A classic work by the famous English scholar Stephen Runciman (1903–2000) on the history of the Greek Orthodox Church, dealing both with the ancient history, theology and internal organization of the Byzantine Church (the first part of the book), and mainly on the situation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople ("the Great Church") after the fall of Constantinople in 1453 until the Greek revolt in 1821. In this regard, S. Runciman examines the most interesting phenomenon of the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age, namely, the transformation of the supranational Universal Church of Byzantium into the national Greek Church, as the Patriarchate of Constantinople became by the beginning of the 19th century under the influence of the secular Phanariot element and Greek nationalism. The book also does not ignore the theme of the suppression of enlightenment and self-consciousness among the Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula by the Phanariot clergy, which is usually hushed up in the works of Greek historians. A special place is given to the difficult relations between the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the Russian Church.

It is published in Russian for the first time.

For all those interested in the historical paths of Orthodoxy.

ru ������ ������� ����� ������� � ����� �������� saphyana@inbox.ru ExportToFB21 16.08.2012 OOoFBTools-2012-8-16-13-25-14-456 1.0 The Great Church is in captivity. History of the Greek Church from the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 to 1821 Oleg Abyshko Publishing House St. Petersburg. 2006 ISBN 5–89740–140–3

The Great Church in Captivity

Preface to the Russian edition

Sir Stephen Runciman (1903–2000) was the second son of Viscount Runciman of Doxford. He received the best classical education of his time: by his own admission, he began to study Greek at the age of five, and Latin at the age of six. Runciman, like many other English aristocrats, studied at the Eton School, then at St. John's College. Trinity of the University of Cambridge (1927–1938). In 1932–1938 he lectured at the University of Cambridge. In 1940 he was appointed press attaché at the British Mission in Sofia, and in 1941 he was appointed to the embassy in Cairo. During the war, he lectured on the history and art of Byzantium in Istanbul (1942–1945). From 1951 to 1967 he was chairman of the Anglo-Greek League in London, and from 1960 to 1975 he was president of the British Archaeological Institute in Ankara. He gave lectures at many European and American universities (Thessaloniki, Cambridge, Oxford, London, Glasgow, New York, Chicago, Sofia) and was the chairman of various institutions - the Society of Friends of Mount Athos, the International Association of Byzantinists, the National Trust of Greece, etc.

What is hidden behind this very impressive track record? The name of Stephen Runciman became a symbol in Byzantine studies of the 20th century. His first works appeared in the late 1920s, when many representatives of the old school of Byzantine studies were still alive, the latter are practically in our days; Runciman stands on the verge of two epochs in the history of science: on the one hand, he is in the full sense of the word representative of the old school with its encyclopedism and broad scope, with its fundamental research on the main problems of Byzantine history; on the other hand, he fully accepted the new, post-war stage in the development of historical science with its detailed study of specific subjects. At the same time, unlike most scientists, he appears before us as a real artist, getting used to the era and giving us a relief, living image of events, characters, national and ethnographic color. Perhaps this is one of the reasons for the extraordinary popularity of Runciman's books - they can be read with interest not only by a specialist, but also by a student, schoolboy and just an inquisitive person.

A significant part of Runciman's books are the result of his teaching activities; These are, in fact, processed lecture courses. The same can be said about the work that we offer to the Russian reader. As the author himself writes in the preface to his book, it consists of two parts, and the first is an introduction to the second, which is the history of the Byzantine Church and the history of the post-Byzantine Church, the Turkish period, which directly continues it. Considering Runciman's work from a scientific point of view, it should be borne in mind that by now it has not only not become obsolete, but, strictly speaking, has not lost its scientific significance, remaining a monument to the history of science. [2] This is especially true of the first part, which covers the Byzantine period, although since 1968 there has been a huge number of studies on the relations between Church and state, East and West, as well as on hesychasm.

