The Mission of the Theological School in Russia in the View of Learned Clergy During the Era of Nicholas I (1837-1840)
The article proposes to consider one of the least studied episodes in the history of pastoral training in Russia - the preparatory phase of transformation of the spiritual-educational system of the 1830-1840s. The aim of the study is to identify a list of tasks of the theological schools according to the ideas of the scholarly priesthood of the era, especially in the context of preparation of the clergy. The relevance of the study is determined by a disputed issue of the purpose of the theological school: the question of who and how, in the final analysis, should be prepared by the theological school is as acute today as in the period under review. The 1814 Charter of theological schools implied two different goals: the training of Church ministers and the education of the clergy’s children. It led to the blurring of the goal of spiritual education as a whole. Transformations initiated by Count N. A. Protasov in 1837, largely determined the image of the theological school in the Nikolaevan era, as well as framed the debates about religious education in the 1860s. Moreover, in most of the available studies, historical phenomena and processes are torn out of the intellectual context of the era, which necessitates a study taking into account a wide range of sources related to the spiritual school of the Nicolas I period. The article summarizes the study of “abstracts of theological teachings” made by the rectors of theological seminaries in the context of spiritual-educational transformations of 1837-1840. The projects for a transformation of theological seminaries that were proposed by the rectors, considered the preparation of the shepherd as the main goal of spiritual education for the first time. At the same time, the research has brought out a number of entirely different concepts of the shepherd, which were formed among the learned clergy. The inability to reconcile these concepts ended in disjointed transformations and burdened curriculum, which finally drew criticism of the results of Protasov’s reforms as was reflected in historiography. One can establish that the difference in approach to pastoral training, reflected in the sources, was characteristic of a wide circle of people, including hierarchs and members of the Holy Synod. The results obtained allow to get a more balanced approach to understanding the significance of this period for the history of the ecclesiastical school and church-state relations, as well as to trace an influence of the general processes in the spiritual-educational system on the development of pastoral training of the 19th century.