Reviews on the dissertation of Bishop. Barnabas

Contents a) Rector of the Academy Bishop Theodore b) Extraordinary professor priest P. A. Florensky Journals of meetings of the Council of the Imperial Moscow Theological Academy for 1915 Sergiev Posad Printing house St. - r. Sergius Lavra. 1917. pp.166–189 About the essay of student Hieromonk Varnava (Belyaev) on the topic: "St. Barsanuphius the Great. His life and teaching" a) Rector of the Academy of Bishop Theodore "The author apparently has all the data for serious scientific work. At least the first part of his essay “The Life of St. Barsanuphius" (pp. 1–216) testifies to the author’s undoubted ability for scientific analysis, the ability to navigate the material of sources and manuals and to independently evaluate the data of this material. And it is a great pity that with the availability of these favorable data for serious scientific work, the author did not have enough endurance or, perhaps, the ability to maintain a certain plan and strict sequence of presentation. The author writes, and perhaps thinks, in some kind of leaps, impulses, carried away by one thought or another, making completely unexpected transitions, thereby making it difficult to follow the sequence of his thoughts. So, the reader, despite the extensiveness of the 1st part of the work (1–216), does not have a very definite idea of ​​​​the personality of the Rev. Barsanufia. Up to page 37, for example, the author has some kind of preface that is not separated from the subsequent one, rather confusing and incomprehensible in its relation to the personality of the reverend. Barsanufia. Later on, for example, the author, for some reason, dwells for a very long time on the description of the spiritual gift of the elder - to forgive sins. Actually, the author does not have such a biography as we are accustomed to seeing in ordinary works; for the author, it all seems to be a discussion that changes according to the subjects of consideration on the topic: how spiritually great and lofty the elder is; this is, as it were, praise, and not the life of an elder; in the 2nd part of the essay, the author first of all speaks “about the method” (chapter 1-I). One can assume at the outset that the author will talk about the method of his work in presenting the views of Rev. Barsanuphius, but the author talks about the general method of developing patristic literature and very little about the development of the works of St. Barsanufia. However, in this part he speaks quite sensibly about the external fate of the saint’s creations and makes an ideological description of them (chap. II). Chapter III of the work of the second part sets out “inner work” according to the teachings of St. Barsanuphia: obedience, lamentation, Jesus Prayer, thanksgiving §§ 1–4). A characteristic feature of all pages (262–336) of this part of the author’s work is his constant tendency to respond together to various modern trends in the field of asceticism and those questions that are often discussed on the pages of periodicals (for example, about learned monasticism, about eldership, etc.). However, the thoughts of Rev. He conveys Barsanuphius almost literally and is not included in the analysis and fundamental coverage of them. Features of the teachings of the Rev. Barsanuphius, by the way, constitutes his teaching “on thanksgiving” as one of the types of spiritual work. Here it was necessary to try to clarify the psychology of thanksgiving as a morally good ascetic feat, its connection with humility and reasoning; the author does not have this. The second section of the 2nd part of the work sets out “external work” according to Barsanuphius (38–372) and ends with a description of “silence and perfection.” (IV chapter). Here, too, the author maintains his method of depicting the spirit accurately and descriptively in the words of the Monk Barsanuphius. states. His language is quite clear throughout, and the literary side of his work is free of any special shortcomings. The author deserves a candidate of theology degree. b) Extraordinary professor priest P. A. Florensky The purpose of his essay, Fr. Barnabas defends monasticism in its ancient form. This lofty task must be carried out, according to the Author’s plan, in two directions at once: in the positive, through revealing the beauty of ascetic monasticism, and in the negative, through exposing monasticism that renounces asceticism. In accordance with this dual defense of monasticism, dual material is also used in the fabric of the work being analyzed: praises to the Reverend Father, one of the greatest exponents of monastic feats, are taken as the basis, and admonitions to a certain Reverend Father, a theorist of monasticism, but of the newest school, considering monasticism as an order. Fr. Barnabas does not call this theorist of monasticism by name, although he polemicizes with him throughout his entire work; Let us therefore refrain from disclosing the anonymous opponent of Fr. Barnabas and us. This construction makes the essay about. Barnabas is read with liveliness and entertainment. But only, oh. Barnabas, praising the Reverend Father for the idea of ​​obedience and blaming the Most Reverend Father for the real or imaginary denial of the same idea, does not notice that he himself is by no means with the former, but with the latter: no one assigned him “for obedience” to praise or blame anyone. But his Bishop, and, moreover, the one who tonsured him, gave him to study the precious creations of the Venerable. Barsanuphius, and Father Barnabas, in the excitement of the struggle, did not consider it necessary to do as diligently as possible what even not a monk, and not “for obedience,” but simply every student, out of duty, who wants to receive a degree, would be obliged to do. Referring to Abba Dorotheus, who says that “nothing brings such benefit to people as cutting off one’s own will” (p. 254), and pointing out that this truth, learned from experience, “determines the character of the entire teaching of the Great Barsanuphius,” Father Barnabas obviously does not believe both of them well. And if he believed, he would not only receive benefits himself, but would also bring her to others, for a good monograph on St. Barsanuphius the Great would be very useful to anyone interested in ascetic issues. But Father Barnabas “did