch Photius to Russia. Although he immediately points to obvious signs of the late origin of this information [4, p. 61].

To give an objective assessment of this work, it is necessary, first of all, to consider it in the context of the historiographical process in Ukraine in the late 1980s. From this position, firstly, it is necessary to note the undoubtedly positive role of this work in reviving interest in church history among secular scholars. The author quite boldly raises the question of the significant Christian heritage of Russia, does not displace church history into a separate "ideological" sphere, but puts it at the center of the historical realities of that time. Of course, a broad understanding, analysis of various sources, historiography, and historical context by a secular scientist within the framework of the consideration of the church-historical theme is also valuable. The conclusions of M. Yu. should also be considered positive in the context of the historical situation in which the book was published. Braichevsky on the consequences of the adoption of Christianity in Russia. Although the author correlates the spread of Christianity with the socio-economic and political development of society, however, he pays considerable attention to the positive ideological and cultural factors associated with the Christianization of Russia [4, pp. 206-228].

At the same time, the above review of the author's theories and concepts, many of which do not find grounds in historical sources, but are rather the author's reading of certain facts, calls into question the scientific value of the hypotheses put forward. It seems that M. Yu. Braichevsky seeks first of all to substantiate a certain general idea, through the prism of which he considers all sources. The monograph presents not so much a critical analysis of certain historical sources and their information, as their interpretation in the context of the author's idea and attempts to rationalize such an interpretation. Characteristic of the monograph is the author's expression that this or that fact "although not attested by reliable sources, it seems quite possible" [4, p. 118]. M. Yu. Braichevsky seeks to show the "inferiority" of the all-Russian ideological concept presented in the Russian chronicles, its alienness to the local Kiev tradition. And, on the contrary, the author builds a coherent picture of the widespread Christianization of Russia already in the IX century, although there are no grounds for such bold conclusions in any historical source. At the same time, the scientist again does not turn to criticism of sources, but only uses them to confirm his own idea. Otherwise, he would have noticed that not only the first baptism of Russia, but also many other important topics and documents escape the attention of chroniclers. Thus, the chronicle includes three agreements with Byzantium, but there is no Russian Truth, no church Charters, or letters of gift to the Pechersk Monastery, where many chronicle vaults were created [23, p. 225]. As an example , one can cite the reflections of M. Yu . Braichevsky concerning the first hierarchs of the Kievan Church, founded, according to the author, by Patriarch Photius. The scientist, relying on his own conclusions, believes that the second metropolitan was Leon, appointed by Patriarch Photius or Ignatius. At the same time M. Yu . Braichevsky considers the presence of the canonical work of "Metropolitan Leon" "About Unleavened Bread" to be an important evidence in favor of his theory. "It is difficult to overestimate the importance of this source," says the author and builds on its basis one of the theories about the structure of the "Kiev Metropolia" under Askold [4, p. 162-165]. At the same time, despite all the difficulties of interpreting the historical personality of "Metropolitan Leon", there is no reason to attribute his activities to the IX century and most scientists see him as a bishop of the XI century [26, pp. 280-281] [36, pp. 34-41].

Completing the description of the monograph M. Yu . It should be noted that it clearly reflects the peculiarities of the author's scientific style and worldview. According to the researchers of the scientist's work, he has always been characterized by a "free and deliberate attitude to historical facts", "original thinking", courage. His scientific activity "became a phenomenon of the cultural and political process" [32, p. 103]. M. Yu. Braychevsky in his writings carried out the idea that "the Ukrainian people are not only not devoid of historical traditions of state formation, but have much deeper roots in this process than any other ethnic group in Eastern Europe" [31, p. 524]. Obviously, it was this desire to show the depth and strength of the "Kiev" tradition of Christianity itself that motivated the scientist, imposing an imprint and signs of tendentiousness in the approach to understanding historical realities.