Of much greater interest is the history of the Patriarchate of Constantinople of 1453-1821, which constitutes the second part of the book. This period of the history of the Greek Church at the time of Runciman's work practically did not attract the attention of Western scholars. If at the beginning of the 21st century it can be said that for the majority of Europeans the Byzantine civilization ends in 1453, then in 1968 this was the case for all Western Byzantinists; post-Byzantine civilization was viewed as a period of degeneration and decline of the Greek spirit of the Palaiologos period. The history of the Greek people of the 15th-19th centuries was studied exclusively by Greek scholars, whose works at that time were not always at a high level and were often distinguished by bias and unjustified polemical fervor. The first to try to draw Europe's attention to post-Byzantine civilization was the famous Romanian scholar Nicolae Iorga, whose book "Byzantium after Byzantium" appeared in Bucharest in 1935 [3] It was to him that European science owes the introduction of the concept of Μεταβυζαντινά into the programs of conferences and congresses on Byzantine history. However, even after the publication of this book, post-Byzantine studies remained the lot of Greek science or Eastern European Greco-Slavic studies. Stephen Runciman was the first to violate the integrity of European ideas about the Greeks of the Turkish era. Being a sincere, convinced philhellene in the spirit of the English traditions of the 19th century, he set himself the task not only to present the historical events of the corresponding period, but to trace the development of the Greek spirit, to show why the Greeks, after many centuries of slavery, were able not only to liberate part of their territory and create an independent state on it, but also to preserve their national spirit. The author comes to the following conclusion: the Greek people were able to preserve their spirit only thanks to the spiritual power – the Orthodox Church. In this regard, Runciman examines the most interesting phenomenon of the transition from the Middle Ages to the Modern Age, namely, the transformation of the supranational Universal Church of Byzantium into the national Greek Church, which the Patriarchate of Constantinople had become by the beginning of the 19th century. [4] In fact, the Byzantines never put their people, the "Romans," on the same level as the barbarians they had baptized, who, no matter how hard they tried to reach their level, always had to know their place in the hierarchy of cultured peoples. [5] The question of nationalism in the Orthodox Church, which has not yet been sufficiently developed, is solved by Runciman in the spirit of traditional philhellenism: at times one gets the impression that he simply accepts the view of the national question in Eastern Europe that prevailed among the Greek intelligentsia and church circles in the middle of the twentieth century Speculation. He says with regret that by the end of the 18th century, the Church of Constantinople, under the influence of the secular, Phanariot element, became an instrument of Greek nationalism and completely lost its supranational, universal purpose. The Church should not be an arena of political intrigues, it cannot be an expression of the interests of one people to the detriment of another. Yet Runciman does not dare to condemn the Greek ecclesiastical leaders of the time, and leaves unresolved the question of whether the Church would have had the opportunity to survive in the Ottoman Empire if it had not been the expression of the Greek national spirit. Most likely, this was impossible, the author's opinion is inclined to this conclusion. Remaining on a strictly scientific position, Runciman does not ignore the theme of the suppression of national enlightenment and self-consciousness among the Slavic peoples of the Balkan Peninsula by the Phanariot clergy, which is usually hushed up in the works of Greek historians. It was the unwise policy of the Greek aristocracy and church hierarchy that led to the fact that in the liberation struggle of the early 19th century, the Greeks did not receive the support of the Balkan Slavs. At the same time, Runciman does not fall into the other extreme, which is characteristic of historians from Slavic countries (including some Russian scholars); For him, Phanariot governance is not an absolute evil; Among the Phanariotes there were many enlightened people who did a lot for the development of the regions subordinate to them.

It is quite natural that for Runciman, as an Englishman, the relations of the Patriarchate of Constantinople with the Anglican Church were of particular interest. Research on this topic was especially in demand under the Patriarch of Constantinople Athenagoras, with whom the author had close friendly relations. [6] Since there is still no generalized study of Anglo-Constantinople relations in Russian, these pages in Runciman's work are of considerable value to us.

Perhaps the greatest interest for the Russian reader should be aroused by the chapters devoted to the relations of Constantinople with the Russian Church. I would like to say a few words about Runciman's approach to this problem. Upon careful reading, some of the characteristics and epithets that the author assimilates to the Russian tsars and princes are perplexing.