not cut off” his will, and his negligence in his work is all the more annoying since the little he did is a guarantee of useful research. For such, O. Barnabas has abilities and, most importantly, passion. The direction of his attention to issues of working on himself is important; His ability to combine disparate data into a whole picture is valuable, as he did in the 1st chapter, depicting the life of the monks of the Serid monastery; It is comforting to hear his defense of Christianity against various counterfeits: it is joyful to see his high assessment of the fundamentals of senile care. In general, there are quite a few merits in the essay. It is a pity, however, that its merits are, precisely, only the guarantees of possible work, and not ripe fruits. In the meantime, the essay leaves much to be desired. Dual in concept, the work of Fr. Barnabas leaves an ambivalent impression. It does not have an average overall tone, and can hardly be assessed as one whole, and there is hardly one whole. In places it is pleasing; sometimes he’s angry. Soaring into the sky, Fr. Barnabas sometimes suddenly descends to household accounts; the reader is left with an unpleasant aftertaste, as if he was caught in a quarrel between former friends at the wrong time. Barnabas dilutes the words of a strict choice with newspaper speech, and deep reverence for the Saint, whose personality and teaching he depicts, is sometimes unexpectedly replaced by an attitude that can hardly be called anything other than sloppy. This lack of consistency in the general tone, this unevenness of both language and study, perhaps, I think, is explained by the fact that Father Barnabas, Once upon a time, thought a lot about issues of asceticism in general, but was not attentive and diligent enough to deal with the topic proposed to him. In fact, I cannot admit that a person well-read in ascetic writing, with its fragrant and rich language, could, if only he “Take heed to himself,” write, for example, the following page (my italics): “His (Venerable Barsanuphius’s) views on the foundations of asceticism are so original and characteristic that they can easily be seen in almost every answer of his. The work of the student of his creation remains only (!P.F.) is to collect into one all the individual expressions regarding these principles of spiritual life and combine them in a certain order. But since the diagram of these principles represents a graphic of the development of the spiritual life of an individual, it can never convey it adequately, as we have already said, due to the subjectivity (!P.F.) of the latter, but only to approach it, at least, to put it (!II. F.) in mathematical language, asymptotically. In any case, this determines the method and nature of the work: the presentation of the teachings of the Great Barsanuphius should be determined by the natural boundaries of the main points of view of the monk on the essence of salvation and the free arrangement of incoming thoughts in proving the latter" (pp. 231–232). We do not touch upon the meaning of this passage, taken almost by luck. But is it really not worthy to speak about St. Barsanuphius in a more seasoned language, in Russian, and not in Esperanto or Ido, - words chosen at least with caution, if there is no feeling of reverence. True, nowadays, even in church sermons, you sometimes hear something like: “Angels played a role in paradise.”... But doesn’t Father Barnabas understand that attention to one’s speech is one of the first conditions for self-concentration, and inattention is one of the most obvious signs of negligence about one’s internal structure? Meanwhile, his work is teeming with sayings like: “sic!” (p. 33), “deciphered” (p. 34), “emancipation” (p. 65), “Divine sanction” (p. 67); “the vicissitudes of prodigal passion and methodological techniques in the fight against it” (p. 68), “a posteriori” and “a priori” (p. 68, etc.), adequate replacement of one spiritual father with another” (p. 78), “summarizing” (p. 75), “modus vivendi” (p. 83), “the way of recording them was of an extraordinary character, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit Himself” (p. 89); “individual subjectivism” and “positive objectivity” (p. 89), “under a weakened regime” (p. 92), the thoughts of John Climacus are “mathematically speaking, congruent with the reasoning” of Barsanuphius the Great (p. 136); “in lapidary form”, “thanks to its strong elliptical shape”, “enigmatic form of expression” (p. 180) - and this is all about St. Barsanuphius. "It is usually customary in more or less decent writings to talk about the method before any presentation. And this, of course, has its own raison d'étre, unless it contains at its core a not entirely neat feeling or intention - not to lag behind the others, and to add an extra piece of tinsel to one’s “dumpled” quasi scientific work" (p. 217). Or, here are some more sayings, all in the same vein: “oriented”, “methodological development” (p. 217), “through elimination” (p. 219); among the holy fathers one cannot deny the logic of thoughts, the sui ge neris of systematicity” (p. 219), “the soul is dynamic, its principle is πάντα ῥεῖ”, “categorize” (p. 220), “vis vitalis” (p. 221), “scholastic” (p. 221), “schematization” (p. 221). Let us now move on to the content of the work under discussion. In the Fatherland we see a fragmentary compendium of ascetic experience" (p. 222) - says Father Barnabas. But other "patristic works, having separate chapters under a certain name, without sin in terms of the logical structure of their construction (! P.F.), from the synthetic-literary side are completely arbitrary. And it cannot be otherwise. "The works of the holy fathers are individual, they were often written ad hoc et hominem... In the works of patristic thought there is no such coherence when, when you pull out a single link, the entire chain of logical conclusions falls apart in different directions. On the contrary, you can (? P.F.) snatch out individual provisions, and their independence is not violated (? P.F.), it’s not for nothing that a bad saying has developed: on the basis of the holy fathers, everything can be proven (pro et contra). Here, punctum pruriens of all reasoning. The Holy Fathers wrote not in order to receive praise from people or to achieve some kind of academic title (because in the world some of them already had it), not then, even less, to earn money, but had the highest goal of imitating God. "... (pp. 223-225). With all the bitingness of such reasoning, they can hardly be called understandable. Where the Author’s thought still breaks through the thickness At every step, she incites those who overwhelm her with intellectual words. From the fact that the lazy mind of the inattentive reader does not delve into the coherence and musical structure of the patristic works, Father Barnabas hastens to conclude that there is no plan and internal unity in them, and even allows “snatching out individual provisions” because this is supposedly what some unscrupulous disputants do who undertake to prove it. "pro et contra". What would Father Barnabas say to this kind of reasoning: “Church money has no owner, for it can be put in a church mug, or it can be stolen from there”? And is it really possible that the “imitation of God” of the holy fathers lies in the imaginary dissonance of their creations, while writing coherently means, of course, seeking praise, an academic degree or money? But Fr. Barnabas, although he may not be looking for praise, still requires a degree to be received and therefore the requirement of coherence is, in any case, applicable to him. Unfortunately, he too often allows himself the shortcoming that he wrongly attributes to the holy fathers, and, moreover, with such freedom, as if he knew in advance that he himself belongs to their host. In any case, it seems far from reverent to hastily attribute one’s own thoughtlessness to the Holy Fathers. “The Works of Barsanuphius the Great,” according to Fr. Barnabas, do not present a summary, at least from the outwardly formal side, of well-known provisions based on pre-developed empirical data, but a fragmentary code of thoughts, although quite complete, and views on various subjects. His works, after all, are answers to his students’ most burning questions, often questions of life or death, and as such, of course, contain the most extreme subjectivism and individualism (!P.F.). If individual sketches of patristic creativity are replete with such expressions: “it happens like this”; "Sometimes"; “I remember,” what to say about this type of writing, such as diaries, letters, or as answers to the questions of V. Barsanuphius" (pp. 226–72). “What is the book of the Great Barsanuphius in its essence?” asks Fr. Barnabas in another place (p. 255) and answers this question with words from the book “Elders Fr. Paisiy Velichkovsky and Fr. Macarius of Optina”, M., 1909, p. 46–47: “Nothing more than a senile diary, a daily record of senile care. – Hence the lack of harmony and order, but a lot of little things and details.” Father Barnabas extends his idea about the unsystematic nature of the book of St. Barsanuphius to all ascetic writings, making unsystematic nature almost mandatory. "The Holy Father never," says Father Barnabas, "did not set out to carry out a well-known idea in his work from beginning to end, as is now required among us. He simply insisted on thoughts about any virtue or vice, and nothing more. - The best expressions of the proven position are such works of patristic thought as Fatherland, the Ladder of John and Friend. In the first case, we see a fragmentary compendium of ascetic experience for guidance of all those who are zealous for their salvation, compiled by an outsider, in the second - the same thing, but combined under separate chapters by their creator himself. But here it is not that they were written from a certain angle, according to a certain method. Does John Climacus have an internal, organic connection between individual parts, at least in the word about gluttony (14th)? And some people (I think Tarnovsky in “Vekhi”) propose to turn the Ladder itself upside down. True, the latter would be too much, but regarding its individual links and steps, without a doubt, it must be said that their order is formal, not organic" (pp. 221–222). "But other patristic works, which have separate chapters under a certain name, do not sin in terms of the logical structure of their construction (! P.F.), from the synthetic-literary side are completely arbitrary" (p. 223). Father Barnabas, in different ways, repeats similar thoughts more than once throughout his work. But repetition does not make them more convincing. First of all, the system he denies is not at all alien to ascetic creations to the extent that this follows from the words of Father Barnabas, but only to patient and attentive scrutiny does the plan of these creations appear clearly. O. Barnabas speaks of a plan that is too elementary and straightforward, but such a plan does not exist in any work rich in thoughts. As for the “Ladder,” in particular, its plan was indicated, for example, by Archbishop Anthony Korzhavin (?) (“Theological Herald,” 1916, January, pp. 77–79). Whether the attempt he proposes is successful or not is another question; but in any case it shows that it is unfair to so hastily blame the Monk Climacus for the disorder of presentation. But if it were really impossible to tell the plan. “The Ladder” and other similar creations, this would not, however, prove the lack of internal unity in them. “Without a doubt, it must be said that their order is formal, not organic” (p. 222) states Fr. Barnabas, emphasizing the words printed here in relief. But it is impossible to agree with this statement, despite their determination. Also, perhaps, it would not be so false to deny the formal order of the ascetic writings, although this denial is very risky. The denial of the organic order, unless Fr. Barnabas writes what he wants to write, bordering on a misunderstanding of the patristic works in particular and creativity in general. The unity of the work, that is, its order and connection, may not be realized by the author himself, and may be difficult for the reader to reduce to a simple scheme, but it necessarily exists, because it expresses the purposeful activity of the creative spirit. Since there is life in a work, there is also an organic coherence of its parts, although this coherence, even in works pursuing the logical rigor of proof, is more musical than schematic. In the works of holy ascetics, whose life was especially undisturbed by chance and was life par excellence, this inner integrity should be sought most confidently. Repetitions, digressions, maybe even contradictions are the soul of musical unity, and not an obstacle to its recognition. But in order to discover this unity, Father Barnabas would have to make a thematic analysis of the creation being studied and further show how and why exactly the main themes are intertwined. O. Barnabas imagines inner life too rationally, and therefore thinks that if there is no firmly set goal in the mind and if a rational plan has not been worked out in advance, then there cannot be creative, individual actions in the activity itself, which manifests expediency and coherence. Book by Rev. Barsanuphia, he says, “is not abstract reasoning about or on any topic, but the confession of living people, famous historical figures” (p. 258). But should the confession of living people, even if not carefully thought out in advance, be incoherent and incomplete? Is it really just a game of associations? Are dead people more likely to be whole? – Even in a conversation between two or more persons, despite the mutual independence of those participating in it, its individual parts have a deep connection with each other, and it could be indicated and demonstrated by some outside listener. But this applies even more so to confession and to senile responses to it, where the shocks of pride and irritation are eliminated and where, in undisturbed peace, the experience of spiritual life crystallizes. Finding this unity, this expediency in the construction of a book means understanding it; and as long as random sayings or individual pages are snatched from a book and their connection with the whole is not discerned, the book should still be considered insufficiently assimilated and not understood. Father Barnabas persistently, even too persistently, insists that the Rev. Barsanufia has no system. So be it. But in relation to a great man, and even more so to a saint, to say: “There is no system” means: “There is a personality,” for if there were neither a personality nor a system, then there would be no need to study St. Barsanuphius. And if so, then our attention turns to the individual; everything concerning her acquires significance and great meaning. Meanwhile, Father Barnabas only talks about what even a superficial reader sees in the book of John and Barsanuphius, and does not make any effort to understand what needs to be worked on. Is this reverence for St. An old man? First of all, when speaking about a person, we want to know his name. But the name Barsanuphiy has not yet been deciphered” (p. 34) – says Father Barnabas, referring to the “Mesyatsoslov” Archbishop. Sergius. Strange link! According to Father Barnabas, St. Barsanuphius was an Egyptian by birth and, therefore, his name, most likely, should also be assumed to be Egyptian. Meanwhile, His Eminence Sergius does not explain most of the Egyptian names at all, leaving the name “Barsanuphius” without explanation, but does not at all take on the risky statement that this name is “not deciphered.” This statement would be strange in his mouth, since he himself warns at the beginning of the first index (Vol. II, part III, p. 109, according to the 1876 edition) to his monthly book that “the explanations of the names are made on the basis of the lexicons of Pape, Greco-Russian Alexander, Greco-Russian Kossovich and Jewish Drach and others.” Given the elementary nature of these reference books, it is difficult to imagine that among the “and others” there were Egyptian dictionaries, especially since we are talking about. 1876, i.e., the index of names was written before those important works on Egyptology that were done at the end of the 19th century. But if indeed the name “Barsanuphius” “has not yet been deciphered,” that is, if after 40 years the judgment allegedly expressed in 1876 continues to be correct, then why not Fr. Barnabas not make efforts to decipher the name, which was part of his duties to become interested in? It is not clear from anything that, despite his persistence, it still did not yield to his efforts. And to make out the name “Barsanuphius” would be important, at least in order to have an argument for the Egyptian origin of the Rev. and, perhaps, in connection with this, to understand the spirit of his monastic feat. So, is the etymological analysis of the name “Barsanuphius”, or its variant “Barsanuphius”, a variant rightly recognized by Father Barnabas as less reliable, really so difficult? - We don’t think so. - This name resembles Syrian and Chaldean names combined with רבַּ bar or var - son; such, for example, is the own name of the author of the work being analyzed, Barnabas; here The same names include: Varadat, Varlaam, Varsa va, Bartholomew, etc. It is very natural to think that the monks of the Serid monastery, located near the city of Gaza, who did not know the Egyptian language, as well as the pilgrims and admirers of the holy Elder who came there, took the name Barsanufius for a formation similar to those listed above, and that the very name “Barsanufius”, as it sounds now, was formed through the morphological assimilation of the initial sounds of its Egyptian source - namely assimilation to Syriac or Chaldean bar or var. But then, what did this name sound like in Egyptian? It would not be difficult for Father Barnabas to answer this question if he looked into the works of St. Isidore Pelusiot, where he would have found different versions of the name that occupies him (Migne, - Patrologiae se ries graeca. T. 78). These are the addresses of the letters: Οὐρσενουφίῳ ἀναγνώστῃ, Ursepuphio (lib. I, ep. 6, col. 184; lib. III, ep. 219, col. 901; lib. IV, ep. 70, col. 1128), Οὐρσενοφίῳ ἀναγνώστῃ, and in the Latin translation Ursenorio or Ursephanio (lib. V, ep. 355, coll. 1540 and 1537) or simply Οὐρσενοφίῳ (lib. V, ep. 402, col. 1616), Οὐρσθενοφίῳ ἀναγνώστῃ (lib. IV, ep. 212, col. 677), Οὐαρσενουφίῳ (lib. 1V, ep. 212, col. 1305) and, finally, Ἀρσενοφίῳ ἀναγνώστῃ (lib. IV, ep. 80, col. 1142). We must assume that here we have one name, unless there is also one person - reader Barsanufius or Ursenufius. Instability in the transmission of the initial sound in the first syllable of the name: shows its incommensurability with the sounds of the Greek alphabet. Obviously, this first sound is the same one that was designated by the Egyptians with the hieroglyph “quail” and which was once taken by Egyptologists for the vowel u (u), then it began to be considered as v (w), and now, after the research of G. Steindorf, it has a generally accepted reading as the semivowel u, although it continues to be conventionally designated by w. In combination with the sound p (r), this semivowel sound is usually denoted by the hieroglyph “dove” (or “swallow”, according to others), or by the litature of this hieroglyph and the hieroglyph “mouth”. – So, we do not know what Venerable Barsanuphius called himself; but we see that another Egyptian, Venerable Isidore, more correctly, although also inaccurately, deviating in the opposite direction, transcribes the sought-after Egyptian name through Ursenuphius. You can imagine these deviations in the transcription of the desired name as a double inequality: Barsanufius <x< Ursenufius. Journals Academy Journals.12 The first part of the unknown came, therefore, from the Egyptian: w, r, š, i.e. from root: wrš= שרו=urs=urš (according to the older transcription), Dove + mouth + lake + sun = dove + mouth + lake + rope (spiral) This root means: “to stay awake,” “to pass the day,” “to spend time,” “to spend time uselessly,” “to be somewhere on guard” (A. Erman. – Zur ägyptischem Wortforschung, II, Sonderabdruck aus “Sitzungsberichte der Königl. Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften", 1912. XXXIX, SS. 908–909; A. Erman, – Aegyptisches Glossar, Berlin, 1904, S.–31; cf. also P. Pierret, – Vocabulaire hiéroglyphique, Paris, 1875, p. 112, to which I refer precisely in view of its date, which precedes the date "Mesyatseslov" Arch. Sergius). In the second part of the name “Barsanufius” it is easy to see the name of the god Anubis - Inpw = וֹסנַא =Apri (according to the older transcription), reed leaf + twisting line + stone + quail, (A. Erman, - Aegyptisches Glossar, 1907, S. 12. - P. Pierret, - Vocabulaire hieroglyphique, 1875, p. 35), and the usual transcription of these hieroglyphs through Ἀνούβις is even less correct than this one, through Ἀνούφ, corresponding to Coptic. – One should not be surprised at the rearrangement of the last sounds of this name: before us is a common phenomenon, for example in divine names: So, the name Barsanufias can be written closer to its original form as: dove + mouth + lake + reed leaf + winding line + stone + quail, and should have initially sounded like something like URS - N U, which is where it came from, on the one hand, in an attempt to accurately transcribe this name in Greek and with the addition of the Greek suffix ιος - Οὐρσενούφ-ιος, and on the other, in adapting the initial sounds, i.e. wr, to the word רבַּ = βαρ, son, i.e. ( – let’s use the terminology of Ya. Karlovich) when arradicating sounds Consequently, the god-bearing name Ursenuf, Barsanuf or Barsanufius means something like: “Anubis is awake” or “Anubis, stay awake!”, or “Anubis gives time,” “gives eternity,” etc. This connection between Anubis and the idea of time is understandable, for Anubis, in the Egyptian legend about Osiris, appears as an embalmer and guardian of the body of Osiris, and from here - in general, as an embalmer and guardian of the bodies of the deceased. That is why he is entrusted with the protection of mummies, the existence of which, as is known, was associated, according to Egyptian belief, with the very immortality of the individual. Anubis is therefore called “the embalmer in the holy chamber,” “Lord of the chamber of purification,” “Lord of the blessed land” (Fr. Zimmermann, – Die ägyptische Religion nach der Darstellung der Kirchenschriftsteller und die ägyptischer Denkmäler. Paderborn, 1912 (“Stud. zur Gesch. u. Kult. Bd. V, Hft), S. 52. The exact quotes are indicated here). Consequently, it is clear that the wakefulness of Anubis protects the dead, and since their mummies are preserved, then their life has been increased. This activity of Anubis is indicated by the name Barsanuphius. It should also be noted that Barsanufius, as a theophoric name containing the name of Anubis, is not the only one in the annals of monasticism. We know the Egyptian monk and confessor Anuf, or, as he is sometimes called, Anuvius, mentioned in Lavsaik, Rufinus and Nicephorus. In the name of this saint (whose memory is celebrated on June 1st) it is difficult not to see the name of the god Anubis. Perhaps the name of Abba Pinufius can also be included here, which in the second part contains, again, the name of the god Anubis, and in the first – P, i.e. the name of the city Buto, or rather pj, an index member. Then, this name can be transcribed as, рj.inpw means: “This Anubis” or “This Anubis.” When studying a personality, after its name, the next question comes about the face, so that, then, by its features, as well as by other identifications of the personality, one can recognize the main character lines of the person being studied. Having received the essay by Father Barnabas, the reviewer was sure that he would find in this work highly instructive material from the original icon painting, photographs from the most ancient icons of Saint Barsanuphius and an analysis of his facial features. I confess that I was looking forward to the work of Fr. Barnabas, in full confidence that he had turned his efforts to this side, and was already preparing to praise the Author for the valuable collection of photographs related to the iconography of St. Barsanufia. But these hopes turned out to be in vain, and I did not find anything like what was expected, even an apology for the absence of this work, from Father Barnabas. He did not inquire about the face of the Reverend. This guilt of Father Barnabas is all the less forgivable because, firstly, he is engaged in photography, has a camera and works with it quite a bit, and, secondly, last summer, already knowing his topic, he traveled around Palestine and Mount Athos. But for some reason the Venerable Barsanuphius remained outside the field of his attention. The next question when studying personality is the question of the style of the Author being studied. What are the features of his language? Is it possible to detect in them some local, in this case, for example, Egyptian phrases? What is unique in the structure of his speech? How does his speech differ from contemporary writers of a similar trend? Is it possible to notice differences in the way of expression, depending on the inner growth of the Author? These and similar questions are not a matter of empty curiosity, for by answering them we penetrate into the recesses of the soul and sometimes learn in this way more than what the writer we are studying directly told us. Stylometric studies, skillfully carried out, make it possible to understand much about the life and personality of the writer; but Father Barnabas is busy precisely with “life and personality,” judging by the subtitle of his work. But, unfortunately, Father Barnabas also does not focus on these questions, or similar ones, and thereby loses sight of an important possible source for understanding St. Barsanuphius. Further, questions arise: what were the conditions of the original life of St. Barsanufia? What is his level of education? What kind of upbringing did he receive? Father Barnabas will say that there are no direct indications of this. Yes, but there are many indirect ones in the Rev. Father’s answers, and to characterize the circle of concepts of the Rev. Father, consider his vocabulary, his general views implied in the answers, all this did not present any particular difficulties and required only careful reading. Meanwhile, in response to all these questions, Father Barnabas is content with too little: St. Barsanuphius, according to him, “was not alien to the extent of “book learning,” and refers to the fact that St. Barsanuphius “spoke well and freely in Greek, being himself an Egyptian” (p. 36). It is unlikely that anyone will be satisfied with this clerical elasticity of the expression “to its extent,” for this is precisely what we are asking, what was the measure of the Reverend’s education. The reference to the Greek language means absolutely nothing, for who at the end of the 5th and beginning of the 6th century did not speak this official and international language of all Middle-earth? Further considerations (p. 39), based on Amelino’s reasoning about the high level of public education in Egypt, are also not very convincing, for it is not known whether the Monk Barsanuphius spent his youth in Egypt, or perhaps left his native country as a child, and what family he came from. A direct study of the text would have yielded much more indisputable results. By the way, the place where the Reverend says about himself could be of significant importance: “Οὔτε γάρ σχολοστικὸς ἐγενόμην”; but even here Father Barnabas, having given this answer (p. 103), leaves it without consideration and does not find out who exactly in the 5th century was called “σχολαστικὸς”. Then, it would be necessary to consider the internal integrity, the pattern of the Reverend’s life. We cannot say whether there would be enough data for this, because we cannot submit essays in place of Father Barnabas. But we do not see any attempts to use the data that itself begs for attention. Thus, on page 20, to determine the very important year of the departure of St. Barsanuphius into seclusion (about 540), Father Barnabas refers to the words of himself: “Ἐγήρασα γαρ” (Ans. 652), and for the agreement of the data it turns out to be sufficient to “assume that the age of “senile” Great Barsanuphius, when he lived in the monastery of Serida and gave answers = 60 years.” (p. 202, note). That's right. But why refer to an “assumption” that proves nothing, when the age corresponding to the word “Ἐγήρασα” can be established non-supposedly. According to the table of correspondence between the names of ages and their numerical values, contained in the 101st (108 Vlad.) manuscript of the Moscow Synodal Library and published by V.V. Bolotov, the term γήραιός corresponds to the age of 57 - 68 years, and πρεσβύτης - from 68 to death. No less decisive is the indication of the treatise Avot in the Talmud, which is directly applicable to the inhabitant of Syria, which was St. Barsanuphius. Namely, in Avot (V 21) it is said that fifty years is for the council; sixty years – reaching old age, (zaken = γέρων); seventy years - gray hair, = πόλιος. I bring these testimonies for good luck. They could be greatly increased. But two are enough to show exactly how Father Barnabas could have confirmed his “assumption.” Thus, the personality of Rev. Barsanuphius, even after Father Barnabas, still needs to be studied. The situation is not much better with the study of the range of concepts in the works of St. Barsanuphius, for both the formal and substantive examination of the “Creations” leaves too much to be desired. More precisely, it cannot be considered sufficient to distribute them into several, in relation to the author being studied - randomly selected divisions, and neither the connection of individual thoughts, nor the dominant intuition, nor, comparative with other ascetics, the features of the Reverend’s thought, both in form and content, nor his terminology have been studied and, perhaps, only slightly and in passing touched upon. I repeat, Father Barnabas’s essay leaves the impression that if the Author had wanted, he could have written an excellent work, but for some reason he turned out to be careless. Father Barnabas is careless not only in the general course of his work, but also in the details. Having neither the need nor the opportunity to go into all the details in this review, I will only note a few things as an example to clarify my idea. And here is the first example: Monasticism presupposes “spiritual nourishment” by the Elder. Father Barnabas firmly and repeatedly insists on this urgent need for elderly care. What can you say here other than approval? But this approval also places on Father Barnabas the special responsibility of attentive attitude towards eldership, at least in the area that is now available to him - in science. Shouldn’t Father Barnabas, who repeated the words “nurturing”, “nurturing”, “being nourished” many times, shouldn’t he have asked what “nurturing” is? However, he refers here to some anonymous brochure, which states, among other things, that “nurturing is the education of a young monk by an experienced monk (why “young”? Don’t most gray-bearded elders need “nurturing”? I suppose we are talking about the inexperienced or completely inexperienced. P.F.), when the elder, with his instructions and advice, seems to nourish, feed (my course. P.F.), like a mother a little child, and raises him spiritually" (p. 20. note). Isn’t it really a shame for a scientist, a monk who specialized in asceticism, not to know that “nurturing does not come from nourishing (= feeding, overfeeding, i.e. giving food in excess), and has nothing to do with “feeding” at all, but from nourishing, i.e. being at the feed, leading, i.e. comes from the word “feed”? Father Barnabas, at least from the liturgical books (if he denies the obligation for himself to engage in philology), should have known that in church language, nourisher means helmsman, κυβερνήτης, as for example, in the 2nd troparion of the 9th canto of the 1st three hymns on the quarter of the 2nd week of Great Lent we read: “A sinful storm overwhelms my accursed soul, extend my right hand like Peter to me, a good nourisher - κυβερνῆτα ἀγαθέ, let the depths not cover me with despair, let me not be food for a strangled whale, O Christ of great mercy.” Both the context and the Greek term make it clear that this is about steering a ship, and not about feeding anyone. The same is in the 5th ikos of the Akathist to the Sweetest Jesus: “Jesus the Nurse in my youth.” Fr. Barnabas should also know that “I nurture” means I direct, ἐγκαθορμίζω and I direct to refuge, I govern, κυβερνάω. Thus, in the 3rd troparion of the 5th canto of the 1st Trisong on the heel of the 2nd week of Great Lent we read: “Christ grant me quiet grace to sail through the Lenten abyss, calming the waves of my thoughts, and nourish me into the havens of resurrection - τῆς Ἀναστάσεως εἰς λιμέναν ἐγκαθόρμιζον“, and in the 2nd troparion of the 3rd hymn of the canon for Wednesday of the 4th week of Great Lent: - “Having been hailed by the sail of the cross, the ship of salvation hath half-flooded, Messiah Jesus of God, bringing us Thy passion to a haven - δι' οὗ ἡμᾶς τοῦ πάθους σου πρὸς λιμένα ἐγκαθόρμιζον. In the 3rd troparion of the 9th hymn of Wednesday of the 5th week of Great Lent: “In winter, we are filled with temptations and passions, we are drowned in anxiety, and we are overwhelmed by the storm of passions, the abyss of fasting has reached a meek and quiet abyss, nourishing me in it. With your cross generously, we strive towards salvation - ἐν ᾧ με κυβερνήσας τῷ σταυρῷ, Οἰκτίρμον, πρὸς σωτηρίαν ἐγκαθόρμιζον." In the Theotokos of the 3rd hymn of the 1st Trisong of Wednesday of the 5th week of Great Lent: “The saving gate, the bridge to God, the intercessor of Christians, the Most Pure Lady, I am surrounded by the misfortunes of life and overwhelmed, nourish the Youth - κυβέρνησον.” The same in the 2nd prayer to the Most Holy Theotokos, on the day of her Dormition: “Feed me as I am strange”; and in the 1st troparion of the 6th canon of the canon to the holy martyrs Adrian and Natalia, (their memory is celebrated on August 26th) we again read: “We are nourished by Christ - κυβερνώμενοι - to a pious hand, to the abyss of the abyss above the abyss, and to the quiet refuge of the heights Lordships, the sufferers of the Lord have rushed." Similar examples could be collected more. But if Father Barnabas forgot about all this, then could he not think about the words: “Feeding my belly in the world - κυβερνῶν ἐν εἰρήνῃ τὴν ζωὴν μου” from 3rd prayer: to St. Communion, St. John Chrysostom, which he probably read several hundred times. Or, here is another example of the same negligence: On page 156, the Author cites the answer of the Great Barsanufius, in which the Reverend, in order to alleviate the suffering of one of the brethren of the Serid monastery, orders him to use a certain remedy: “βάλε ῥόδινον μετὰ ἁγιάσματος” (p. 156). What is this “ῥοδινον”? If St. Father considered it possible to talk about this remedy, then would it really be beneath our dignity to try to understand what exactly the reverend advised? Barsanuphius? Meanwhile, Father Barnabas, in note 118, limits himself to a vague indication, ending with the words: “Most likely, rose or some other fragrant oil.” The term “rose oil” now refers to Oleum Rosae, i.e. Essential. The extremely high cost of this product alone (according to the catalog of the Berlin chemical factory of Riedel, in 1897, one kilogram of Olei Rosae cost about 1000 marks; and according to the 1914 catalog of the Petrograd company of Stohl and Schmit, 10 grams of the same product cost 11 rubles. 75 kopecks, so a Russian pound would cost 481 rubles. 16 k.), even with the modern development of the industry and methods of chemical production of essential oils, should have led Father Barnabas to the idea that there was something wrong with his explanation. It is difficult (and even tempting) to imagine the Seridov monastery in the 5th–6th centuries in the likeness of modern laurels. Of course, in the monastery hospital there could not be such expensive means for the use of the monks! Meanwhile, in the Greek dictionary, Father Barnabas could easily find (for example, in Scarlatus Byzantium) that “ῥοδινον” (meaning ἔλαιον, χρίσμα or μῦρον) is nothing more than “τό ῥοδέλαιον“ (ό. 1240), i.e. pink spruce. This is not rose essential oil, but a very cheap oil infused with rose petals - a remedy that the same Abba Dorotheos, as a hospital caretaker, probably prepared with his own hands. But maybe Fr. Does Barnabas still maintain his opinion about Oleum Rosae? In this case, he should have learned that the first indications of Rose Oil, Oleum Rosae, which became known through the preparation of rose water, were made by Teronymus Rossi only in. 1582, in Ravenna, and then Porto, in 1589, in his book De destilione, and that Oleum Rosae appeared on sale in pharmacies in Germany only at the end of the 16th century. The ancients received their “ῥοδινον” by extracting the essential oil of roses with fatty oils, mainly oil. Of course, in itself, the question of “ῥοδινον” is third-rate; but his incorrect explanation also puts a wrong touch on the overall picture of the life of the Serid monastery. Or, here’s another example of Fr.’s lack of attentiveness. Barnabas: On page 25 there is evidence from the “Answer of 575” that on the place that the Great Barsanuphius wanted to buy, there was “μοναστήριον μικρόν” of one outside brother. This evidence is very significant: from it we can learn something about the different types of ancient monasticism. What is “μοναστήριον μικρόν”? Father Barnabas “assumes” that this saying is best translated through “cells,” and tries to confirm