The increased attention to the history of the Church in connection with the celebration of the 1000th anniversary of the baptism of Rus could not go unnoticed in the camp of ideological opponents of the religious worldview. A number of scientific articles, monographs and publications appeared in which the authors tried to assess the role of Christianity in the history of Ukraine from an atheistic standpoint. At the same time, it should be noted that many authors of such works subsequently, with the collapse of socialist ideology, moved to the camp of religious scholars and convinced nationalist-oriented figures who are ready to use the religious factor in the interests of the approval of one or another secular ideology.

The atheistic interpretation of the history of the Russian Orthodox Church after the establishment of Soviet power was presented by the authors of a rather voluminous collective monograph "Orthodoxy and Modernity", published in 1988 in the Kiev publishing house "Scientific Thought". Patriarch Tikhon, in their opinion, "realizing the futility of the struggle against the Soviet government, declared its divinity." Further, speaking about the Declaration of Metropolitan Sergius (Stragorodsky), the monograph expresses the idea that the appeal "was aimed at depriving the Renovationists of support from the parishioners." The period between the late 1920s and the early 1960s accounts for a "specific period" in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church - the "period of loyal attitude to the Soviet government", which consisted in a certain distancing of the Church from the foreign and domestic policy of the Soviet state. And only since the early 1960s has the Russian Church been trying to actively participate in patriotic activities [29, p. 19-35]. Of course, such a reading of the church history of the Soviet period was based on ideologically distorted ideas that the Church allegedly completely lost the support of the population after the revolution and had to look for different ways to regain it.

The responsible editor of this publication, B. A. Lobovik, in the second half of the 1980s, also published several independent and co-authored works devoted to atheistic criticism of the religious worldview in general and Russian Orthodoxy in particular [18, 20-22].

The works of a number of historians have also been published, which, however, reflect not so much the author's position as the official ideological response in connection with the anniversary date of the Baptism of Rus. An example of such publications can be considered the books of P. V. Golobutsky [9] and K. E. Glomozdy [7].

The work of Y. A. Kalinin "Modernism of Russian Orthodoxy" [15], published in Kiev in 1988, is not uninteresting. The author tries to prove the inconsistency of attempts by modernist trends in Orthodox theology, social doctrine, understanding the relationship between faith and science to adapt the Orthodox worldview to modern socio-political and scientific realities. Y. A. Kalinin certainly stands on the positions of Marxist-Lenin's doctrine and sometimes very sharply and rudely criticizes certain theological ideas. However, with all the atheistic orientation of the narrative, the author shows a sufficiently deep knowledge of modern theological ideas, he is well acquainted with the publications and speeches of Orthodox hierarchs, scientists, which reflects a certain trend among the scientific intelligentsia: issues of church history and church life are becoming an urgent and in-demand topic.

Conclusions

The analysis of monographs and thematic collections of Ukrainian Soviet authors of the second half of the 1980s testifies to the formation of a specific historiographical situation in the understanding of the church history of Ukraine. The socio-political changes of this period, on the one hand, weakened the ideological pressure in the field of church-historical research, allowed them to be removed from the periphery of scientific search. On the other hand, the weakening of the official Soviet ideology and the sharp growth of national-patriotic activity provoked the emergence of such a specific phenomenon in Ukrainian historiography, which can be characterized as a resentimental trend. The authors, in whose works there are characteristic features of this trend, perceived national-patriotic trends with particular acuteness, sought to get away from the ideas expressed in the official Soviet ideology, and in this aspiration, often focusing on the ideological side of historical search and personal experience prevailed over an objective scientific approach. All this resulted in the formation of a special trend in the Ukrainian historiography of the Orthodox Church, which sought to artificially fit the church-historical process into the national-state paradigm of reading the past. A special niche in the second half of the 1980s in Ukrainian historiography is occupied by works whose methodology traces a genetic connection with the Marxist approach in understanding church history. This direction becomes the basis for the development of a secular view of the Church among the Ukrainian Soviet intelligentsia.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.