From the legacy of a graduate of the Moscow Theological Academy, hieromonk (later a bishop of the same faith) Pavel (Volkov)

Contents I. Moscow Theological Academy from September 1, 1912 to August 15, 1917 1. Rector Archbishop Theodore and his inner circle 2. Inspectors Archimandrite Anatoly (Gritsyuk) and Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) 3. Meetings of professors at the rector 4. Bishop Theodore and students 5. Assistants inspectors Hieromonk Nikolai, Hieromonk Joasaph, N Iv Somov 6. Two schools of thought among the professors: church and Protestant. Position of Hilarion (Troitsky). Disputes about the validity of the sacraments, about the Gethsemane feat of Christ 7. Disputes about the name of God 8. Directions of academic theological thought 9. M. D. Muretov 10. S. S. Glagolev 11. Priest Evgeny Vorontsov 12. Archpriest Dmitry Rozhdestvensky 13. Priest Pavel Florensky 14. M. M. Tareev 15. A. M. Tuberovsky 16. S. I. Smirnov and V. N. Strakhov 17. I. V. Popov 18. Hieromonk Panteleimon (Uspensky) 19. Professors from Moscow University: S. I. Sobolevsky, P. P. Sokolov, M. M. Bogoslovsky 20. V. P. Vinogradov 21. Other professors 22. Hieromonk Bartholomew (Remov) 23. Hieromonk Ignatius (Sadkovsky) 24. Comrades. Mugs. Daily routine. Walks 25. Hieromonk Matthew (Oleynik) 26. Hieromonk Pavlin (Kroshechkin) 27. Entertainment for students 28. Hieromonk Varnava (Belyaev) 29. Hieromonks Valenian (Rudich) and Peter (Rudnev) 30. Master's debates. Dispute of Hilarion (Troitsky) Dispute of A. M. Tuberovsky 32. Defense of the dissertation of Hieromonk Bartholomew 33. Rector Bishop Theodore: his activities in transforming the MDA 34. Critical assessment of the old MDA II. Letters from hieromonk (later bishop) Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky. 1916–1927 When the text “Moscow Theological Academy from September 1, 1912 to August 15, 1917,” signed at the end “Compiled by A. Volkov on January 28, 1950,” appeared in the editors of the “Theological Bulletin,” it was immediately clear that these were not the memories of an external witness, but one who was well versed in the events that took place, himself took a certain part in them and was mature enough to give them evaluation after more than 30 years. It could be assumed that the author is the Edinoverie Bishop of Kerzhensky Pavel (Volkov) and the biographical information collected about him confirmed this assumption. The origin of Alexander Volkov, priest Pavel Florensky, recorded in a special genealogical scheme “Volkovs (the family of my disciple Father Hieromonk Pavel (Alexander Alexandrovich Volkov)". As a characteristic feature of the stability of the peasant class, which is now lost, we note that A. Volkov knew his direct ancestors in four previous generations. The genealogical scheme itself also includes many side branches, which we do not include here we reproduce. Great-great-grandfather - “Yakov (lived in the village of Kirchin - under the rule of a landowner).” Great-grandfather - “Isai Yakovlevich (bought for 700 rubles in assign., 300 rubles in 1860, a year before the liberation of the peasants). Peasant and butcher. During his time the house was prosperous and was considered prosperous. The house and yard were huge in the village, of fundamental construction. Isaiah was a businessman, resourceful. Was married twice. He was an interesting person. In the village of Nogavitsyn Gorbatovskogo near Nizhegory. lips there was a visitor. And before he lived in the village of Kirchin, and then moved to the neighboring village of Vulkovo (maybe, hence the Volkovs’ surname), and then to Nogavitsyno. He got burned and never recovered after that, although he was reputed to be rich and had money, but the newly built house was not the same. He loved to build, firmly and thoroughly.” Great-grandmother - “Matrona Davidovna Sergiantova, widow.” Grandfather - “Ivan Isaevich, in the village his name was Isaev, and according to his passport Volkov, a peasant. 1913 or 1914, 73 years old or less. Was married twice. Until 1860 he lived in the village. Kirchin, and then in Nogavitsyn.” Grandmother - “Praskovya Semyonovna Smetanina.” Father - “Alexander Ivanovich Volkov, and in the village of Isaev, got married at the age of 18, on the 19th. A peasant, he plowed, a peasant in general. First a serf, then a state one, then he was a teacher, he passed the exam to become a zemstvo teacher, having prepared himself, he opened a literacy school (by decision of the peasants), the cat existed for 2 years, he rented it for 3 rubles. school, put together desks from boards.” The family of A.I. Volkov consisted of a wife (name unknown), sons (Alexander, Nikolai, Victor, there might have been others), daughters (how many there were and their names are unknown). Alexander Volkov was born on October 10, 1887, probably in the village. Nogavitsyne. As he himself recalled in a letter to Father Pavel Florensky, he spent the first 16 years among the mountainous terrain. Around 1903, the family moved and settled near the Osinovsky Holy Cross Osinovsky Edinoverie convent of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, in which Alexander Ivanovich Volkov, who was ordained, served as a priest. The Exaltation of the Cross Osinovsky Convent of the 3rd class was located 30 versts from the district town of Semenov near the village of Zhuravlina, near the river. Aspen. The monastery arose from the schismatic monastery of the so-called. Spasov's consent, converted to Edinoverie in 1849. In 1856, he was elevated to the level of a monastery without support from the treasury. In 1908, the monastery, headed by the abbess, had 21 nuns and 111 novices 1 . In his youth, A. A. Volkov experienced a departure from faith in God - “doubts, painful struggles, quests, hobbies.” Having overcome this, he entered the Nizhny Novgorod Theological Seminary, from which he graduated, apparently, very successfully. In 1912, A. A. Volkov entered the MDA (LXXI course 1912–1916). And the next year, his brother Nikolai, a graduate of 1917, entered the MDA. 2 Both memories and letters indicate that Alexander Volkov was greatly impressed by the lectures and the very personality of the priest Pavel Florensky. Father Pavel became not only his scientific, but also his ideological, and in a certain sense, spiritual leader. It is very likely that the rector, Bishop Theodore, knowing about the spiritual closeness of teacher and student, was precisely why he gave Alexander the name Paul in monastic vows. It was about him that Father Pavel wrote in his work “Names”: “I remember how, before my eyes, one of my friends and students, Alexander Volkov, was tonsured with the name of Pavel. He sought monasticism with conviction and consciousness and experienced the tonsure itself as a kind of mystical initiation and discontinuous transformation of personality. Soon after the tonsure, it was possible to notice that Paul’s identity began to be sprinkled into the newly tonsured person and to push aside his Alexander’s identity in him, so that after some time this reaction of substitution and displacement was completed, and the grafting of the name Paul fermented Alexander in a new way. But observation subsequently revealed a two-layer structure in it, and under Pavel’s painting, Alexander’s priming shimmered to the eye” 3 . During his years of study at the MDA, Monk Pavel (Volkov) was ordained to the rank of hierodeacon and hieromonk. The candidate's essay “The Lives of Saints as a Basis for the Construction of Epistemology” was written by Hieromonk Pavel under the guidance of Priest Pavel Florensky in the 1915–1916 academic year. year (note that Father Pavel Florensky attached special importance to this topic, since he put forward it under similar names earlier - in 1912–13 and in 1914–15 academic years). Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) graduated from the MDA in the first category, taking 11th place in the list of the XXI course. At the suggestion of the priest Pavel Florensky and the proposal of the rector Bishop Theodore, he was left at the MDA in one (of two) vacancies of professorial fellows, intended exclusively to be replaced by the most talented monks who graduated from the Academy in the first category” 4. “At the end of the reporting year, it was transferred to the jurisdiction of the Central Directorate of the Spiritual and Educational Department” 5. Hieromonk Pavel spent breaks in his studies at the MDA (summer 1916, summer and autumn 1917, January–March, summer 1918) at home, helping his father in the priesthood and with housework. But he closely followed what was happening in the MDA. It is to this time (the period of separation) that the letters of Hieromonk Pavel to the priest Pavel Florensky date back. These letters allow us to become, as it were, eyewitnesses of the internal academic life in its most important direction: the scientific and spiritual maturation of an Academy graduate. Extremely valuable, in our opinion, are those touches that reflect the relationship between teacher and student: perhaps the most important thing, which, unfortunately, distinguishes the current Academy from the old one for the worse. Father Pavel assumed that Hieromonk Pavel would teach hagiology at the MDA, and when teaching at the MDA became problematic, in a letter to Bishop Theodore on September 22, 1918, he recommended his student for teaching in the so-called. “Danilov Academy”: “...I was ashamed to take away hagiology from my own student, Fr. Paul, especially since he must prove himself in his chosen field.” All these plans were not destined to come true, and, probably in 1918–1922, Hieromonk Pavel continued his ministry, helping his father. From a letter from priest Pavel Florensky to hieromonk Pavel Volkov, May 6, 1920, Sergiev Posad: “Dear Father Pavel! By chance I met Bishop on the street. Barnabas 6 and learned from him about you, your loved ones and your address. I miss you very much, I wanted to tell you a lot, but you can’t convey it all on paper, and I don’t want to write some things. By the will of God, we are alive and even healthy, thank God, although it would seem that there is every reason not to be in such a state. O. Alexander 7 and his family have not been with us for a long time: he went to stay in the Ryazan province, and was stuck there. His youngest daughter died, and they all got sick. In general, all the relatives scattered and were confused: some were at the front, others were in Transcaucasia and now it is unknown where: it is not even known whether they are alive. You didn’t have it easy either; but it’s good that you are now in a parish of the same faith, where there are more strongholds than in the others. But everything in church life is decomposing and quickly heading towards a fall, although along with this there are also timid young shoots. Do you remember our premonition and foresight of church ruin, the entire system of conventional values, the mutually authentic ontological foundations of the spirit? Bishop will tell you about me. Barnabas. My service is difficult, and often I am completely exhausted in soul. But may God's will be done! Are you working on the “Dictionary” or at least on putting in order the material that you have already collected? It would be extremely important that you process at least one month; then further work will proceed much more consciously. And it will not be at all difficult to make the corresponding inserts into a card dictionary compiled for one month. In the end, I will say again that the cause of church ruin occurs, first of all, from the lack of church life understanding and worldview. There are none, so everything is done “as if” and not “essentially” - and therefore it collapses. But, alas, in spite of everything, neither the hierarchs, nor the priests, nor the laity want to understand this, especially the “pious laymen” (except partly for M.A. Novoselov 8) and cling to some corrections, decorations, bows and rags when everything is fine, or they refer, according to intelligent custom, to someone else, except, of course, themselves. It's amazing how incapable Russian people are of learning anything! What do they think among the Old Believer circles and those close to them about the Name of God? And no one, alas, no one, sees that neglect of Him was the cause of the world war and everything that followed.” On July 30 (17), 1922, Father Pavel Volkov was consecrated Bishop of Kerzhensky (of the same faith), vicar of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese 9. On August 23, 1924, the Decree of His Holiness Patriarch Tikhon was issued on the limits of the canonical jurisdiction of the Bishop of Kerzhensky and the Decree to Bishop Pavel [Volkov] of Kerzhensk to have spiritual care and “management of co-religion parishes that turn to him” 10. Indeed, from the letters of Bishop Paul it is clear that his activities as a bishop of the same faith took place on frequent trips to care for rare parishes of the same faith that were isolated from each other. Even when Father Pavel Florensky was in exile in Nizhny Novgorod and was waiting for his family to come to him, he wrote home on July 27, 1928: “...It is a great pity that at this time Fr. Pavel. Today I will write a letter to his father to find out when Fr. will arrive. Paul". The nature of Bishop Pavel’s activities as a bishop of the same faith can be evidenced by a unique document handed over to Father Pavel Florensky: “Review and critical notes on Kokunin’s recording of a private conversation between Bishop Pavel and the Pomeranians on January 12, 1926.” (July 27, 1926; March 1, 1928). At the same time, Bishop Pavel in the 1920s. tried to maintain contact with the circle of ideological like-minded people of priest Pavel Florensky, in particular with A.F. Losev. According to reference data, Bishop Pavel was Bishop of Kerzhensky in the period from July 30, 1922 to 1929. 11 According to the RGIA, from September 17 to October 5, 1923, he temporarily ruled the Vologda diocese 12, and from October 5 to October 19, 1923, he was Bishop of Vologda 13, but the appointment was canceled, and then he was again a bishop Kerzhensky. In 1929, he removed his rank and presented his panagia to the Deputy Patriarchal Locum Tenens, later married, and held economic positions at the Yaroslavl Bishop's House 14. The further fate of Bishop Paul is currently known only from the brief memoirs of the widow of priest Pavel Florensky, Anna Mikhailovna (f! March 8, 1973): “Father Pavel Volkov, first a student at the Academy, studied with Father Konstantin Ruzhitsky (later rector of the Academy) 15, completed his studies in 1916, became a monk, visited the family of P. A. Florensky, was very fond of tinkering with the children, since he was the eldest in the family and helped his mother. He left Posad and became a bishop of the same faith. Father Pavel then gave him a tabernacle. In the 1930s he was imprisoned in a camp. After his exile, he got married and said that he left the clergy in order to preserve his faith - he was afraid that he would not be able to stand it in exile. He turned to Patriarch Alexy after 1945 with a request to return his rank - he was a widower. The patriarch said that he has a son and first he needs to be put on his feet, and then talk about returning. Blind" 16. The card index of S.A. Volkov contains data that probably all relate to the period of Bishop Paul’s life after leaving the camp: “After the revolution, he worked in secondary schools in the mountains. Gorky. Manager of the diocesan candle shop in Yaroslavl. On June 24, 1952, I contacted me about “Theological Bulletin” (refused)” 17. The date of death is currently unknown to us. From the point of view of the factual “Memoirs” of A. A. Volkov, completed by him on January 28, 1950, represent a very reliable source, confirmed by the testimony of other eyewitnesses, some of this evidence is given in the notes. An assessment of “Memoirs” from an ideological point of view, of course, will depend on which side in the academic confrontation 18 the researcher himself is close to. Regardless of this, it should be pointed out that A. A. Volkov’s judgments about the creative heritage of a number of professors are not always objective, and are sometimes too harsh. There is no doubt that the lecture notes on patrolology by I.V. Popov as a textbook is still one of the best in terms of clarity of presentation and clarity of style, and his patrolological heritage (not nearly as meager as A. A. Volkov writes about it) is still in demand 100 years later. The ecclesiological views of Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) are quite controversial, but his anti-Catholic pathos, of course, does not make him a Protestant. These are just some examples. The reader must understand that those “pictures from life”, the characteristics that A. A. Volkov gives, are not at all the result of the life of this or that person. This is still “raw material”, not tested by the hardships of life and the fire of torment. This is still a person in the struggle of passions and infirmities. And since “Memoirs” is not “Life,” to exclude such material would mean to devalue the “Memoirs” themselves and at the same time express distrust of the grace of God, healing sins and replenishing human weaknesses. After the “Memoirs,” 10 letters from hieromonk (later bishop of the same faith) Pavel Volkov, addressed to Fr. Pavel Florensky. In the next issue of Theological Bulletin it is planned to publish the last part of the collected autobiographical “dossier” - notes from Bishop. Pavel (Volkov) about his conversation with the Old Believers of the Pomeranian consent, which contains valuable material on the ideological history of the Old Believers, and also provides additional autobiographical data. I. Moscow Theological Academy from September 1, 1912 to August 15, 1917 1. Rector Archbishop Theodore and his inner circle The rector of the Academy is Bishop Theodore Pozdeevsky. Above average height, brunette, wearing glasses. From a distance he gave the impression of a stern ascetic, withdrawn into himself. Upon closer acquaintance with him, in the circle of those closest to him, this impression of severity disappeared; This very ascetic shell disappeared. Vladyka Theodore became sweet, affectionate, talkative, and humorous. He laughed loudly, but not loudly, but somewhat with a squeal. When he laughed, his face became unattractive. Perhaps he knew about this and while laughing he tried to keep his face to the side and suppress his laughter. But with all this accessibility, cheerfulness, talkativeness, laughter, there was always a feeling that this sweet man was about to suddenly, now disappear and a closed, stern, ascetic figure would appear before us. Most saw Bishop Theodore in precisely this form of severe asceticism. Hence the view of him as an ascetic. After this general comment, I will move on to a more detailed and systematic description of his life at the Academy. Vladyka Theodore lived a secluded life. Without anything to do, it was simply impossible to go to him, and no one dared to go. In my time, only one person easily went to see him, student hieromonk Gerasim Sadkovsky 19 and, according to the latter, even dined with the bishop, but more on that later. During non-visiting hours, even visitors from afar did not get to see him. His cell attendant Fyodor, a tall, dry, thin man, was implacable. What Vladyka Theodore did in his cell, what he did and how he filled his free time, remained a mystery. But, undoubtedly, he was a man of a strictly established order of life. He got up at the same time in the morning and went to bed at the same time. Before lunch, he took an hour-long walk in the academic garden along an alley of densely overgrown acacias, which began at the entrance to his chambers and ended at the gate at the entrance to the garden opposite the entrance. He walked impetuously, continuously, slightly twitching his shoulders from time to time, which revealed a nervous person in him. Everything that went beyond the boundaries of his daily routine, as well as the structure of his thoughts, irritated him. By all accounts, Bishop Theodore was an ascetic, or at least gave the impression of an ascetic. However, we do not know anything about his any ascetic deeds. His worldview was undoubtedly ascetic and it was no coincidence, of course, that he gave lectures on asceticism. Both testify that the basis of his theoretical interests in asceticism undoubtedly lay ascetic deeds unknown to us. I find it difficult to point out anything original in the worldview of Bishop Theodore. But he precisely fulfilled the task that was entrusted to him when he was appointed rector of the Moscow Academy. In his own words, he was stunned when he learned of his appointment as rector of the Academy. Before that, he was the rector of the Theological Seminary in Moscow. He, in his own words, owed his appointment as rector of the Academy to Metropolitan Vladimir. This, by the way, explains the special attention that Bishop Theodore nurtured and showed to Metropolitan Vladimir. On the initiative of Bishop Theodore, Metropolitan Vladimir was awarded an academic degree (master or doctor - I don’t remember) 20 . Broad academic circles were negative about this fact, especially opposition-minded professors. I mentioned above the task entrusted to Bishop Theodore as rector of the Academy. What is this task? It consisted in eradicating those tares on the academic field that his predecessor Bishop Evdokim 21 had sown. Bishop Evdokim is a man of gesture, posture and beautiful phrases, without signs of asceticism. As they reported, in his chambers there were meetings almost every day, where they argued and made endless noise. The rector of the Academy, Bishop Evdokim, could not direct these disputes and noises in a certain direction. At best, they could remain only disputes and noise, and at worst they could result, and it seems that they began to result, in undesirable forms, which by their nature did not agree with the spirit of Orthodoxy. It fell to the lot of Bishop Theodore to bring this Protestant spirit out of the Academy and plant the original Orthodoxy in it. Metropolitan Vladimir appointed him to carry out this task. Bishop Theodore carried out this task in his activities as rector of the Academy. The eradication of “Evdokimovshchina” began with little things. This is what a person close to Theodore, Hieromonk Gerasim Sadkovsky, told me: today, let’s say, Bishop Theodore came to the Academy. The next day, early in the morning, influential ladies of Sergiev Posad appeared in his chambers with gifts (under Evdokim, they played a significant role in the life of the rector and even the Academy). Many cans 22 were brought. I studied at the Academy for two academic years, being secular. In my second year, I was a subdeacon for some time and had the opportunity to closely observe the performance of divine services by Bishop Theodore both in the academic church and in the churches where he was invited. In addition to the academic church, I remember his services: in the Lavra, in Bethany, in Zosimova Hermitage, in Strunino, in Moscow, in Rublev. During the service, Bishop Theodore was very focused both externally and internally. With this concentration, he unwittingly disciplined all those serving with him and even all those praying. He rarely delivered sermons in the academic church. He usually gave a sermon after the prayer service before the start of the school year. During the rest of the year I don't remember him ever giving a sermon. According to the established order, after the sacrament verse, either one of the students or one of the professors spoke the sermon. But during services in churches, at the invitation, Bishop Theodore always preached a sermon. His preaching always bore the character of the subject that he taught at the Academy, that is, ascetic. In terms of its content, it was not distinguished by anything original and, as it had little connection with life, it was one-sided. But he always made a strong impression. His words were sincere, as if connected with his personal life. Hence the impression. His voice was not so strong, but not quiet either, with a rather strong Kostroma accent. By the way, here I will say about Bishop Theodore as a teacher of asceticism. As in his sermons, so in his lectures on asceticism, he did not have anything original and original. But the lecture, compiled according to Theophanes and on the basis of other ascetics, was obviously deeply experienced by him and therefore made an impression, and, moreover, the impression was not of specific knowledge of the science of asceticism, but the impression of striving for an ascetic life. I attended Bishop Theodore’s lectures no more than three times; in general, his lectures were attended by students, some out of interest, others out of duty. I will say, by the way, about the composition of the employees with Vladyka Theodore in the academic church. Always at his side: the rector of the Bethany Theological Seminary, Archimandrite German Ryashentsev 23, inspector Archimandrite Hilarion 24, assistant. Academy inspector Hieromonk Nikolai (now, it seems, Mogilevsky) 25, Hieromonk Bartholomew Remov 26, Academy professors in the priestly rank and students in the same rank. Often there were proteges to the priesthood from the missionary pastoral courses - “Vostorgovsky”. Bishop Theodore had an unkind attitude towards these proteges, but it was necessary to ordain, and he did. All those who served with Bishop Theodore went to his chambers after the liturgy. Here they offered modest tea with jam, sweets, cookies, and rolls. The conversations over this tea were very diverse, from discussions of current church news to scientific theological issues. In these conversations, or rather, the soul of these conversations was Archimandrite Hilarion - talkative, always resourceful and knowledgeable. The rector of the Seminary, Archimandrite German Ryashentsev, never entered into disputes, but from time to time he made his own sarcastic or mocking remarks. He was rude in his treatment of us students and angular in his judgment. He was an unsympathetic man - a monk who considered himself very smart. Nevertheless, he was a close person to Bishop Theodore. Not only I, but many students had this impression of Herman. Everyone disliked him. 2. Inspectors Archimandrite Anatoly (Gritsyuk) and Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) Archimandrite Hilarion, inspector... But in the first year of my student life at the Academy, Archimandrite Anatoly Gritsyuk was the inspector. In terms of his impression on the students, he was the direct opposite of Herman. Archimandrite Anatoly was the most sympathetic person, the most humble monk, and at the same time completely immersed in science. In terms of simplicity and gentleness in his manners, at that rather official time, I did not meet anyone (equal to him) among the learned monks. I have not heard any dislike towards him from anyone, much less any criticism. There was something childish about him - naive and at the same time smart - solid - adult. His only shortcomings were: short stature and speech impediment. He stumbled and stuttered somewhat during speech and swallowed several words of phrases, so that, for example, in an exclamation during a divine service only the beginning and the end were intelligible. It was felt that he painfully endured this shortcoming of his speech; His shortcoming was also painfully endured by all of us who knew him as a most wonderful person. Because of this lack of speech, his sermon, his lecture, and the worship he performed lost a lot. Obviously, these two shortcomings were given to him for humility, that is, for confirmation of moral perfection. This man, one of the inspectors of the Moscow Academy, was appointed rector of the Kazan Academy. Dignified and righteous! And with me he was at the Moscow Academy for a year and almost only a year, but in such a short time he managed to win over the entire student body both as an inspector, and as a teacher, and as a monk, and as a person. Everyone felt sorry for him when he left us. The inspector of the Academy, Archimandrite Hilarion, was appointed to replace Anatoly. Before he was tonsured as a monk, he was simply Volodya Troitsky, a professor in the 2nd Department of New Testament, a rather elegant, handsome young man with a slightly trimmed beard, wearing pince-nez with a gold chain and a black tailcoat. Through his tonsure as a monk, Volodya Troitsky turned from an elegant man into a rude, slightly harsh, soon fattened man with glasses and a cassock that somewhat hid his plumpness. But it remained as simple and accessible as it was before. Both in his solid and healthy appearance, and in his internal, mental qualities, he concealed within himself great possibilities, deep potentialities. But, unfortunately, like all of us who took monastic vows at the Academy, he was left to his own devices and thanks to this, he wasted more on trifles than he revealed the depth of his potential. After defending his master's thesis, Hilarion was full of good intentions regarding the development of the question of the Church, the fundamental question of Christianity. The chief reviewer of his dissertation on the Church (I don’t remember the exact title) Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov 27 gave specific instructions to rework some parts of the book, which was printed for the debate. But good intentions were little realized. The dissertation has not been revised. His brochure “There is no Christianity without the Church” was published; Some of his introductory lectures, delivered by him before the start of the academic year, have been published. That's all that came out of this great potential person during the 5 years of my academic life. An expert in the Holy Scriptures according to the New Testament, a thorough knowledge of patristic literature, especially on the issue of the Church, a resourceful and brilliant speaker with a sonorous voice, Archimandrite Hilarion wasted his time on trifles. In addition, he became interested in journalism and replaced scientific work with it. Journalism has come through recently even in his lectures. At the heart of it all was that he was left to his own devices. While M.D. Muretov was alive, Hilarion followed or tried to follow his principles of scientific work, and after his death this last restraining principle disappeared. It turned out that Hilarion, left to his own devices, had no time for scientific work. Sociable by nature, very hospitable and approachable, he was always surrounded by one or another people: sometimes professors, sometimes students, sometimes visiting people. A regular with him was Hieromonk Bartholomew Remov, who dined with him, drank tea and dined, and who had his own special room. Nevertheless, he spent all his time with Hilarion. To get rid of him, both indirect and direct measures were taken, but nothing helped. Bartholomew was and remains a regular. It is worth mentioning Hilarion’s cell attendant, Vaska. Everyone called him that, and he had no other name. This is usually the name of cats. He came from the same village as Hilarion, as if they had played together in childhood and was almost some kind of relative to him. He was also a man of great potential, but bad. It was deleted. For some reason, when I saw Vaska, I always had an image of one of Dostoevsky’s heroes – Smerdyakov. There was something strikingly similar between them. Hilarion was greatly looked after by one lady - a widow from Sergiev Posad. She gave something to Hilarion, and he accepted the gift, but told Bishop Theodore about it. The latter made the remark: “No matter what happens!” Hilarion replied: “Nothing!” He was visiting this lady with someone. They said she had many valuables. There was also a rumor that Bishop Theodore allegedly spoke out against such visits. As far as I know, there were no more such visits from Hilarion. Twice there was some kind of silent rumor about two parties in Posada, at someone’s place at some point in time, at which Hilarion was present. The evening parties were accompanied by copious libations in honor of Bacchus, but all this passed, I repeat, somehow silently, without details. And here, probably, there was the intervention of Bishop Theodore. After these two parties, there were no repetitions of them with the participation of Hilarion in Posada. Hilarion was a man of enormous energy. With skillful leadership, it could move mountains. But left to his own devices, he spent it on everyday life, on trifles. Here is a striking typical example: once I was walking along the diagonal of the academic garden; Hilarion meets; We went together and started talking about something. I don’t remember the conversation, but I literally remember the phrase he said in connection with the conversation that arose: “You know, yesterday I chopped a fathom of birch firewood; You can’t do without physical exercise.” This is where, by the way, the energy of Hilarion, who was rich in it, went. And most importantly, there were always people around him who distracted him from scientific work and conversations that wasted his energy. I will touch upon Hilarion later. 3. Meetings of professors at the rector Evdokim's time as rector had its positive sides. It was a vibrant time, a time of debate, a time of discussion of various issues: both science and life. There was only no authoritative leadership center that would skillfully direct this turbulent flow in a certain direction, that would skillfully separate out the tares and wheat. In any case, among the students there was a good memory of these heated debates at meetings, of free and relaxed treatment with the authorities. Obviously, Vladyka Theodore also understood the significance of such meetings. There were two meetings in his chambers wishing to participate in the discussion of contemporary issues. But not many students came. At the first meeting, Hilarion gave a lecture on the topic: “The Public and the People.” I don’t remember the content of his lecture now, but I remember that it was delivered in a trenchant manner, and there was something to talk about, but there were few speeches. Under this rector, obviously, one did not feel as at ease and free as it was before him. The next meeting was with the participation of professors. The latter were invited, probably, with the aim of reviving the meeting and arousing interest in them on the part of the students. The issue of science and its significance for life was discussed. I don’t remember who gave the report on this topic. I don’t remember the discussions of this report, but I remember very well how at the end of the meeting, Bishop Theodore turned to the professor of the history of philosophy, priest Fr. Pavel Florensky with the question: “Tell me, Fr. Pavel, as a man of science, what is your opinion on the issue discussed here: what is science?” Father Pavel, sitting modestly on a chair, lowering his eyes, without raising his eyes or changing his posture, answered literally like this, after hesitating for two or three seconds: “Rev. Seraphim moved the wood from place to place. It’s the same with science.” Everyone expected from him, as a truly learned man, an extensive and original answer, but upon hearing such a brief, albeit original, answer, they were left perplexed. This, in fact, ended the discussion of the importance of science for life. There were no more meetings of this kind in the rector’s chambers. From the fact that I do not remember anything about the essence of these two meetings, except for the above episode with Fr. Pavel Florensky, it follows that the meetings were uninteresting and unoriginal. They were poorly organized and sluggishly carried out. Rector Theodore himself did not speak and did not properly prepare others for speaking. After these two meetings, academic life proceeded in its usual formal way. For some time in the premises of the Academy inspector, Archimandrite. Hilarion, on certain days of the week, meetings of monastics were held. I was only at one such meeting and I absolutely do not remember what was discussed at it. But these meetings with the Academy inspector did not last long and soon ceased on their own. The rector of the academy was not present. In my opinion, these meetings were not attended for the same reason that the majority of students in my time did not attend professors' lectures, i.e., due to their lack of connection with life. Most of the students were doing either semester or master's essays. Each one chose a topic that interested him and, naturally, in this work he mainly found the goal of his teaching, the meaning of his student life. It was wrong, but that's how it was. Not only the monks, but also all the students were left to their own devices in terms of scientific studies. To my shame, I must admit that I did not attend the lectures of most of the professors. It was mandatory to attend introductory lectures and when duty was required. The professors' lectures were recorded by the lecturer on duty. When I was on duty, I naturally had to go to the corresponding lecture. The recordings of professors' lectures by duty officers were reviewed by the rector of the Academy. Thus, Bishop Theodore’s attempt to revive student life at the Academy ended unsuccessfully. The reason was, of course, in its rector, and the rector was too self-isolated, self-isolated, individual and left this stamp on the entire life of the Academy. I’ll say about myself: I didn’t know what to talk about with Bishop Theodore when I met him. Students, both monastic and especially secular, experienced the same thing. In my impression, he experienced the same feeling when meeting most of the students. Therefore, he walked in the garden when there was no one in it, that is, before lunch and in the evening before dinner. There was some kind of tension felt when meeting him, and it was impossible to destroy it during the five years of my stay at the Academy. 4. Bishop Theodore and students He was too individual and did not let any of the students get close to him, with very few exceptions. Such exceptions were the above-mentioned Gerasim Sadkovsky and Matthew Oleinik 28. Gerasim was two years older than me in studies, and Matthew was a classmate. The closeness of these two persons to Bishop Theodore was not the result of any special merits of these persons; on the contrary, it flowed from motives that were not entirely pure. They said about Gerasim that he conveyed information about the lives of students to the rector. He visited students' rooms from time to time. I remember it well. He asked about life, about views on this or that issue. And he did it skillfully; it was impossible to think that all this information was needed not by him, but by someone else. In general, he was a harmless person, with some kind of childishly naive expression on his face. I had never seen him gloomy, and it was difficult to imagine him like that. Father Hieromonk Oleinik is the direct opposite of Gerasim. With a dark complexion, short stature, with unpleasant darting eyes that never look straight. Matthew was always preoccupied with something and was rarely cheerful or joyful. He seemed more cheerful than he actually was. Matthew and I lived in the same room for one school year. The room was located downstairs, at the entrance to the rector's chambers. This roommate was unpleasant to me; It was assumed that I would occupy this room alone, but I had to accept it. This Matthew somehow, unbeknownst to me, became friends with Bishop Theodore. When going out into the garden for a walk, Bishop Theodore very often came to see us. After staying with us and talking with us, he went to the garden. Then he once took Matthew for a walk with him. And from this time on, Bishop Theodore no longer remained in our room, but when entering or even opening the door, he said: “Matthew, let’s go!” Matthew got dressed and went out. I never asked Matthew what they were talking about, and he never told me anything. But the nature of these conversations revealed itself and in a very unexpected way. I don’t remember why the students decided to go on a hunger strike, that is, not to go to the canteen for lunch. Monastics were exempt from this. Theodore learned about this decision of the students and in some way - I don’t remember now - the hunger strike was broken. The students, especially some of them, treated me very well. I was even very friendly with some of them. How deeply I was amazed by the attitude that I met from people close to me, when the next day after the hunger strike was broken, students, and especially those close to me, tried to avoid meeting me or pass by me, pretending that they did not notice me! I immediately felt this change in the faces of my comrades. And then I immediately understood what was going on. My heart sank painfully, painfully, and it became so heavy, as if a heavy stone had been placed on my heart. But what could I do, what could I do? They won’t believe you if you make excuses. All that remained was to wait, and I waited for the truth to reveal itself. On the third day, when I appeared in the classroom building, Grisha Rozov 29 came up to me and, holding out his hand, told me: “We thought it was you, but it turned out to be Matthew.” And immediately a weight lifted from my chest, and my heart began to beat with relief and joy. After this test, the bonds of friendship that bound me with my comrades became even stronger. This trait in the character of Bishop Theodore - collecting information about the lives of students and ineptly using it - lowered his authority among the students. So sometimes his natural directness and straightforwardness harmed him. Matthew’s cohabitation was even more unpleasant for me, but nothing could be done this year. At least he cares! He only made his face even darker, and the students avoided him. After this event, the rector Theodore also avoided walking alone with Matthew. 5. Assistant inspectors Hieromonk Nikolai, Hieromonk Joasaph, N Iv Somov Matthew lived in this room even in his fourth year, but I tried to get away from him. Me and Fr. Pavlin Kroshechkin 30 fit into the apartment of the 2nd assistant inspector Somov N. Iv. 31 The latter was married and lived in Posad, in his wife’s house. At the Academy he used one of his small rooms, and rented out the other two to Remezov, 32 an associate professor in the department of sectarianism. Whether due to mobilization or voluntarily, Remezov went to war in 1915, and Fr. Peacock each occupied a room in Somov's apartment. Fr. asked permission to occupy these rooms from Bishop Theodore. Peacock. At first he sent me on this mission to Theodore, but I resolutely and flatly refused. Permission was given, and I could breathe freely, settling into a separate, comfortable room next to Fr. Peacock, with a person who is certainly good, affectionate and good-natured. I wrote my dissertation essay in this room. I told about the rector of the Academy and the two inspectors. I will say a few words about the assistant inspectors. In my time, the assistant inspectors were: Hieromonk Nikolai 33, Hieromonk Joasaph 34 and N. Iv Somov. Hieromonk Nicholas seemed stern and strict in appearance, but in conversation he became friendly. He was with me for a year, then he received an appointment somewhere. I remember how, in his farewell speech, Bartholomew Remov compared him to a sentry faithfully standing at his post. Hieromonk Joasaph was a tall, healthy, ruddy, reddish man with a cheerful disposition. There was a war with Germany. He obtained alcohol through the hospital and was very concerned that it would not become cloudy when diluted with water. He loved the young ladies who sometimes visited his apartment. In this regard, it is necessary to note two sisters of one pious refugee from Vilna, regular visitors to the academic church, unusually good, clean girls, just out of their teenage state. 6. Two schools of thought among professors: church and Protestant. Position of Hilarion (Troitsky). Disputes about the validity of the sacraments, about the Gethsemane feat of Christ Now I will move on to the professors of the Academy. Academy professors were divided into two unequal groups: orthodox and liberal. During the rectorship of Bishop Theodore in my time, the first group was significantly larger than the second, and during the rectorship of Bishop Evdokim the second group was larger. But this division is purely conditional. It is more expedient to divide professors according to another criterion. Some professors taught their subject using the scientific knowledge of the West, but at the same time they stood on a purely church, Russian, and national basis. Others, on the contrary, valued Russian very low and almost did not stand on church grounds. But this division is conditional. The influence of the West, in particular Catholicism, and especially Protestantism, was strong on all professors with very few exceptions. Let me explain my idea with an example. Hilarion was undoubtedly a Russian man and loved Russian things, especially Russian life. But at the same time, he was imbued to the marrow with the ideas of Protestantism. He called the lives of saints fairy tales. I heard it myself with my own ears. He looked at worship as something, indeed, necessary, but more necessary for the people than for the intelligentsia. There were heated debates between us students and Hilarion regarding the Church Sacraments. The question came down to the sacrament of the Eucharist. With his characteristic directness and at the same time sharpness, he posed the question so specifically: “If a mouse eats transubstantiated bread or a fly drinks transubstantiated wine, what will one eat and what will the other drink? The Body and Blood of Christ, or bread, or wine? We answered that it was Body and Blood, but he did not agree with this. The mouse ate only the bread; the fly only drank wine. This example especially clearly shows Hilarion’s dependence on Protestantism, which asserted that those who partake unworthily do not partake of the Body of Christ, but simply bread, and only the worthy partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, i.e. The sacrament depends on the state of the subject. This is the subjective, purely Protestant view of the nature of the Sacrament that Hilarion preached. There was a rumor that Bishop Theodore ordered an end to these disputes about the Sacraments, since they were taking on seductive forms and undesirable dimensions. Hilarion was considered a student and follower of Archbishop Anthony of Volyn 35; the latter's worldview was imbued with the spirit of rationalism. Thus, following Anthony, Hilarion at one time energetically advocated an increased emphasis in the system of Christian thought on the Gethsemane feat of Christ to the detriment of Golgotha. The main thing in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ is the Gethsemane feat. What followed after Gethsemane was the unfolding, the revelation of the Gethsemane feat. In Gethsemane, the Blood of the God-Man has already been shed, that is, His bloody drops of Blood. After Gethsemane, Golgotha ​​may or may not have happened. Here is a brief summary of the teachings of Anthony - Hilarion about the atoning sacrifice of the God-man. This concept of Christianity was very risky and very dangerous. Rector Theodore, appointed to bring the liberal spirit out of the Academy, was afraid of new concepts, and, as they said, at his word, these debates somehow suddenly stopped. The strongest, longest movement of thought in my time was the debate about the Name of God 36; they were the touchstone of the character of everyone's thoughts. The question of the Name of God arose on Athos. The first article on this issue appeared in the magazine “Russian Monk”. Anthony Volynsky responded very sharply to this article, calling the rash thought of the Athos people Khlysty. This is where the fuss started. The Athos people began to present arguments, and solid arguments, from the field of patristic literature, from the experience of asceticism, from philosophy. The question was connected with the doctrine of the Light of Tabor, on the one hand, and with disputes about universals, on the other. The movement took on a serious character and captured almost all of religiously minded Russia, including especially the Moscow Academy. If only part of the students and professors took part in the previous disputes about the Sacraments and Golgotha ​​that I mentioned, then the entire student body and a significant part of the professors were interested in the Athos question about the Name of God. Some of the professors, probably for reasons of caution, did not express their views on the issue raised. So, I did not know Tareev’s view on this issue. Or, better said, his view was known, but he did not express it openly. But some professors, for example, Iv. V. Popov, priest. Before their arrival in the classroom, Pavel A. Florensky was given notes at the department on behalf of the students asking him to speak out on the Athos issue. The auditoriums were overcrowded. A clear indication of student interest. Now I don’t remember what and how both said, but I remember the nature of the answer well. Florensky stood entirely on the side of the Athos people. He, in fact, led this movement of thought in the academic environment. Popov Iv. V. spoke somewhat hesitantly and vaguely. Many were unhappy with his answer to the question. All students and all professors were divided into two groups: defenders of the Athos people and their opponents. The majority were on the side of the Athos people. The Athos group was headed by Florensky, the group opposite to it was led by Anthony Volynsky, the conductor of whose views at the Academy was Hilarion. The rector of the Academy, Bishop Theodore, did not openly express his views on the excited and burning issue, just as he did not express his views in general. But I know that he wrote a letter to Florensky, in which he asked him to express his view of the Name of God. Florensky’s response to this letter from Theodore was published in the preface to Anthony Bulatovich’s book “Apology of Faith in the Name of Jesus” 37. This movement of thought captured the entire student body and was the focus of attention at the Academy for almost the entire academic year and part of another academic year. The Athos people argued that the Name of God is real, that it is the energy of God, and therefore it is saving. Anthony of Volyn argued that the Name of God is an empty phrase, that God can be called by another name, as long as the human thought is united with God. From this it is clear that the latter came out of the subjective state of man, and the former considered the Name of God as a reality that exists independently of the subject. Thus, in essence, the debate between nominalists and realists was revived, in a different, only more vital form. Questions: about the Name of God, about the Light of Tabor, about the Cross - these are cardinal questions of Christian thought, Christian epistemology, truly Christian life, and not only for hermits, but also for every ordinary Christian. This is the reason why this movement of thought has captured everyone. But these questions were not resolved as life required, and the majority were dissatisfied with the outcome of this matter, especially with the method of solving it. Indeed! The Name of God, the Light of Tabor, the Cross - Guardian of the entire universe! After all, these are not only the heights of Christian thought, but at the same time the basis of church life. After all, these issues must be decided by the Council. We know that there were a number of Councils on the issue of the Tabor Light. But how was the question of the Name of God resolved, but, of course, not resolved? With the help of a cold water pump, on the one hand, and through, so to speak, a “backroom deal” on the other. It is known that Bishop Nikon of Vologda was sent to Athos to extinguish the most important source of the emerging Imenislav movement. The majority of active ascetics responded to Bishop Nikon’s proposal to renounce the movement of thought they had excited. They also refused to voluntarily board the ship intended to transport them from Mount Athos. It was then that the notorious water pump was put into action, with the help of which the ascetics were expelled from the premises and herded onto the ship. I don’t remember exactly, but it seems that about 400 people – monks – were taken from Mount Athos and resettled in monasteries in Russia. The Synod instructed three persons: Anthony Volynsky, Nikon Vologda and prof. Troitsky to make reports on the Athos issue. Based on these reports, a resolution of the Synod was made, condemning the Athonites with forgiveness for those who did not obey this decision of the Synod. Nikon of Vologda was sent to Athos after this decree. This is how the movement of the Athos people ended sadly. The business students were very unhappy with this outcome. Everyone was outraged by the methods of solving this most interesting and vital issue. Questions were heard everywhere: “Why weren’t the Academies commissioned to study this issue?”, “Why didn’t they convene or even try to convene a Council to resolve the Athos question?”, “What does Nikon, a seminarian, have to do with it?”, “Why is the biased Anthony of Volynsky playing the main role in this matter?” etc., etc. But while expressing our feelings of dissatisfaction, we all, of course, clearly realized that the matter was not with the Synod, but with the chief prosecutor who headed it. We all understood that behind the members of the Synod stood the Russian government, which was afraid of any movement. It put pressure on the members of the Synod to quickly resolve this troublesome matter and indicated in what spirit it should be resolved. And they decided. 8. Directions of academic theological thought After that, everyday life flowed on at the Academy. Life entered its formal rut, and went on without breaking out of it, until the February revolution of 1917. For a long time, we, students, felt the same way as a person feels who, against his will, has taken an unpleasant and unwanted shower of cold water. Not with an audience, but with these discussions - in the “sidelines”, in their rooms, on walks - of burning issues of church life and also with semester and candidate essays, the students lived. Lectures were given in the classrooms on a program unrelated to life. In their lectures, professors mostly presented the views and theories of Protestant or Catholic theologians on this or that issue, often without expressing the Orthodox point of view. According to the apt judgment of Fr. Pavel Florensky, it was really moving firewood from one place to another. Nevertheless, in the Academy there were two schools of thought that waged a silent struggle among themselves. These two directions of theological thought came to light especially sharply during disputes over the Athos issue. But they were known before these disputes. One direction of theological thought was headed by Prof. Florensky, and the other is his antipode, Prof. Tareev. The rest of the professors aligned themselves, in their image and character of thought, with one or the other. The first group of more or less original professors stood on church grounds. Another group, ideologically led by Tareev, stood on soil alien to our church life - on the soil of Protestantism. After this general description of the professorship, made on the basis of theological movements of thought, I will move on to presenting my impressions of the professors, each individually. I'll start with Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov. He was an outstanding New Testament professor and exegete. He had extensive knowledge in general, and in particular on his subject. Knowing Western literature on the New Testament very well, he was not influenced by it. He remained on purely church, purely Orthodox grounds. Mitrofan Dmitrievich, short in stature and with a somewhat lolling, duck-like gait, was a purely Russian Orthodox man. Possessing enormous erudition in the field of the New Testament, he had absolutely no oratorical talent. He spoke his lectures stutteringly, often interrupting them by coughing and as if apologizing for their supposedly elementary nature. In fact, he was truly a man of science, an expert on his subject. Many of his articles were published in the Theological Bulletin. Somewhat rough and baggy, he was at the same time deeply poetic in nature. His book “Ernest Renan and his “Life of Jesus” speaks about this.” In this large book, which I became acquainted with even before the Academy, Muretov outlines Renan himself in the first part. No one will deny Renan’s poetic abilities. The success of his book is entirely due to its poetic form. So Mitrofan Dmitrievich in his book competes in poetry with Renan. For this purpose, of course, he presents it only in his own spirit. It must be said that he competes with Renan very successfully, at least not inferior to him, to say the least. Mitrofan Dmitrievich died in my presence when I was studying at the Academy 38. He left behind a large library. I also bought several books in Greek from the widow of the deceased. I still have these books to this day. I mentioned Muretov's widow. As they said, she was his servant, and then he married her. She was above average height, a thin woman with a very pleasant face. She had a daughter, already a bride in my time, a healthy, pretty girl. But I don’t know from whom she was born, that is, who her father is. The works of Mitrofan Dmitrievich, especially on exegesis, should have been selected from various journals and published as a separate book. He has many things interpreted in parables. Such a book would be very useful not only for students of theological school, but also for parish priests as a guide for teaching and a tool for understanding the meaning of certain parables and passages of Holy Scripture. The impression of Muretov’s personality has not been erased by any life events to this day. Sergey Sergeevich Glagolev 39 – professor in the department of basic theology. He is a remarkable expert on his subject and not only an expert, but also a researcher. After him there remained a lot of research on the religions of the ancient world, articles on apologetics, published in various magazines. He was fluent in the gift of speech and had a good memory. Here is a professor from whom we could have learned a lot of knowledge about pagan religions, but we were frivolous then, which we only regret now. In addition, Sergei Sergeevich was known as a lover of women; They tell this joke about him. Sergei Sergeevich was chosen to attend some scientific conference in Paris. Professors and students gathered to conduct it. One of those accompanying him asked him a perplexed question: “Why are you, Sergei Sergeevich, traveling without a wife?” “For goodness sake, going to Paris with your wife is the same as going to Tula with your samovar,” he replied. He was a joker and had a cheerful disposition. Observing him and not knowing his lectures and works, it was impossible to think about the wealth of his scientific apologetic erudition that he possessed. He knew how to enliven his lectures and hold his listeners in his hands. 11. Priest Evgeny Vorontsov Professor at the Department of Biblical Archeology Fr. Evgeny Vorontsov 40 is an outstanding biblical archaeologist. He never had any books, notes, or notes at his fingertips. Everything fit and was stored in his head. In connection with such an extraordinary memory, it is not without interest to mention the way in which he studied languages. The question was about learning the German language, and he said: “It’s very easy to do: take a German-Russian dictionary and learn the roots of the words. For example, I did just that, but why bother with grammars.” From this fact it follows what a phenomenal memory Fr. Evgeny. He knew the Hebrew language perfectly and in this respect was equal or even superior to the Jewish rabbis. Completely immersed in science, he, at the same time, like all great scientists, was affectionate and easy to use, without any shadow of any superiority over us students. He easily had students, but for some reason I didn’t have to be with him. He enjoyed enormous authority from students and professors. He was alien to any searches, claims, and even more so intrigues. He seemed to have grown into his subject. This was evidenced by his library, which consisted mainly of Jewish manuscripts, and rare ones at that. If I'm not mistaken, he was a celibate priest. At the same time, he was also a wonderful preacher. Rector Theodore often appointed him to preach in the academic church. And we, students, always greeted his appearance on the pulpit with great satisfaction. He was an orator and had a voice suitable for public speaking. His bass was somewhat harsh. Sometimes he would place his right hand not on the palm of his left, but on the back of it, and begin his word. In strong places, he squeezed his left hand with his right hand or made a small gesture - moving both hands folded downwards. No other gestures. The intensity of thought was expressed in the intonation of the voice. The impression was always unusually strong. No one spoke such sermons except him. This extraordinary man and outstanding scientist died when I was a student. The memory of his personality is indelible. 12. Archpriest Dmitry Rozhdestvensky Professor of the 1st Department of Old Testament, Rev. Dmitry Rozhdestvensky 41. He was a tall man with long hair, but a dark and ugly face. He knew all the opinions of Western scholars on certain issues of the Old Testament and presented them in the most conscientious manner, but his own, that is, the opinion of Orthodoxy, was often absent. He had a dull, unpleasant voice and his lectures had no effect. He knew the Hebrew language well and would undoubtedly have been a good professor if not for one shortcoming that was at his mercy. He drank, and it left an unpleasant imprint on him. He somehow lived alone and avoided communicating with people. However, one participant in this feast told me about one party in his apartment. Hilarion was on it. This student participant knew that I did not like to listen to any stories, especially stingy ones, so he, without going into detail, said what particularly surprised him. O. Dmitry could not sit, and therefore lay down on the bed, but lay with his legs crossed. This greatly surprised the student eyewitness. One leg was bent at the knee and placed on the bed, and the other was placed on the bent one. The eyewitness expressed what actually happened with a gesture of his right hand made to the side. 13. Priest Pavel Florensky Professor in the Department of History of Philosophy, priest Pavel Aleksandrovich Florensky was an exceptional phenomenon in the life of the Moscow Academy. With a gymnasium secondary education, he entered Moscow University at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics; A brilliant field of activity opened up for him after graduating from the Faculty of Mathematics, but after graduating from the university he entered the Moscow Theological Academy and upon graduation was left as an assistant professor in the Department of History of Philosophy. He came to the Academy with a secular education and, naturally, mastered church disciplines in his own way, without those established, often biased, views on seminary and academic sciences with which we, the students of the theological school, were saturated, starting with the Theological School. Thanks to this alone, he was supposed to introduce and indeed introduced a fresh stream into established views on the tasks and purpose of church disciplines and the theological school itself. An outstanding mathematician, a remarkable philosopher and a profound theologian, he at the same time possessed extensive knowledge in other fields. There was no question to which Fr. Paul would not have given an answer, and not a unique, original answer. I owe most of all to this professor for the systematization of views, both philosophical and theological. I wrote him a one-semester essay on the topic: “Does Orthodox worship favor Platonism?”, and a candidate’s essay on the topic: “The Lives of Saints as a basis for constructing epistemology.” Thanks to these works, I paid considerable attention to Orthodox worship and especially to the lives of the saints. Divine services and lives, these most concrete expressions of the life of the Church, were somehow diminished in the system of academic education and were not brought to the fore. Thanks to Florensky, I brought these two areas of church life to the forefront and dealt with them almost exclusively. Having become occupied with specific phenomena in the life of the Church and finding here an endless opportunity for the formulation of theological and philosophical thought and at the same time for the organization of asceticism, I naturally rarely attended lectures by professors. But I attended Florensky’s lectures without fail. He read them for 1st year students. But I listened to his lectures during all four years of the Academy and during my fellowship year. The largest auditorium was always full during his lectures. He was short in stature, very modest in appearance and disposition, and had a quiet, soft voice. He did not possess any oratorical talent, but his thoughts were always original, always vital, always saturated with some kind of attractive energy, plus his enormous scientific erudition. That is why his lectures were attended by not only 1st year students. I listened to five courses of his lectures and not a single course of lectures was a repetition of another, previous one. He could not be formal about his lectures. He grew up himself and forced us to grow with him. He often explained his lectures with drawings and diagrams, which made it possible to firmly remember the course of his thoughts. There were also opponents to his line of thought, but personally I had something in common with him more than anyone else. Perhaps it is that I did not come from a spiritual environment, but from a peasant one, and just like him, I moved from Moscow University to complete my education at the Moscow Theological Academy. The work I took for my candidate’s essay did not have any aids that could, at least in part, guide my work. This work was completely new, and I, naturally, often had to talk with Fr. Pavel. In these conversations, not only his comprehensive mind, not only his scientific erudition, but also his deep spiritual experience especially manifested itself to me. My primary interest in the most important member of the Creed, namely in the dogma of the Church, and in its specific manifestations, that is, in worship and hagiology, all this is the influence of Florensky. And I will be grateful to him to death for the fact that he was able to direct my thought to the most important objects of theological and philosophical thinking and Christian life. And now I am writing a study about the reasons for the emergence of the Russian church schism under Patriarch Nikon. In this study, I leave the definition of the essence of the Church as the Body of Christ. The question had never been considered this way by anyone before; That is why in the polemics with the Old Believers there was more idle talk than a proper formulation of the question on the proper basis, and such a basis can only be the apostolic definition of the Church as the Body of Christ. Florensky wrote a memorandum to the Academy Council about the need to open a department in Hagiology 42, but the February Revolution of 1917 made the position of the rector of the Academy, Bishop Theodore, precarious and the opening of the department did not take place, to my great joy, since Fr. Pavel nominated me to this department, despite all my refusals. In my time, Florensky was the editor of the academic journal “Theological Bulletin”. In his editorship of the article prof. Tareev did not appear in the magazine, whereas under Evdokim the magazine was entirely in the hands of Tareev. Bishop Theodore loved and respected Florensky. It is necessary to give special credit to Bishop Theodore that he took upon himself the honorable task of “pushing”, bypassing all the shoals and pitfalls, Florensky’s book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth”, submitted, at his own insistence, for the degree of Master of Theology, and he himself was the first reviewer of this book 43 . This book contains thoughts that are unusual for orthodox theology, such as, for example, questions about friendship, about jealousy, about Sophia, and even dangerous, according to the views of that time, thoughts about the fourth hypostasis 44 . Florensky's book suffered several stages of deformity, as he himself put it, and the voluminous volume with notes turned into a dry skeleton. We should pay tribute to Bishop Theodore for the fact that he courageously completed this task, despite, perhaps, some risk to himself. Vladyka Theodore admitted that he did not understand anything in some parts of the book. Nevertheless, during the debate he made several objections to Florensky. It is characteristic that during the debate Florensky did not answer Bishop Theodore to a single objection or question. Everyone was surprised by this. After the debate, I asked Fr. Paul about the reason for his silence. “How can I object to the bishop?!” - was his answer. Such was this outstanding scientist, thinker and ascetic. He did not eat meat at all and only ate a small piece of meat on the first day of Easter, that is, once a year. He organically could not tolerate milk. He abstained from meat, and his body did not accept milk. In this regard, in his family the question of his nutrition was always restless. Did he need to cook something special, so what?! He had his own students and followers. One of them, Feodor Konstantinovich Andreev 45, under me took the chair of systematic philosophy instead of the deceased Alexei Iv. Vvedensky, an original thinker with great philosophical erudition. I listened to several lectures by A.I. Vvedensky, 1st year student. Then he got sick and died. I didn’t listen to Andreev, but the students approved of him. Now I move on to presenting my impressions of liberal professors and will start with the most important of them - prof. on moral theology by M. M. Tareev. He was a tall man, almost gray-haired, with a small trimmed beard on one chin and shaved on the rest of his face; despite the years, it was well preserved and was endowed by nature with a beautiful appearance, from which it was not warm, as is usually the case, but cold. Whether he knew the latter, I don’t know, but he knew the former, and this was expressed in some special kind of majesty that showed through in his gait, in his movements, gestures and even in his manner of speaking. Tareev rarely attended services in the academic church. But that's not the point. Some, perhaps, visited less often than he did. The point is in his attitude to the church, to the services. His appearance in the academic church always caused excitement among students. Many watched him with curiosity. He did not make the sign of the cross or bow. He will stand up and stand like a pillar. But the most interesting thing was the application to the icon. Along with other professors, he too approached, bent down to the icon without the sign of the cross, approached to be anointed with oil, did not kiss the bishop’s hand, and somehow, no longer majestically, but rather like a soldier, walked in rows of students to the professors’ place, unnaturally waving his arms. And this man was a professor in the department of moral theology. I will not expound his non-Orthodox system of thought. She is well known from at least the description that Prof. gave about her. Svetlov 46 in his work “Christian doctrine in an apologetic presentation”, vol. 1, pp. 330–335, Kyiv 1914 Prot. Svetlov calls Tareev’s system “a caricature of Christianity,” “concocted by his creative imagination.” His system is a strong echo of Lutheran Richlean theology. From here Tareev borrowed the agnostic or adogmatic principle, his contempt for church-dogmatic Christianity, which allegedly distorted the pure gospel idea, his denial of the Church and the dogma of the Redemption, his abolition of the Cross of Christ, etc. What remains of Christianity in his system? Nothing but the name, except the emotions unknown to the world and unnecessary to anyone, Prof. Tareeva. And this was a teacher of moral theology at the Theological Academy of the Russian Orthodox Church! For us with the name Tareev, the question has always arisen: why were essentially separate branches removed from the Academy, but the “pillar of ungodly malice” remained. This is a phenomenon in the activities of bishop. Theodora was a mystery to us. Is he really left as a necessary shadow in the picture? After all, part of the student body was grouped around him! Its seeds of essentially anti-Christianity were spread throughout the Theological seminaries. Involuntarily, the thought suddenly suggests itself: the leaders of the Academy themselves, obviously, were to some extent involved in this worldview, fashionable at that time. After all, Academy inspector Hilarion expressed and passionately defended his purely Protestant view on the greatest Christian Sacrament, i.e. the Eucharist? Others were more cautious and more secretive. Yes, essentially the entire system of theological thought, the teaching system was based on Protestantism and partly Catholicism. There was no Orthodox theology. This was clearly seen by perhaps the only professor, Florensky, who came to the theological school from the outside, from secular society, and fought against this system, against shifting wood from place to place. And all of us, often from our families and, in any case, from the Theological School, brought up in the spirit of this system, were and were not able to recognize this evil. Thus, Tareev had solid ground under his feet. Prof. in the department of dogmatic theology, Tuberovsky 47 was a sickly-looking man, short in stature, with light gray hair and beautifully combed back hair. There was always an expression on his face of some kind of internal torment, some kind of effort to give birth to a thought. The word “attempts” very well characterizes this failed professor. His face, tone of conversation, speech, manner of gestures, in a word, his whole figure said: “I understand the universe very much and deeply and feel it even more and deeply, but I cannot find words to express my understanding, my feelings.” In the end, Tareev became his midwife, which I will talk about later when I describe the master’s disputes. He was not particularly popular among students. We felt some kind of pity for him. This can be evidenced by the following fact: his article “On Suicide” was published in the Theological Bulletin, which among young people at that time took on an almost spontaneous character. He owed more to his popularity among students not to lectures on dogmatics, but to this article. During the holidays he went somewhere for treatment. And now his first introductory lecture, the audience, although not the largest, was full. There were also senior students. Before entering Tuberovsky’s classroom, Sergei Vasilyevich Ivanov 48 suddenly addressed the students with this kind of proposal: “Let’s greet Tuberovsky with applause! He was undergoing treatment!.. He is writing a dissertation!.. He must be approved!” At this moment, Tuberovsky enters, and a thunder of applause greets him. I definitely don’t remember what his lecture was about, and whether there was applause after the lecture. I only remember his painful efforts on his painful face and surprise at the applause. 16. S. I. Smirnov and V. N. Strakhov I will not express my impressions of the personalities of other professors of one direction or another for the simple reason that there are no such impressions. But among them, although they were ordinary people, were workers of science. Of these, it should be noted Prof. according to Russian church history Smirnova S.I. 49 His face bore the expression of the deepest world sorrow. His name was: “World Sorrow.” I would also like to mention Prof. according to the 2nd department of the New Testament, priest. V. Strakhova 50 . He was a nice person. They said that he owed his master's degree in theology to his wife, who simply demanded that her husband be a master (if only there were more such wives!). This is the wife Strakhov was known for, more than for his lectures. She could not be called a beauty, but there was something very attractive, unusually pretty in her face, in her whole figure. The more you look at her, the more you want to look. There is a kind of satiety of impressions from her and, it must be said, a healthy insatiability. I would say there was something otherworldly and feminine about her. When she appeared in the academic church, Sergei Sergeevich Glagolev was always near her, entertaining her with conversations throughout the continuation of the service. The other day I received my academic album from 1916, which contains photographs of professors and students of our course. I remembered more from the album than without it. About professors, I intended to finish with what was said above, but now I will give a few more notes about professors that remain in my memory. It is necessary to say a few words about the professor at the 2nd Department of Patrolology, Iv. You. Popov. He was an expert on his subject, had excellent knowledge of patrolological literature and was fluent in words. By way of thinking, he belonged to Protestant schools; he knew German research on his subject very well, but was not entirely dependent on the Germans. He had his own point of view on the subject, but his mindset was rationalistic. In addition, he had a naturally analytical mind. Analysis is his element. He will excellently decompose the system of thought of any father and teacher of the Church, harmoniously present it according to headings, but will not provide a synthesis of the whole. A monument to his analytical mind was a lithographed notebook on patrolology, which we used to prepare for exams. This is literally a series of headings. You had to have either a phenomenal memory or an equally analytical mind in order to fit this whole dead scheme into your head. This anatomy of patristic thought made a grave impression on me and some other students who were looking for a higher synthesis of knowledge. His drilling words and thoughts and slightly whistling teeth made a depressing impression on me personally, and I rarely attended Popov’s lectures, although it was possible to obtain a lot of knowledge from him, but the knowledge was fragmented, not united by the synthesis of Orthodox thought. That's the whole point. There was no Orthodox soil either among the professors or in the entire teaching system. And we, leaving the Academy, knew what Catholicism, Protestantism, Anglicanism, the Russian schism, sectarianism and so on were, but we did not know what Orthodoxy was. And if I left the Academy knowing the answer to the last question, I owe this not to lectures or professors, but to the fact that, whether by chance or not, I was immersed in the element of Orthodoxy: in worship and hagiology. 18. Hieromonk Panteleimon (Uspensky) The professor in the 2nd Department of Patrolology, Hieromonk Panteleimon 51, was appointed to the department under my supervision. This was a young man who had exhausted his instrument of the spirit, that is, his body, to the extreme. From his face he was not so thin and skinny, but in the bathhouse it was scary to look at him. It was a skeleton covered in leather; and it’s strange - this sight of him evoked in me not reverence or respect for his “exploits”, not even pity, but some kind of disgusted feeling and I, looking at him, hastily left the department where he was washing. It seemed to me a departure from the spirit of Christ for our instrument of the spirit, this “our beauty created in the image of God” (stichera at the funeral service), to be buried alive. They said that from standing on his knees for a long time, he developed lumps. I didn’t notice this in the bathhouse, because organically I was not able to look at him for a long time and only glanced at him quickly. Apparently, Fr. Panteleimon himself was aware of his sin of slow suicide. Elders and doctors helped him in this realization. And he himself felt that his body was ceasing to be an instrument of the spirit and was freezing. And he changed his regime and his way of life. He began to have lunch and dinner with us, students, in the dining room at the monastic table, and became more sociable, talkative and even joking. On the advice of a doctor, he even went for treatment, it seems to the Caucasus, but his body was so exhausted that it no longer represented an instrument of the spirit. He had an old man's gait. Hieromonk Panteleimon died almost in the Caucasus, I don’t remember exactly 52. Nevertheless, he was a conscientious worker of science. He wrote a study about the famous Symeon the New Theologian. The choice of such an interesting topic suggests that he was interested in the important burning question about the Third Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, about the Holy Spirit. Words from the works of this teacher of the Church were translated into Russian (in two books) by Bishop Theophan the Recluse. ABOUT. Panteleimon set out to translate from Greek into Russian all the works of Simeon the New Theologian, and one volume of his hymns, translated by Fr. Panteleimon. After publishing the translation of the works, he intended to publish a monograph about Simeon. But his assumptions did not come true. It is unknown who got his manuscripts, but in any case they are of great value. Here I would like to compare these two professors in the Department of Patrology. Here is I.V. Popov - an expert patrolologist, one might say, a brilliant speaker, who was a professor for a long time; and next to him was the modest young hieromonk Panteleimon, who occupied the see for hardly more than two or three years. The latter left behind, although not fully printed, a large and important literary legacy for the life of the Church, and Iv. You. Popov could and should have done many times more, but that was not the case. I don't even remember what his master's thesis was. There were several of his articles in the magazine and... that’s all, just a summary - a skeleton on patrolology. 19. Professors from Moscow University: S. I. Sobolevsky, P. P. Sokolov, M. M. Bogoslovsky In my time, three professors from Moscow University gave lectures at the Academy: Sobolevsky 53 on Greek, Sokolov 54 on psychology and Bogoslovsky 55, Klyuchevsky’s successor and student, on Russian history. The lecture halls of these professors were always full. In addition to their knowledge of their subjects, they differed from the professors of the Academy in that they brought some kind of fresh spirit into the life of the Academy, and it was precisely the connection with life, thanks to which the Greek language acquired, along with theoretical, vital significance, especially this must be said about psychology and Russian history. In the person of its academic professors, the Academy was not connected with Russian life. The spirit of Thomas Aquinas, Catholicism, Protestantism, anything but Orthodoxy hovered in her. And it was impossible to connect the Academy with life. An attempt in this regard by Archimandrite. Feodora Bukharev ended tragically for him, as we know. The genius in the person of Bukharev died, and the nonentity in the person of Askochensky triumphed. Lectures on homiletics were given by you. Peter. Vinogradov 56. One characteristic phenomenon should be noted in his professorial activity: he wrote a master’s thesis on the topic: “Charter readings.” In some respects, it may be necessary, but to waste time and energy on something secondary, archival, and at the very time when life persistently presented its specific demands (the question of the Sacraments, the Athonite dispute, Orthodoxy) to representatives of science and suddenly - a purely museum work: “Statutory readings”, suitable only for the archive! Meanwhile, he was a living person, of a subtle mind and [with] a rather strong will. He, undoubtedly, could have given something more valuable and necessary for the life of the Church, but, as they say, he hid in the bushes from contemporary issues. This characterizes him negatively. After the Academy, I saw him with Patriarch Tikhon. He took holy orders without marriage and wore a kamilavka, which somehow did not fit him. About prof. Gumilyovsky 57 in liturgics I remember one thing, how on the church academic holiday of the Intercession of the Most Holy Theotokos he preached a sermon in verse. Protasov 58 in church archeology and Almazov in church law were knowledgeable and efficient professors, but they did not leave any special impressions on me. Then come: Orlov 59, Hieromonk Bartholomew Remov, Vvedensky D.I. 60, Remezov, Lysogorsky 61, Tunitsky 62, Smirnov Fr. Ivan 63, Rasseikin 64. 22. Hieromonk Bartholomew (Remov) Of these, one note about Fr. Bartholomew Remov, but not as a professor, but as a person - a monk. He spoke slowly and somehow with difficulty - either he had a speech impediment, or he was looking for more suitable words. As a monk, he led an abstinent lifestyle, eating mainly mushrooms. He usually spotted one of the students, caught him in the corridor or in the garden, and marched with him for almost two hours either along the corridor or in the garden. It was difficult to break away from him until he himself let go. I experienced this myself. His thoughts were unoriginal and uninteresting, and his words were slow and drawn-out. He was the dean of the academic church. He established an exemplary order: the deacons, leaving the altar, one by the northern and the other by the southern doors, had to leave at the same time, at the same time stand on the pulpit, pray and bow at the same time, and also simultaneously retire from the pulpit to the altar and here too - discipline. The finishing of the altar, iconostasis, and church by two deacons had to be done in strict accordance with one another, and they had to finish at the same time. There was also strict discipline among his co-workers, in this he was persistent and fully justified his appointment as dean. 23. Hieromonk Ignatius (Sadkovsky) A few more words about the assistant librarian, Hieromonk Ignatius Sadkovsky 65. Everyone called him “Father Father Ignatius,” probably because during conversations he often repeated the words: “Yes, Father, yes! Yes, father, yes!” Like Panteleimon, he, too, they say, wore chains, fasted a lot and exhausted himself... He was a completely impractical person with a childish character, so he was a bad assistant to the librarian. Some date was celebrated in the activities of the librarian Konstantin Mikhailovich Popov 66, we, students, even presented him with an ink set. They say that rector Theodore turned to him about this with the question: “What should I do for you, K. M.?” He allegedly replied: “Get Ignatius away from me!” But Ignatius was not removed. 24. Comrades. Mugs. Daily routine. Walks The student years of academic life were for me the best, brightest years of my life. I always remember this period of my life with great pleasure. Here my worldview was finally formed and my spiritual experience took shape. 1st year students were housed in the small inspector building and had a common room for classes. But thanks to the help. Inspector Hierom. Nikolai I was placed together with another of my classmates, Boris Iv. Ivanov 67 (Novgorod Seminary) to the second-year students in room No. 19, which for some reason was called the monastic room. It contained: Nikolai Fedorovich Kolchitsky 68, Sergei Vasilyevich Ivanov, Maxim Sikov 69, Feodor Voznesensky 70, Alexander Iv. Shchukin 71 and Petr Ivanovich Arkhipov 72. These are second-year students, and I and B.I. Ivanov are first-year students. Only eight people. I was very pleased that I found myself among such wonderful people. Maxim Sikov is always serious, always focused. He spoke slowly, with pauses between words, somewhat heavily, somewhat rudely, but always weightily, always meaningfully. He had no extra, so-called beautiful words. He was the chairman of student circles: preaching, charity for the needy, public education, and apparently some other one. These student circles were organized under Evdokim and firmly remained and existed under Theodore. The latter made a bad gesture towards these mugs, but tolerated them. Members of the preaching circle gave sermons on holidays in the parish churches of Sergiev Posad. Here they tried their hand, acquired the skill and experience of preaching. Such a circle can only be welcomed. Members of the charity circle took care of the needy in Sergiev Posad. The circle received requests for help from the latter. These requests were considered at a meeting of circle members. The information in the requests was checked on the spot by members of the circle and, depending on need, assistance was prescribed, which was distributed by the members of the circle themselves and thus became acquainted with real life. And this circle could not but be welcomed as intended for persons preparing for pastoral work. Nothing bad can be said about the folk reading circle either. I spoke about the charity circle in a little more detail than about other circles, because I myself was a member of this circle and knew what its activities were. Rector Theodore never expressed himself negatively against these circles, but there were some gestures on his part, subtle and impossible to describe, indicating that he only tolerated this legacy of Evdokim. He did not bring his soul into the life of these circles; He treated them purely formally. This was felt in the prayers they served before the start of the circles in each academic year and his words after the end of the prayer - short, dry, formal. During my time, all activities of the circles were led by Maxim Sikov and he led them consistently, persistently, and stubbornly. That was his character. In room No. 19 I sat at the same table with Sergei Vasilyevich Ivanov. He was a nice, simple-minded, open, talkative person. He became interested in literature and knew it well. In this regard, I borrowed a lot from him. Alexander Ivanovich Shchukin was sitting at the same table with Pyotr Iv. Arkhipov. They were noticeably friendly with each other. Arkhipov often made fun of Shchukin, and the latter accepted it complacently. Shchukin was a man of order and discipline. He had a daily routine, thanks to which he gained more knowledge than, for example, me. He also tended to ask questions, and the questions were very deep. For the most part, these questions were directed at me. In contrast to Shchukin with his thoughtful questions, Arkhipov was a man of sober, practical life. He very rarely entered into theoretical disputes. He was the head of the student skating rink; he set up this business in an exemplary manner and at the end of the season he had a profit of 150 rubles. And this despite a very snowy winter. As an ice skating enthusiast, I often skated at the skating rink and was aware of the life of the skating rink. Feodor Voznesensky sat at the same table with Maxim Sikov. He was a tall, healthy man, very good-natured, but silent. He kept a record of the weather for several years and developed a skill for determining the weather. We used to ask him: “Fedya, tell me, what will the weather be like tomorrow?” He will look out the window and immediately say. He gave a weather forecast for the summer holidays and, I remember, summer was exactly as he said. After the Academy, he was ordained a priest and entered the Kazan Cathedral in Moscow as a priest. The fourth table in room No. 19 was occupied by Nikolai Fedorovich Kolchitsky and my classmate Boris Iv. Ivanov. N. F. Kolchitsky in his student years was unusually active - always ebullient. He was an active member of the preaching circle and was always in a hurry somewhere, in a hurry. His nature was not for hard work or study. He connected his studies with life. I was quite surprised at how little he sat in his place and still managed to do everything that needed to be done. He was the soul of our room, i.e. room No. 19. He was seriously preparing for pastoral service. And he got married while a student, and received the holy rank of deacon, and before leaving the Academy, the rank of priest. My classmate Boris Ivanovich Ivanov was the opposite of Nikolai Fedorovich. He was a serious student, diligent in studying science. He was interested in positive sciences, mainly history and languages. Boris Ivanovich Ivanov and another Ivanov, Sergei Vasilyevich, were students at the Archaeological Institute in Moscow, where they went to take tests and exams. This is the circle of people into whose midst I found myself upon entering the Academy. All of them were exemplary students, wonderful comrades and talented people, each in their own way. Room No. 19 was a kind of spiritual center, where students from other rooms and other courses gravitated. This room was also allocated by the authorities; it called it monastic, but, in my opinion, this name is very unfortunate. Of all the students in this room, only I became a monk, and not at all because I lived in this room; The idea of ​​monasticism arose in my mind at university. In this room for two years there were so many disputes, discussions of a wide variety of issues: theological, philosophical, literary, social, political, ascetic, on the women's issue, that it is unthinkable to count. I have already spoken above about the Athonite dispute, about the Sacraments, about Gethsemane and Golgotha. Here it is interesting to note another question that arose among students - about the meaning of the Baptism of the Lord. If I'm not mistaken, the culprit of this issue was a junior year student at the Academy, priest Fr. Vasily Teologov. The essence of this question was that in the Baptism of the Lord in the streams of the Jordan the sins of all mankind were washed away, without this, supposedly, the meaning of the holiday of Epiphany is somehow lost. This supposedly consisted of the fulfillment of “all righteousness.” In any case, the question is interesting, but it somehow quickly escaped the attention of the students. It would be nice to check it using the liturgical books, but they didn’t think to do this. The routine of academic life is well known; from 9 o’clock to 2 o’clock there were lectures; some were at lectures, some were studying in their rooms. After lunch, almost the entire Academy went out for a walk in groups. This walk was usually made along the railway line towards Yaroslavl. And during walks - the same discussion of various issues. In 1914, the German War began, military events were often discussed a lot. From our room, P. Iv was most interested in military events. Arkhipov, a Don Cossack who knew more about these events than anyone else. At that time we had the fast cruiser Novik, and then a debate arose about how to pronounce it. Boris Iv. Ivanov argued that it should be pronounced with emphasis on “and” and not on “o”. Everyone was of the opposite opinion. Later, I returned more than once to the question of stress in this word and came to recognize the opinion of Boris Ivanovich. I am writing about this in order to show how varied the questions of our discussion were - from the great ones to these small ones. Living in a room among senior students, I did not lose touch with my fellow students. I was friends with Volodya Tikhomirov 73 , with Kostya Ruzhitsky, with Grisha Rozov (Yaroslavl), with Pikunov 74 and others. This is the turbulent atmosphere in which my first two years of academic life passed. In my third year I was already a hierodeacon. In the summer of 1914, during the all-night vigil on the feast of Peter and Paul in the Zosimova Hermitage, I was tonsured into monasticism by Bishop Theodore. These minutes, hours and days of staying in the Zosima desert are unforgettable. 25. Hieromonk Matthew (Oleynik) I have already said that during my third year at the Academy I lived in a room with Fr. Matthew Oleynik[om]. He was a man completely devoid of ideological and theoretical interests. He was a man of purely practical, even utilitarian interests. He was a member of a circle of folk readings, and devoted almost all his time to these readings, tinkered with the “Magic Lantern”, and illustrated his lectures with “foggy pictures.” Upon completion, he ended up in Astrakhan, according to rumors he became a member of the “Union of the Russian People” and continued his folk readings, but after the October Revolution he was arrested and shot. 26. Hieromonk Peacock (Kroshechkin) For the fourth academic academic year I lived in an apartment. inspector N.I. Somov. It was very convenient to write a PhD thesis here. In the room next to mine was Fr. Pavlin Kroshechkin. Over the course of the year, I became very close to him. He combined perseverance of will with gentleness of character. He visited many monasteries as a novice. Of these, I remember the Sarov Hermitage and the Babaevsky Monastery. His last stay before the academy was the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow. Father o. Peacock (that’s what everyone called him) over tea, stroking his red beard with his right hand, openly, without concealment, told how he, having no education, ended up at the Academy. Here is his approximate story: “I decided to be a bishop. I will be a bishop! and that’s it!” – At the same time, Fr. The peacock looked around at everyone present, stroking his beard. This is his characteristic movement: “But how can one be a bishop without education? We must graduate from the Academy!” And Fr. walks around with this idea. Peacock goes from monastery to monastery until he ends up in Moscow at the Novospassky Monastery. Here, through the rector-archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery, he enters the 5th grade of the Theological Seminary in Moscow, having previously passed the exam for the first 4 classes of the seminary. After completing the 5th and 6th grades of the Theological Seminary, he entered the Moscow Theological Academy. True, it was very difficult for him to study. He sometimes said: “I’m afraid my head might explode,” and at the same time he grabbed his head with both hands, as if protecting it from rupture. The students helped him in every possible way. He hardly ever sweated, and the appearance of a few drops of sweat on his nose was pure bliss for him. Then he particularly complacently stroked his narrow and rather long beard and looked around at those present with a particularly affectionate gaze. I didn't like the fish soup and didn't find any meaning in it. But thanks to Father Fr. I understood both the taste and the meaning of this dish for the peacock. In a moment of special complacency, he once asked us a question: “What are monks allowed to eat?” In bewilderment from such a question, we began to say what and how. And he, with a sly smile, stroking his beard, kept asking: “And what else?” Our answers were exhausted, and then he said: “A monk is allowed to eat... sinless cockerels.” General cheerful laughter. And this man achieved his goal: he became a bishop. 27. Entertainment for students I did not break ties with secular students, either with classmates or in No. 19. The walks continued as before, sometimes they forcibly grabbed me by the arms and walked to the line. There was no point in resisting. No reasons were accepted. Ivan A. Solovyov 75 was somehow especially disposed towards me; he was above average height, thin, but unusually strong. He used to see me walking down the corridor, quickly catch up with me from behind, grab me by the waist as I ran, put him on his shoulder and continue to run with me along the corridor at the same pace. It was impossible to free oneself from his strong and tenacious hands by any effort. And this Soloviev once played a trick on me! He picked me up in the corridor, as usual, on his shoulder and ran at full speed into the reception room, where the ladies and one young lady were sitting. Throwing me off his shoulder onto the floor almost at the feet of the visitors, he himself ran headlong out of the reception room. Let the reader judge what my position was, dressed in a scarf and cassock. It is difficult to convey the whole complex of sensations that arose in me then. But this joke did not spoil our relationship. I grumbled a little to Ivan Alexandrovich, and he promised not to embarrass me like that again. Some students knew that I was a big fan of the skating rink. I don’t remember with whom, but I made a bet that I would go to the skating rink and skate. But for some reason this ride for me, the monk, did not take place. 28. Hieromonk Varnava (Belyaev) Of the monastics, I became closest to Fr. Varnava Belyaev, who was a year older than me. I don’t remember who his parents were, but he received a secular education. In the first time after his tonsure, he devoted himself to the feats of fasting and prayer, lived in solitude and did not leave his cell unless necessary. He walked low, head down, not looking at anyone. He did not answer questions addressed to him, but would only look at the questioner with some strange look and move on, lowering his head even lower. During divine services, in the rank of hierodeacon, he made very low bows. The result was an unpleasant impression. Archbishop Anthony Volynsky even ridiculed him on his visit to the Academy. But Fr.’s passion for “Byzantine asceticism” Barnabas was not as long as Ignatius and Panteleimon, and he soon recovered, but fell into the opposite extreme: he began to read fiction of an unimportant kind, telling not very modest jokes, of which he knew a lot, and was interested in humorous magazines. But for all his hesitations, for all his certain imbalance, he was an unusually pure and responsive nature. He and I traveled all the way around the Lavra, right up to Khotkov and Radonezh. They even made fun of us: “Paul and Barnabas went to preach.” How difficult it was to be alone with the bishop. Theodore, it was so easy to be with Fr. Barnabas. He was knowledgeable, well-read in both secular and spiritual literature. I later saw him as Bishop of Pechersk, vicar of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese. Here he had stories with subdeacon Nicholas, but everything ended well. Later, something incomprehensible happened: he distanced himself from the diocese and lived privately. I don't know anything more about him. 29. Hieromonks Valenian (Rudich) and Peter (Rudnev) Judging by the album, there were exactly 60 students in our 71st course. Of these, two volunteered for the army, 8 people graduated as priests and 5 hieromonks. The remaining 45 people are secular. Hieromonks, besides me and those already mentioned by Fr. Pavlina and Fr. Matthew - Fr. Valerian Rudic 76 and Fr. Petr Rudnev 77. About the last two, I note that they were friends with each other, read V.V. Rozanov quite intensively, and represented some kind of opposition in relation to the Rector of the Academy, Fr. Pyotr Rudnev was an obvious ideological opponent of Florensky and was always planning to write a refutation of his book “The Pillar and Statement of Truth.” After the Academy, I met him once in Moscow at Metropolitan Sergius’s. And then he told me that he was writing a refutation. But, of course, there was and could not be a refutation. I know nothing about their fate. 30. Master's disputes. Dispute of Hilarion (Troitsky) I will also make a few comments about the master's debates that took place in my experience. Hilarion had a very awkward moment during his dissertation defense. Hilarion's dissertation was approximately (I don't remember the exact title) about the patristic teaching about the Church. The main opponent M.D. Muretov, after many objections and comments, asked the disputant the last question: “You have outlined the teaching of the fathers about the Church. This is good. But you did not define the essence of the Church. After all, it is necessary to bring their views to unity and reveal in conclusion the biblical definition of the Church. It is not enough for us to know the opinion of the fathers on the issue of the Church; we need to know what the Church is? What do you think?” Hilarion, who had hitherto responded to each of the objections, could not find an answer to this last question and remained silent. Confused, Mitrofan Dmitrievich begins to prompt him to answer: “But what about Ap. Does Paul Define the Church? Hilarion is silent. “Yes, in the letter to the Ephesians, what does he say about the Church?” Silence. And Mitrofan Dmitrievich himself says, pronouncing the words separately: “The Church is the Body of Christ. This is the apostolic definition of the Church, and it should be cited and revealed in conclusion.” For all of us, Hilarion’s silence on the question about the essence of the Church was unexpected and very strange. Dispute by A. M. Tuberovsky I have already spoken about Florensky’s defense of his dissertation. It is necessary to pay attention to Tuberovsky's debate about the Easter dogma 78. The opponents were: Tareev and Florensky. According to Florensky, Tuberovsky, when writing his monograph, first went to consult Florensky. The latter believed that Tuberovsky wrote in the spirit of his, Florensky’s, instructions. But what happened? Tuberovsky wrote a monograph in the spirit of Tareev, and went to Florensky in order to find out Florensky’s point of view and convey this point of view to Tareev. Tareev, obviously, decided to take advantage of the Tuberovsky dispute to settle scores with Florensky as his ideological opponent. Having secured the necessary information, Tareev, as an opponent, began, instead of analyzing the dissertation, to make attacks, and very rude ones, against Florensky. F. D. Andreev even stood up and indignantly asked the rector of the Academy to call Tareev to order. Tareev was called to order, but later he again began throwing stones at someone else’s garden. Andreev protested once again, but the third time he could no longer stand it and defiantly left the assembly hall with the words: “It’s impossible to stay here any longer!” The matter dragged on. Lunch approached, and the continuation of the debate was postponed until the next day. After this, Florensky did not want to act as an opponent, but he was persuaded. He wrote an analysis of his dissertation “On the Easter Dogma,” probably a little less than the book itself. He began like this: “I would like to compare your dissertation with Andersen’s fairy tale “The Ugly Duckling”, but ... only in a good way” 79. And then I began analyzing the dissertation with commas and quotation marks; There were a lot of the latter in the dissertation, put in opportunely and inappropriately, so that one could understand purely dogmatic Orthodox terms in their improper sense and even as a mockery. These painstaking objections made Tareev sick and he, without waiting for the ideological part, defiantly left the hall. It's time for lunch. They took a break in order to resume the debate in the evening, and asked Florensky to make ideological critical remarks as briefly as possible. In the evening we gathered again for a debate. Florensky no longer opened his notebook and did not sit down on the chair, but standing at the table and lowering his eyes, slightly swaying forward - his characteristic pose - over the course of, it seems to me, about an hour and a half or two, he made his objections. Tareev was absent. There was a lot of people. The silence was absolute. Florensky's quiet and soft voice was heard everywhere. When considering Tuberovsky's dissertation, he drew on all the data of science, both theological and natural-mathematical. I can hear his phrase now: “You think that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but in fact the shortest distance between two points is a curve; at least the experience of the saints gives reason to think so, and spherical geometry.” The essence of the objections was that it is impossible to present the dogma of the Resurrection in such terms and in such a concept, but, taking into account the author’s works, the reviewer is inclined to recognize his dissertation as worthy of a master’s degree. Tuberovsky acted so treacherously and disgustingly towards Florensky, and Florensky treated him so nobly and purely in a Christian way. Thus ended this famous single combat between the Academy’s “David” and its “Goliath.” And, of course, Florensky’s “sling” shattered the Tareev-Tuberovsky concept, which essentially leads to the denial of the dogma of the Resurrection. Tareev’s speech could not be compared with Florensky’s speech. Everyone felt it. Florensky's recognition of Tuberovsky as worthy of a master's degree was the mercy of the winner 80. 32. Defense of the dissertation of Hieromonk Bartholomew Defense of the dissertation by Hieror. Bartholomew Remov, written on the topic: “The Book of the Prophet Habakkuk,” did not represent anything interesting. This is a purely compilative work made on the basis of German research. If there were any other master's debates, they did not represent anything original. 33. Rector Bishop Theodore: his activities in transforming the MDA In conclusion of my memories of the Academy, it is necessary to return again to its head, that is, to the rector, Bishop. Theodora. To what was said above, we must also add that he was shy by nature, and he himself once told us about this. Among the people he was used to, he felt at ease, was talkative, joking, but in a community of people he knew few or not at all, he felt tense and communicated this tension to his accomplices. From here another of his features follows naturally – privacy. He was an unsocial, unsociable person, like, for example, Hilarion. Ep. Theodore felt at ease only in a narrow circle of close people known to him. He did not show and did not like to show his personality. Thanks to these indicated character traits, he gave the impression of an ascetic, although his appearance was not at all ascetic. He apparently ate well. The words of Gerasim, who dined with Bishop Theodore, give reason to think so, but I don’t remember what they were said about, perhaps about leaving him as a scholarship student, but I definitely remember his words: “I would agree, provided that I had the rector’s table.” Bishop Theodore was not averse to listening to sometimes ambiguous and even piquant anecdotes and stories, which was what the monks of the Academy were generally interested in and which indicated the presence of one shortcoming, which I would call “verbal masturbation.” Fr. was especially infected with this vice. Barnabas 81. Did the owner cope? Theodore with the task that was assigned to him, i.e. bring the Academy into an Orthodox form? Externally yes, but internally no. Transforming the Academy into an Orthodox form is an enormous task. He could not implement it both as an individual, with a narrow circle of people, and as a person who did not possess any special knowledge or special worldview, and as a monk without the proper spiritual experience of his own. Everything he had was borrowed either from books or from people under whose influence he was. In addition to the rector of the Bethany Seminary, Vl. Theodore was under very great influence from the archimandrite. Simeon 82, sitting on a cart. At the seminary he was shot in the back. The lower half of his body was paralyzed, and he was thus placed on a cart for the rest of his life. Hierodeacon Nikolai looked after him. Which of the two was an ascetic? Nikolai, but not Simeon - that is my impression. Impression from the personality of Archim. Simeon, I had a very unfavorable experience for him. In my opinion (although I was not alone in this impression), Fr. Simeon did not have his own spiritual experience, everything he had was “theoretical”, read from books, but he himself did not think so about himself and, being wounded, began to lead living souls. And what came out was not guidance, but ugliness. This is the archimandrite. Simeon, who often visited Vl. Theodore at the Academy, had a tremendous influence on him, and this influence, in the opinion of not only me, was negative. Possibly, ow. Theodore would not have been the same if it had not been for the influence of the archimandrite. Simeon. Chained to the cart, he somehow fettered his initiative, his originality, introducing into him an individualistic view of the feat of salvation: “Only you are saved, and thousands around you will be saved” 83 . This phrase was quite popular at the time. But at the same time, it was forgotten that the Church is the Body of Christ (Eph. 1:22–23), that believers, bound by love, must constitute a body, an organism, and each must occupy a certain place in it and carry out certain functions. The main thing was forgotten that “to seek what is useful for society is the height of perfection” (Chrysostom). When one of us falls, he falls alone, but no one is saved alone. It was this desire to isolate himself from people while living among them, this extreme individualism carried out in public work, that was the main shortcoming of Bishop Theodore. That's why ow. After the Academy, Theodore did not go to the department, but again withdrew into the shell, like a snail, that is, he again isolated himself among a few people in the Danilov Monastery in Moscow, where Archimandrite also came to live. Simeon with his cell attendant Nikolai. The diocese would require the manifestation of initiative, broad social and church activity. But just Vlad. Theodore did not have his own initiative and was afraid of social activities. And... he withdrew into a shell. And his further life was an escape from life. He could have been a lamp standing on the candlestick, if at one time he had not had the negative influence of Fr. Simeon in the spirit of extreme individualism, thanks to which he was a lamp only in disguise. Although about himself and about his activities, Vl. Theodore had a very high opinion, but in essence he did not do what he could have done both at the Academy and outside it. He brought purely external order to the Academy. Liberalism in both professors and students began to manifest itself only less outwardly. For example, he tonsured a lot of monks, but his task should have been for the monks to be exemplary students, indicators of exemplary discipline, but this was precisely not the case. I have already said that after tonsure each of us was left to his own devices. Compared to secular students, the monks enjoyed some advantages, but their studies were unsatisfactory. The monks could not study at all and move from course to course. Most of them really didn't do well. They didn’t go to lectures, got up late, and didn’t attend church services on weekdays. All this could and should have been eliminated by the bishop. Theodore, i.e. make monks exemplary students. But then they would cut their hair less!? There was a pursuit of quantity at the expense of quality. There was a goal, following the example of Catholicism, to occupy all leadership positions and even teaching in theological schools by academic monks. Therefore, it seemed to each monk to live the way he wanted. 34. Critical assessment of the old MDA Florensky said more than once and even wrote somewhere: “To our shame, we still do not have liturgical theology!” 84. In other words, we did not have and do not have Orthodox theology. Following the example of the West, we learned to talk about dogmas, commandments, and canons, but we were far from living by these dogmas, commandments, and canons. The entire teaching system was, like in the West, purely rationalistic. Divine services and the lives of saints were for the Orthodox consciousness dead capital, lying under cover. If not liturgical services, then at least subject indexes for liturgical books and the lives of saints were compiled! Then it would be possible for everyone to take advantage of the richness of the manifestation of spiritual life. And who would entrust such work if not monks! But this elementary and very necessary thing was not done, meanwhile the Bollandists in the West published up to a hundred volumes - folios, which included all the known editions of the lives of the saints with their translation into Latin and with a preface. Metropolitan Macarius did the same tremendous work of collecting lives and church literature, using the work of manuscripts, but we have not yet been able to reprint this amazing work. And this despite all the wealth that our dioceses and our monasteries previously owned?! We boasted more about Orthodoxy than we lived it, we talked more about dogmas than we lived them. But dogmas are given precisely for life, and not just for reasoning. At the Academy we learned to recognize all the wrong twists of thought, its deviations, all the heresies of thought, but we had absolutely no concept of the heresy of action. It turns out that it was necessary to cross out all five theologies and create one. But no Theodore could do this. After all, the Bukharevs perished and the Askochenskys triumphed! But a new life came and simply closed the Academies in order to create a new Academy together that would meet the needs and tasks of the new life. II. Letters from hieromonk (later bishop) Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky. 1916–1927 Hieromonk Pavel Volkov to priest Pavel Florensky, June 25, 1916. I cordially congratulate you on Angel’s Day, I pray for your health and salvation... I am again in those places where I had to spend painful years. After all, I spent my childhood and adolescence in the mountains; there I was born; those times and those places are my best memories. No matter how beautiful the shady forest is, I am always drawn to the field, to my native field, especially the rye field, to an open place, to the open space, from where you can see the distance running away. I must have a mountain (oh, if only a mountain) spirit. At the age of 16 I found myself in the forests. A solid wall of forest around, the absence of a horizon, blue distances, frequent rains, a lower sky (clouds in bad weather go almost above the forest, at least it seems that they are about to touch the tops of the trees) - all this is sharply different from what I have been accustomed to perceiving in the mountains since childhood. Instead of an immense (however, immense), slender, sky-blue dome running into the heights, a bluish flat spot is seen here; Instead of a hilly area, cut by rays and ravines, with hazel groves, there is a flat plain overgrown with pine needles. I associate the beginning of my youthful doubts, and then painful struggle, quests, and hobbies with moving here. I attribute a significant (however, no, I don’t know yet) share of the influence on all this to the locality. Perhaps I am wrong in this opinion, but one thing cannot be denied: there is a noticeable difference and peculiarity in the nature of nature in the forests and in the mountains. This can be judged already from the “novel” of Melnikov (Pecherin) 85: “In the forests and on the mountains.” In my new state, I was especially interested in visiting here to check my thoughts on the spot. And so I say to myself: “Yes, this is so...”. Everyone at home was very happy to see me. In the family circle, during conversations, the absence of the domed sky, etc., is not yet sharply felt, and time passes quickly. I am resting in the full sense of the word. Mign's volume lies almost untouched. I haven’t started writing my memoirs yet, although the internal process of remembering has been going on for a long time. I dig in the garden, in the garden, go for mushrooms with Vitya 86; Often the whole family goes for a walk in the forest, which starts almost from our house. Vitya thanks you, Fr. Pavel, I wanted to write you a letter for the gift. I intend to stay at home longer; I'll have to write to the Bishop. I didn’t see him before leaving; he was in Moscow. My family were quite surprised when I told them that you need 5 pounds of dried white mushrooms; I don’t know what’s surprising here, but they only instilled in me doubt whether I had confused the number 5 with something else; I think not. There are no porcini mushrooms yet, but they should appear soon. Take a bow, oh. Pavel, to all your family by name. Have you written an article? You should rest. Hieromonk Pavel, who loves you. The letter was not sent until the 28th day, there was no opportunity. Vitya wrote a letter to you, but fell ill with a fever. I asked you to bow. Will write later. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, July 10, 1916 I am sending you strawberry bushes and strawberries by mail. Prepare separate beds for them, loosen the soil as best as possible and plant bushes. They love watering. In August you will have large, fragrant strawberries. There will be strawberries next year. I will probably come to the Academy for the Dormition of the Mother of God. Now there is haymaking; I cut clover and grass, thanks to this I become physically stronger. I learned about the death of Sergei Iv from the newspapers. Smirnova 87; the news was unexpected. If you find free time, write. I bow to all of you. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, November 28, 1916 88 Unfortunately, I cannot come to you now either at the all-night vigil or after the all-night vigil; I have guests from our region, and I need to be with them. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) - Vasily Florensky 89, January 1917 (?) I cordially congratulate you on Angel 90 Day; I pray that your Guardian Angel will constantly be with you; I wish that Basil the Great, as a concrete appearance on earth of your Angel, will be an everlasting way of life for you 91. For me, bow to Katya, Kira and Nina 92. Hieromonk Pavel, who loves you. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, September 21, 1917 Whether, objectively speaking, it is necessary or not for me to write a report on the fellowship year, I don’t know. But one thing I know for sure is that if I have to give an account of my studies to anyone, it is only you, you alone. The need for this particular report to you is now especially acute in my consciousness. Why? I don't know myself. I will only say that I am now possessed by a feeling of detachment from the world - possessed, I would add, to a strong degree. What connection exists between this feeling and that need, I cannot say. This connection is not clear to me either, but there is no doubt that it exists. So, what did I do during my fellowship year? This is the question I want to answer and which I cannot leave unanswered. Of course, you can answer this question differently. To some who asked about this, I had the audacity to answer briefly and clearly. They asked: “Well, father, have you done much this year?” I answered: “A lot.” - “Well, how much?” - the questioner inquired. “I compiled an index to the lives of the saints in a month and a half,” was my answer. “Ahh...” my interlocutor would then drawl in bewilderment and dissatisfaction, and after a little thought he would add: “So, in fact, the work was rough?” “Yes,” I said. Needless to say, my interlocutor not only did not understand me, but also formed a fairly definite idea of ​​the insignificance of my work, at least in his tone he made it felt that he did not see “much” in my work. My answers were impudent, and I knew in advance that I would meet with obvious misunderstanding. And yet, after such a conversation, I could not avoid feeling annoyed and even some heartache. So the mother, I think, is annoyed and worried about the wrong attitude towards her child. To others I answered the same thing, but in a different way. I said that yes, from a quantitative point of view, my work may seem too insignificant, but if we take into account the qualitative side of the matter, then on the contrary, the results are very significant, because based on the materials I have, I said, I could easily write a series of articles or even a study on the most pressing church issues, etc. of that kind. Then my questioner repeated with satisfaction, even, as it seemed to me, with hidden envy: “This is good. This is good...". This view of my work made me truly sad. Is journalism, I thought, more valuable in the eyes of my interlocutor and others like him than an index to several dozen lives? It must be yes. But in my opinion, an index to one short life is more valuable than journalism. I am afraid of journalism, I get scared if I think that I might accidentally, unnoticed by myself, take this path 93. To you, my teacher, I will answer the above question differently. Thanks to the compilation of the index with your help, I saw firsthand the life of terms and words. This is my acquisition, as it seems to me, of enormous importance, or, better said, achievement of the spirit. That words are alive and effective, I knew about this for a long time, but I knew it in the same way as, for example, I previously knew about the existence of the Danilov Monastery in Moscow, and now I was convinced of its existence by all my five empirical and underlying mystical feelings, or rather, at the basis of them. Thousands of living lives appeared before my eyes. Thanks to this new mystical perception, the whole world began to be known to me somehow in a new way. September 7. I began to think in a new way. I breathed a sigh of relief when I felt freedom from that cloudy and unusual sediment, which is best called seminary. My PhD work was a decisive struggle, a pitched battle between my true self and this serpent that had nested within me. The fellowship year was a time of taking into account the results of the struggle that ended in my favor, a time of strengthening my positions, returning to the worldview of childhood, which I greatly yearned for during the years of seminary captivity; a monument to this melancholy is the poem left over from the 12th year, dedicated to childhood. I consider the living consciousness in myself of the urgent need to study terminology, which (consciousness) was the result of that achievement of the spirit about which I spoke above, to be a sign that the victory remained with me, as well as a criterion for the truth of my renewed system of thoughts and feelings. I don’t know whether I’m right or wrong, but right now I have absolutely no desire to construct syllogisms myself; I want to put together as many terms as possible and listen to what they have to say. It seems to me that they will either suggest starting points or give the final answer to the questions posed. Work of a different nature is now uninteresting and boring for me. I know you will say: “Isn’t it possible to illustrate what has been said with specific examples?” This is difficult for me now, not only because I do not have the collected material at hand, but also mainly because the indicated achievement of the spirit occurred at the end of the fellowship year. Much is still vague for me, much is simply unclear, and much is even scary. I remember how certain terms seemed to open my eyes, pouring into me a stream of thoughts that my daytime consciousness could not bear. I closed my eyes in fear and tried to direct the resulting flow into the unconscious area. Now it’s too early for me to accept and realize them, it’s enough to accept for now. Let them (thoughts) finally, in the mental womb, organically become mine. Then the statement will be natural and legal. This is what I wanted to tell you, my teacher. I can’t imagine any other kind of report towards you. Your grateful disciple and Paul who love you. R.8. Both the mood and the tone of the letter imperiously forced me to address you on a first-name basis. I don't know why. And this is almost the only case. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, January 29, 1918 Soon it will be a month since I live with my parents, in the Trans-Volga forests, in those very forests with which a special church worldview, a special way of life, imbued with church cult, a special spiritual culture, are strangely connected. You can guess that I am talking about the Old Believers. I am now finally convinced that the Old Believers are truly the true element of Russian Orthodoxy. In fact, while our so-called Orthodoxy could not withstand the pressure of the revolution and, in the person of its children, mainly the hierarchy, was partly confused, partly directly betrayed itself, the Old Believers in general still stand firm. If, on this strong front, breakthroughs occurred in places, however, insignificant, then the blame for this falls exclusively on our Orthodox anti-schism mission. I don’t know if and how the Slavophiles said about the Old Believers, but I think that a true Slavophile cannot be apart from the Old Believers. If they passed by him, then there is undoubtedly a significant gap in their worldview, and perhaps something not entirely right. I know Slavophilism superficially, in general terms, but it seems to me that there is no concreteness in it, it is too abstract, it was groping and in its abstraction it necessarily strayed towards rationalism, from Orthodoxy to Protestantism. Meanwhile, there was and now is a whole organic concrete life, truly Russian, truly Slavic, with a truly church way of life, with the spirit of truly Holy Rus'. Yes, here is Rus', here it smells like Russia. Other waves of the poison of European culture break against the life of the Old Believers, like the waves of the sea against granite. Both in inns and in other places I had the opportunity to observe how, through the cracks of “Bolshevism,” old Russian life with ancient church life was in full swing. The other day I noticed that our intelligentsia has no way of life, because it has no cult, but only its own unfortunate convictions. I noticed this and was horrified. “So, strictly speaking, the intelligentsia is anti-cultural,” I thought. How has it long been its goal to educate the people and cultivate them? It was then that I clearly realized all the horrors of modern life and breakthroughs even on a solid front. I read Rudakov's book 94, it is written in an extremely formulaic manner, reading it is tedious and boring. Researchers who point out the stereotyped nature of the lives do not notice or do not want to notice that their works about the lives are a thousand times more formulaic than the subject of their research. Everyone says the same thing; you know in advance what and how will be said next. I’m only surprised that they don’t get tired of saying the same thing, like the magpie about Yakov. But Rudakov’s work has its own peculiarity. It contains a timid attempt to rise above the template, but the author, powerless, each time falls from his exaltation and mostly speaks the most formulaic words. One gets a dual impression: either he praises and appreciates hagiography, or he mocks it. More likely the latter. But then all the work, except for the index at the end of the book, comes down to zero. I don’t understand why it was necessary to undertake this Egyptian work then. I'm thinking of living at home some more; My parents won’t let me go, and I don’t want to go to the city myself. I'm learning languages. Dad writes his memoirs. Our whole family is now fully assembled. Everyone bows to you and to everyone at home. Congratulations to Anna Mikhailovna 95 on Angel Day. Alarming news is coming from the cities. Something seems to be brewing, or maybe it’s already brewing? And famine begins in the village. On occasion, convey my regards to Vasily Vasilyevich 96; His image often appears in my mind for some reason and for various reasons. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, March 15, 1918 I continue to live with my parents. Dad asks me to stay for Lent to help him in his ministry; Indeed, the Lenten service here is very difficult; Every day during services you need to make 1000 bows, and also confession. He is already an elderly man and not entirely healthy; I want to help my father, whom I have never helped in any way. On the other hand, working conditions in Moscow are now almost impossible. I don’t know yet how I’ll decide, but my mother doesn’t want to let me go, no matter what. In the monastery there were found the Cheti-Minea and even several handwritten lives with facial images. In this regard, the life of Vasily the New is especially interesting with Theodora’s journey through ordeals and Gregory’s vision of the end of the world. An entire study could be written based on these images alone. Then I found here the handwritten canon of Sophia the Wisdom of God. I think that he was not known to you when you wrote the letter about Sophia; Now this canon may be known to you, for it was published in 1913 by the Old Believers, but the one published by the Old Believers is somewhat different from the handwritten one; the first (printed) one lacks in places exactly the most interesting and energetic expressions that are in the handwritten one. The canon is, in my opinion, quite interesting; it contains all those views (currently existing) on ​​Sophia, according to which she is either considered an independent entity, or identified with Jesus Christ, or with the Mother of God, or with virginity (“the virgin soul”). The icon contains a description of the icon of Sophia the Wisdom of God. I will certainly write down this canon for you and pass it on to you during a personal meeting. I feel good; For the first time I am listening to Lenten Old Believer chants, which brings me truly spiritual pleasure. On Friday of the first week, the Presanctified Liturgy was served with all related services. Without the habit, I was pretty tired. How are you doing? I’ve been meaning to send you a parcel for a long time, but I kept getting ready to go and therefore put it off. Now, at my mother’s insistence, I decided to send it to you. There's a little bit of everything here: wheat flour, semolina, granulated sugar and crushed sugar, dried mushrooms and crackers. Dried mushrooms are sent by Mother Margarita 97 (you saw her at my Academy) in gratitude for the book you wrote, “The Pillar and Statement of Truth.” Here's to you, oh. Pavel, an example of how your book, about the “incomprehensibility” of which Academy students complain, turned out to be quite accessible to a person who has not received any education. I didn’t give her any explanations, I just advised her to read from the end, and when she asked about what she had read, I heard a very detailed answer, schematically explaining the contents of the entire letter. Take into account that my mother has not read anything in philosophy and does not know foreign terms at all, except for some common ones. True, she was brought up in church services, in the lives of saints and fatherly works, read in church. This is probably what makes it possible for her to understand your book. In addition, she finds that, for example, a letter about friendship needs to be supplemented. Mother sends you and Anna Mikhailovna a big bow, and Vasya, in addition, a chocolate bar. Your other children all get a chocolate bar from me. Dad and mom, my brothers and sisters bow to you all. Write, o. Pavel, if you have some free time! For me, say hello to everyone in your family. Did you receive my first letter from here? Just in case, my address is: p. Khokhloma, Nizh lips, Semenovsk, in the Osinovsky convent 98. R.S. I sent the parcel to the post office twice, and both times it was not accepted: they do not accept parcels through Moscow or to Moscow. I am sending the letter as it was written the first time; I didn't want to rewrite it. I am very sorry that I was unable to send you the parcel. Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, June 17, 1918 (old style). I know that you don’t have time, but I was still waiting for at least a few lines from you. Recently, from a letter from Bishop Theodore, I learned that you are giving lectures in Moscow on “Philosophy of Cult” 99, and with great success, and that Novoselov has opened theological courses. I had been planning to go to Moscow before, but with such news I was drawn there even more. Yes, I would already be in Moscow if I had not gotten sick. At the end of the fast I had a stomach ache; I almost stopped eating; anemia and loss of strength developed. I had to go to Nizhny to see a doctor, who found that I had a severe digestive disorder and the resulting weakened activity of the heart and lungs. Now I’m starting to get better, thanks to the measures taken, but because of this I had to give up my intention to go to Moscow. I think I will come when my strength is sufficiently restored. I am very interested in your lectures. You are providing exactly what I have so recently and so acutely experienced as missing from the intelligentsia. Won't it be, oh? Pavel, have a free moment to write to me about the plan for your readings and about the Academy 100 you are designing, although I think that we will see each other soon. I wrote you several letters. Have you received them? I have not received a single letter from you. I am writing this because, perhaps, you sent it, but the letter got lost. I sent you two more parcels by mail. I seriously doubt that they will receive them. They say that food parcels are accepted at the post office, but not sent to their intended destination. Now I have a good opportunity to send you something: flour for a pie on Peter’s Day, granulated sugar for jam, and long-promised chocolates for Vasya, Katya, Kira and Nina. I study, as much as possible and as much as book resources allow, in hagiology, read my father’s works, prepare Vitya and my sister for the re-exam in arithmetic for the same subject to enter the gymnasium, walk, partly work in the garden, swim - this is the usual circle of objects around which my life is concentrated. By the grace of God, my relatives are healthy and send their deepest bow to you and all yours. In our area there is famine, they eat duranda with potatoes, but even that costs 50 rubles. pood; all hope for the harvest; peasants serve prayer services and organize religious processions across the fields. Today I prayed in one neighboring village instead of my father, and he in another. Bishop Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, March 7, 1925 (Old Art.?) 101 I want and need to see you. Yesterday I called you from Losev 102, but got nothing. I will be in Moscow on Tuesday, March 11/24. Leave a note; On Tuesday morning, on the way from the station, I’ll stop by here and find out what time you’ll set. 7/III–25 years 103. E Pavel. Bishop Pavel (Volkov) to priest Pavel Florensky, February 15, 1927 (Old Art.) 104. I just returned from a trip to the Urals and Siberia and was extremely pleased to find your letter on my desk. I didn’t understand it all, but I understood the gist. I am very touched by your memory of me and your thoughtfulness. I, too, was planning to write to you all the time, especially since I promised to send you some extracts about the Cross. The letter was postponed because starting from mid-November I was going to go to Moscow, but circumstances gradually somehow delayed me, and on December 27 I left for the Urals and Siberia; returned on February 13th. I will certainly be in Moscow during the 3rd week of Lent. I'll see you. At the same time I am writing to Shergin 105. Once again thank you for the memory. I send greetings and blessings to you and Vasily Ivanovich 106. Your spiritually devoted Bishop Pavel. Introductory article, publication of the text and notes by Abbot Andronik (Trubachev) and V. L. Shlenov. Denisov L.I. Orthodox monasteries of the Russian Empire. M., 1908. P. 561–562. The topic of N. Volkov’s candidate’s essay: “The religious, moral and political state of the Jews during the times of Ezra and Nehemiah” (card file of S. A. Volkov - MDA Archive). Priest Pavel Florensky. Works in four volumes. T. 3 (2). M., 1999. P. 231. Report on the state of the imperial MDA in the 1915–1916 academic year. year. Sergiev Posad, 1916. P. 17. See also Journal of meetings of the MDA Council for 1916 “Sergiev Posad. 1917" pp. 65, 83–84, 99. Card index of S. A. Volkov - archive of the MDA. Bishop Varnava (Belyaev) (05/12/1887–05/6/1963) – graduate of the MDA in 1915, a student of priest Pavel Florensky, under whose guidance he wrote his candidate’s essay “St. Barsanuphius the Great. His life and teachings" (OR RSL. F. 172. K. 196. Unit 4. 201 sheets; rec.: Florensky Pavel, priest // BV. 1916. No. 3/4. P. 168–176; No. 5. P. 177–189). He was ordained bishop of Pechersk, vicar of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese on February 16, 1920. Since 1922 he has been retired, in 1933–1936 he was imprisoned. Subsequently, he did not return to diocesan service. He lived under the guise of a layman, a holy fool. Spiritual writer. His work (“Fundamentals of the Art of Holiness”) was greatly influenced by the priest Pavel Florensky. Priest Alexander Mikhailovich Giatsintov (01/15/1885–06/15/1943) - brother of Anna Mikhailovna Florenskaya, wife of Fr. Pavel. He served in the Trinity Church in the village of Troitskoye, Sapozhkovsky district, Ryazan province, and on August 25, 1910, he celebrated the marriage of P. A. Florensky and A. M. Giatsintova. In 1917 he entered the MDA and lived with his family in the house of Father Pavel in Sergiev Posad. Novoselov Mikhail Alexandrovich (1864–1938), new member. In 1902–1917 – publisher of the “Religious and Philosophical Library”, was part of the close circle of Fr. Pavel Florensky. According to some, not entirely reliable information, in 1923 Mark was secretly consecrated Bishop of Sergiev Posad. Tsypin Vladislav, prot. History of the Russian Church 1917–1997. M., 1997. P.756. Acts of His Holiness Tikhon, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia, later documents and correspondence on the canonical succession of the highest church authority / Comp. M. E. Gubonin. M., 1994. P. 327. RGIA. F. 831. Op 1. D. 218. L. 326. RGIA. F. 831. Op 1. D. 218. L. 155. History of the hierarchy of the Russian Orthodox Church. M.: Publishing house. PSTGU, 2006. pp. 210,109–110, 753. Ruzhitsky Konstantin Ivanovich (1888–1964), archpriest, rector of the MDA (1951–1964), it is often erroneously stated that he studied at the Kyiv Theological Academy. Recorded on October 6, 1969 by P. V. Florensky. Between the rector Bishop Theodore and the priest Pavel Florensky, on the one hand, and M. M. Tareev, on the other. Gerasim (Georgy Sergeevich Sadkovsky), hieromonk, 3rd master's student of the 19th year (1910–1914). On April 24, 1915, Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology by the Moscow Theological Academy for his body of work. At that time he was the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Evdokim (Vasily Ivanovich Meshchersky; 1869–1935), archbishop, 5th undergraduate of the 19th year (1890–1894), tonsured upon graduation from the MDA. From December 9, 1903 to August 1, 1909, rector of the MDA. In 1922 he went into the Renovationist schism and died without reuniting with the Church. In the manuscript, the author's narrative remains unfinished. German (Nikolai Stepanovich Ryashentsev; 1884–1937), Bishop of Vyaznikovsky, vicar of the Vladimir diocese. In 1906 he graduated from the Kazan Theological Academy with a candidate's degree in theology. Closest friend from the Theological Academy of Archbishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky). After 1917, they compiled an akathist to the blessed Prince Daniel. From June 22, 1912 to 1917 - rector of Bethany Seminary with the rank of archimandrite. Hilarion (Vladimir Alekseevich Troitsky; 1886–1929), Archbishop of Vereisky, Holy Martyr. 1st master's student of the LXV course (1906–1910), left as a professor's fellow. Professor Extraordinary (1913) of the first Chair of New Testament Scripture (1911–1921). In the summer of 1917 he served as rector of the MDA. In 1917–1918 member of the Holy Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. He was arrested several times. He died in a prison hospital in Leningrad after contracting typhus. Nicholas (Feodosius Nikiforovich Mogilevsky; 1877–1955), Metropolitan of Alma-Ata and Kazakhstan. 31st master's student LXVI course (1907–1911). From 1911 to 1912, assistant inspector of the Moscow Theological Academy. Then he was an inspector at Poltava and Chernigov seminaries. On October 26, 1919, he was consecrated Bishop of Starodub, vicar of the Chernigov diocese. On June 5, 1945 he was appointed Archbishop of Alma-Ata. He was never a bishop of Mogilev, but bore the surname “Mogilevsky”. Bartholomew (Nikolai Fedorovich Remov; 1888–1935), archbishop. 1st master's student of the LXVII course (1908–1912), ordained a hieromonk in 1912. Since September 1912, associate professor of the Department of Old Testament, since 1916, extraordinary professor. In 1921, the rector of the Vysoko-Petrovsky Monastery in Moscow, was consecrated Bishop of Sergius, vicar of the Moscow diocese. Archbishop since 1934, shot. Muretov Mitrofan Dmitrievich (1851–1917), emeritus professor, doctor of theology (1893). 1st undergraduate of the Theological Department of the XXXII course (1873–1877). Since 1878 he taught at the Moscow Academy of Arts in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. Matthew (Oleinikov), hieromonk, master of the 1st.XXI course (1912–1916), subsequently shot in Astrakhan. Rozov Grigory, graduate of the 1st and 21st year (1912–1916). Pavlin (Petr Kuzmich Kroshechkin; 1879–1937), Archbishop of Mogilev. Master's student LXXI course (1912–1916). Since 1895, novice of the Sarov Hermitage. Since 1905 - in the Moscow Novospassky Monastery, he continued to be registered there even while studying at the MDA, in 1920-1921 he was its vicar. In 1914 he was a hierodeacon. In 1921 he was consecrated Bishop of Rila. In 1937 he was shot along with a group of clergy in the Kemerovo camp. Somov Nikolai Ivanovich (1886–1980), 26th master's student of the LXVI course (1907–1911), assistant inspector of the MDA (1912–1915), then transferred to Tambov, from 1918 he taught Russian at school. Remezov Alexander Vasilievich (1889–1917), 7th master's student of the LXVIII course (1909–1913), acting. O. Associate Professor in the Department of History and Exposure of Russian Sectarianism (1913–1915). In May 1915, with the highest permission, he entered the Moscow Alexander Military School, and then entered active military service. He died in a hospital in France, where he ended up with the expeditionary force of General Ya. G. Zhilinsky. See above, n. 25. Nikolai (Mogilevsky) On December 11, 1912, he was appointed to the Poltava Seminary, under Volkov he was half of the academic year. Joasaph (Alexey Stepanovich Shishkovsky-Drylevsky; 1888–1935), archbishop. 17th master of the LXVIII course (1909–1913). From 1913 to 1919 assistant inspector. In 1921 he was consecrated Bishop of Kashinsky, vicar of the Tver diocese. This refers to Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who was the rector of the MDA in the rank of archimandrite from 1891 to 1895. See the latest publications and studies, which provide the main bibliography: Forgotten pages of Russian imyaslaviya. Sat. documents and publications on the Athos events of 1910–1913. and the name-glorification movement in 1910–1918. M., 2001; Hilarion (Alfeev), bishop. The sacred secret of the Church. Introduction to the history and problems of the Imiaslav disputes. T.1–2. St. Petersburg, 2002; Name-glory. Anthology. M., 2002; Dimitry Leskin, priest. Dispute about the Name of God. St. Petersburg, 2004. Anonymous preface “From the Editor”, belonging to the priest Pavel Florensky, to the book: Anthony (Bulatovich), Hieroschim. “Apology of faith in the Name of God and in the Name of Jesus.” M.: Religious and Philosophical Library, 1913. p. VII–XIV. For a collection of materials by priest Pavel Florensky dedicated to name-glorification, see: Pavel Florensky, priest. Works in four volumes. T. 3 (1). M., 1999. He died on March 11, 1917, when Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov) had already graduated from the Academy. Glagolev Sergei Sergeevich (1865–1937), ordinary professor (1903). 2nd Master of the XLIV course (1885–1889). From 1901 he was also a professor at the Higher Women's Courses; is this where the talk about him as a “lover of women” comes from? Vorontsov Evgeniy Aleksandrovich (1867–1925), archpriest, extraordinary professor (1910–1919) in the department of Hebrew language with biblical archeology. 2nd master's student of the 2nd year (1893–1897). Ordained a priest by celibacy. Rozhdestvensky Dmitry Vasilievich (1864–1926), archpriest, extraordinary professor (1912–1919) in the department of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament. Since 1923, renovationist bishop. This means “Memorandum”. See: BV5–6. 2005–2006. pp.463–474. The defense of the master's thesis of priest Pavel Florensky took place on May 19, 1914. The rector, Bishop Theodore, acted as the third opponent. Bishop Theodore’s review was sincerely commendable: “As a catechetical word for those standing “in the church courtyard” - and so the author himself asks to look at his book (p. 3) - the book is executed beautifully. As a theological and philosophical work, the author’s book is Orthodox from beginning to end” (Bishop Theodore. “On Spiritual Truth. The Experience of Orthodox Theodicy (“The Pillar and Establishment of Truth”). The Book of Priest P. Florensky." M., 1912 // BV. 1914. T. 2. No. 5. p. 140–181). We are talking about the following passage from the book “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” (M., 1914. pp. 323–324): “The mind of a thing is, from the point of view of the creature, that act through which the creature renounces its selfhood, comes out of itself, and through which it finds its affirmation in God, as self-exhausting; in other words, the mind of a thing is, from the point of view of the creature, love for God and the resulting vision of God, a private idea of ​​Him, a conditional idea of ​​the Unconditional. From the point of view of the existence of the Divine, the mind of the creature is the unconditional idea of the conditional, the idea of God of a particular thing - that act by which God, in the ineffable Self-abasement of His infinity and absoluteness, along with the Divine content of His Divine thought, deigns to think about the finite and limited, brings into the fullness of being of the Trinity the meager half-being of the creature and grants it self-existence and self-determination, i.e. e. puts the creature, as it were, on a par with Himself; from God's point of view, the mind of the creature is God's self-abasing love for the creature. By an indescribable act (in which the ineffable humility of Divine love and the incomprehensible boldness of created love come into contact with each other and contribute to each other), entering into the life of the Divine Trinity, which stands above order (for the number “3” has no order), this love-idea-monad, this fourth hypostatic element in relation to itself causes a difference in order - κατά τάξιν - The Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, which favors this relationship between Itself and His creation and the resulting definition of Itself as a creature, and thus “depletes” or “empties” Itself of absolute attributes. While remaining omnipotent, God treats His creation as if he were not omnipotent: he does not force the creature, but convinces, does not force, but asks. Remaining “one” in themselves, the hypostases make themselves “other” in relation to the creature. The latter is revealed in the nature of providential activity, both in each individual life and, especially, in three successive Testaments with the entire world. In other words, these three Testaments, revealing themselves educationally and preliminary in the personal life of the monad, ontogenetically, are repeated completely in the history of all creation, phylogenetically.” Archimandrite Nikanor (Kudryavtsev) sharply criticized the chapter “Sophia” in the magazine “Missionary Review” (1916. No. 1:2), not paying attention to the fact that in this chapter Florensky’s terminology is not dogmatic, but religious-philosophical in nature. Regarding his criticism, Father Paul wrote in “Philosophy of Cult”: “But before doing this, it is timely to pay attention to the very terms οὐσία and ὑπόστασις in their anthropological application. These terms have long been forgotten; even those who have gone through theological school are perplexed when they hear them applied to anything other than the doctrine of God. Thus, one critic, zealous beyond reason, was indignant at my “quadrupling” of the Trinity on the grounds that I called Sophia, the wisdom of God, hypostasis in the Trinity, although, according to the definition of the fathers, for example, St. John of Damascus, hypostasis is individual, μεϱικόν, individual, ἄτομον, and this term applicable not only to people, but even to animals (Philos chapters. X, XI, XII. 1913. Vol. 1. Translated by Bronzova). Meanwhile, from the oblivion of these terms, many confusions and misunderstandings of religious and philosophical thought are born” (Pavel Florensky, priest. Collected Works. Philosophy of Cult. M., 2004. pp. 138–139). Andreev Feodor Konstantinovich (1887–1929), archpriest. 1st Master's student of the VXVIII course (1909–1913). Before the MDA, he completed a real school and three courses at the Institute of Civil Engineers, then took a seminar course as an external student. Candidate's essay – “Yu. F. Samarin as a theologian and philosopher” (wrote under the guidance of priest Pavel Florensky). In 1914–1918 – Associate Professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in the Department of Systematic Philosophy and Logic. From 1919 to 1921 he taught Russian literature at the Mikhailovsky School in Petrograd. In 1920–1923 taught apologetics and patrolology at theological courses. From 1922 to 1927 - a priest in Kazan, then in the Sergius Artillery Cathedral in Petrograd. In 1927 he was elevated to the rank of archpriest. From 1927 to 1928 he served in the Cathedral of the Resurrection ("Savior on Spilled Blood") in Leningrad. Author of the text “Deposition” of the Leningrad clergy and laity from Metropolitan Sergius. The ideological leader of Josephiteism. See: Fateev V. Archpriest Theodore Andreev, friend and confessor of Fr. Pavel Florensky // Entelechy. Kostroma, 2000. pp. 78–85. Svetlov Pavel Yakovlevich (1861–1945), archpriest, professor of theology at Kyiv University. 2nd Master's student of the XLI course (1882–1886), left as a professor's fellow. He was a supporter of the establishment of theological faculties at Russian universities. In 1896 he was awarded the title of Master of Theology for his work “The Meaning of the Cross in the Work of Christ” (Kyiv, 1893). In 1902 Doctor of Theology. Tuberovsky Alexander Mikhailovich (1881–1937), extraordinary (1917) professor in the Department of Dogmatic Theology, priest (took the priesthood in 1922–1924). He served in the church in Makkaveevo, Kasimovsky district, Ryazan province, until his arrest on September 26, 1937. He was shot among prisoners within the Ryazan region. Ivanov Sergei Vasilievich, graduate of the LXX course (1911–1915). Smirnov Sergei Ivanovich (1870–1916), ordinary professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in the Department of History of the Russian Church (1906–1916), doctor of church history (1914). 2nd master's student, L course (1891–1895). Strakhov Vladimir Nikolaevich (1883–1938), archpriest, extraordinary professor in the 2nd department of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. 1st undergraduate LXII course (1903–1907). From 1917 to 1930, priest of the Moscow Trinity on the Sheets of the Church. Teacher and rector of the MDA (since May 1922) during her Moscow period. Shot in Ulyanovsk. His wife Ksenia Vladimirovna, nee Sokolova, is the daughter of a priest of the Moscow Nativity Monastery. Panteleimon (Uspensky Dmitry Polikarpovich; 1886–1918), hieromonk, acting. Doctor of Associate Professor at the 2nd Department of Patrology (1912–1917). 1st master's student LXVI course (1907–1911). Hieromonk Panteleimon died on New Athos from tuberculosis. Sobolevsky Sergei Ivanovich (1864–1963), ordinary professor in the department of Greek language and its literature, was also a professor at Moscow University. Editor of the 3rd edition of “Ascetic Words” by St. Isaac the Syrian (Sergiev Posad, 1911). Brother of A.I. Sobolevsky. Author of repeatedly reprinted textbooks on ancient languages. Sokolov Pavel Petrovich (1863–1923), extraordinary professor in the Department of Psychology (1906–1919), private associate professor at Moscow University (1908–1911, professor at Moscow University (since 1919), 1st undergraduate student of the XLIII course (1884–1888). Bogoslovsky Mikhail Mikhailovich (1867–1929), ordinary professor in the department of Russian civil history (1912–1919), professor at Moscow University (since 1911). Vinogradov Vasily Petrovich (1885–1968), protopresbyter (in exile since 1943), acting. Doctor of Associate Professor in the Department of Pastoral Theology (1910–1916), professor since August 1917, 2nd Master's student of the LXIV course (1905–1909). Ordained priest of St. Patriarch Tikhon on February 3, 1922 Gumilevsky Ilya Vasilievich (1881–1881), archpriest, extraordinary professor in the department of Liturgics (1913–1919). 6th master's student LXII course (1903–1907). Subsequently, he belonged to those who did not remember, lived in seclusion in an apartment in the center of Moscow, and, according to some, not entirely verified data, became a monk with the name Sergius. Protasov Nikolay Dmitrievich (1886–1940), acting. Doctor of Associate Professor in the Department of Church Archeology (1912–1917), extraordinary professor (since 1917). 3rd undergraduate LXVI course (1907–1911). Orlov, Anatoly Petrovich (1879–1937), archpriest, rector of the MDA (from September 10, 1917 to April 1922), with ordination to the priesthood and elevation to the rank of archpriest. Extraordinary (1909) Professor in the Department of History and Refutation of Western Confessions in connection with the history of the Western Church from 1054 to the present. 1st master's student of the LIX course (1900–1904). Later he served as a priest. Shot. Vvedensky, Dimitry Ivanovich (1873–1954), ordinary (1914) professor (1909) in the department of Biblical history in connection with the history of the Ancient World, Doctor of Theology (1914). 2nd Master's student of the LVIII course (1894–1898). Lysogorsky Nikolai Ivanovich (1868–1919), associate professor (1912–1916), full professor (1916–1919) in the department of History and exposure of the Russian schism. In 1895, candidate of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Tunitsky Nikolai Leonidovich (1876–1934), extraordinary professor (1913–1918) in the department of Russian literature. 2nd Master's student of the LVIII course (1899–1903). Received the title of master in 1913 for his dissertation “St. Clement, Bishop of Slovenia. His life and educational activities" (Sergiev Posad, 1913). The book was awarded the full Count D.N. Tolstoy Prize by the Academy of Sciences. August 22, 1917 to March 1918 Chairman of the City Duma of Sergiev Posad. In 1918–1922 Head of the Department of Slavic Studies at Kyiv University. From 1922 to 1933 he taught at universities in Moscow, Tver and Nizhny Novgorod. At the beginning of 1934, he was arrested as a member of the Russian National Party, released on his own recognizance, and died almost immediately after his release. Smirnov Ioann Mikhailovich (1879–1937), priest, acting. Doctor of Associate Professor (1912–1918), extraordinary professor (1918–1919) in the department of Church Slavonic and Russian languages ​​with paleography. Later he served as a priest. Shot. Rosseikin Fedor Mikhailovich (1879–1951), extraordinary (1917) professor in the Department of History of the Greek-Eastern Church. 1st master's student of the LX course (1901–1905). Since 1919 he taught at secondary schools in Stary Oskol, Sofrino, Pushkino. Since 1943, research fellow in the Byzantine Studies group at the Institute of History of the USSR Academy of Sciences. His last name was also written with an “a”. Ignatius (Sadkovsky Sergei Sergeevich) (1887–1938), Bishop of Skopinsky, holy martyr, assistant academic librarian (1911–1918), elder brother of Hierom. Gerasim (Sadkovsky). 23rd Master of the LXVI course (1907–1911). Consecrated Bishop of Belevsky on April 5, 1920 Popov Konstantin Mikhailovich (1872–1954), librarian of the MDA (1898–?), was at the MDA library until 1933, when its collections were transferred to the Rumyantsev Library (RSL). Active student of the L course (1891–1895). Volkov’s middle name is mixed up in the manuscript and he is called “Petrovich.” Ivanov Boris Ivanovich, graduate of the LXXI course of the MDA (1912–1916). Kolchitsky Nikolai Fedorovich (1892–1961), protopresbyter, rector of the Moscow Patriarchal Cathedral of the Epiphany (since 1923), graduate of the LXX course of the Moscow Academy of Arts (1911–1915). Sikov Maxim Andreevich (1889–1937), priest, holy martyr, graduate of the LXX course of the MDA (1911–1915). Shot. Voznesensky Fedor, a graduate of the LXX course of the MDA (1911–1915), then a priest of the Moscow Kazan Cathedral. Alexander (Alexander Ivanovich Shchukin; 1891–1937), Archbishop of Semipalatinsk. Graduate of the LXX course of the MDA (1911–1915). Consecrated in 1923 as Bishop of Lyskovsky, vicar of the Nizhny Novgorod diocese. Shot. Arkhip(p)ov Petr Ivanovich, graduate of the LXX course of the MDA (1911–1915), Don Cossack. Tikhomirov Vladimir, graduate of the LXXI course of the MDA (1912–1916). Alexander Pikunov, a graduate of the LXX course of the MDA (1911–1915), studied a year earlier. Solovyov Ivan Aleksandrovich, graduate of the LXXI course of the MDA (1912–1916). Valerian (Rudich) (1889–† after 1937), Bishop of Cherepovets, vicar of the Novgorod diocese. Graduate of the LXXI course of the MDA (1912–1916). Consecrated Bishop of Proskurovsky, vicar of the Kamenets-Podolsk diocese, in 1921. In 1937, he was arrested in exile in Karakalpakstan. Peter (Nikolai Nikolaevich Rudnev) (1891–1938), Archbishop of Samara. Graduate of the LXXI course of the MDA (1912–1916). He was the rector of the Moscow Simonov Monastery. Consecrated Bishop of Sergius, Vicar of the Moscow Diocese, in 1928. This refers to the book by A. Tuberovsky “The Resurrection of Christ (the experience of the Orthodox-mystical ideology of dogma).” (SP, 1916) and “Review” of priest Pavel Florensky about this work, submitted to the Council of the MDA for the degree of master of theology (published: Priest Pavel Florensky. Collected works in four volumes. T. 2. M., 1996. P. 192–277). See the preface to the notes by A. G. Kazaryan: “Striking in its depth and extreme thoroughness, “Review...” seems extremely important for characterizing the views of Florensky himself; it allows us to better understand not only the later theological works of Fr. Paul, written after the work “The Pillar and Grounds of Truth,” but also this book itself. It may even seem that in the “Review...” Fr. Paul struggles with himself, speaking out against illogicalism, subjectivism, psychologism and inappropriate intimate tone when discussing theological issues. In fact, Florensky was and remains a supporter of theology as a “rigorous science,” and he associates this rigor with language, with the articulation of theological concepts and terms. The question worthy of attention is why A. M. Tuberovsky was subjected to such merciless criticism. In the “Review...” there are no definite and clear references to others - with the exception of M. M. Tareev - modern representatives of the point of view under discussion. Nevertheless, a number of comments indicate that Florensky opposes not only the personal, individual errors of the author of “The Resurrection of Christ,” but also against an entire direction, which in this case represents Tuberovsky, a direction that is emerging more and more clearly in Russian theological thought. In fact, this is renovationism with a program for the revision of “scholastic theology,” understood so broadly that the entire patristic heritage is included in it. This experience of reassessment of values, which also affected Russian theological literature, was essentially a transfer to the soil of theology of the themes and methods of the “new religious consciousness” - a movement that had been spreading in Russia since the beginning of the century. Tuberovsky’s thoughts seem to bear little resemblance to the religious and philosophical schemes of D.S. Merezhkovsky and N.A. Berdyaev about the Third Testament and the third revelation as the revelation of the Holy Spirit, but also in Tuberovsky we find a “fundamentally new revelation,” which constitutes the first and main thesis of his “Resurrection of Christ.” Tuberovsky does not hide his sympathies: in philosophy - this is the teaching of James about the “mystical mind”, in theology - the works of A. D. Belyaev (his teacher), P. Ya. Svetlov and, in particular, M. M. Tareev, whose work “Philosophy of Evangelical History” he calls “a brilliant creation” and “an exceptional fact of Russian Theology” (pp. 87–89). In the October-December issue of the Theological Bulletin for 1917, Tuberovsky published an article with the significant title “Renewal of Humanity.” Without dwelling on the political side of this “pink Christianity”, which justifies the events of February 1917, we note the internal connection of this vague ideology with its “dynamic theology”. A.M. Tuberovsky did not yet know that he was destined to become one of the many victims of this “update.” The meeting of the Academy Council, at which Tuberovsky's master's thesis was discussed, took place on May 2, 1916. During the voting, with the exception of two - priest. Florensky (the first reviewer) and Priest. Gumilevsky, all members of the Council, including prof. M.D. Muretov (second reviewer), supported the proposal of the rector of the Academy, Bishop Theodore, “on the need to correct the dissertation not in the supposed second, but in the real first edition” (Theological Bulletin, February-March, 1917. P. 49). According to our information, A. M. Tuberovsky did not obey the decision of the Academy Council and did not redo his work. A. M. Tuberovsky’s book “The Resurrection of Christ” was published in Sergiev Posad in 1916 with a circulation of one thousand copies. The events that took place in the country and in the MDA since 1917 actually made the decision of the Academy Council invalid. And in March 1917, Professor Mitrofan Dmitrievich Muretov died. The master's debate was scheduled for October 1917, and Professor M. became the second reviewer instead of M.D. Muretov. M. Tareev. The repeated master's debate, which took place over two days (October 10 and 11, 1917), was one of the most heated in the entire history of the MDA. After confirmation of his master's degree, Tuberovsky was elected supernumerary extraordinary professor in November 1917, and his work “The Resurrection of Christ” was awarded the Metropolitan Prize. Makaria (289 rubles). Florensky received exactly the same prize for his famous master’s work” (Ibid. pp. 750–751. See also “Principles”, 1993. No. 4. pp. 77–82). The “Archive of Priest Pavel Florensky” contains a manuscript (19 pages) prepared by Fr. Pavel to the dispute of A. M. Tuberovsky. We present the beginning of this manuscript: it sheds light on the scandal associated with A. M. Tuberovsky’s complaint against the priest. P. Florensky (about the “ugly duckling”, which was the reason for this scandal). “To the dispute of A. M. Tuberovskyˆ1917. X.9. Serg. Village, morning. 1. Dear A.M.! Contrary to the custom of our Academy, according to which the eldest in age and service must object first, and then the youngest, I have to speak first. The reason for this is Mich’s request, persistent request. M-cha (Tareeva), who fears that my objections may drag on and, if I speak second, will tire him, which is why I need to speak first. The power of logic in this request is undeniably great. I have to get tired of M.M.'s objections. But, however, I hope that I will not be so tired that I will not act as a private opponent after M.M. I reprimand myself in advance for the right to speak with Fr. chairman [nrzb.]. But the trouble is that, being the first, I am thereby forced to make a commendable introduction about your book. A role for which, as it turned out, I was not very capable. You remember that in my review, trying to explain and shield some of the shortcomings of your work, I had the imprudence to call it an “ugly duckling.” You deigned to be offended by me. This misdemeanor of mine was also reported to the auditor with the statement that my review was written deliberately in such a way that the Holy Synod allegedly should have denied you a degree on the basis of it. The latter, to put it correctly, “is not true.” But I must repent that, in fact, in my review I tried to fend off opinions from the objections I heard to your book, acted as your defender, instead of being neutral, and for this I was punished. As for the “ugly duckling”, I really don’t understand why you independently came to understand this comparison as offensive to yourself? After all, you remember Andersen’s fairy tale about a young swan, hatched among ducklings, who was awkward and most importantly did not look like ducklings, and for this received contemptuous glances, and then turned into a swan. Later I realized that such a comparison was tactless; but not at all in relation to you, for to be a young swan, even if offended, is flattering to everyone, but in relation to our comrades, as if you really were walking among your colleagues, like a swan among ducks. That’s why I thought I’d apologize for this comparison of mine and take it back. So, we are all ducklings, but you are nothing more than a duckling, but by no means a little swan” (“Beginnings”, 1993, no. 4. pp. 82–83). Another description of the “Tuberovsky debate” has been preserved in the memoirs of student S. A. Volkov. “The most interesting was Tuberovsky’s dispute. This dispute lasted two days - October 10 and 11 (O.S.). In terms of its duration, it was the only one in the entire history of the Academy! At first, professors Muretov and Tareev were appointed reviewers, but after Muretov’s death he was replaced by Florensky, who delivered his reviews on the first day of the debate. My friends - monks Theodosius, Pankraty and Porfiry - told me in advance that this debate would be very interesting. Although Tuberovsky set his task to give a mystical apology for the dogma of the Resurrection of Christ, Tuberovsky’s understanding of mysticism itself was not the same as Florensky’s. The latter was based mainly on patristic mysticism, while Tuberovsky proceeded primarily from philosophical mysticism, based on the works of Bergson, Bougru, James and other Western thinkers. In addition, he was considered a student and, as it were, a successor of Tareev in the field of theology. Father Pavel first pointed out minor errors and inaccuracies of a factual and stylistic nature, and then moved on to examine the dissertation author’s speculations. I remember only the general impression of Florensky’s review, in which he reproached Tuberovsky for a somewhat superficial understanding of mysticism, for a dry, purely professorial (in the German way) approach to this problem, for the insufficient use of Eastern mysticism, especially Orthodox, which made his work, according to Florensky’s remark, similar to “The Variety of Religious Experience” by W. James, who carefully studied the subjective religious experience of even insignificant sectarian leaders, but did not touch at all on the riches that are in the “Philokalia” and in general in patristic writing. Perhaps I am expressing Florensky’s thoughts inaccurately here, but the almost half-century break made me forget a lot, and even more so the details of abstract thought and creative understanding. On the first day, Arseny Novgorodsky presided over the debate. Throughout the day, a review was heard from one Florensky. The continuation of the dispute was postponed to the next day. Archbishop Arseny was no longer present at the continuation of the debate. “Vladyka probably thought,” Glagolev later told me, “that the dispute would be “turned off quickly” in some four or five hours, as in his time, but it turned out that the “autonomous” Academy wanted to show that it “had not run out of gunpowder in its flasks” and staged such a verbal debate that not only academic old-timers, but also the annals will not remember.” The distinguished guest, I think, may have been pleased later, or perhaps regretted that he did not stay, having learned about the events of the second day... This day began with Tareev’s speech with his review. It's worth noting a small detail. Typically, during such presentations, both reviewers sat side by side at a small table near an ancient Elizabethan tiled stove, opposite the master's student who stood on the lectern in front of them. But already on the first day, Florensky sat at this table alone. Another reviewer, Tareev, sat at a large table with the rest of the professors. When, on the second day, Tareev sat down at the reviewers’ table, he also found himself alone, since Florensky sat down, as he had the day before, together with the professors. This time, the rector, A.P. Orlov, who had recently become archpriest and was elected by the Council, presided. Tareev began his review by indicating those sections and individual thoughts of the dissertation that he considered incorrect. There were quite a few of them, although everyone considered Tuberovsky to be his like-minded person. But then Tareev moved on to discussing fundamental problems and spoke generally about the nature of Russian theology, noting its positive aspects, as well as its shortcomings. In part, these were the same thoughts that he published in the article “New Theology.” There he says: “Leontyev openly placed the patristic teaching above the word of God. From the most recent times, a spectacular example of the crafty application of the principle of the fatherland is the book of the priest Florensky “The Pillar and Ground of Truth.” Both in the title of the book and in its text, the author advertises church patristic sources, but his book in its content does not have a single feature of Christian philosophy: it is nothing more than spiritualistic philosophy. Under the flag of the church and fathers, he sets out only his philosophy. In Florensky, according to the fair observation of his reviewer Archimandrite Nikanor, “the whole matter comes down to personal discretion in the matter of choosing even the fathers,” so that “its external coincidence with the letter of individual passages of the works of liturgical and patriotic writing of the church, passed through the prism of their personal understanding or interpretation by our author, hardly guarantees the good quality of the theology of Fr. Florensky." And so Tareev, speaking about Russian theology over the last century, credited him with his desire for utmost clarity, the use of methods of critical thinking, and his avoidance of pseudo-mystical movements that have been “fashionable” in recent years, such as theosophy and anthroposophy. “A sad exception among all scientific theological works is the book of priest Florensky - “The Pillar and Ground of Truth”! – he said emphatically. Florensky’s friend and like-minded person F.K. Andreev immediately turned to the rector (A.P. Orlov): “Father Anatoly! I ask you to protect Pavel Alexandrovich from undeserved insults!” Father Rector stood up and, turning to Tareev, said: “Mikhail Mikhailovich, I ask you in your review to stay closer to his topic, to the consideration of the dissertation of Alexander Mikhailovich Tuberovsky, without getting personal and without affecting individuals.” Tareev waved away, as if from an annoying fly, and continued his speech in the same spirit, without naming names for some time. But suddenly the following phrase burst through his mind: “The impudence with which priest Florensky...”. He didn’t have time to finish his sentence when Andreev exclaimed a second time and in a sharp tone: “Father Anatoly!”... But then he was interrupted by Florensky, who stood up: “Father Rector! I must say that despite the shortcomings I have indicated, I still consider the dissertation of Alexander Mikhailovich Tuberovsky worthy of the academic degree of Master of Theology and I must also declare that I consider my further presence at this colloquium completely unnecessary!” After that, he quickly left the professor’s table and headed towards the exit from the assembly hall. Immediately, professors-monks and priests, as well as secular professors who belonged to the anti-Tareev group, stood up behind him and left the hall. The rector, who began to say something, stopped his speech and followed them. Then the rest of the professors stood up and also left the hall. The last one to emerge slowly, alone, was Tareev. At this time there was noisy applause from the students filling the hall. Even then I could not understand to whom the students expressed their sympathy - Florensky or Tareev. And then, no matter how I asked others about this, I heard the most contradictory opinions. The debate was interrupted. The students also began to disperse, talking and arguing excitedly. Then I found out that in the professor’s room Tareev was asked (by whom, I don’t know exactly, it seems to be the Academy Council) to apologize to Florensky. He apologized, in what terms, again, I don’t know, but they said that the apology was such that it not only did not improve, but, on the contrary, worsened the situation. Somehow the colloquium ended in the professor's room, and A. M. Tuberovsky, deeply upset by the incident, was awarded the title of master. This is how this unique dispute of its kind passed and ended!” (quoted from the author’s typewritten copy of “Memoirs of the MDA” by S. A. Volkov). Hieromonk Varnava (Belyaev), see note. 6. Simeon (Kholmogorov) (1872–1937), archimandrite. 1st master's student of the XLIV course (1899–1903) of the Kazan Theological Academy, studied 3 years younger than Theodore (Pozdeevsky), from 1906 he was an inspector under his rector at the Tambov Seminary, and then his successor. April 7, 1907 at about 9 o'clock, Saturday, at Archimandrite. An assassination attempt was made on Simeon. A shot in the back damaged his spine, and for the rest of his life he remained bedridden, which did not stop the Bolsheviks from shooting him. A close friend of Bishop Theodore, he stayed nearby both in Sergiev Posad and subsequently in the Moscow Danilov Monastery. The attitude towards him expressed here is affected by P. Volkov’s characteristic underestimation of asceticism and monasticism in general. A distortion of an expression that goes back to St. Seraphim of Sarov “My joy, my joy, acquire a peaceful spirit, and thousands of people will be saved around you.” Compare: “Memorandum” (BV 5–6. 2005–2006. pp. 465–471), as well as the end of part I “Fear of God” // Pavel Florensky, priest. Collected works. Philosophy of cult. M., 2004. P.48–49. Wed. emotional memories of the MDA of Archbishop Theodore as retold by A.F. Losev (recorded in 1971): “In the early 30s, I met here in one place, not too official, the former rector of the Theological Academy, Bishop Theodore. Reactionary, firm, all the seminarians trembled. He was shot in 1905. At the trial of the shooter, Bishop Theodore only said: “I ask that this resolution not be accepted, and that the young man be released.” He said so authoritatively, so firmly that this young man was released, and he went on as if nothing had happened. The company in which I found myself with Bishop Theodore was not very official. «Как Вы такого декадента и символиста, как Флоренский, поставили редактором «Богословского вестника», – я спросил, – и дали ему заведовать кафедрой философии?» - “I know everything. Символист, связи с Вячеславом Ивановым, с Белым... Но это почти единственный верующий человек во всей Академии!» - “How so?” - “Judge for yourself. Theology is read by Professor Sokolov. Patrology – Ivan Vasilyevich Popov. Psychology of Ivantsov. Настолько все захвачены наукой, немецкой, тюбингенской, что начинают комментировать текст Священного Писания – и разносят его до основания. For example, in the Gospel there is a phrase: “Baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son.” Тюбингенская школа говорит: позднейшая вставка, результат редактирования в IV веке, на Втором Вселенском Соборе. And so on. Получается в конце концов, что весь евангелист состоит из одних вставок: это – отсюда, это – оттуда, это – из Индии, то – из Египта. Shame! Но я Вам скажу, что недавно найдена армянская рукопись II века, там эти слова имеются... Florensky is the only believer of all.” - “Yes, he’s a decadent and a secular man!” - “Yes! But I personally approved “The Pillar and Ground of Truth” for defense as a master’s thesis. Barely defended himself, he went specially to Kyiv and achieved acceptance. And I deliberately appointed him to the department, because he is the only believer in the Academy. The years 1905–1911 were generally God’s punishment. When I became the rector of the Academy and became acquainted with how teaching was conducted, I felt bad. Such incredible Protestant idealism is worse than any Tübingenism. Tareev, for example, writes “The Self-Consciousness of Christ.” Self-awareness! What was His personality? It doesn’t say anything about it.” Here's an episode for you. Interesting? Here is the Theological Academy on the eve of its collapse. Bishop Theodore is smart. “Metropolitan Macarius, an old man of eighty years old, came to the Academy. I understood theology. But his problem was that he was a seminarian and did not receive a higher education. Nevertheless, he gradually reached the rank of metropolitan. He was afraid of the Theological Academy. Still, he came and expressed his desire to attend classes. With trembling hands, I give him the schedule. What will he choose? And there’s nothing to choose, because this is a den! Dungeon! He chooses “psychology”. I gasped. Psychology is taught by Professor Pavel Petrovich Sokolov. Vladyka thought that they would talk about the soul, something important. He came, sat, listened. Ну, во-первых, душа набок, никакой души нет, «мы изучаем явления психики», вульгарный материализм. Today's lecture is tactile perception. And off he went - pins, needles, receptors, sensations. Conducts experiments, calls students. And so the whole lecture. We left. I see the Metropolitan walking with his head bowed, his face gray. “Holy Lord! – говорю ему (все архиереи – владыки),– я вижу, у Вас неблагоприятное впечатление. Come to me, I'll tell you everything. Pay no attention, sir, to these fools. These are not professors of the Theological Academy - these are fools of the Theological Academy. And how dare he express all this dirty tricks in front of you! And he knows that you are his boss!” “Yes, yes... I, poor thing, don’t understand...” says Macarius. “And there’s nothing to understand here! It’s all nonsense!” So the Metropolitan went offended and upset; I couldn't console him. After all, in order to fight Sokolov, all the bastard must be dispersed. So this Sokolov remained at the department. And - until the revolution itself, when the revolution dispersed him.” This is the state of collapse on the eve of the revolution! Yes, Florensky is a symbolist, but in his faith he is a caring person, a seeker. The old is gone; Pushkin, Lermontov, they spoke the truth, but they were around a long time ago, and here it is the twentieth century. The official Church repeats the old things, the intellectuals have moved away from the faith, but Florensky was close to all the decadents and was looking for new paths in the faith.” So it is in the text. Need: Melnikov-Pechersky, “In the Woods” and “On the Mountains” are not one novel, but two different ones. Vitya is the younger brother of Hieromonk Pavel (Volkov). About S.I. Smirnov, see note. The note is dated according to P.A. Florensky’s inscription on the envelope: “1916.XI.28. Serg. Pos." The letter is addressed to the eldest son of Father Pavel Vasily (1911–1956). Vasily’s name day is January 30, on the feast of the Three Saints. Undoubtedly, a thought learned through Father Pavel Florensky. See his work: Names // Collection. Op. in four volumes. T. 3 (2). M., 1999. pp. 187–189. Katya and Nina are the children of priest Alexander Mikhailovich Giatsintov (brother of Anna, wife of Father Pavel), who at that time lived in the Florensky house in Sergiev Posad. Kira (1915–1982) is the second son of Father Pavel. Let's accept, hierome. Pavel Volkova: “Here I consider it necessary to make a small note. The fact is that until very recently I did not speak publicly either in print or spoken word. It still seemed impossible to me to personally address diversity, the crowd, the collective. And I was afraid of such a speech, avoiding it in every possible way. The first time I gave a spoken word from the church pulpit was on September 9, 1917, when I turned 30 years old without one month (I was born on October 10 at 11 a.m.) - I spoke with the blessing of Bishop Theodore in the Danilovsky Monastery during the all-night vigil in the Church of the Holy Trinity. My mood before, during and after the sermon is interesting. I didn’t prepare much for the sermon. Vladyka told me only 4 hours before the all-night vigil. At this time there was lunch, tea and reading of the canons with an akathist. But I outlined some thoughts for myself. Before leaving, I was somewhat depressed, as if burdened. Came out. He started talking. At first it was awkward, you don’t know who you’re talking to. But then, when I saw many eyes fixed on me, in which the thirst for words was visible, I gradually gained control of myself and even felt that it was not my own strength and power to pronounce words. And in general, he said the entire sermon, almost beside himself. After the sermon I felt great relief and some kind of joy. In a word, it seems to me that I experienced the same thing that a wife in labor experiences. Only now did I tangibly feel how careful I need to be in choosing words, how attentive and vigilant I need to be to myself! On the other hand, along with the relief after the sermon, I felt a “pass”. I remembered the roof of the church, and below there was a noisy crowd and a voice saying: “Back down.” It seemed easy and tempting to me to conquer the crowd, to see them at my feet... This is what scares me. Contents of the sermon: At the beginning, I spoke about the benefits and necessity of always having in memory the lives and exploits of saints, especially in the time we are experiencing, the time of organization and reconstruction of life. What is the basis of the life of the saints and what is ours? An example of the first was provided by the MCCs now remembered. Minodora, Mitrodora and Nymphodora. Briefly reported on their lives and sufferings. The basis of their life is Christ, its goal is communion with Christ, that is, holiness. Real life has apparently deviated from both the basis and the goal of the life of the saints. However, I would like to believe that the muddy stream of time will pass along with time, and the river of Russian life will enter its present channel, paved by the lives and exploits of the saints. Let everyone look into his soul and determine the basis and goals of his life, and resist the general flow of time with his personal feat and thereby contribute to the general goal of Russian life to enter its own channel. Let each of us, having before our eyes an example of true life in the person of the three sisters, try to follow the true path and experience everything that is happening now in the name of Christ, then he will not be deprived of consolation here and in the future life of a reward from God, to whom be glory forever. Amen". Rudakov A.P. Essays on Byzantine culture based on Greek hagiography. M., 1917. Anna Mikhailovna (1889–1973) – wife of priest Pavel Florensky. Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov (1856–1919), from the end of 1917 lived in Sergiev Posad. Wasn’t she present in 1912 at the congress of Edinoverie clergy as the abbess of the Intercession Monastery in the city of Semenov? However, among monastic circles the name Margarita was quite common. The Exaltation of the Cross Osinovsky women's coenobitic Edinoverie monastery was formed in 1849 under the influence of P.I. Melnikov from the Old Believer Osinovsky women's monastery in the Semyonovsky district of the Nizhny Novgorod province, near the village of Khokhloma. Now in disrepair, the only thing that reminds us of the past is the 300-year-old pine tree. Lectures on “Philosophy of Cult” were given by priest Pavel Florensky in Moscow from May 14 to June 15. Art. 1918. It should be noted that the lectures included a number of topics that were discussed, judging by letters and memoirs, by priest Pavel Florensky and hieromonk Pavel (Volkov): the doctrine of names, the Name of God, veneration of the Cross, Old Believers, their way of life and ideology, hagiology, the creation of reference books for hagiographic and liturgical literature. Probably, this refers to the “Project of the Religious and Philosophical Academy in Moscow,” which was compiled by priest Pavel Florensky and S. N. Bulgakov in June 1917. A note left by Bishop Pavel at one of the Moscow addresses where Father Pavel Florensky was staying at that time, most likely at the apartment of V.I. Lisev, not far from the Yaroslavl station. Undoubtedly, we are talking about the family of A.F. Losev. Judging by the date found in the letter (11/24), it is dated according to the old style. The envelope has not survived. The letter is dated according to the old style, since February 15th. With. - the feast of the Presentation of the Lord, which would certainly be mentioned as a congratulation. Shergin Boris Viktorovich (1893–1973), Russian writer-storyteller, Old Believer. Vasily Ivanovich - probably Lisev, a friend of the priest Pavel Florensky, one of the scientific directors of the Karbolit plant in the 1920s.