his guess by referring to the modern Athos system, in which free-standing “cells” are allowed, subordinate to the monastery and bought by private individuals. However, this parallel was chosen very poorly. Firstly, on Athos these cells are called cells, even if they were very large; and secondly, these cells are subordinate to the monasteries, and in the case under consideration from the life of St. Barsanuphius, it is not visible from anywhere that the μοναστήριον μικρόν was subordinate to anyone. On the contrary, the mentioned μοναστήριον μικρόν was purchased by St. Barsanuphius by simple agreement with its owner, without the need for anyone’s permission. Meanwhile, about Barnabas it would not be difficult to find out what exactly the term μοναστήριον means. According to Philo's testimony about the therapists, καλεῖται σεμνεῖον καἰ μοναστήριον, ἐν ᾧ μονούμενοι τὰ τοῦ σεμνοῦ βίου μυστήρια τελοῦνται - in every house there is a sacred room, which is called the sanctuary and solitude, in which they retire to perform the sacraments of the pious life" (Philo, - On the Contemplative Life, M. 47515. Philo about the contemporary life ed. by Fr. C. Conybeare, Oxford, 1895, p. And elsewhere in the same work it is reported about therapists: “τὰς μὲν οὖν ἓξ ἡμέρας χωρὶς ἕκαστοι μονούμενοι παρ” ἑαυτοῖς ἐν τοῖς λεχυεῖσι μοναστηρίοις φιλοσοφοῦσι - so, every six days each of them, secluded in his chosen solitude, indulges in reflection” (M. 4765 – 6, ed. Cony bear, p. 66). So, according to its original meaning, the word μοναστήριον does not mean either our monastery or Athonite cell, but only a chapel in a private house. It is very likely that the “brother” who owned the “monastery” next door to the Serid monastery was not a monk or a hermit at all, but simply a private owner of a house with a chapel. This interpretation of the word “μοναστήριον” also follows from the context in which it stands even in O. Barnabas himself, for the acquisition of this μοναστηρίου μικροῦ is told in connection with the history of the construction (or arrangement?) of the church in the monastery. "We have already mentioned (? P.F.), says Father Barnabas, that at first there was no church in Kinovia. The venerable abbot found a suitable place for it on a plot of land adjacent to the monastery" (p. 235). This plot, after quite a long negotiation, the owner agreed to sell it; on it was the “μοναστηρίου μικροῦ” of one outsider brother, in which he temporarily lived. Judging by the meaning of the story, this chapel, where the above-mentioned outsider brother probably retired, was built as a church. But if we are to draw an analogy of the mentioned “μοναστηρίου μικροῦ” with modernity, then it should be more likened to those “cells” in which “blueberry” people still live in villages and hamlets. Then it is clear that the owner of a similar monastery could sell it without asking anyone’s permission. We also have a phenomenon parallel to the Athonite cells - the purchase of a small house in a monastery or at a monastery, which is sometimes called a cell. In the old days there was a term “monastery,” but apparently it corresponded not to the term “μοναστηρίου μικροῦ,” which is discussed in the answer of St. Barsanuphius, but to the cell purchased from the monastery: “Behold, Iev - bought you for myself - from the archimarite of Gerentius - and all the brothers of the monastery,” says the “legal charter” on the controversial case about the arable lands and wastelands of the Simonov Monastery, dating back to the years 1412–1464. We will not insist on our explanation. But Father Barnabas did not do anything, although it was undoubtedly his task to explain the text of the Reverend Father he was studying. When reading the work being analyzed, many questions arise in the reader’s mind, but the reader should wait in vain for answers to them from Father Barnabas. Thus, the question urgently arises about the relationship of the revelation of thoughts to the elder to confession as a sacrament, especially when reading p. 258. You ask yourself, also in connection with the same thing, what is “τό τέλειον” or, as Father Barnabas explains, “a spiritual gift that has an advantage over everyone” (p. 108), namely the gift “forgive sins, free souls from darkness and bring them into the light” (Ans. 164, and according to the Greek edition - 168), and isn’t “τό τέλειον” a term that has a long past behind it? And also, what does the prayer formula used during the life of St. Barsanuphius mean: “I pray διά τοῦ θεράποντος of Yours, so that...” (Ans. 151) and isn’t the word θεράπων itself again technical (see p. 121)? And, further, in connection with this, you involuntarily ask yourself the question about the mysterious words of St. Barsanuphius that “there are three men perfect before God, who have surpassed the measure of humanity and received the power to decide and bind, to forgive sins and to retain them. They stand between destruction and peace, so that the Lord does not suddenly destroy the world. The prayers of these three men merge at the entrance of the high altar of the Father of lights, and they rejoice and rejoice with each other in heaven...” (p. 566). This testimony of the Saint about the three righteous men by whom the world stands, and about their superhuman gifts would be in great need of clarification (see pp. 177–178), just as the testimony of Evagrius cited by Fr. Barnabas would need clarification. that for fifty (or more) years St. Barsanuphius “did not taste anything earthly” (p. 200). No less mysterious is the word of the monk about the Lord, as about his “brother,” and about himself, as about “the brother of Jesus” (Ans. 181, 200, 345. pp. 101 – 102). In general, Father Barnabas focuses more on the feat itself than on its fruits, and does not make the very achievements of the Rev. the source of science about the spiritual world. Minor shortcomings can be pointed out in the essay being analyzed, and there are many more. But all of them are outweighed by Father Barnabas’s high assessment of eldership alone, not to mention the other positive aspects indicated at the beginning of the review, and do not interfere with recognizing the Author as worthy of the degree of candidate of theology.” Here, as below, the hieroglyph dove is replaced, but due to the lack of font, by the hieroglyph sparrow. You might be interested in: