Nicolaidis E. Science and Eastern Orthodoxy: From the Greek Fathers to the Age of Globalization. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011. - 288 p.

Since the emergence of the history of science as an independent discipline, the attention of historians and philosophers has been focused on the events that took place in Western Europe in the XVI-XVIII centuries. Science was seen as a kind of Western enterprise that emerged from the walls of medieval universities and either rejected Christian thought, or, on the contrary, was fertilized by it. Historical material from other cultures was used only insofar as it could show why the scientific project was developed in Western Europe, and not, say, in the countries of the Far East, which, as is known, for a long time did not lag behind the West in technological terms.

The changes that took place in the history of science in the 70s of the XX century not only changed the perception of historians about the development of science, but also drew their attention to the specifics of the existence of scientific knowledge in countries outside of Western Europe. The monograph of the Greek scholar Euphemius Nikolaidis is one of the first serious attempts to create a coherent and holistic narrative about the history of the relationship between science and religion in the Russian-glorious East, starting with the work of Philo of Alexandria (25 BC - 50 AD) and ending with the present.

It is quite obvious that on the space of more than two hundred pages it is impossible to present a complete history of the relationship between Orthodoxy and scientific ideas, as the author readily admits. The purpose of his work is to provide a synoptic overview of the events that characterize these relations, using the example of sequentially arranged "cases", and putting them in the contexts of political history, the history of science, and the history of religion. The author draws on evidence from various branches of historical knowledge, and in general he succeeds-

It is possible to demonstrate the complex nature of these relations, for example, by revealing the significance of religious and scientific issues in the struggle for political influence between Theodore Metochitus (1270-1332) and Nikephoros Khumnos (1250/55-13227) at the court of Emperor Andronikos II Palaiologos (1259-1332).

One of the author's tasks was to show the groundlessness of the claim about the unconditional domination of theology in the Orthodox East and the resulting backwardness of scientific knowledge. Although the bearers of science up to the end of the nineteenth century were mostly representatives of the Church, who in one way or another sought to reconcile the new science and even the new philosophy with the dogmatic teaching of Orthodoxy, theologians, despite the presence in their ranks of serious opposition to secular knowledge, almost never opposed the latter with a united front. Moreover, it was theologians who throughout history were the guardians and bearers of scientific knowledge, traveled to Western Europe and sought to open centers of new scholarship in Greece and throughout the Orthodox East.

E. Nikolaidis connects the backwardness of scientific knowledge in the East and, ultimately, the reasons why the scientific revolution took place in Western Europe with other characteristics of Greek culture. First of all, we are talking about the national pride of the Greeks, who have been striving for many centuries to prove to the world that Greek knowledge is the most accurate and best. It was nationalism that prevented the timely and rapid reception of new ideas (since they came from outside the "barbarian" border) and forced us to return again and again to the works of Greek philosophers. Secondly, we can talk about the belief of the Greeks in their own selectness and unwillingness, in general, to make contact with representatives of Catholic Christianity. As a result of the theological schism, compounded by political clashes, the Greeks were suspicious of everything that came from Latin culture, including the latest scientific achievements.

However, E Nicolaidis specifically points out that although these trends occupied a significant place in Greek culture, they were never dominant, and seeks to show that scientific development in the Orthodox East as a whole did not lag behind what was happening in the West. Many Greeks not only maintained contacts with Catholicism, but also improved their knowledge in Western countries.

They also carefully studied the works of Muslim and Jewish philosophers. As an example, the author considers the famous conflict between the Byzantine "humanist" Barlaam of Calabria (1290-1348) and the Hesychast Gregory Palamas (1296-1359).

E. Nikolaidis points out the fallacy of the existing stereotype, according to which the supporters of hesychasm unequivocally denied the benefits of secular knowledge. In his opinion, complete disregard for the achievements of philosophical and scientific thought of past centuries was shown by the lower strata of society, who in principle did not understand Greek scholarship and were not interested in understanding it. The struggle between hesychasts and humanists does not confirm the conflicting nature of the relationship between science and religion, since the denial of knowledge by hesychasts was dictated not by theological, but by social and political reasons, and ultimately by their rejection of the upper strata of society who sympathized with the ideas of humanists.

E. Nikolaidis emphasizes the importance of understanding the specifics of the Hesychast movement for historians of science in connection with its decisive influence on the attitude of Orthodoxy to scientific and, more broadly, secular knowledge, primarily in Russia. The author is forced to admit that the victory of hesychasts slowed down the development of science in the Orthodox East: "Hesychasm was a reaction of monasticism to the process of gradual secularization of the Orthodox Church. This secularization had two causes: the development of Byzantine humanism, which resulted in the training of the highest ranks of the church hierarchy in secular sciences, and "Caesaropapism", which placed the church under the authority of the emperor. In the Christian West, similar developments - the development of secular knowledge, especially reinforced by a nominalist interpretation that cast doubt on the church's "mystery" (i.e., the real presence of Christ in the Church), coupled with the secular way of life led in the Vatican-paved the way for the future Reformation. In the East, any hint of reform was blocked by the hesychast reaction, which simultaneously fought on two fronts: against secularization and for control of the church within its own hierarchy (without resorting to political force)" (pp. 97-98). At the same time, the victory of hesychasm did not prevent Byzantine theologians from once again turning to secular knowledge in the wake of renewed interest in the ancient texts of Greek philosophers.

E. Nikolaidis presents the history of science in the Orthodox East as a series of ups and downs of interest in scientific knowledge caused by political, social and theological reasons. The greatest influence on the development of Eastern science was exerted by the tradition of Greek mysticism, which for the first time openly and with significant political consequences manifested itself in the activities of the iconoclast movement. Their opponents, on the contrary, actively used secular knowledge, partly preparing the humanistic Renaissance of the IX century, an important role in which was played by the emperors, who had a decisive influence on the relationship between Orthodoxy and secular knowledge until the fall of Byzantium in the XV century.

It seems that the author shares the point of view that directly connects the dominance of the West with the process of its gradual centralization, first on the basis of Christian Catholic teaching, and after the Reformation - on the basis of the scientific picture of the world. In this respect, the presence of permanent centralized power in the East played a negative role, slowing down the development of the philosophy of nature, which received significant impulses in the crisis and post-crisis periods of Byzantine history. Speaking about the role and significance of the imperial initiatives of the XI-XII centuries for the development of science, E. Nikolaidis notes that " the patronage of science by the leaders of the empire carried the seeds of stagnation. Although science education developed, we can't find any vivid discussions about scientific problems, and Byzantine contributions to the development of science remained marginal " (p. 68).

The Crusader invasion and the first fall of Constantinople in 1204 did not dampen the imperial house's interest in spreading "secular knowledge." Moreover, the Byzantine establishment, according to Ye. Nikolaidis, as a result of the crisis, became more receptive to new ideas, including scientific ones. The period of the second humanistic revival of Greek science occurred during the reign of the Palaiologos dynasty, despite the resistance of some of the clergy, who were sympathetic to Hesychast mysticism. The development of science in the Orthodox East was again slowed down after the second fall of Constantinople in 1453, but thanks to him, Western science acquired a significant number of new texts, as well as Greek-speaking scholars who fled to Italy and Venice from the Muslim invasion and contributed to the development of the Russian Language.

a significant contribution to the Italian Renaissance of the 15th century.

E. Nikolaidis rightly notes that in the Orthodox East, the "dispute about the ancient and the new", which also included the question of the possibility of borrowing the achievements of Western science, was largely complicated by schism, which forced many Orthodox theologians to take a conservative, "protective" position. Although in the East, as in the West, many researchers were preoccupied with the search for" ancient knowledge " from which they drew their inspiration, this search was nationalistic in nature and, in fact, meant a return to classical Greek writings on the philosophy of nature. In the end, according to E. Nikolaidis, it is possible to speak about the formation of a scientific community among the Orthodox Greeks only by the XVIII century.

As we approach the present, the narrative of E. Nikolaidis is incredibly accelerated. Focusing on the problems of the relationship between science and religion in the Middle Ages and early Modern times, he tries to describe in three chapters the history of these relationships in the XVIII-XX centuries. The level of detail decreases, and in general the author fails to present the material of modern and contemporary history at the same level as the material of medieval history. The existence of such a" skew "can be explained by the tradition that has developed in the history of science to pay central attention to events related to the formation of the"new science". Although the very concept of "scientific revolution" is found once or twice in the work of E. Nikolaidis, it seems that the degree of development of the relevant problems ultimately determined the presence of this kind of "distortion".

One chapter is devoted to Russia in his work, which reveals the significance of Greek philosophical and theological thought in the culture of pre-Petrine Russia, as well as in connection with the activities of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. E. Nikolaidis ' work is basically built around the topic of the relationship between science and religion in Orthodox Greece, so if there is a place for other national traditions in the work, it is only in connection with the issues of their interaction with Greek culture. Such "Greek-Centrism" has a right to exist, however, despite the author's reservations in the Introduction, the reader should not have been misled by the title of the book, which suggests a conversation about the problems of interaction between science and the entire "Eastern Orthodoxy".

Even if we take into account the review and preliminary nature of the work under consideration, we should still pay attention to the fact that the author does not clearly distinguish between the concepts of "scientific" and "secular" knowledge. The question of the significance of non-religious knowledge for the salvation of man is indeed very important for Orthodox thought. However, it is clear that the concept of "secular knowledge", in addition to the fact that its application to the realities of the Middle Ages is a certain kind of" modernization", is much broader than both the concept of" natural science knowledge "and the concept of"philosophy of nature".

E. Nikolaidis 'book is focused on the standards that have developed in the Western historiography of the scientific discourse "Science and Religion". Although the historical topics covered by him have been discussed in much more detail in the works of other historians, and theoretical assumptions have been voiced in relation to Western European material, in general, the author solves the problem set by him in the preface. Despite these shortcomings, he manages to create a historiographical "map", which, taking into account the above remarks, can be considered as a good initiative in creating a holistic and clear narrative about the relationship between science and religion in the Orthodox East.

Permanent link to this publication: