I. Воспоминания и документы

S. N. Bulgakov. Autobiographical 65 The homeland is a sacred secret of every person, just like his birth. By the same mysterious and unsearchable connections with which she is connected through her mother’s womb with her ancestors and attached to the entire human tree, he is connected through his homeland with Mother Earth and with all of God’s creation. Man exists in humanity and nature. And the image of his existence is given in his birth and homeland. Each person has his own individuality and is unique in it, but equal to each other, this is a gift from God. And it includes not only the personal-qualitative “I” coming from God, but also earthly, created individuality - homeland and ancestors. And this complex is also equivalent for each person, because it is connected with his individuality. And just as you cannot want to change your individuality, you cannot change your ancestors and your homeland. A special penetration is needed, and perhaps the most difficult and deep, in order to know oneself in one’s natural individuality, to be able to love one’s own, family and homeland, to comprehend oneself in it, to recognize one’s image of God in it. People often envy those born among the stunning beauties of nature, although in the eyes of God, in the Divine Sophia, all beauties are equally stunning. There is a revelation of Sophia pre-established for everyone in his birth and in his homeland. The older I get, the more my life experience expands and deepens, the clearer the meaning of my homeland becomes for me. There I was not only born, but also originated in a grain, in my very being, so that all my subsequent, so broken and complex, life is only a series of shoots on this root. Everything, everything mine is from there. And, dying, I will return - to the same place, the same gates - birth and death. My homeland, which bears the sacred name of Livny for me, a small city in the Oryol province - it seems that I would die from the exhaustion of bliss if I saw it now - in the highlands of the Sosna River - does not shine with any beauty, rather it is even covered with ugliness, dullness, dressed not only in modest, but also poor and even dirty clothes. However, it is not deprived of what almost every land in our central Russia is not deprived of: the beauty of summer and winter, spring and autumn, sunsets and sunrises, rivers and trees. But all this is so quiet, simple, modest, imperceptible and - in its stillness - beautiful. What I loved and honored most of all in my life - unflashy, noble modesty and truth, the highest beauty and nobility of chastity, all this was given to me in the perception of my homeland. And she is also characterized by such quietness and affection as a mother. It is as soulful as a Russian song, and like it, it is filled with the poetry of music. Only you need to hear it yourself, with your inner hearing, because it does not force or shake, does not thunder or scream, but whispers its heavenly dreams in a quiet whisper. It timidly reminds us only of the lost paradise, of that supermundane monastery from which we came here. And now, when I write these lines and collect my feelings and my love for her, this voice of eternity rings in my soul. And truly one can – and should – love one’s homeland with eternal love. This is not only the country where we “first tasted the sweetness of being,” it is much more and higher: this is the country where the sky was opened to us, where we saw a vision of Jacob’s ladder 67 connecting heaven and earth. But to do this, you need to experience your homeland, perceive and hear it. Not everyone is given this; others, driven by the winds of life, leave or change their homeland before it enters their soul. I was her chosen one, I lived with her throughout my adolescence and youth, I had nothing but her at that time, and my whole life was with her and in her, and only later other, more stunning, impressions entered or other, new layers joined her (the Oryol province united with the Crimea 68), but all this was later. I was determined in my nature through Livny. I am a Leaf. I’ll try to talk about my homeland somehow, although it’s just as difficult as talking about my mother... Livny is a small (12 tons) city in the Oryol province, located on the high bank of the river. Pines 69, with the small river Livenka 70 flowing into it. The city is ancient and historical. Even during the Tatar invasions there was a fortress here, from which traces of the monastery remain in the form of the Sergius Church 71. In the graves during the construction of the neighboring church of St. George 72, extensive cemeteries were found, apparently military, although later, St. remains in graves, honored as relics. The earth was filled and consecrated with human remains, like a cemetery with a forgotten and abandoned altar. I mean that mountainous part, rising above the river, where the St. Sergius Church, near which I was born, quietly shone. The city was quite extensive, mostly made up of poor wooden houses, although in the center there were also stone ones. It was dusty and dirty. There was little vegetation, although there was a city garden and a wonderful cemetery, now turned into a park. Here and there there were small gardens at houses: we had one too, so dear, quiet, gentle, although poor, small. Our house, where I was born, was not far from the mountainous part above the river, five minutes from the St. Sergius Church. It was made of wood, had five rooms, and was expanded with extensions. It belonged to my mother's family. How many births and deaths there have been here is also an altar of ancestors. It was one-story, old, facing the corner with its many small windows. So intimate, soulful. But I don’t remember marriages being celebrated there, but I remember many, many funerals. It was alive, this house, as if part of our family body and the outpouring of the soul of our ancestors. When he had to come home from afar, he quietly hugged the wanderer and whispered to him songs of childhood... Holy cradle. Inside, everything was poor and simple (albeit above the average miserable level of Livny life), modest wooden furniture, but even a “sofa” and two “armchairs” in the living room. Everywhere there are icons and lamps burning in front of them, like a church. Around are bell towers with different ringings, near and far. It was sweet and noble music, with which the air was sanctified and the soul was quietly nourished. This modest house was fused with the soul, without conquering it. But he was still larger and higher than was given to the majority in our city, and this advantage was invariably reflected in my conscience as some kind of undeserved privilege, and it was awakened and burdened by this undeservingness, disturbed my social conscience, and gave it a commandment for life. We were city dwellers in the worst sense of the word. We had nothing positive from the city, but we were deprived and never knew the delights of village life, we never experienced an agricultural year, ploughing, mowing, harvesting, nothing, nothing. Truly, with barbaric indifference and at the same time the indifference of poverty, we never lived in the village (at the “dacha”), and - at most - I happened to spend two or three days in the village, and I languished from insomnia, from the heat, from unusual living conditions, from fleas. Even outside the city, in the forest, we gathered two or three times a summer - these gatherings were an event, and although the forest - the wonderful fairy-tale Lipovchik with the steppe flowers that we all reveled in - was three miles from the city, we went (and certainly went, and only in later years did we walk). Usually we went for a walk on the “line” (along the railway line) or in the city garden (for “music”) or “over Sosna”... Such was our barbarism. I noticed that men are so indifferent to nature, although they themselves form part of it; they treat her either as selfish masters, or what. animals (in the good and bad sense of the word). Our region is beautiful in its breadth and its fields, but poor and monotonous in natural beauty. It is mountainless and treeless - our tiny Lipovchik is just an oasis here, and you can travel dozens of miles on horseback and on trains, and “all fields, fields and fields.” There were probably beauties in the “estates” of the “landowners,” semi-mythical aristocrats who arrived in troikas, but these lands seemed like a fairy tale to us, poor priests. The beauty of nature for us was the quiet, sometimes deep rivers, with the possibility of fishing. In the summer we lived on our Sosna River, sometimes in the bathhouse, sometimes fishing, this was the most intense communication with the nature of our childhood. They continued to go fishing, although it was all inept, poor, lacking real equipment and skill. But it gave us a living breath of nature. And the same breath was given by the winter that we experienced with its marvelous sunsets, with its skates, snowballs and sleighs. And spring with its running streams, with its falling ice, crunchy and noisy, with dry patches of earth exposed from the snow, with the first grasses. Every inch of spring, every moment of the awakening of nature was measured and loved by us. And now quiet tears of love and gratitude cloud my eyes - how poor and beautiful it was, how alive. We are in nature, and nature is in us. And can it be, even with our barbaric and pauper inability to take it, can there be not enough of it? She appeared royally, quietly and beautifully and brought poetry to the soul, awakening her dreams. Like Queen Sophia, she appeared to me, inspiring and not explaining, caressing and not frightening, hidden in her Beauty and beautiful with Her. And the child’s soul forever heard, recognized, loved and surrendered to this vision. And all these children's joyful dreams were overshadowed by the heavenly music of church bells. Our Livny was Kitezh for me 73. There were Kitezh legends about our Pine, which was quickly becoming shallow and being covered by sand (due to general indifference and barbarism combined with poverty), which sang to my soul, and she sang about them. One was about the Bell, which supposedly fell off while being suspended and rolled down the mountain into the river, but sometimes hums underwater. I sang this in childish, inept verses: But the birthplace of my homeland, its shrine, was the Sergius Church, “Sergius,” as it was called for short in ordinary speech. For us, it was something as given and taken for granted as all this nature. She was beautiful, like this nature, with quiet and humble beauty. It obviously represented a remnant of the ancient style: blue with white columns, its main ancient part was touching with its intimacy and charm, it was Sergievskaya, and the main part, with the throne of the Assumption, was attached to it - the church holiday on August 15. I never thought about why Sergievo and Assumption 74 are connected here - there is a clear consonance with the Trinity-Sergius in the Lavra 75. I did not know and did not understand that this was the same Sophia Church as the Assumption Cathedral in the Lavra 76; I did not know then that I received a name, was baptized and spiritually born in the St. Sophia Church, canonized as a servant of Sophia the Wisdom of God, Ven. Sergius. I did not know that all my inspirations, which in the future were destined to develop into an entire theological system, were rooted into my soul by the Providence of God in this touching church. Only now, in old age, do I comprehend this gift of God. How we loved this church - like a mother, like a homeland, like God - with one love, and how we were inspired by it. It was for us both a sanctuary and a source of delights of beauty - we had nothing more, but that was enough. We were exclusively and jealously attached to our church. – Other churches, like even, for example, the Cemetery, where my father served, were, as it were, not churches, half-churches, only this one was real. The soul in him breathed beauty. It was all blue, St. Sophia: there was a special bell tower, a special church, a kind of elongated basilica, but how homely, cozy, warm, with the warmth of prayed icons (the venerated icon of the Tikhvin Mother of God 77). Of course, there was no choir, but to tell the truth, there was no need for one; the church itself sang. There was a nasal sexton, who naively loved his choir 78 and rightly ruled his choir obedience - poor, with a red nose, probably from drinking. But the beauty of our “choir” was the bass “Stepanich”, a drunkard whose existence is unknown. As I remember now, he was probably truly musical, an artist at heart, and had a beautiful, noble voice, although drunk and rattling. How we trembled whether Stepanich would come or not from his drinking bout to sing on Great Thursday (“Thy Last Supper”), matins on Great Saturday (“By the Wave of the Sea”) or on Holy Easter 79 to sing Easter matins. And another beauty of our church, another pillar of our aesthetics was the deacon: a wonderful tenor, velvety, musical, soulful. He also drank, and we also trembled whether he would be able to sing in his voice on Holy Saturday 80 and Easter Matins. And when both sang, the soul went into heaven, burned and trembled in divine radiance. The wisdom of God looked into the soul in Her Glory. Priest Fr. Ivan, old, stuttering, simplicity itself, did not bring anything of himself into this aesthetics, but did not contradict it either. He was accepted into this whole because he was accepted by this church. And the church stood above the river, on a height, and was surrounded, albeit simple and miserable, by a flower garden. He, too, lived and breathed the same life as nature. During Lent, with its sad, strict ringing, the music of running spring streams, the rustling and noise of ice drift, the expanse of the spring flood, and later the Easter joy of the tender tremulous spring were wonderfully combined. And on the day of the Assumption, his icon was invariably decorated with autumn asters, marigolds and mignonette, and their fragrance has since touched the heart with the joy of the Assumption. This is not only an external association, but the fragrance from the tomb of the Most Pure One. And already the refreshing moonlit evenings over the river from the platform near the church... Yes, here I accepted the revelation of Sophia in my heart, here that pearl was placed in my soul, which I had been looking for throughout my blind and confused life, I was looking for with my mind and heart, more with my mind than with my heart, and when I found it, I recognized it as a treasure given to me as a gift from God in my spiritual birth. But our church aesthetic also included the “cemetery,” that is, my father’s cemetery church, which was located on the other side of town. It was considered “far away”, and people went there “on horseback”: in winter on a sleigh, in summer on a “tarantass”, and both this horse and the coachman “Fedorok” were also included in the memory of the shrine. We were reluctant to change “Sergius” for the “cemetery” and only sometimes, at certain times, as if out of courtesy to our father, we went with him to his service. There was less aesthetics here: the singing (also of a sexton, touching in its simplicity and pious naivety) did not captivate us. The church was peasant, gray. But here there was something else: the father celebrating the sacrament of the Eucharist and thereby shaking our soul, his childish enthusiasm on Easter night, when a brazier of incense was placed in the middle of the church and it was filled with fragrance (according to Typikon 81), and from the bright church they went out into the dark night of the garden with the graves singing in their silent but audible voices: Christ is risen. I also connect with the “cemetery” the heavenly music of the spheres: when at night, in the second hour, we were riding on a sleigh on the feast of the Nativity of Christ or Epiphany, the vault of heaven shone with its glory. The stars burned and sent their angelic sounds into the soul in the midst of the frost, just as the Lord was born in the cold on a winter night in a cave. And everything is about one thing: about the Glory of God. The soul perceived a lot and retained a little, but it retained this, because only this is the treasure of the soul, its pearl - the rest is a peel or shell... Together with the church, I accepted the Russian people into my soul, not externally, as some kind of object of veneration or admonition, but from the inside, as my own being, one with me. There is no more popular and, so to speak, people-giving, people-giving element than the church, precisely because here there is no “people”, but there is only a church, one for everyone and uniting everyone. However, I have never been blind and deaf to the suffering of the people, to inequality and resentment. We still felt privileged, no matter how humble our existence was in reality, and this consciousness brought an acute sense of shame and social repentance, albeit powerless. In a childish way, it was expressed like this: for the Easter holiday, we were usually sewn some new toilet accessory: ugly boots, an equally ugly suit, generally new clothes, which, of course, were fun and not without the pride of narcissism felt by its owner. And, however, this was always mixed with a pinching sound, like an aching tooth: and such and such (Vanka, Kuzyatka, etc.) will be in his only, old, dirty, ugly diplomat 82 or scroll, because he has nothing else to wear. And showing off in the church in my new clothes, I timidly looked with my eyes and found him - in his ugliness. True, he himself hardly felt his wretchedness so keenly, and I myself adapted perfectly to some spiritual discomfort and happily forgot about reproaches of conscience. But they were always there, these reproaches. And the psychology of the “repentant intellectual,” which he does not know how to distinguish from Christian repentance, together with his “populism” originated here. I have always been a populist, because I was a people's person from birth. In childhood, we had nothing else in the field of “culture”: neither music nor other art that our souls yearned for. But it was complete, because everything was given in the church, truth through beauty and beauty in truth. Here, in the St. Sophia Church of the Assumption, I was born and identified as a reader of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, as a reader of St. Sergius in his simplicity and humility, combined with passion and boldness, in his love for the people and social repentance. And here I identified myself as a Russian, the son of my people and mother - the Russian land, which Rev. learned to feel and love on this hill. Sergius and in this quiet, humble cemetery. And at the command of God, I complete the end of my life’s journey under the roof of the Dormition-Sergius, although in a distant country, in a foreign land, without the aroma of marigolds and mignonette on an August evening... 83 My great wealth, God’s special blessing, was not only in the fact that I was born and raised under the roof of two churches and in the bosom of gentle, humble and chaste nature, but also in the family of an Orthodox priest, in the atmosphere house-church, as if it continued the church. By my origin from my father, I am a Levite 84 to the 6th generation (approximately until the time of Ivan the Terrible, when, perhaps, a seedy boyar’s son with a clear admixture of Tatar blood, according to the custom of that time, entered the clergy). On my mother’s side, I probably come from a Levitical-noble family, with traces of sophistication (and perhaps some degeneration). My father was a humble and modest priest, who served for 47 years in his cemetery (non-parish) church with daily services, and with funeral pennies he fed and raised our entire family (seven children, of whom only two survived). Both of them, both father and mother, were imbued with the church faith with a simple and naive integrity, which did not allow any question and no doubt, and at the same time no freedom and indulgence. The Typikon was our home rule for fasting and holidays, divine services and prayer. Together with this nature, which also seemed to follow the church charter, the structure of our life breathed this atmosphere and did not imagine being different. Therefore, it was self-evident for us, as if it were a law of nature, that fasting days, and especially the harsh regime of Great Lent, cannot but be observed; that getting up early, even at night, for service, regardless of the time of year and weather, is inevitable, and the question of human weakness, state of health, etc. cannot even arise. Yes, they did not arise, these questions could not arise in ourselves, in the children, so we ourselves were imbued with this, so we loved the church and the beauty of its service. I don’t know what kind of grief and deprivation I experienced (as sometimes happened), or whether illness excommunicated me from the church. But as a rule, we experienced all the seasons of the church year, all festive and solemn services, especially all fasts and Easter, each in its own way, as a special celebration. How rich, deep and pure this childhood life of ours was, how enriched our souls were by these heavenly rays that constantly streamed into them. Here are the Christmas and Epiphany services: two o’clock in the morning, frost, stars, a cold church, struggling with drowsiness, and angels flying around. But what can I say about the greatness of Great Lent: about the presanctified liturgy 85, about the station of Mary of Egypt 86 and, finally, about Holy Week 87, where we recorded all the days and hours? Confession on Great Wednesday and the liturgy of Great Thursday (with “Thy Secret Supper”), the burial of the Savior (“By the Wave of the Sea”), the liturgy of Great Saturday and, finally, Easter, when we don’t know where we were: in heaven or on earth. Like a round dance of heavenly bodies, these stars were lit in the soul, and they could not go out even in the darkness of godlessness, but they always called to the sky. And all this church, typikon life was framed and connected with the life of nature, which participated in it. It was a child’s Christian “pantheism”, a Sophian sense of life and peace. It was the vault of heaven stretched over the earth, entering the soul forever: heaven and earth. And when her soul burned from the stories about the monastery (of one merchant), she saw herself in a child’s imagination, decorated with an angelic golden belt, burning and glowing... But all this immense poetry, the joy of an enriched life, was combined with a prosaic and harsh life. For their circle, my parents were exceptionally caring, anxious, and child-loving. Our relationship has always been characterized by natural nervousness, which is characteristic - to varying degrees - of all members of our family, especially our mother (along with debilitating insomnia). But this could not protect us from the oppression of poverty (or, at least, constant lack) and the family quarrels that arose on this basis, due to the mother’s uncontrollable tendency to give, and to borrow for this (she was extremely kind and, because of this, wasteful - beyond our means - my mother was content with the least for herself and as if she did not even exist: she did not sleep, did not eat, and only always worried and nervously smoked). To this we must add the painful impressions of “Russian weakness,” which is not alien to our home. Alcoholism destroyed two young lives (my brothers, touching and pious in their own way) in our family, and only by the grace of God I myself was saved from this death. These same diseases of my father, obviously, were inherited from his ancestors (together with chronic nervous eczema), they were accompanied after the end by his great irritability, this is perhaps the most difficult memory of his childhood, along with screaming in the house from family discord, predominantly almost exclusively arising from financial difficulties. But this passed, and peace was restored again with life as if in a church, or at least at a church. Our family consisted of parents, brothers and grandfather. All of them, except two brothers (me and Lelya), died in our house. First of all, grandfather suffered from paralysis, from which he lay broken for more than a year. This was a pure and handsome old man, Kosma Sergeevich Azbukin, with a clear, loving heart and some kind of innate spiritual dignity. He was widowed early (his wife died after a fire, for which she allegedly considered herself to blame from some kind of carelessness - due to great nervous and spiritual sophistication). Left alone, he devoted himself entirely to raising his daughter “Sasha” (Alexandra Kosminichna, our mother). He was a teacher, and although secular, he was, of course, ecclesiastical to the core. In his life he was impeccable and strict. He loved us, his grandchildren, endlessly - me less than his older brother, because of my severity (which was actually shyness). He was like a patriarch. With his death, death first entered the consciousness of a child (about 12 years old), I was, on the one hand, mystically shocked, and on the other, I defended myself with animal selfishness. Well, they buried them in Livny: it’s like some kind of Egypt. And above all, no fear of death. With a rather joyful, important feeling, relatives, and especially women, come to dress the deceased, pray for him, help at home: the special inspiration of death enters the house. And then the actual funeral in the church, carried through the city accompanied by the ringing of funeral bells, burial and veneration of the grave, prayerful remembrance... They bury well in Livny, and if you can say about sophia in the funeral, then I will say, they bury sophia: the seal of eternity, the triumph of life, unity with nature: you are the earth and you will go to the earth... 88 The father was a provincial priest, who, although born in the village of Gutorovo (Kromsky district of the Oryol province), however, did not have the features of a villager at all and somehow completely transformed into a city dweller with all the limitations of this type. He studied well at the seminary, but was generally limited, without any special mental demands and without any tragedy in his character. He had a healthy mind and harsh sarcasm, not without wit. In his character (like mine) there was little affection, at least the ability to detect it. Grandfather spoke about me with censure: Bulgakov’s severity. Maybe, in the final analysis, it is Tatar blood. The main advantage of my father was his conscientiousness and responsible accuracy in all his affairs: such was he in the fulfillment of his family duty - raising children with responsibility for himself and in saving the thin extra penny (which was so unusual for my mother), in his service in the church and school (the women's gymnasium where he taught the law), in his accounts and personal relationships. He was a man of good conscience whose responsibility could be relied upon. He was not devoid of a kind of poetry, he loved nature, although he rarely used it, and in Lipovchik he sang something in his half-feminine tenor. In general, masculinity was not characteristic of his character; he was timid and very law-abiding. He had a strong will to fulfill his duty, as he understood it: I can’t do otherwise, but there was no ability at all to persistently want and carry out his will. He was not a fighter by his natural qualities. By his fate he was not called to fight. I inherited from him both this timidity and lack of willing will, but fate placed me in the inevitability of struggle. And I always feel it as a heavy necessity, a connection, a burden, as if imposed on me from the outside. My lot is difficult for me. Mom was inspired. She was always somewhat obsedee 89 obsessive ideas, mostly just regular trifles: for me to wear a starched shirt, which I couldn’t stand, to “invite” someone (to visit), to write a congratulation, etc. (and I inherited this from her as attentiveness to people). But usually “these points of hers” still went beyond the needs of everyday life and related to what could be called the poetry of life. She also loved poetry, although with her weak education the range of her knowledge was limited, she loved books and poetry. In general, she showed a type of some kind of unbalanced and somewhat degenerative (fantastic insomnia) aristocracy. I was not without a gentle vanity in children - in relation to my successes - and a fussy talkativeness. In her nervous preoccupation she was also despotic, coupled with weak character. When I was nervous, which was common, I smoked a lot. She poetically loved the church and worship, but thanks to her nervousness she woke us up ahead of time: Seryozha, get up! Misha, get up!.. her screams were heard throughout the house, even when I was already losing faith and experiencing these awakenings as violence against myself and when, forced to leave the house, I was staggering around the city garden. My brothers... I looked down on all of them (I mean the elders), and they recognized my superiority, generously not noticing my piggishness and self-centeredness in their touching humility and generosity. The elder brother Volodya was the most tragic victim of hereditary alcoholism. He was simple in heart, but wild in his passions; alcohol made him mad. He died of consumption while already a priest in Moscow (if possible, I’ll tell you in detail). My younger brother Misha, a timid and meek child, also died of consumption (two weeks after Volodya) in Livny. Even now, 40 years later, tears fill my eyes when I remember his holy, beautiful death. Like an angel he was sent to shake the treasure of his death into my soul before leaving the world. It was at night. The agony had clearly begun. Everyone stood up, surrounded him, and his father began to read the waste document (this came so naturally to everyone). “Is this waste? “Misha asked and then began to say goodbye to everyone, kissing each one expressively. And he kissed me like that. He especially wanted me to be near him when I was full of myself, only myself. He quietly walked away, and the mystery of death was revealed. His hands, like those of a consumptive, were beautiful in their whiteness. My brother Lelya and I went out into the garden, it was dawn, and there was such heavenly music in my heart, such a triumph that only a gentle, quiet, believing death gives, a death that opens the sky and the angels. Yes, death was our teacher in this house, how much death there was in it. However, all this happened later, in adolescence, but even in childhood, death stood close to us, never leaving. One after another, two little “Kuzis” died (in honor of Kosma Sergeevich’s grandfather). Mom did not want to give in to death, and after the death of one Kuzi, she named another child with the same name, but this one also died. I remember the night with a child’s dead body in the house, and her crying, the night howling sounds... It crept into my heart with some kind of call and fear and a menacing memory of eternity, just as when my grandfather’s body stood, then terrible crying and solemn sounds were brought - from nowhere - that turned my soul upside down. It was the blueberry Parasha who read the Psalter. But the most severe wound was the death of Kolya, a charming, intelligent, gifted boy at the age of five, a common favorite, with the mark of a cherub, the predecessor of our Ivashechka. He had a sore throat and struggled with the disease for a long time. Even on the eve of his death, my father jokingly said: “But it’s a bummer.” Hope has appeared. And in the morning he died. Father invariably went to serve his early service; he was a man of duty. Arriving at the church, he himself was in tears, and the deacon was in tears, but they began to serve. I can never forget this death, even Ivashechka’s death did not erase it 90 (“Calls and Meetings” in “The Never-Evening Light”). He was so beautiful in his little shirt, his nanny Tatyana was shedding tears, my selfish heart was hurting so painfully, everyone was grieving. And every morning of this difficult summer (I was preparing for an exam that would decide my fate) began for me with Tatyana’s tears and this torment about the shot baby. All this is Livny. Treasure of my soul. Drops of heavenly dew that fell into a self-loving, but still not dead heart and, burning through it, fell into it like diamonds. Now it seems that they all died not for themselves, but for me, as some kind of sacrifice of love for me. And will not this mystery of love come true beyond the boundaries of earthly life? But the face of our life was harsh and important. We talked about this more than once in conversations with my mother: isn’t it strange? Death does not pass anyone by, but why then, in these early years, did it pass by the houses of our peers and relatives, but the angel of death constantly stood over our house? I would like to call on other lovely shadows who gave me gifts of love and poetry: nanny Zinaida, who watched over us in our childhood troubles and was such a wonderful storyteller about her life, from serf life. She sang her songs to us from this past, and this singing fell into our souls like the music of life. I remember these simple words from there: During the gatherings the girls spun (2). They were spinning, having fun, each with his friend. Suddenly a boy gives a red girl (2) He cast his beautiful gaze, I didn’t hear what he whispered (2), I didn’t see how I looked, Only my dear one found out that he was dear to her heart... And then another picture follows: Like in the city of Orel - they ring a big bell - And Vanyusha Parashi opened the coffin board, You, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. Parasha, forgive me, my dear, I didn’t get it, Parasha, neither me nor anyone, She talked about the serf theater, about her former life. And she herself seemed not to exist, she was an element, an element of Russian affection, pity, love for us. And another nanny, Elisabeth, a storyteller, was similar. How she knew how to tell fairy tales, scary, fantastic ones. Sofia The Livenians lived, except for exceptions that did not exist for us, in great poverty and squalor. It was a city not of peasants, people of productive labor, and not of merchants, and not of nobles, but of small townspeople, whose existence depended on random profits and did not carry any security. It was lower than the proletarians, a shaking, degraded existence. Of course, it also developed an instinct of humiliation, there was that too, but what was imprinted on me was a kind of humble simplicity with which they carried their existence, and meekness. This is what I took from my homeland. The homeland is a shrine for everyone, and as such it is always dear and beautiful. And my homeland is a wonderful gift from God, a blessing and parting words for life. And so I wander this long life and heed the will, and more and more clearly it reveals itself to me, like the pristine smile of Sophia the Divine, with which she called, caressing me like a baby, and in a quiet, quiet whisper told me her name. This whisper was quiet, and the Queen was wrapped in rags over her royal robe, but I fell in love with her all my life, and all my life I was looking for a meeting with her, I wanted to know her name. In the bustle of life, I left my father’s house, and in pursuit of the visible, I stopped feeling the invisible and only the translucent. But for me the false deceptive traces faded away along with the visible beauties, and my soul began to see the eternal and the otherworldly. And now, on the threshold of another and new life, I return with my heart to this homeland of mine and recognize its Name. To recognize him means to pass into another world. I won’t see Livny in this life. But in broken and mysterious ways, God gave me a second homeland - Crimea 91, but this is not the second, but also the only one, but which appeared to me in a different image of glory and also with the angel of death. Only there is a homeland where there is death. And therefore the last word about the homeland is about death. Livny is sealed and consecrated by the graves of his father and mother. You need to tell this to your heart. This was written about 1½ years ago, during forced leisure on the ship 92. And then life, with its worries, forced me to leave and even forget what I had started. And so months and even a year and a half passed, and I don’t know when I would return to what is most important to comprehend, to my own life. But the Lord called me to this now, when the angel of death once again approached me, and “he came to my lips, and tore out my sinful tongue, both idle and wicked.” And this is what I now feel a duty and calling to tell... I was born and raised under the roof of the church, and this forever determined my nature. This is my “soil” (according to the winged word of L.A. Zander 95), which imperiously called and after many years called me to the altar. Ordination for me was not an external biographical fact, which might not have happened, but an internal necessary revelation of my very being, the voice of my “Levitical” blood. I am a Levite and I am more and more fully aware of my Leviteness and value it (I am ready to say: I am proud of it). In Russian history, the “spiritual” class, for all its weaknesses, was, indeed, the most spiritual. The religion of my childhood was for me my element, my calling, my attraction, which never left me, like my own, deepest nature. I have always lived in faith and by faith. How could it happen that this faith of mine became unbelief and I lived in it not for a short period of time, but for many years, an entire part of my life, from about the 14th-15th year of my life, therefore, from adolescence and early youth until adulthood, approximately until my 30th birthday. During this time, such events of my life as marriage, the birth of my first child, the death of my grandfather and brothers also occurred... How did this departure of the prodigal son from his father’s house happen, about which I always, although at first unconsciously, and then more and more consciously, yearned? How? In a strange way, to this question of how this fall took place, which, of course, was for me a falling away from the faith, I am forced to answer: no way. At the Last Judgment of Christ, all the secrets of the soul and the depths of sin in which it originated will be revealed, but I dare to confess, along with my sin, all, of course, the relative and limited, small truth of my atheism. Because my tragic fate took place in it. However, I am used to thinking (and I understand this more and more deeply) that in general only tragedy, of course, with its overcoming, is the only worthy “path of salvation.” There must also be “heresies” in human ways, so that those who are most skilled in their art will be revealed 96, but righteous Job was not freed from temptations 97 and the Son of God himself was not denied them as the Son of Man 98. I would define the general nature of my temptation in unbelief and my tragic fate in it as a discrepancy between the image of religious life, as it was then defined for me in thought and culture, and my personal requests, which I could not and did not want to renounce, in the name of truth, as I then understood it. I also could not and did not want to abandon its criterion, take the path of internal and external compromise, and even more so, remain insensitive to it. I had to join the fight, but not bow to the philistinism and spiritual enslavement that penetrated the pores of the churchliness that surrounded me from within. And the only outcome for this irreconcilability and this discord of mine was... godlessness, leaving my father’s house. I repeat that I never lost faith or plunged into unbelief, but always lived by faith, no matter how blind it was. And, however, I cannot even now remember these years of darkness and falling away without sorrow and repentance. How did this happen? Somehow immediately, imperceptibly, almost as if it were a matter of course, when the poetry of childhood began to be supplanted by the prose of the bursas 99 and the seminary. Of course, here, in the spiritual sense, pride also won, the reluctance to agree, to become like everyone else, to share a common way of being. And his rejection so easily - with criminal ease - turned into coldness towards children's beliefs and their rejection. When doubt began, critical thought, awakened early, not only ceased to be satisfied with the seminary apologetics, but also began to be tempted and irritated by it. Seminary study constantly confronted my mind with questions of faith that I could not cope with on my own, and the way all this was taught made my inner situation even more difficult. I will not here remember with a kind word my mentors, in whom there was a lot of goodness and light, and if there were weaknesses, then temporis vitia, non hominis 100. However, the internal discord, once it appeared, deepened and turned into a religious crisis. This was the state that is described in the poems of an honest seminarian who went the same way, N. A. Dobrolyubov 101: “the harmonious singing of divine hymns - the memory of the past awakens in me.” It ends with the words: “I am burning with childhood feelings again, - but my lips no longer whisper prayers - but I am not creating a cross with my hand.” And this resistance was further intensified through forced piety: long services, with “akathists” 102 and so on, in general, ritual piety no longer satisfied, but only irritated, while its mystical side increasingly ceased to exist for me. Here a new force came into play - the intelligentsia - the fate and curse of our homeland, the temptation from nihilism, which tore me off the ground for a long time. Naturally and almost without a struggle, having lost my religious faith, I became an “intellectual” in both the positive and negative sense: intelligence in a self-evident combination with nihilism. However - again, here too I must, along with confessing all the lies of nihilism, also testify to the truth of my intransigence to the servility and enslavement of all Russian life, in particular the church, the general character of the era. This I could not and should not accept, and I cannot repent of this rejection. In a certain sense, I can say that I have preserved it “even to this day” and want to preserve it until the end of my days - loyalty to the principles of freedom and preservation of human dignity, with intransigence to any “totalitarianism.” Here I want to remain in the ranks of the Russian “progressive” (I don’t want to deny this word either) public. However, it was precisely on these paths, social and state self-determination, that the greatest difficulties and temptations awaited me, especially in relation to the sacred royal power. Here I immediately and completely took the side of the revolution with its struggle against “tsarism” and “autocracy”. It was completely natural that with the loss of religious faith, the idea of ​​sacred royal power with special veneration for the anointed of God evaporated for me, and worse, received a disgusting, unbearable taste of officialdom, hypocrisy, and servility. I hated her, in agreement with the entire Russian revolution, and to that extent I share with her all her sin against Russia. However, this sin consists not so much in love of freedom and in this sense of revolution, but in nihilism and historical self-will, and, ultimately, arbitrariness with a lack of a sense of proportion. In any case, the whole gamut of monarchical feelings, even if they were ever even slightly familiar to me, quickly evaporated in me. I still remember from my adolescence how, as a ten-year-old boy, I sadly experienced the assassination of Alexander II, 103 with all the touchingness of this death, even intensified by the appearance of the Tsar-Liberator. However, this appearance was completely crowded out of the memory of the heart by the political appearance of his successor and the entire general character of the reign of Alexander III 104. I experienced this regime, from the days of my youth, with all its irreconcilability, and the whole connection of “Orthodoxy with autocracy,” as it manifested itself then, was for me a great and irresistible temptation, not only political, but also religious. In the same mood I greeted the accession of his successor to the throne, with a speech about “meaningless (groundless) dreams” 105 (about the constitution). Only with the beginning of the revolution, and with it the entire Russian catastrophe, from 1905, did I begin to overcome revolutionary temptations 106, and however, also not in the sense of betraying freedoms - I repeat, here I cannot and do not want to change anything, but in relation to the idea of ​​​​sacred power, which for me received the character of a political apocalypse, a transcendental metahistorical phenomenon of the Kingdom of Christ on earth. I expressed this longing for the “White Tsar” and my love for him in the dialogue “Night,” written in 1918 after the fall of tsarist power 107. One day, just for a brief moment, her mystical vision flashed before me. This was at the meeting of the Emperor. I fell in love then with the image of the Emperor and have carried it in my heart ever since, but it was - alas! - tragic love: the “white king” was in the darkest surroundings, through which he could not break through until the very end of his reign. How tragically I experienced the impending revolution and abdication of the throne, how I foresaw from that very day the entire tragic fate of both the Emperor and his family. For a long time I was delirious with the thought of a personal meeting with the Emperor, in which I would like to express to him all my royal-loving, but also freedom-loving ideas and pray to him for the salvation of Russia. But this was only a dreamy delirium, which did not correspond to any reality. History has already spoken its verdict. It was my personal apocalypse - it was and is - but historical and church reality - alas! - were terrible then, but not “apocalyptic” in the sense of accomplishments, but only in the sense of their tragic paths, which Russia followed through the revolution into the Soviet era, to further, still unidentified and unsolved destinies. I return to my own destinies in the “intelligentsia”. I found myself poisoned by it through such an instillation of this poison, which I was powerless to counteract 108. My fate was that at the age when critical thought awakened in me, I was in an uncultured environment, or, better to say, uncultured, and this made me to a certain extent defenseless against the poisons of the intelligentsia, but at the same time deprived of its benefits and cultural education in general. I was, in a certain sense, in a state of original innocence, of holy barbarism. When I encountered revisionary doubt, which was generated in the name of culture and freedom, I found myself completely defenseless and naked before it. I did not know any other culture other than the intelligentsia, in its rather simplified form of political revolutionism (but not even social yet). In this respect, my personal fate in atheism still differs from the fates of my other life partners, who, coming from a cultural environment (Vodovozov, Struve 109), could have been responsible for their worldview in a different way. I found myself adolescently helpless in the face of disbelief and in naivety could believe (against the background, of course, of my own adolescent conceit) that it was the only possible and existing form of worldview for “smart” people. I had nothing to oppose and thereby protect myself from nihilism. At the same time, those rather primitive methods of apologetics, together with aesthetic forms that dissatisfied me, were capable of facilitating this transition from Orthodoxy to... nihilism. In a word, it was done somehow on credit, mentally painlessly, childishly. Probably, I was immediately frightened by the stronghold of nihilism in its “scientificness,” and at the same time I immediately felt flattered to be “smart” in my own eyes. This, I repeat, had its own truth and honesty, a search for truth, albeit helpless and childish. I gave up my position of faith without defending it. However, my standard has never before (and could not have been, given my age) a worldview that would allow for intellectual protection. She was life for me, a worldview, much more than a teaching, although, of course, St. The Gospel, some lives of saints (for example, Mary of Egypt) touched the heart and emitted sweet sounds from it, but this was drowned out by the Mephistophelian hiss of nihilism. Then, with the once accepted attitude, it began to develop and strengthen on its own along with my own development, mental and scientific, which took place, moreover, in an intellectual environment that was not characterized by religious experiences and questioning, but, on the contrary, religious nihilism was a self-evident axiom of the worldview. This went on for many years, until the time came for the seed of my own soul to sprout, and this sprout powerfully made its way in an alien and hostile environment. Now it is something humiliating for myself, and at the same time incomprehensible, how I could have been spiritually asleep for so long or been in a spiritually faint state. This period of religious emptiness now seems to me to be the most difficult time of my life precisely because of its religious unconsciousness. Obviously, I had to live down to the bottom all the emptiness of intellectualism and nihilism, hit this stone wall with all my strength, which is why I finally felt unbearable pain. Now, looking back at my life from the beginning of the 8th decade, knowing its length, I see that the pace of its achievements was generally commensurate with this duration. In order to experience this spiritual state in the proportions of a long life, there obviously corresponded to a greater slowness of spiritual processes, which would not correspond to a shorter life 110. However, if I accepted nihilism without a fight, that did not mean that I experienced it painlessly. Quite the contrary, now I see how I never put up with it, wearing it like a dress from someone else’s shoulder, until I found my own. And in general, this is my transition not from faith to unbelief, but from one of my faiths to another, alien and empty, but still a faith that has its own shrines for itself. This fidelity to faith, the calling to faith and life according to faith (if sinful even in relation to it, then in any case judged by its own, immanent court) is the basic fact of my life, which I would like to establish and approve precisely in the face of my unbelief. Man is generally a believing being, called to faith and to life by faith. But not everyone is aware of this with the same degree of clarity. For me, this was revealed with such complete clarity precisely because having, perhaps due to my Leviticism, a special calling to faith, in the light of it that lit up in me, and throughout my entire life in faith, I am able to feel in myself and appreciate in all its strength this basic fact of faith and unbelief, to recognize it as a special image or variety of faith. Such was the psychology of my disbelief. Twice I experienced the loss of faith as a general life crisis, so much so that once I had thoughts of suicide on religious grounds, that is, the meaning of life was lost along with the loss of faith. This did not happen in adolescence during the early period of unbelief, but it manifested itself with unexpected and great force on the verge of adolescence. Unconscious religious inspiration was given to me even in a period of unbelief, the breath of death, its grace with the revelation of the other world. Along with this, the very nature of my unbelief was not a state of religious emptiness and indifference, but faith in the “progress” of humanity and so on. It included not only a certain ethics, but also eschatology. My unbelief was essentially eschatological. It knew its own delights of faith. I remember such moments of a kind of prophetic inspiration, when I involuntarily clothed my visions of future human progress in images of life in God: people will be gods, 111 I said to myself (and, it seems, to others) with a youthful burning heart and, of course, without any shade of fight against God or blasphemy. On the contrary, it was an unconscious vision of the truth of God-manhood, which in me always asked to come out, sought a way out for itself. But this way out must be found with dignity, and I don’t know how to find this. And this is how spiritual captivity was created. What prevented me from finding myself in Orthodoxy, which was dear to me, was, in addition to my youthful pride, its “slave-like image,” 112 cultural squalor and the historical lack of wings of the “historical Church,” and I did not have the strength to go to an open fight against the intelligentsia. Thus, I found myself already at the beginning of my life’s journey between two worlds, not being able to merge with either of them, an accidental guest in both camps. This is how the fate of my whole life was predetermined, still in vague prototypes: a stranger among one’s own, one’s own among strangers, but in essence not one’s own anywhere... Alone in the field is not a warrior, but always and everywhere alone. Tsargrad. 17/30. III. 1923 Life is given once to a person, and in this sense, every life is precious and interesting. Individuality is like a window through which the flow of life is seen, and personal destiny is the frame in which it is formed, fragmented, and concretized. That important, wondrous and terrible thing that people of our generation were destined to witness and participate in was experienced and experienced by each in their own way. And this is justification and, at the same time, an incentive to talk about what everyone has experienced in their own way. I feel the same compulsion now, when by the will of fate the line of my life was temporarily interrupted and I found myself thrown out of the borders of Russia. The period of time from the beginning of the revolution lies before me, if not completed internally, then cut short, just as any life is cut short. And I involuntarily want to look at it from the outside and from the inside as a whole, to experience and understand it again. However, I feel unable to write my memoirs. At one time I wrote notes in the secret book of the heart, a kind of intimate diary. But he is not with me, just as there are no materials at all, and my torn and weakened memory does not help. Moreover, I have never had any interest or taste for the concrete, for reality, such is my weakness and my property. Events were always perceived by me in the form of sound or colorful threads of a certain color and richness, but I had neither the ability nor the taste to break them down into concrete details. At the same time, I myself, both due to personal weakness and due to my special attitude towards modernity, to which for some reason I always find myself not modern, a stranger in a tragic discord, did not take an active part in events, was attracted by them, but did not do them, contemplated and felt, but was not an actor, at least in the sense of external historical activity. So be it. But what happened in the souls of people has the right to the same attention as external events. And events in souls, in a certain sense, are more important and significant than external events. I will also try to consolidate those already fading threads of my memories of how the revolution that took place from the outside took place in my soul and was reflected in my destinies. But I feel the need to make something like a prologue here - about myself, about what I was and what I became by the time the world war broke out, and after it the revolution. I experienced the revolution tragically, as the death of what was most dear, sweet, and joyful to me in Russian life, as the death of love. Yes, for me the revolution was precisely a catastrophe of love, which took away its object from the world and devastated the soul, robbed it. Let them laugh at this tragic eroticism, which all the time constituted an error in objecto 114 until the object itself died. However, this was true. In pre-revolutionary Russia there was such a madman who carried in his heart the bashful and never fully expressed tragedy of love, which was constantly trampled upon by its object. I loved the Tsar, I wanted Russia only with the Tsar, and without the Tsar Russia was not Russia for me. The first movement of the soul - even semi-conscious, it was so deep - when the revolution was accomplished and when calls were still heard: war to a victorious end, it was this: but why, why now victory without a Tsar? Why do we need Constantinople when there is no Tsar? After all, Constantinople was befitting for the Tsar, he was the high priest who could enter this altar, he and he alone 115. And the thought that the Provisional Government with Kerensky, Miliukov 116 could enter Constantinople was so disgusting to me, so deadly that I felt a cold, deadening emptiness in my heart. I was not a “monarchist” in the political party sense, as they were in Russia, and in general I knew almost no one with whom I could share these feelings of mystical love. But my soul felt like what happens when the closest, dearest creature dies after a hopeless long illness. However, just as happens here, I also experienced relief, because the agony of my love was unbearable, it paralyzed all activity in me. In essence, the agony of the tsarist autocracy continued throughout the reign of Nicholas II, which was all continuous and continuous suicide of the autocracy. Now, after everything that we already know about the king and his reign, this appears with new clarity. Previously, it might have seemed that the revolution was made by revolutionaries - and this is true in the sense that such a revolution, i.e. the intellectual revolution was truly made by revolutionaries in the name of their intellectualism 117, but that’s just how. Unfortunately, the revolution was carried out, apart from any revolutionaries, by the tsar himself, who was drawn by an uncontrollable evil force towards the suicide of his autocracy, drawn through Yala, Port Arthur and Tsushima, 118 through all the countless zigzags of his policy and the final insanity of the war. I could not and did not want to love anything like the Tsarist autocracy, the Tsar, as a mystical, sacred State power, and I was doomed to see how this theocracy failed in Russian history and left it itself, becoming secularized, replaced and leaving its place... to the intelligentsia. And now only I see and understand that this failure was deeper and more radical than I could see it then. The suicide of autocracy, in which political distortions in willful despotism were combined with mystical aberrations in Rasputin 119 and even family psychosis in the tsarina, had no culprit in Nicholas II, nor in his family, who in their personal qualities were completely different from what their throne made them. This suicide was predetermined before his birth and accession to the throne - here is an ancient tragedy without personal guilt, but with a tragic fate: Oedipus must kill his father and marry his mother, whether he wants it or not 120. Nicholas II, with the powers of mind and will that were given to him, could not have been a better monarch than he was: there was no evil will in him, but there was state mediocrity and especially a terrible trait in a monarch - innate lack of will. But did he himself want the throne and did what he inherited depend on his will? But such as he was, he could only destroy both Russia and the autocracy. And I’ll add one more thing: didn’t he want what was right when he, the theocratic tsar, as he truly and deeply understood in his royal heart (despite everyone around him, who wanted to see in him only a political monarch, an autocratic emperor), sought inspiration from above, the spirit of prophecy, and found it... in Rasputin... And, however, the failure of the autocracy in the person of Nicholas II was so great, irreparable that it doomed the one who could and wanted to love only autocracy, understood as a state universal idea, to die hourly. And, moreover, in everyday life this failure was crushed, it was exchanged and fragmented, taking on a vulgar, pitiful and insignificant appearance. The king could only be loved in solitude, but every meeting actually offended and wounded, bringing a million torments. At the same time, with that deep mystical feeling that only sighted love gives, I saw and knew that the failure of the autocracy is the failure of Russia and the death of the kingdom is the death of Russia too. I knew and thought this before the revolution, I now confess and affirm this with all responsibility, and therefore I did not want a revolution when everyone wanted it, and I cried when everyone rejoiced, I buried when everyone was striving for a new marriage. I’ll make a small digression here to say how and when this “sixth sense” appeared to me. All my youth and adult life before the first revolution, I was an implacable enemy of the autocracy, I hated it, despised it, abhorred it as the most senseless, cruel relic of history. Autocracy means police, gendarmes, prison, exile, courtiers, unnecessary and uninteresting receptions and parades, and murderous cruelty towards the Russian people. I have experienced and experienced the entire gamut of intellectual intransigence towards autocracy. As a student, I dreamed of regicide (although, of course, I began to shake at the very thought of carrying out the act); when I embarked on the path of religion, 121 autocracy seemed to me the main religious enemy, with which the main lie of our churchism is associated. And in my thoughts and feelings I did not find any approach to the possibility of mystically cognizing and recognizing autocracy. In preparation for the revolution of 1905 I also participated as a leader of the Union of Liberation 122, and I wanted it the way the entire intelligentsia wanted and wants, with whom I felt at odds in matters of faith, but not politics. In Kyiv, where I was a professor during these years (1901–1906), I took a very definite political position. And so it went until October 17, 1905. 123 I greeted this day with almost fainting enthusiasm, I gave the students a speech that was absolutely insane in exaltation (of which I remember only the first words: “Centuries converge with centuries”) and from the auditorium of the Kyiv Polytechnic we went to the square (“to free the imprisoned fighters”). Everyone decorated their buttonholes with red patches, and then I put on a red rosette, and by doing this, I felt that I was performing some kind of mystical act, accepting a kind of dedication. In the square, I felt quite clearly the influence of the Antichrist spirit: the speeches of the orators, the revolutionary impudence that rushed first of all to tear down coats of arms and flags - in a word, something alien, cold and deadly so frozen my heart that, when I arrived home, I threw my red rosette into the water closet. And in the Gospel, which I opened for sacred fortune-telling, I read: this race (which race, I did not yet know how to recognize) is driven out by prayer and fasting 124 . But then the presence of this family was clear to me, from which in the evening of the same day pogroms began in Kyiv, only in that black camp, but not in this one with a red buttonhole. However, the unfolding picture of the revolution very soon showed what the revolution was as a spiritual essence. And from that time on, I separated from the revolution and fenced myself off from it with the utopian and naive thought of creating a Christian liberation movement, for which it was necessary to create a “union of Christian politics” 125 (an early prototype of the “living church” 126). I comprehended the deadening essence of the revolution, at least the Russian one, as militant atheism and nihilism. Until now, I somehow tried to hold my nose so as not to smell this corpse smell. The revolution was not on our way, because while Russia was ruled by the Black Hundred, the existence of the Red Hundred seemed justified. Gradually, as the spiritual essence of the Russian revolution in the history of 1905–1907 was revealed, any connection with it became impossible for me. It became obvious that the revolution was and would destroy Russia. But it was no less clear to me then that she was no less surely being destroyed by the suicide on the throne, the first leader of the revolution, Nicholas II. And from this fatal ring of revolution, in which the divinely crowned monarch, in incomprehensible blindness and human weakness of will, gave his hand to the revolution, there seemed to be no way out. It was too scary to think seriously and talk about the death of Russia (although I spoke back in “Vekhi” 127), especially since there was still hope of finding a non-revolutionary cultural center, free from the Red and Black Hundreds, based on which it would be possible to free the Tsar from the revolution (at that time we did not yet know that the revolution had an irresistible force on him through the person closest to him - a loving, devoted wife, for Tsarina Alexandra turned out to be fatal in the full sense of the word revolutionary, that she allowed the revolution to penetrate the holy of holies of the king and establish itself in the palace). Cultural conservatism, rootedness, loyalty to tradition, combined with the ability to develop - such was this task, which in fact would have turned out to be salutary in history if it had been completed. However, I will say about myself personally that although in everyday and practical relations I went hand in hand with this cultural conservatism (however weak it was in Russia), I professed rootedness, but in the depths of my soul I could never merge with this layer, which in our ideology received the most vivid expression in Slavophilism (with fragments of Slavophilism: D. F. Samarin, I. V. Mansurov, M. A. Novoselov, I was personally friends with V.A. Kozhevnikov 128 and others). I shared a common feeling of the world and history, some kind of internal apocalypse, once and forever perceived by the soul as the most intimate promise and dream. The Russian pochvenniki were cultural conservatives, guardians and admirers of sacred tradition, they were a living denial of nihilism, but they did not overcome it, they were not because they themselves were, in essence, spiritually well-fed and their souls did not rush anywhere, did not strive anywhere. They lived in the past, if not in the past. Their truth was that the past is the present, but the present is not only the past, but it is also the future, and, moreover, not only the future, which is the revelation of the past through the present in the future, that is, only the past, and the future is like a new birth. “I am creating everything new” 129. I was and is eager for this new thing, my soul knows it. And this religious-revolutionary, apocalyptic feeling of “discontinuity” (about which our early departed friend V.F. Ern 130 liked to philosophize) connects me inextricably with the revolution, even horribile dictu 131 with Russian Bolshevism. Denying with all the strength of my soul revolutionism as a worldview and program, I remain and probably will forever remain a “revolutionary” in the sense of worldview (but weren’t the early Christians who expected an imminent world fire to be such “revolutionaries”). But this “revolutionism” in the Russian soul was so inseparably combined with Gadarene demon possession 132 that from a national-state and cultural point of view it can only be suicidal. Why am I talking about this here, in my memoirs? Yes, because the understanding of this became clear to me already in 1906 and determined both my course of action and my worldview. Pre-revolutionary madness and impudence of 1905, the Council of Workers' Deputies, expropriations, murders and, as a response to this, courts-martial, with cruelties that were as impossible to tolerate as the baseness of the revolution. And there seemed to be no way out. The first State Duma 133 flashed by: it flashed its talents, but revealed a complete lack of state intelligence and especially will and dignity before the revolution, and the least of all this dignity was in the leading and responsible Kadet party, which met an inglorious end in Vyborg 134, for Vyborg was undoubtedly the suicide of the party, from which it never recovered. Eternal alignment to the left, cowardly looking around was organically inherent in the party and the leaders, despite all their individual merits and merits, and this is not surprising, because spiritually Cadetism was affected by the same spirit of nihilism and groundlessness as the revolution. In this spiritual sense, the Cadets were and remain in my eyes revolutionaries to the same extent as the Bolsheviks, and the exceptions here only confirm the general rule: to the extent that certain individuals (like P.B. Struve or P.I. Novgorodtsev 135 - I’m not talking about cadets random to the bloc, like A.V. Kartashev 136) they outgrow their cadetism. It’s all about religious self-determination, and out of naivety and revolutionary blindness the Cadets left this aspect in the shadows, leaving it to “tolerance,” that is, nihilism. Finally, among the right, the leading role was given to pogrom elements or this kind of conservatism (for example, Metropolitan Anthony, Gringmut, etc. Vostorgov 137), for which there is no enlightenment either in the present or in the future: these are fans of Muscoviteism and the despotism of reaction under the guise of conservatism. The pogromists (Dubrovin and Co.) raised their heads and formed their own fighting squads 138. And yet, they professed Orthodoxy and nationality, which I also professed at that time, and I felt tragically almost alone in my own camp. At this time, a tiny group of people formed who soon formed the Religious and Philosophical Society named after Vl. Solovyov in Moscow 139 (those who follow Russian religious thought know these names). At that time, around 1905, it seemed to us all that we were precisely called upon to start a new religious revolutionary movement in Russia (later, when this had already been abandoned by us, it was picked up and vulgarized by the declamation of Merezhkovsky 140, who made the note of revolution-magic his tenor specialty). These were a kind of “meaningless dreams” that life exposed. In Moscow, things did not go further than pasting up revolutionary proclamations with crosses, and I personally tried to raise a cry for the founding of the “Union of Christian Politics” (the name, like the idea, was borrowed from V. Solovyov 141), but for this I most obviously did not have the will, nor the skill, nor even the desire, this was undertaken, in essence, for the sake of unsubscribing, for the sake of self-deception ut aliquid fieri videatur 142. I myself was very soon disappointed and abandoned this idea. Later, in 1917, they wanted to return me to her, like “a dog for vomit,” 143 but I did not have the slightest desire for this. Such influences determined my mood at the beginning of the revolution. I did not create my own party, and I did not want and could not join the Cadets without losing my face. And at this time the elections to the First Duma were approaching. I did not have enough character to remain “firm, calm and sullen” in the face of the general turmoil and election fuss. It was necessary for me to survive the State Duma, and, of course, I had sufficient data, and therefore the obligation to invest my strength in the common work. However, partisanship turned out to be an obstacle. For the above reasons, having already sided with the revolution even then, I could not join any of the political parties that were entirely based on a revolutionary or counter-revolutionary worldview (I’m not talking about “Octobrism” 144, which always had a class-opportunistic nature). Meanwhile, it was not possible to get into the State Duma in Kyiv, where I lived and where my candidacy could be nominated with great chances of success. My turn came to the second State Duma, where I was elected from my native Oryol province as a non-party member (“Christian socialist” 145). I finally received parliamentary baptism, and four months of sitting in the “revolutionary” State Duma completely and completely turned me away from the revolution. I left the State Duma as black as I have ever been. And this was understandable. It was necessary to experience all the hopelessness, absurdity, ignorance, and worthlessness of this assembly, which in its wretchedness did not even notice its absolute unsuitability for any work, was drowning in endless chatter, indulging the smallest vain feelings. I have not known a place in the world with a more unhealthy atmosphere than the common hall and the corridors of the State Duma, 146 where the demonic games of Soviet deputies then reigned with dignity. Of course, I myself am completely unfit to be a deputy, and that is why, perhaps, I remember this atmosphere with such horror. However, I remained sufficiently objective and dispassionate to see what was happening there. And there are no strong enough words of indignation, disappointment, sadness, even contempt that I need to express my feelings. And this is the salvation of Russia. This street trash, which does not deserve the name of shame. Take the first people you come across from the street, add to them a handful of powerless but well-meaning people, inspire them that they are the saviors of Russia, the whole of Russia listens to their every word, which immediately becomes a matter of public property, and you will get the 2nd State Duma. And how knowledgeable, governmental, and efficient the business workers of the departments—the “bureaucrats”—appeared against this background. In a word, the 2nd State Duma for me was such an exposure of the lies of the revolution that I recovered from it politically. However, I have not yet become a monarchist. My attitude towards the Tsar remained the same in the second State Duma. The idea of ​​monarchy and monarchical statehood was by no means included in my “grounds”. The question of monarchy is, in essence, a question of love or dislike (there is love in politics too), and I did not love the Tsar. I was disgusted, of course, by the roar and growl of the revolutionary Duma, but I felt like lackeys when some members of the State Duma received a royal reception, somewhere from the back porch. But, having left the State Duma, after the bankruptcy of the revolution and disappointment in it, where could I go? In the State Duma, Stolypin 147 made a strong impression on me with his personality, courage, and unique power of speech (especially against the backdrop of pathetic nonsense). I did not sympathize with his policies at all, but I retained the faith that he loved Russia and, in the end, would not lie. And with this last hope I left the Tauride Palace. It was a weak straw, but it was already bending in all directions. And there was a leak here. And I was convinced of this with tragic clarity when I came across Stolypin’s work on preparing the elections to the State Duma. I again participated in the Oryol elections, but did not go to the Duma, although they persistently sent me. During the Third Duma, the revolution died down, but the counter-revolution raised its head - more and more decisively. Liquidation processes began, the Beilis case 148 and so on. Russia grew economically spontaneously and rapidly, while spiritually decaying. And during this time, by some internal act, comprehension, the strength of which Orthodoxy gave me, my attitude towards royal power, my will towards it, changed. I became, according to the mean expression of the street, a tsar. I realized that royal power in its essence is the highest nature of power, not in its own name, but in the name of God. I don’t want to theologize about royal power here, I’ll just say that this feeling, this love was born in my soul suddenly, with lightning speed, when I met the Emperor in Yalta, it seems in 1909, when I saw him (the only time in my life) on the embankment. I felt that the Tsar bears his power as the cross of Christ, and that obedience to Him can also be the cross of Christ and in His name. In my soul, like a bright star, the idea of ​​sacred royal power lit up, and in the light of this idea, the features of Russian history lit up in a new way and sparkled like gems; where I had previously seen emptiness, lies, and Asiaticism, the divine idea of ​​power by God’s grace, and not by the will of the people, flared up. The religious idea of ​​democracy was denounced and overthrown in the name of theocracy in the form of royal power. Godless democracy, on which the revolution is spiritually established, is incompatible with the theocratic nature of power, here is the divide: either - or: with the Tsar or without the Tsar, against the Tsar. And the entire Russian revolution - I knew this from personal experience - was always against the Tsar and with democracy. In my enthusiasm for the tsarist power there were (and never were) elements of the police Black Hundreds at all, and this did not make me any closer to the “right”, remaining a lonely and weak-willed dreamer, as I had always been, but the question of the monarch, the bearer of the tsarist power, in the year of its fatal collapse, about Nicholas II, who was committing the suicide of autocracy, arose before me with all tragic urgency. Having become a king-lover at a time when royal power was leaving the world, I was doomed to the agony of slow dying along with it. From now on, if I am a monarchist, I became somehow responsible for all the madness and crimes that were committed by the royal government and even by this particular suicidal monarch. And at the same time, in my love for the king, I immediately separated from his personality the guilts for which he was not responsible, and the evil that did not belong to him, and I loved him at that moment with some kind of love until the grave, which is promised to the bride and groom before the altar. This is nonsense, which the intelligentsia will not understand and will not forgive me, but it was a spontaneous feeling of the Russian people, on which Russian statehood was built. And when this choice of heart was accomplished, when I fell in love with the Tsar, and as a result I could not help but love the reigning Emperor, not love in him what is worthy of love, and above all the crusader, my political existence, as a Russian citizen, became agony, for the historical royal power was in agony, and I was in agony along with it. I will note two or three moments in this story that are imprinted in my mind with particular clarity: elections to the 3rd State Duma and the Rasputin epic. After the dissolution of the 2nd State Duma and the new electoral law 149, the Stolypin government displayed a well-known electoral technique, which, however, was combined, alas, with the straightforwardness of cynicism and shamelessness. And Russian life has not yet been accustomed to this, as it is already accustomed to now (as in the whole world, where elections are made). As electoral cattle - Stimmvieh 150 - obedient priests were elected, who in huge, oblivious numbers were driven to the elections as electors and here they were forced to play the most pitiful and harmful role, and they were conducted by A. N. Khvostov 151, the future minister, and at that time the Nizhny Novgorod governor, shot by the Bolsheviks. He was a disgustingly fat and equally cheeky man - he inspired me with irreconcilable disgust. Along with the servility of the clergy, the rottenness of the nobility was demonstrated, which also showed “class” unbridledness, without thinking about all-Russian, state interests (of course, with isolated exceptions, very high and bright), and the complete darkness of the peasantry, which thought only about diets 152. All this revealed to me firsthand such wretchedness of Russia and, most importantly, such dishonesty of the authorities in their political activities that I returned from the elections in complete despair and even fell ill from grief. At this time, the first peals of world thunder were already heard - the beginning of the Balkan War, which five years later entailed a world war 153. I remember I talked with P.I.N. 154 regarding our modernity and the Patriotic War: great national tasks, but where are our people? So, should we wage a patriotic war with Khvostov? And there was death in my soul... However, fortunately or unfortunately, the dark impressions on me were soon erased, and by the beginning of the World War I was again ready to become a Slavophile with all my might. With this “bureaucracy” Russia was engaged in a dispute over tsarist power, and this battle was taking place in my soul. Constantly observing that the Tsar acts and acts not as a Tsar, but as a police autocrat, a fig leaf for the bureaucracy, I, in powerless reverie, thought about exhortations, about begging the Tsar to be a Tsar, to present him with a note on Tsarist power, but all this remained in criminally powerless reverie. Whether the king demoralized the ministers or was demoralized by them, only the area around the royal throne was empty. And when the tsar visited Crimea, where his life was closely known, only careerists, temporary workers and crooks had access to him among the local people. I also remember, already during the war, when the Tsar’s charm noticeably began to wane, he was in Moscow, with the usual official receptions, and we just had a lecture on the war (and even mine 155), and it was so painful that an impenetrable wall separates the Tsar from those who are exhausted in the fruitless idea of ​​​​the apotheosis of Tsarist power. However, the most painful thing was connected with Rasputin and his influence. There was a lot of lying and arguing about the actual nature of this influence. Most often they brought in all sorts of dirt that I did not believe, but they almost did not know the real reason for his strength - namely, the illness of the heir and the fatal and mysterious influence on the course of this illness 156 (and even to me, who, as a father, should have understood this, it never occurred to me what an incessant and hidden torment, weakening and tormenting, the incurable illness of the only son was for the Royal couple). I have never seen Rasputin. I heard about him for the first time in 1907, when he was a member of the 2nd State Duma, from M.A. Novoselov, who immediately expressed doubt about the mystical goodness of this very special person. At the same time I met Archimandrite Feofan, 157 who later played such a fatal role in Rasputin’s acquaintance with the Royal Family. They started talking about Rasputin several years later, and then M.A.N., with his characteristic zeal for faith, began to collect materials about him and prepare a printed denunciation of him, however, it was detained by the police. Then Rasputin was wounded and retired to Siberia, but from the beginning of the war his influence again became colossal 158. Now the extent of this influence is clarified from the queen’s letters, but even then, during the war, it was generally known and was embellished, of course, by rumors of treason. The newspapers were full of hints, messages, attacks regarding the “dark force,” especially since it made itself felt palpably in church life (the removal of Samarin, the disgrace of Metropolitan Vladimir, the rise of Bishop Barnabas, Pitirim 159). It was a shame, a shame for Russia and the royal family, and it was precisely as a shame that everyone who loved the Tsar and was devoted to him experienced it. And at the same time, this fatal influence could in no way be defended or justified, for everyone here felt the hand of the devil. In my mind, I was ready to love the Tsar even more for Rasputin, and now I credit him with the fact that with him Rasputin was possible, but not as he really was, but as a postulate of the people's saint and prophet under the Tsar. The king sought the prophet, I said to myself more than once, and is it his fault if, instead of the prophet, he met a whip 160. This is the tragic fault of the weakness of the Church, the intelligentsia, the bureaucracy, and all of Russia. But that this King, in our dry and lacking days, rose to the level of this dream, humbled himself to the point of obedience to this “Friend” (as the Queen calls him in tragic blindness), this is majestic, this is significant and prophetic. If Rasputin is a sin, then it is a sin for the entire Russian Church and all of Russia, but then the very thought of the holy elder, the leader of the monarch, could only be born in Russia, in the heart of the Tsar. And the more lofty the task, the more prophetic, the more evil the parody, the caricature, the more terrible the fall. This is the real significance of debauchery in the overall economy of the spiritual life of the Russian people. But then it was the most terrible dead end in Russian life and the most terrible weapon in the hands of the revolution. This was not understood by frivolous priests like Vostokov, who played demagoguery on the Rasputin theme, but my friends who, through Elizaveta Feodorovna 161, waged a hidden struggle against Rasputin at court, when A.I. Guchkov 162 asked them to provide materials about Rasputin for an “inquiry” in the State Duma, and they refused to give this information. They did not want the revolution that everyone who gloated about Rasputin wanted. So, the world war found me with a secret feeling of mystical love for the Tsar and at the same time with a constantly wounded wound in my heart from the constant trampling of this feeling. The outbreak of war brought an unexpected and unprecedented rise in love for the Tsar in my lifetime. Personally, the declaration of war found me in Crimea, far from the centers. I only learned from the newspapers about the admiration that surrounded the name of the Emperor. I was especially shocked by the description of the first appearance in the Winter Palace, when the masses of the people, obeying an irresistible and true instinct, knelt before the Tsar in frenzy and delight, and the royal couple walked among the loving people to perform the feat of the cross. Oh, how I trembled with joy, delight, tenderness, reading this. It was as if I myself was there, as if that vision on the Yalta embankment had now taken on an all-Russian dimension. For me, this was the appearance of the White Tsar to his people; for a moment the apocalyptic ray of the White Kingdom flashed and went out. For me it was a revelation about the Tsar, and I hoped that this was a revelation for all of Russia. New speeches began to appear in newspapers about the reconciliation of the authorities (read: the Tsar) with the people, and this was followed by enthusiastic student demonstrations. The streets of the capital saw a spectacle unheard of in history: demonstrations of young people holding the Tsar’s portrait and singing the anthem. The Emperor responded to the student greetings with a dignified and warm telegram. My heart was bursting with delight. Then I wrote a crazy article (“Rodina”) for the newspaper “Morning of Russia” 163, in which words about the White Tsar flashed through. The article was noticed, as they say, got away with it, but was not approved by the Zoiles, I ended up on the black board of monarchism (and a certain Dorian Gray 164 from the professorship, G.G. Shpet 165, sent me an abusive letter for the “White Tsar”, it characteristically expressed the anger and contempt that a nihilistic soul has for a bright image). The beginning of the war, which brought us unexpected successes (after all, we were still living under the yoke of Japanese defeats, and I remember very well how scary it was for the army from the beginning of the war and how the first victories reassured and pleased us, confirming that the Russian army could still win). But soon difficulties and failures began; “Sukhomlinovism” was revealed, the Sovereign took over the main command, instead of Nikolai Nikolaevich 166, who somehow became popular. I remember that I personally experienced this as the death of a country and a dynasty - that’s how it turned out. I just sobbed with this newspaper sheet in my hands... The further, the more tense relations with the State Duma became, which - from Purishkevich 167 to Miliukov - took on a revolutionary character. At this time, something was clearly going on with the royal power: some mystical hand was weighing on her and causing her to have convulsions. This monthly change of ministers, unacceptable even in peacetime, was the temperature of a consumptive patient. I was exhausted from agony, I was dying and was completely paralyzed, and I was present at the deathbed of a dying dear being - the Russian kingdom in the person of the Tsar. And at the same time, as a Russian patriot and citizen, I was exhausted from anxiety and grief for my homeland: so little, it seemed, was needed to be loved, you need to not bring any bastard closer, you need to abandon meaningless appointments and wild tyranny. Finally, after Khvostov (this same Khvostov, who brought me to despair back in Orel, now, during the World War, to see as a minister!) we came to Protopopov 168 . It was a real abomination, and this abomination was in a holy place, staining the royal mantle. And at this time, the first lightning struck from the thickening thunderclouds, and in December 1916 Rasputin was killed. I was in Zosimova Hermitage 169 near Moscow on a pilgrimage. The monastery was, as always, quiet and prayerful. As usual, we stood for the five-hour all-night vigil, confessed, and received communion at the liturgy, which was performed by Bishop Theodore from Moscow (he later ordained me). And after mass, amazing news spread from room to room. Rasputin is killed. Someone came and brought it from Moscow. The first and immediate feeling was not joy, as most people felt, but confusion and shock. Meanwhile, everyone was happy, even the monks. The Right Reverend Theodore crossed himself when he learned about this - I remember how it struck me. I had a firm and undoubted feeling, which - alas! It was later confirmed: a revolutionary bullet is powerless against evil spirits, and Rasputin’s blood will be shed on Russian soil. At the same time, there was confusion regarding the powerlessness of the Church, which, obviously, could not curse the demon, and he was struck down by an officer’s bullet. With this feeling I came to Moscow, where I encountered the same moods as in the monastery, only not timid and quiet, but insolent and triumphant. “Exterminate the reptile,” they said no other way. Two years later, I met Prince. Yusupov, who told me (obviously dozens of times already) the story of this murder with its amazing details. There was nothing in his story except aristocratic disgust, there was not even the consciousness that the bullet aimed at Rasputin hit the royal family and that with this shot the revolution began 170. This was already obvious to me then. The murder of Rasputin introduced the missing element of some kind of blood connection between the supporters of the revolution, and almost all of them were. Around me, at least, I hardly saw or knew like-minded people. This murder unbridled the revolution, and they began to openly and brazenly speak and even write - not, however, about the regicide, but about the palace coup. The vile word V.A. was put into circulation. Maklakov about changing the driver at full speed of the car 171, and among the legislators, reason and council, the question of whether this would introduce any shock or not was quite seriously discussed, and, of course, it was allowed in the latter sense. I felt like the only sober one in the midst of involuntary madness: otherwise it was impossible to understand this general blindness. And, of course, for me, Russia became tasteless and lost its joy without its beloved Tsar. At that time, the actions and speeches of the prince aroused particular bewilderment and indignation in me. G.E. Lvov 172, the future prime minister of the main persuasive government. I knew him during the 2nd State Duma as a faithful servant of the Tsar, a reasonable, responsible, conscientious Russian man who treated the revolutionary booze with implacable disgust, and suddenly his speeches at a responsible post call directly to revolution - such was, for example, his proclamation regarding the unauthorized All-Russian Zemstvo Congress 173. This was indicative for me, because there was no need to even talk about the entire intelligentsia rabble. My relatives were no different: N.A. Berdyaev was Berdyaev’s attitude towards me and my monarchism, he wrote frivolous and irresponsible articles about the “dark power”; book E.N. Trubetskoy swam in the broad mainstream of Cadet liberalism and, moreover, treated the Tsar personally with old irritation (even in the Lopukhin case 174). G.A. Rachinsky 175, of course, capitulated along the entire front and was to the left of the left (however, he was the same before). Of my friends, only P.A. Florensky knew and shared my feelings in the consciousness of the inevitable and surrendered to his usual amor fati 176. L.V. Uspensky 177, the favorite of my students and young comrades, to whom I could open my soul, argued with me as a political utopian. And I, I repeat, felt like the only sober one among the drunks, the only realist among all the illusionists, and my realism was Orthodoxy, my sobriety was love for the Emperor. I saw quite clearly, I knew with a sixth sense that the Tsar was not a driver who could be changed, but a rock on which the hooves of a Russian horse hanging in the air were established. One December evening in the Ugrimovs’ apartment 178 in Nikolsky Lane remains unforgettable in the strength and sharpness of the impression in my memory. I.P., who had just returned from the front, shared his impressions there. Demidov 179. I knew him before as an exception among the cadets due to his churchliness, groundedness and generally some particularly intense structure of soul. His report was rich in content, he said a lot of amazing and touching things about the Russian soldier, gave full hope for victory, but was a complete indictment against the Tsar as Commander-in-Chief for his irresponsible and harmful actions in changing the commanders of individual units and armies. The report was angry, passionate and convincing in its own way; it made one think that the Russian cause was in the wrong hands and these hands must be eliminated in the name of victory, to save the homeland. This most false and most dangerous slogan, which was invented and won by the revolution, which does not stop at any, even the most deliberate lie, was here proclaimed by the lips of a sincere and kind, but weak in thought and will, Russian person, like all of us, and from this authorization acquired special persuasiveness. He testified that the revolution had already penetrated to the front and poisoned the high command. That evening I felt how death was entering my soul. An exchange of opinions began, which boiled down to complete agreement with the speaker regarding the need to change the driver, and they only asked him how the front would take this and whether it would falter, and, for their part, they expressed confidence that this would pass unnoticed by both the front and the country and would not pose a danger to the defense at all. There were a number of speakers, among them I remember N.A. Berdyaev, because, as usual, he spoke against me and hit me specifically. Of all the people, I was the only one who spoke against it, i.e. expressed the simple idea that a revolution, even a palace coup, cannot pass unnoticed without causing upheaval at the front. Only one archpriest, Fr., sympathized with me. I. Fudel 180, who, upon leaving, told me in a fallen and full of despair voice that he had long seen the inevitability of the revolution and all its disastrousness. But in this meeting, alien to me, he was silent, and my speech only mattered for the confession of faith. Oh, how often later I remembered this December evening with its hopeless melancholy. At this time, meetings took place in Moscow at which the palace coup was openly discussed and talked about as an event of tomorrow. A.I. came to Moscow. Guchkov, V.A. Maklakov, other saviors of the fatherland were also fussing. At that time, Stürmer 181 was at the head of power, and the Minister of Internal Affairs was Protopopov, who quickly became hated by everyone and was not liked or needed by anyone, who pursued a policy of insignificance and fear. And then the fatal thunderstorm struck. Its beginning found me again not at home, but on a pilgrimage at Trinity. We used to spend February 26, my wife’s birthday, at Trinity-Sergius, and we were there this time too. It was so good to be among the snow, in the hermitages and in the vicinity of the settlement. Returning home in the evening, we learned by telephone that events were taking place in Petrograd: the dissolved State Duma refused to obey and declared itself the Provisional Government. News followed news with depressing speed and certainty, and very quickly the revolution was transmitted to Moscow. The very next day, first threatening notices appeared on the streets, and then “revolutionary bulletins”, which, out of habit, were scary to read at first, but were read by everyone, and they openly announced the progress of the revolution in the capital. The police disappeared, but soon they began to catch and lead disguised policemen and police officers, with a wild and vile cry the crowd saw off the hunted animals. The streets became increasingly crowded with people. The next day, military units already appeared near the arena, and some cars were rushing, in which ominous long-haired types with revolvers in their hands and corresponding girls immediately appeared. The Kremlin was taken almost without a single shot being fired, and by evening Moscow was in the hands of the revolutionary authorities. These days the streets were full of people who marched with vile revolutionary songs to their vile demonstrations. From time to time splashes were heard - it was the policemen who were catching them. A “prayer service of thanksgiving to the Lord God” was announced, the troops marched to the parade, and it was blasphemous and vile. Everyone rejoiced, everyone rejoiced, red Dionysus walked around Moscow and poured his red hops into the crowd. Everything was in red, vile red rags were everywhere, and immediately either the Germans or the Bolsheviks appeared, agitating against the war. I had death in my soul too. The revolution was only disgusting and disgusting to me. I remembered the revolution of 1905 well, so as not to indulge in any degree of charm... And, at the same time, I loved the Tsar and languished in anxiety for the Royal Family. However, there was a moment of cowardice when I wanted to squeeze the joy out of myself, to merge with the people in their “freedom.” I didn’t have the character to despise and be indignant to the end. I walked along Ostozhenka in a popular procession on the day of the parade and got drunk. However, this lasted for half an hour, and nothing came out except disgust. I saw and felt that the red boor had come, that life was becoming vulgar and low, and that Russia no longer existed. Meanwhile, everything around was going crazy with joy, and no matter how much I avoided during these terrible days, I also had to find myself in the circles of those who were professionally rejoicing. So, for example, in the circle of professors and students - one victim of the revolution was demonstratively buried in a red coffin - jubilant speeches were made, corresponding promises were made, the “loan of freedom” was distributed, Kerensky’s nonsense had not yet had time to become disgusting, it aroused admiration (and for many years, according to the reports of the Duma, I began to hate this insignificant talker). And I, like a gloomy Hamlet, although, of course, not revealing my despair (although the silence against the background of the general frenzy was quite eloquent), walked among these madmen. It was the Week of the Cross of the 182nd of Lent. “Of course, everyone forgot about this, but I had the most difficult premonitions from this symbolic coincidence. However, all thought and care (alas! powerless and ineffective!) was about Him, about the Anointed One. What's wrong with Him? Will he remain on the throne? If so, then you can put up with all sorts of responsible ministries (so it seemed then, in fear for him, perhaps it seemed wrong). Then rumors spread about a forced renunciation: I was expecting this too, and I knew in my heart how there, in the center of the revolution, they hated the Tsar, how they wanted not a constitution, but precisely the overthrow of the Tsar, what kind of Jews there gave direction. I knew all this in advance and was afraid of everything - up to and including the regicide from the very first day of the revolution, for this great meanness cannot be anything in essence, like regicide, which is the real black mass of the revolution. And then news came after news: the Tsar abdicated. At the same time, news appeared in the newspapers about “Alexandra Feodorovna” (according to the new Jewish terminology, which could not be reconciled): the Princess was sick with measles, the Heir was sick and she was under arrest. Tears, powerless and last, choked me while reading, and newspapermen shouted vile words along the street: “Arrest of Romanov,” etc. The Tsar was actually arrested and taken to Tsarskoe Selo, where he was united with his family. Only fragmentary information about him began to reach, although it was amazing that in all this sea of ​​lies, slander and abuse, he came out beautiful and pure. Not a single unfaithful, ignoble, non-royal gesture, such dignity, such humility and humility. Easter was approaching. Thoughts about them: what’s wrong with them, how? There was information that they were fasting, taking communion, and that a priest was allowed to see them. It was said that the Emperor was working in the garden and how the chamocrats insulted him 183. And, however, the deafening stream of events rushed with such rapidity that it forced us to forget about the Tsarskoye Selo prisoners until new rumors or news. My ordination (age 24) 184 Igor Platonovich Demidov I was born into a priestly family, and I have Levitical blood flowing through me for six generations. I grew up near the Church of St. Sergius, gracefully surrounded by its prayer and ringing. My childhood aesthetic, moral, everyday impressions are connected with the life of this church 185. Under his roof, his heart burned with prayerful delight and was watered with funeral tears. Until about the age of 12 or 13, I was a faithful son of the Church by birth and upbringing. He studied at theological school, first at the Theological School (four-year) in his hometown of Livny, and then at the Oryol Theological Seminary (3 years). Almost at the very beginning of the period, in the first or second grade of the seminary, a religious crisis occurred, which - true, although with pain, but without tragedy - ended in the loss of religious faith for many, many years, and from the age of 14, until about 30, the prodigal son retired to a distant country, to the grief and temptation of probably many, but above all, of course, his parents. I had something to lose, but I gave it away as if easily, without a struggle (although there were even thoughts of suicide out of godlessness). The initial impetus, apparently, came from childish pride: I was admired at school, but the more sensitive were his injections of Bursak rudeness to me. However, it was not serious. Much more serious were the young questions and doubts that there was no one to answer. The latter, moreover, were supported by incidental influences and meetings, and most importantly and most of all by that intellectualism, of which I, along with countless of my brothers, along with all of Russia, became a victim - both personally and historically. This was the common fate of “humanistic” humanity, which is being overcome to this day, the temptation of man-theism 186 . However, the truth of my protest against the world around me was in the spirit of love of freedom, which turned away from the servility that reigned in the “spiritual” world. (My experience did not yet extend beyond him.) I did not want and could not (and should not) be reconciled with him, I fled from him, saving my spiritual being, and I still consider this flight justified. Added to this was the fact that, along with the loss of religious faith, I naturally, as if automatically, assimilated the revolutionary sentiments prevailing among the intelligentsia, without a definite party affiliation, but with a decisive intransigence towards monarchism, which dominated, at least in our “spiritual” environment. In a word, what happened to my predecessors in the seminary school: Chernyshevsky, Dobrolyubov, etc., happened again at this stage of my life. I became a victim of gloomy revolutionary nihilism (although it was always combined with a love of art and literature, which saved me). To this must be added the fact that the general atmosphere of the theological school was powerless to provide sufficient resistance to this nihilism. Supported by familiar life and coercion, she became more and more unbearable for the proud, self-thinking, but also sincere boy in his love of freedom and love of truth. The seminary authorities then intended me to become a student at the Theological Academy, but for me the only way of salvation then was to flee from the seminary, without delay and without looking back. Where? Of course, to a secular school - to a university. For what? “To be useful”, to serve humanity, progress, scientific thought, to which my soul has always lay. Fulfilling this plan was not easy, it required sacrifices, and not only from myself, but also from my loved ones, that is, first of all, from my parents (which was the last thing I thought about in my young selfishness). Nevertheless, in the summer of 1888 I left the Oryol Seminary and, after a two-year stay at the Yelets Gymnasium, in the fall of 1890 I entered Moscow University, the Faculty of Law. In this choice, I was also a victim of intellectual herdism, going against my own inclination. I was attracted to the field of philology, philosophy, literature, but I ended up at the Faculty of Law, which was alien to me, in a certain sense, in order to thereby save the fatherland from tsarist tyranny, of course, ideologically. And for this it was necessary to devote himself to the social sciences, like a convict to a wheelbarrow, tying himself to political economy. I doomed myself to go through this purgatory and thereby atone for my sin of the prodigal son. I entered the university with a predetermined intention - to devote myself to a science that was alien to me, and I carried out this plan, achieving a position at the university in this department (by the kindest and dearest professor A.I. Chuprov 187, similar to me in fate: he was also a seminarian who recalled his past as a lost paradise, but he was not destined to completely go through the intellectual desert). I can well imagine all the excitement that he would experience when he saw me in a cassock, but he did not live to see this scandal. So, my thought moved along the paths of the social and, of course, socialist worldview. Consistently and to a certain extent, I seemed to automatically move from one of his images to another, in order, it seemed, to finally gain a foothold in Marxism, which came to me like a saddle to a cow. A scientific university trip (1898–1900) took me, of course, first of all to Germany, as a country of social democracy and Marxism. But here, contrary to expectations, rapid disappointments began, and my “worldview” began to crack at all the seams. As a result, when I returned to my homeland to finally take the coveted professorship of “political economy,” I was in a state of complete resignation, in which the voice of religious faith began to sound, at first timidly and uncertainly, and then more and more feebly. I began to profess this in my writings from about 1901–1902, to the surprise and indignation of my yesterday like-minded people. But, in essence, even in a state of spiritual savagery in Marxism, I was always religiously yearning, I was never indifferent to faith. At first he believed in an earthly paradise, but tremblingly, sometimes with tears. Then, starting from a certain moment, when I allowed myself this and decided to confess, I quickly, sharply, decisively went straight to my spiritual homeland from a distant country: having returned to faith in a “personal” God (instead of the impersonal idol of progress), I believed in Christ, Whom I loved in childhood and carried in my heart, and then in “Orthodoxy”, I was drawn to my native church imperiously and irresistibly. However, more years passed in which this thought and desire to return to the Father’s house remained powerless in me; my return was paid for with intimate suffering. It happened, of course, not only in the heart and in life, but also in thought; from a sociologist I became a theologian (I gratefully note the spiritual influence of Dostoevsky and Vl. Solovyov in these years). But at the same time, a desire arose in my soul, which secretly also never faded, for a complete return to my father’s house, with the acceptance of the priesthood. During these years, I sometimes called myself in conversations with friends “a traitor to the altar.” Changing my “worldview” was not enough for me; my “Levitical” blood spoke more and more powerfully, and my soul thirsted for the priesthood, longing for the altar 188 . (Prince Evg. N. Trubetskoy once told me that, according to his feeling, I was “born in stole” 189.) However, there were various obstacles along the way. The first of them is the habits and prejudices of the environment and even loved ones. If where I left, in the “spiritual” environment, taking orders at a certain moment in life was a step taken for granted and indisputable, then in the intellectual environment, where godlessness was just as naturally implied, accepting the priesthood, at least in the state of a professor at Moscow University, a doctor of political economy, etc., was a scandal, madness or foolishness and, in any case, self-exclusion from an enlightened environment. This had to be decided, and this also took time. I also decided to do this deliberately, and, however, the times were no longer the same. However, I don’t know how I myself would have coped with all the personal difficulties, but here the hand of God clearly supported me. At the beginning of 1918, news was received in Moscow about the shelling of Yalta and the southern Crimean coast in general, where my family was located, by the Bolsheviks, and, of course, there was a break in all relations with her. There was reason to fear that she was all dead. I remained alone before the face of God. And then I felt that nothing was holding me back and there was no reason to put off what I had been nurturing in my soul for at least a decade. But there was still an obstacle for me, also insurmountable by human forces: it was the connection between Orthodoxy and autocracy, which led to a humiliating and harmful dependence of the Church on the state and a kind of Caesar-papism. I couldn’t get over this, I didn’t want to and I shouldn’t have. This obstacle suddenly disappeared in 1917 with the revolution: the Church was free, from being a state church it became persecuted. At the All-Russian Council 190 (of which I was a member), the Church, in the person of Patriarch Tikhon 191, received a worthy and fearless head. The council was the canonical body of church government. Together with the Church, I received freedom of action for myself. Therefore, I also should not have wasted time to take advantage of it in the face of the formidable future events. The decision was made by me, and it could not be postponed. In addition, I received from the prince. Evg. N. Trubetskoy one late evening received a friendly telephone message in which he warned me in Latin (!) that I would be arrested that night. But when I went to bed after that, I felt sick, my temperature rose with pain. In the morning, the doctor diagnosed an attack of appendicitis, although he did not insist on immediate surgery. I had to hide from my apartment (although E.N.’s warning was not fulfilled). Having somehow recovered from the attack, I began to act: first I turned to His Grace Theodore of Volokolamsk, one of the Moscow vicars, who knew me personally (and who ordained my friend Professor Father Pavel Florensky), with the question of whether he would agree to ordain me as a priest. After his consent, I explained to him the urgency of this matter in view of my threat (therefore, he himself refused his initial offer to spend some time in the diaconate, having learned my position). After this, I turned to Patriarch Tikhon himself with a request for ordination, to which His Holiness graciously and without any objections agreed. (He told me, laughing, that “We need you in a frock coat more than in a cassock.”) I did not even think that the Patriarch could have the desire to perform my ordination himself when he asked him to entrust this to His Eminence Theodore. At the same time, I wanted to avoid noise, due to my position. In his humility and kindness, the Patriarch did not object to this, especially since there was no time to waste, and yet on the next Sunday (Trinity Day) 192 the Patriarch had to leave for St. Petersburg and, therefore, be absent from Moscow. It was agreed that this decision would remain secret until the last moment, although it, of course, was leaked at the Council, and the Patriarch himself in St. Petersburg on Trinity Day himself said in his circles that joy awaited them today, such was his loving and blessing word 193. So, finally, it was decided: on Trinity Day my ordination as a deacon would take place (in the Danilov Monastery, where the Most Reverend Theodore resided), and on the day of the Holy Spirit in the church of the cemetery of the Holy Spirit as a priest. Of course, I would not have dared to choose such dates for my ordination myself; they turned out to be preordained from above, and therefore I always experience these great and sacred days as a bright sign of God’s mercy. 194 So, it's decided. But I was still separated from the Holy Holiday by Holy Week, the days of spiritual preparation. No one yet knew about my decision, and I myself informed only my closest friends about it. It was like a joyful farewell to them before my spiritual marriage, and at the same time a kind of solemn meeting - before death. I keep sacred memories of these meetings in my heart: there were tears of joy, and excitement, and words of love and friendly parting words. 195 At home I was alone with my boy-son, who was a huge and joyful support for me these days (we were separated by my exile and I don’t know if I will see him in this life). The Holy Week before my ordination consisted for me of dying to this life, which began for me with the adoption of my decision. I don’t even know how, but a clear understanding was imprinted in my consciousness, growing and strengthening every day, that this dying is voluntary, but also inevitable, from which one cannot escape, but this departure should not be desired. It was like a long agony, every day brought new experiences, and it was torment that cannot be described. But there was not a single moment when even the thought of retreat flashed; however, at the same time, I walked with what seemed like some kind of stone wall in front of me, running into a dead end. I can only compare this with some states of dying during my last illness, although, of course, then they were not accompanied by physical suffering (except for the insomnia that was usual for me). This dying was then absolutely necessary and important for me, some kind of spiritual task that I could not ignore, as if it were some kind of spiritual evidence. It arose unexpectedly and involuntarily for me and somehow smoldered and, smoldering, burned me. This pain of spiritual birth was the great mercy of God. I would give a lot to now see these, of course, lost notes... But having passed these days of dying, on June 9, on the eve of Trinity Day, I went to the Danilov Monastery, carrying a bundle with a spiritual dress (I brought my frock coat back in it), to the Most Reverend Theodore, where I spent the night. Muscovites know this monastery with a cemetery in which the ashes of Khomyakov, Gogol and others rest. On the day of the Holy Trinity, I was ordained a deacon. If it is possible to express the inexpressible, then I will say that I experienced this first diaconal ordination as the most fiery. The most amazing thing about it was, of course, the first passage through the royal doors and approaching St. to the throne. It was like passing through fire, scorching, enlightening and regenerating. It was an entry into another world, into the heavenly kingdom. This was for me the beginning of a new state of my being, in which I have remained since then until now. When I walked home through Bolshevik Moscow in a cassock, probably with the obvious unfamiliarity of the new attire, I did not hear a single rude word addressed to me and did not meet a rude look. Only one girl in Zamoskvorechye said to me warmly: Hello, father! And literally the same thing happened again the next day, when I returned as a priest. Then my cook, the wonderful Annushka, who generally treated everything with silent sympathy all the time, came up to me for a blessing with the words: bless, father, and she was the first to receive it (followed by the doorman of our house). On the day of the Holy Spirit 196, Bishop Theodore had to serve in the cemetery church of the Holy Spirit, and we went there from the Danilov Monastery in a procession of the cross, I walked in a surplice with a deacon’s candle next to the bishop. It was not a small distance, but they passed it calmly and unhindered. My friends who were then in Moscow also came to the church for ordination. I remember first of all Fr. Pavel Florensky (with his Vasya), who also participated in the liturgy, M. A. Novoselov, N. N. Preis (†), Vyach. Iv. Ivanova, N. A. Berdyaeva, P. B. Struve (?), book. E. N. Trubetskoy, gr. A. Rachinsky, V.K. Khoroshko, A.S. Glinka (Volzhsky), M.O. Gershenzon, L.I. Shestov, E.A. Askoldov and others. 197 After the service, all of them took part in a friendly tea party, cordially arranged for us by the clergy of the church (it was not easy then, as it is now). The experience of this ordination, of course, is even more indescribable than that of a deacon - “Silence is more comfortable.” Bishop Theodore said a word to me at the altar that shocked me then, although now I cannot reconstruct its content. There was general joy, and I myself experienced a kind of calm jubilation, a feeling of eternity. Dying has passed, just as the sorrow of the passionate days passes in the light of Easter. What I experienced then was that Easter joy. I celebrated my first liturgies in the Mother of God Church of the Joy of All Who Sorrow, in an orphanage on Zubovsky Boulevard, where I lived, together and under the guidance of Fr. Pavel Florensky, who remained in Moscow for several days even after my initiation for this purpose. I was assigned to the Church of Elijah the Obydenny in Obydenny Lane, near the Church of the Savior, where I also managed to perform several liturgies before my departure from Moscow. However, I had to meet the family in a new way, about which I had already received news. Therefore, two weeks after my ordination, with the blessing of the Patriarch, I went to Crimea to visit my family for a month, after which I intended to return to the place of my former, professorial, and new, priestly ministry. However, I was not destined to return to Moscow. I had to cross the border of the German occupation near Kursk for the first time, without a passport, but having safely passed it. I met my people safely and spent a legitimate month with them. Then I made an attempt to return to Moscow via Kyiv. But from here, for a whole month, I did not succeed: circumstances changed. So I was forced to return to Crimea and remained there until the beginning of 1923, when I was deported abroad forever. I was expelled from among the university professors for accepting the priesthood twice: from Moscow - immediately after my ordination, from Simferopol - after it was taken over by the Bolsheviks. S.N. Bulgakov. Yalta diary 198 June 16, 1921, upon returning from church. Today I celebrated the Divine Liturgy at the Gaspri Church 199. God allowed me to sanctify the 50th anniversary of my life with liturgical prayer. After 49, life is definitely going downhill, the further, the faster. And at the same time such lightness, such freshness and youth in the soul! And this is now, when the circumstances are so ominous and threatening. Both of our elders, Fedichka 200 and Munochka 201, went to buy bread, the first to hard work. The future promises hunger and cold, and, on top of that, political misadventures. I am in paralysis and doomed to uselessness, and yet “I hear my heart blooming.” What should a stupid guy who was born an eternal undergrowth do? Or is it a precious gift of God - to fall again and again to the cup of life and drink its sparkling wine in greedy sips... One thing age undoubtedly gives: it teaches you to appreciate life as the highest gift of God, the Giver of Life. We do not know how to appreciate life from a young age, because we are too drunk with it, too busy with ourselves and showing off. But when over the years both this spice and these illusions fade away, the true value emerges as the goodness of life and the gift of life, which no living creature, not even Satan, will ever reject - right up to the end, even though he slanderes and blasphemes the Giver of Life. And, along with the years, the immortality of life is imprinted more and more clearly - you don’t believe in any of its terms, neither in old age, nor in death, but only in life. The candle, as it burns out, turns into light and heat, which more than compensate for the burnt-out part of the trunk. I am celebrating my 50th birthday, cherished by the Lord God: my whole family is around, everyone is (I hope) alive and well, which is the most important thing, and everything else will follow. My friends are far from me, but I have hope of meeting with them soon - Glory to the Lord. June 27, 1921 Yesterday we remembered Ivashechka 202 in his church. Time and trials have taken their toll: why deceive yourself, the past has died, not irrevocably, of course, but irrevocably for life here. Now the consciousness that the Lord took him away from the sorrows of the earth completely destroys the sorrow, and his memories have faded. All that remains is the pure prayer image of a heavenly angel helping us. Our life is becoming more and more difficult and harsh. Hopes for Moscow are fading, as it turned out from the stories of the visiting Marusya, it’s hard everywhere (?). Only the miracle of God's mercy can save us. Thy will be done! August 6, 1921 Transfiguration of the Lord 203. Today, by the will of God, I am excommunicated from worship (again due to abscesses on my legs). This was the first time in my priesthood that this happened to me, and on such a holiday, on my holiday, for in my madness I longed to see the Kingdom of God come in power before death, to experience... transformation before death. Of course, a terrifying example is A. N. Schmidt 204, who was confident in her transformation and simply died. But everything about her is so mysterious. During this time, my fate for the coming winter was obviously decided. I was in complete hopelessness. Moscow was increasingly moving out of sight, and winter seemed like a dark and terrible hole. Here in Oleize 205 the atmosphere became increasingly heavy. And suddenly I received an offer to take a place in the Yalta Cathedral, which immediately resolved many difficulties: I stay here, close to my people, I receive a church, a pulpit and even a pulpit, a certain income and even certain opportunities to get books. In general, the cloud has broken, and from there the sun's rays of God's goodness are pouring. Lord, bless me and strengthen me! I believe that the Lord is leading me, and He will indicate the time when I need to return to Moscow, but so far the time has not yet come! I stand here under the banner of St. Alexander Nevsky. Is it really possible, as the heart says, that the hour of his help and his speech for the salvation of Russia will soon come here? Troubles came to Russia from Petrograd, and the guardian of Petrograd will liberate it (!). Something's coming!.. September 13, 1921 Yalta. Here I am in Yalta, serving in the New Cathedral, living near the church, listening to the bell ringing, like a grace-filled child of God. I don’t want to hear and distinguish (although with the human ear I hear and distinguish) the vanity and squabbles around me - this is not interesting to me in comparison with the great thing that I stand next to. Suffering hearts open up before me, I can pray and liturgize daily in my week, what more can I ask from God! Help, Lord, to feed the family, and this is becoming more and more difficult, the need for bread is becoming more and more palpable. Children remain unsettled, without education. But everything, everything is from the Lord. There are interesting meetings and conversations. Oh, how I would like to know something about Friend 206, to have something from him, how I need his support. Terrible news about Vyach Ivanov - how hard his life was during this time and how terrible his fate is now - a new and terrible incest! 207 And it’s as if fate is pushing him towards this outwardly! The Lord sometimes tests by allowing the power of sin to manifest itself to the end - how incomprehensible this is, judging by humankind! Vera Konst obviously went to the Lord in peace and prayer. Lord, help us all, strengthen and confirm us! September 22, 1921 I live in Yalta. Anabiosis. The silence of the outback. Loneliness. Daily service and prayer, like a monastery, but there are no soulmates, no friend, no community. Everything that has to happen will be accomplished by a miracle, by the influx of the Holy Spirit, so that we will not recognize ourselves. From us there is only questioning, longing for the unanswered, grief. Human efforts are small and futile, and impossible for us who are exhausted. And yet today I felt acutely during the liturgy before the Holy Gifts - the end is already near, the desired will soon come true, the hour of liberation is not far off. I sit alone in the evening, in the semi-darkness. We need to have great spiritual content in order to draw life from ourselves, but at the same time this is the best test of what belongs to us and what we appropriate to ourselves. Stay alone and discover yourself - alas! - in its smallness. I think about my “creativity”, but I am powerless. Yesterday a cowardly thought flashed through my mind: isn’t faith in one’s special chosenness, “meeting” and “event”, isn’t this also... conceit that shatters in the harsh days of testing? But no, this is a sinful, tempting thought, and is it really conceit? Doesn't God choose an earthen vessel for His purposes? And then, my unshakable faith that a miracle will happen, but it will also be the end of my life, is associated with death (“with death you glorify God,” as Father Pavel Florensky wrote in that letter) - doesn’t it put up with the failure, worthlessness and barrenness of my life and my powerlessness now? After all, not by merit, but by grace, God chooses His servants and chose me, weak and unworthy, to be a witness of the Divine Sophia and Her revelation. The end of my life may be approaching, but a whole event still separates me from it, and it has not yet arrived. There was a time when the trembling of the soul gave a feeling of growing wings, when a joyful dawn lit up and there was hope that through personal effort, personal creativity the ascent would be accomplished. Now everything personal is suppressed and weakened, only a quiet but incessant call remains: yes, come, Lord Jesus! When I was dedicated, I told myself very clearly that I was sacrificing to God not only myself, but also my family. But then I didn’t know what I was saying or what it meant; I drew in front of me and thought, at most, about the difficult experiences that I bring to my family, no more. And, in fact, I thought that in fact her life would only be more interesting, deeper and more joyful. I spoke about sacrifice, I did not know and did not think what it meant, what it required. Only now am I beginning (and even then only just beginning) to see what sacrifice actually means—not in gesture and posture, but in life. My sacrifice was accepted by God - the sacrifice of Abraham and Isaac, 208 which is every sacrifice (like the sacrifice of the Son of God and the Father). My life is distorted, but in itself it is not difficult or difficult for me, but because of me the life of my entire family, my loved ones, my children, is distorted. If Munochka languishes and withers, loses her best years and remains without an education, it is because I am in disgrace; if Fedya does not study and must devote his best years to the struggle for existence and his artistic inclinations remain undeveloped and undiscovered, this is also because of me, and in my previous position, if I had survived this time, I could have provided him with the opportunity to study. If hunger is wrapping its ring more and more tightly around my entire family, my dear Nelya and Seryozhechka 209 , this is also not without a connection. And the darkness that envelops our lives and frightens us is the darkness of the Gethsemane night 210. Yes, I am to blame for their suffering and failure, I talked about the sacrifice, expressed my readiness for it, and God accepted this sacrifice. Lord, give me strength for Calvary, I believe that You know that everything is happening for the better, for according to Your will, I bow down like a led lamb. Accept the sacrifice and give me the strength to love You the way You want me to! But in the name of humanity, in whose name You also prayed: if possible, let this cup pass by me 211, and I ask: Lord, have mercy on them, save them, preserve them! Give me strength and wisdom, give me courage in difficult times! Let me be the support of the family in every sense, give me pastoral wisdom and firmness. And another prayer: let me see and feel a Friend, his help, love and affection, for without him I wither. I cannot discern what my settlement here means, whether it is a temporary trial and trial or a slowly approaching death. However, although I humbly accept the latter, I consider it a sinful weakness to surrender to this thought. May life be blessed, it is the highest good, the highest gift of the Giver of Life, and may cowardly despondency be far away! September 26, 21 Yalta. Yesterday, my name day, memory of St. Sergius will forever remain memorable. After three years of separation, on this day God gave me to spend my name day with my family, among my loved ones, thanking God, praying together, and giving communion to Seryozha. But this day was darkened at first by silent news and anxiety about Kotik Mikhailov, then it became known that a body had been found, and then we met the most mournful procession. There are no words to express this, your heart is breaking, your mind cannot contain it, and you can only cry and pray for him, for the living who are left to live without him, and for Russia, on which the uninhibited Satan has released all his demons and, according to this mystical conspiracy, everything Russian, the noblest, is destroyed, only the rabid and the Jews remain. Lord, save Russia, I know that You lead, and Your goodness is wiser and stronger than evil, but show us Your right hand! And Fedya was miraculously saved from the same attack by road in a few days. Thank you, Lord! Lord, give me the power of prayer and faith to help those left behind! 5 Oct. Yalta. I live here near the church, under the ringing of bells, as if at the bottom of a river, in a calm, maternal and caressing... I perform the liturgy every day - on my Week, I pray. The soul is childishly silent. Mental life is covered with a veil - due to uselessness and disuse. Spiritual life, of course, is weak, much weaker than it should and can be - I give in to insignificant temptations, but in general it feels like I’m rocking in my mother’s cradle: a strange feeling - peace and serenity in the midst of general rebellion. We must thank the Lord for every day He sends. There is no need to succumb to the temptation of everyday life that lurks here. Sometimes you ask yourself, as if half asleep: but where are my fiery hopes, where are the meetings and meetings? But there is no need to compose and force yourself, let the grain ripen until the time that comes... Children are moving here, they are driven out by need; their life is bleak. But may life be blessed, it is the highest, the only good. The Russian people remain in a daze; the time has not yet come for them to wake up, but it is coming. There is no despair or fear in his soul about his fate, the sick giant tragically committed insane sins, but will still become Christopher 212, will find the born Christ in his heart. Wake it up, wake it up! 5 Oct. Today, after the liturgy, Nyura, a wonderful and enthusiastic seamstress who lives in God, asked me for permission to stay overnight in the church, saying that she had already stayed before. I couldn’t allow her to do this without the abbot (and she didn’t want to ask him), and I myself blessed her, acting hesitantly and ambiguously, as is typical of me. And then I thought about it and I’m still perplexed. On the one hand, I have complete confidence in the purity and prayerfulness of this girl, and general church prayer is not enough for her, she longs for more, night prayers and delights, but at the same time I am afraid that this excessive and inappropriate boldness can lead her into delusion, overextend her strength. And I’m perplexed myself. Lord, give reason to Your unworthy priest! In any case, it is clear that this is not the will of the Lord, for I have no right to allow it with my own will. With her was another enthusiastic visionary and prayer worker, 16-year-old Claudia, who once had a conversation with me - at the same time completely overwhelmed by mental prayer, astral clairvoyance and confusion from reading books like Nilus 213. I’m afraid for her, just as I’m not afraid for the pure and clear Nyura: she won’t cope with her inner world, but I also admire and rejoice at these living miracles of God. She, a high school student, in our age passionately strives to enter a monastery, suffocates in the world. And this is in our century, next to various Komsomols. How ridiculous and powerless they are with their attempts to extinguish the fire of faith in a person. My life - outside the church - is full of everyday life. I place my children in work and travel on business. I don’t do any mental work at all. There is no time, nothing, yes, obviously, and it’s none of my business. Lord, help me not to get bogged down spiritually, give me the experience of prayer and the power of faith! 17 Oct. Returned from Vespers after a conversation about the Lord's Prayer. There is a special feeling from this conversation in a darkened church - there is something catacomb-like about it. And even a certain satisfaction remains - the earth thirsts for the acquisition of the Word of God. Lord help me! And I myself, yesterday and today, am in confusion: on the one hand, a hand is raised over Oleiz again, and my heart clenches for V. Iv., and on the other hand, our economic crisis is not easing, and Trishkin’s caftan is stretched out in all directions. Of course, it’s sinful cowardice, but you root for the children in your heart. Everything is God's will! Quiet evening after a hard day. I’m sitting alone in an empty apartment, I can hear the clock striking and every movement. November 1, 1921 Yalta. It’s November, and we’ve made it to November. And in the summer it seemed that already in October we would die from hunger, darkness and cold. Munochka moved here to Yalta and entered the service. I have to ride on the children, exploit them, instead of supporting them myself. But thank the Lord that we live. Received an appointment from Kyiv to the Institute of People's Economy. And the challenge is the first real glimpse of the future in this time. Yesterday I had a conversation in church. Life without change, silence and calm, among which there are terrible nightmares. It’s been exactly a year since I arrived in Oleiz – a year of trials and miracles... November 5, 1921 It was a difficult and difficult week of testing. Munochka was about to get to the place (quite ambiguous politically), but was thrown out of there a few days later, both due to her unfitness and perhaps because of human cruelty. She, poor thing, suffered, and I suffered with her. In general, as before, Moon’s fate is a constant anxiety and pain for me - of course, this is my lack of faith. This has always been the case, due to the difficulty of her character, and especially during the days of initiation, and after, and now. I cannot help but realize that because of me she is suffering: I did not know how and could not raise her, giving myself over to the corrupting influence of idleness and satiety, and, at the same time, doomed her to trials, entering the path of the priesthood. It is most of all a victim - I wanted it that way, but with my lips it sounded more beautiful and abstract than now, when it was clothed in the flesh and blood of a prosaic existence, knocking on thresholds, humiliations and clicks. In the depths of my consciousness, I firmly know that through my dedication my family - and Munochka - are saved from evil, but in everyday life I sometimes become faint-hearted. She is seduced, just as she was seduced by various rubbish before, and now, by the ease of speculative seduction, she gives her low, carnal element and self-satisfaction with momentary success too much power over herself, and I listen too much and react to what is happening in her, and am powerless to help her. I pray to the Lord and the Most Pure Mother to enlighten, help and strengthen her on the good path. And I believe - I firmly believe that the current trials are sent for our good, exposing the decay of our former life and laying the foundation for a new one. But as a human being, I can’t help but grieve, seeing how children lose their best years, and, um, and run wild in this need, in this struggle for existence... And along with this, it’s as if a new wave of new thoughts, feelings, and comprehensions is knocking at the heart. And the joy of creative contemplation appears to the soul, when it seems that time has not passed in vain, that something is ripening and mature invisibly in the soul. It’s as if a new feeling and new thoughts appeared around the issue of gender, and all this is connected with aspirations about the Holy Spirit, the Comforter. And such joy rises in the soul, feeling this surf and a new tide... – I read a lot of the magazine: in their own way and in their own way, they are right, they are also right about Western bourgeoisism, to which they themselves have the last word. They cannot be refuted on their own plane, and any such refutation will in fact be a compromise “agreement”; they can only be surpassed, overcome from a new life: whoever is in Christ is a new creation. But - God! - how difficult it is - it is always difficult, especially in the hour of trial, when, powerless, the Church of Christ is abandoned, and the “sign” is not given to us, when shrines are desecrated, St. relics under the cackling of disbelief and there is no lightning from the sky, there is no protection. But the Lord, when the hour comes, will give protection, send inspiration, ignite hearts. Hey, come, Comforter, come, come, come! November 17, 1921 Yalta. Today is our Munochka’s birthday, she turned 23 years old. Thank God, she is with us and healthy, and in general we are all together. Last year Fedya was in obscurity, she was far from us in Simferopol, and a bloody nightmare was approaching, today we are in need, but we are alive. God bless our girl's life. Most Pure Mother, save her heart. Of course, as a human being, as a father, I can only wish her a good husband - and this, according to custom, turns into an idee fixe 214 for her, but this is cowardice. I succumbed to her moods and the moment: in the light of the experience of my own life and everything around me, how can I now consider marriage a truly quiet haven, peace of mind, and even given Munochka’s capricious, demanding and weak character? At the very least, everyone who came across her path would undoubtedly not give her any peace or support, and after a short infatuation, long bitterness and disappointment would follow... I don’t know how to help her with my weak mind and will, and I feel immense guilt before her. But I calmly entrust her and her fate to the Lord. If her personal happiness is not achieved, it means that it is not in God’s plans. Tonight it was somehow unexpected and calmed me down. His will be done. November 25, 1921 Letters arrived from Moscow and there was a breath of Moscow life, cheerfulness and friendship. Moving to Moscow somehow became close and real. From Fr. There is no direct news of Paul, but there is information about him. He is alive and vital, for during this time his son Mikhail was born. A silent, but quite strong affirmation of life despite all the collapse! M. V. Nesterov 215 sent a photograph from our portrait, how joyfully I was excited by it, how I remembered those dear, radiant days and evenings in Fr. Paul under the roof of St. Sergius in a quiet, intimate conversation. Lord, how merciful You are to me, sending me a Friend and so much friendship. I definitely feel myself in this portrait as not myself: he is completely faithful, but that is no longer there, he died, was incinerated in the fire of dedication. And now my (spiritual) face is completely different, simpler, more modest, softer (?), the disharmony has been resolved, and then there is no longer this vulgar civilian dress that inspires disgust, aesthetic and mystical. And I realize and feel even more strongly how unworthy I am to stand next to Fr. Pavel, what a misunderstanding in this joint portrait (that I am for him and next to him), but let me be like a background, like these trees, but still with him and near him. I sit and look at this wisdom, light and strength, calmness flowing from his entire figure. A large letter from Abba 216, loving, full of news about friends. Tomorrow is the anniversary of God’s great, endless mercy, miraculously shown to us: receiving news from Fedichka. I had forgotten even this sacred time, but my Nelitschka reminded me. Lord, what a shock to the soul it was, how wonderful it was! The day before, O.S. Ivanov arrived and killed hope by the fact that there was no trace of Fedya in Moscow. The next day there was a service in Gaspra, I could hardly bear myself from depression, although after communion my soul became clear and peaceful. I went downstairs and met Nelya, who, laughing, crying and not trusting, was going to receive the letter. We walk together, we don’t walk, but we fly, outside of time and space, and, finally, suddenly joyful, jubilant news. And then general joy, delight, congratulations, a thanksgiving service in the dining room and a general, grateful prayer. In the evening Drozdov with such warm greetings... When you remember this miracle, you are so ashamed of your sinful lack of faith, you so want to cry, pray, bless God. And now Fedichka lives with me - not as expected and as I would like, in the body of a slave, a Soviet slave without a brush and palette, but so bright, selfless, loving, caring: something that was not in him before that terrible hour. And truly the Lord leads him and us along His path, so that we can learn not to rush around with Himself, but to simply pray and give thanks. This night he was absent on duty, and I was so afraid for him, I so vividly felt the infinite mercy of God in his return. Life is the highest good, a gift of God, before which everything else is conditional and derivative, and so let us all together, with common strength, defend life. Glory to You. December 1, 1921 Yalta. Now there will be a prayer service with the consecration of our apartment. Bless, Lord, our life here! Today was a remarkable night and, um, once again a turning point in my life - difficult and even scary. I had insomnia from anxiety, from cold, from grief at the sight of my dear children in severe captivity. But suddenly my thought rushed in a completely new and unexpected direction. Yesterday E.K. Rakitina told me about her desire to convert to Orthodoxy - for her this is simply an opportunity for real church life, but it gave impetus to my dormant feelings and the never-fading pain about the separation of the Churches. I felt with all acuteness that I could not simply want to unite the real Catholics, for I have an undeniable feeling that they are in the real Church and we are in the not quite real one, like them, that separation is a wound on both and what can we do? 217 And everything that is usually said about the differences of confessions is only babble and pathetic self-justifications - both dogmas, and even the Pope, and unleavened bread 218. We have Eastern Orthodoxy as church life, they have their own wonderful sides - discipline, the touching cult of the Heart of Jesus and the Mother of God, and much more. The main thing they have is a universal universal feeling of the Church with a universal Latin language, with local customs and so on, different readings, while we have only a local one: our Church Slavonic language is a historical accident, dear to us, but already dying (what else does the current impotence and tastelessness say at least something in this Slavic language, and not in a kitchen seminary<?>). We, having accepted Christianity from the Greeks along with the wondrous Eastern rite, accepted their local, national, selfish quarrel with Rome and the schism from which Byzantium perished, as from the punishment of God, but, dying, infected us with the cadaveric poison that operates in various metropolitans Anthony 219 and their associates. We immediately plunged into provincialism, which in Moscow was elevated to the dogma of the “Third Rome” 220 (and here only parodying the first and only Rome), for which we were punished by the synodal Petersburg 221, and now God’s judgment on Russia and the Russian Church erupted in Bolshevism and in spiritual powerlessness and spiritual abandonment of the Church. Yes, we had great Russian saints, Russian holiness and piety, but all this is like local, parochial piety, and those who, like Novoselov and many hierarchs, confuse this “spiritual life” with the Universal Church are naive. Rome does not exclude this, does not take away it, and, being wise, it does not interfere with this. The new path of Eastern Rite Catholicism appeared to me in a completely new light. Do not interfere with anything, do not extinguish anything local, just break this suffocating barrier, limitation... Yes, this is exactly so... And we must, I thought, make a sacrifice, self-sacrifice for the sake of the truth: repent of sin. December 1st. These thoughts came over me like a whirlwind, my head worked with feverish speed, my heart was pounding. I thought with fear: Lord, is my path really not over yet, and are You demanding a new deed, a new sacrifice, a new reincarnation from me? I know how terrible, how sacrificial this path can be, I feel neither strength nor youth for it, it again gave an unexpected deviation from the other path I had outlined. And yet the hand of God is on me, I already know it, I feel it with certainty and certainty. I have to go through a lot and change my mind and check before it becomes clear to me what the Lord requires of me, what sacrificio not only dell’intelletto, but also della corde 222 will require. But from that night onwards, a new terrible task began to confront me: to relive to the depths the pain of the division of the Church and to answer decisively for myself this unanswerable, tragic question. This is why, I thought, they saved my life so miraculously, and it no longer belongs to me, it is in the hands of God. And I know which wall I am standing in front of on both sides. Sometimes it becomes clear to me why and why I stayed here in this solitude, far from all loved ones, even from a Friend: I need to survive alone and listen to myself, to the flow of events in me and outside of me, to the voice of God. In any case, it was a terrible, historical, fatal night for me, and the hand of the Lord was on me... December 31, 1921 This terrible and blessed year, the year of trials and miracles, is passing into eternity. The trials were great - from the constant threat to life and freedom, from want, from human cruelty and rudeness, from the impending famine, and it seemed that one would not survive this year, not live to see a new one! Cowardly fear deadened and froze the heart. And - at the same time - this year we experienced a miracle - the return of Fedichka, who became our support and breadwinner, and this joy rewarded everything, all the trials. And now we all live together, we are all alive, although battered, under the roof of the Yalta Cathedral, where I also ended up by the will of God, contrary to all expectations. And when you see and feel clearly how the hand of God has led and is leading, you calmly and trustingly entrust yourself to it to the end. May the coming year bring the desired change in the fate of Munochka, who is in a chronically serious condition, some kind of dead end. For Russia, this year was a year of dying, disasters, hunger, slavery. May this be the dying before the resurrection. Obviously, the power of the red savages has outlived its usefulness, and the European division of Russia and its rapid economic Europeanization are beginning. Just a year ago I would have looked with horror and disgust at this business of Russian and European origins, but now I look to the future cheerfully and with confidence and am ready to almost welcome this Europeanization, seeing in it the will of God. We cannot live in isolation and proud self-affirmation from the world. To become ourselves, we must become a Christian Europe, and then Russia will come closer to its calling. We have everything ahead of us. God bless the new summer! January 1, 1922 God bless the new summer! Yesterday we celebrated the New Year with our whole family, in peace and joy. Seryozha spent the night with me in the room, I happily heard his breathing and felt his presence. I myself, of course, could not sleep, as always before the early liturgy, but my thoughts were racing like a whirlwind and... to Rome, and about Rome. I thought that I should turn to the Patriarch with a motivated note about the need for a society for mutual acquaintance and rapprochement of the Churches. The question must be raised both ecclesiastical and extra-church. So far, the Lord has clearly helped and supported me. I believe that if there is the will of God and if I am not in delusion, but really feel the hand of God on me, then the circumstances themselves will show the way. In the meantime, thank God that I am in Yalta, alone, with my thoughts, so new, amazing, unexpected for me. Your head is bursting with questions, so you need to reconsider all your beliefs and earthly hopes. Help me, Lord, make me understand! In any case, I’m celebrating this new year full of new thoughts, new forebodings and tasks. Praise the Lord. February 14, 1922 Monday of the 1st Week of Great Lent. Lord, bless the holy Pentecost! By the grace of God we met Great Lent and lived healthy and unharmed. I am already meeting the fourth 4th day in the rank of priest: the first and unforgettable in Oleiz in 1919, - under the second Bolsheviks, the next, also unforgettable, in Simferopol, inextricably linked with the memories of Vera Georgiyevna, her faith and devotion, and the Elenin Church (Holy Week); Then there was Munochka's typhus, Fedino was sent to the front. The Third Pentecostal Day in Oleiz - with Alyosha, at a time of grave danger, it ended with the Holy Week of Grace in the Gasp<i>ish Church. And now I meet the 4th here as the “vicar” of the cathedral, Fr. Peter, in the Yalta New Cathedral, overwhelmed by difficult and responsible experiences. Here I am only a wheel in a divine service not set up and directed by me, the Lord humbled me, but at the same time blessed me, His will be done! Of course, I would like, at this time more than ever, my own corner and my own community, which is not here, but, obviously, this is not the time, and now I must become depersonalized in order to complete my journey in silence. My main personal feeling of life is powerlessness and defeat in the face of hunger. How difficult and shameful it is to feel like a greedy and cowardly self-lover, hiding and locking yourself in your corner with your piece for yourself and your family, to the knocking and groans of the hungry. I feel unworthy even to talk about God and faith, and at the same time I must teach others, perform liturgy, and the damned one myself partake of the flesh and blood of the Lord. The other day I was with the Holy Gifts to an old woman dying of hunger, who was lying alone in a cold, damp room. I felt so destroyed and spiritually powerless, and she stands before me as if at the Last Judgment. Now existence itself becomes a sin. After all, I would have to give her my food, take her with me, and this means sacrificing all the usual conditions and conveniences of my existence. The Lord forces me to make a decisive choice: either He, or selfish self-preservation, and the latter wins in me, and this in everything, at every step: Satan laughs with his economic materialism, which turns out to be right about me. We go through the fire and mud of testing and see ourselves in a terrible light, spiritual corpses before eternal death. I know how many mitigating circumstances I can cite: family—the main income is not mine at all, but Fedin’s, which I have no right to dispose of. And yet I realize that I have no living love for Christ, Whom I dare to call myself a servant, but in fact I am a blasphemer and crucifier. And what terrible, terrible situations confession now reveals - it frightens me now, because I know that I have to recognize again and again my powerlessness - lack of faith, selfishness. Now is “holy time,” as one parishioner told me, but for saints, and not for such callous and rude people of little faith. Now we must melt, deny ourselves, or drag out such a shameful existence. Lord, You see my heart, help me and have mercy on Your people! February 26, 1922, Nelya’s birthday, Yalta. Thanks be to the Lord, despite all the difficulties of life, God allowed us to celebrate Nelichka’s birthday in peace and joy. We are all healthy and prosperous, winter has passed, it’s a spring day, and there is hope in our souls. Yesterday we saw off Munochka and D.N. to Moscow, may God grant her good luck and joy. There were many difficulties and worries with her departure, but everything passed safely. Tomorrow is the anniversary of Fedichka’s return to us. How merciful the Lord is to us! How wonderfully he protected us during this time. Bless and keep my loved ones! February 27, 1922. The anniversary of Fedya’s return, that wonderful, gracious, joyful day. Lord, glory to You! Today (Sunday 2) I celebrated the liturgy and prayed at home, both for all of us and for the absent Munochka. March 11, 1922 Sometimes the heart freezes and the thought becomes numb. God, what it takes to be a contemporary and a passive, selfish observer! After all, now simply staying alive, that is, drinking and eating every day, among these people dying of hunger is a sin and a crime, and I feel like one. Confession is now torment for me, it’s a groan, a denunciation, a cry. And, the worst thing is, only now will you find out how little faith I have, what kind of Christian I am. The consciousness that it is not enough to enter the church, to approach the throne, and meanwhile I speak with dead lips the words of the holy prayer, perform the sacraments... If I had the faith that the Gospel speaks of, I would perform miracles, I would help these unfortunates, I would satisfy them with five loaves 223. But to do this, you must renounce yourself, you must give these five loaves, the last of yourself and your family, to the first person in need - and only then, after madness in the worldly sense, perform a miracle. All these sufferings and cries, from which the heart suffers and faints, is a prayer for a miracle. But this prayer and this faith do not exist, and therefore there is no miracle. My soul is getting dark. Some kind of terrible and terrible crisis is coming for me - from a side that I did not expect, although I should have waited. I dreamed of the sweetness of the priesthood, but I drink the bitter cup of suffering and powerlessness, poisoned by lack of faith. What happens around us every day is irreparable and unforgivable. Lord, teach me Your justifications. And how painful, how insulting for the person! No longer for Russia, not for the Russian - before the famine, everyone is equal with this strange equality, but for the person. How poetic it is in verse: And wherever with a sad eye / Around Ceres looks, / In deep humiliation / He sees man everywhere 224 - but how terrible and disgusting this humiliation is: lice, uncleanness, stench, living and dead corpses. This cannot, must not be forgotten. This deadens the soul forever (if not frivolity), it clips the wings forever. Even if we leave here alive in body, we will be dead in soul. Meanwhile, I was still planning to live; it seemed to me that the Lord was calling me to a new work, service. But death enters the soul. Perhaps death is always like this. But when all life becomes death, dying, then such death is the poison of life. You need to submit to death, you need to accept it with faith and not be confused before death when it shows its face, but this dying is more terrible and disgusting than death. What I have gained in these weeks and months, which rush with some terrible emptiness, and at the same time significance - either a new birth, or agony - is the consciousness of my mortality and the acceptance of death. This is not at all in connection with the poisoned feelings just recorded - no, it’s like a new discovery, liberation, growth of the soul. Previously, I did not believe in my death, but I believed in an event, a transformation, which for me personally would abolish death (even if it was at the same time physical death). Now I understand, vitally, with my whole being, I understand that this is daydreaming and illusion, childish ignorance. And in general, our game of eschatology is too often a special kind of intellectualism, intellectual daydreaming and, at the same time, fear, flight from history, especially since, like any daydreaming, it does not oblige us to anything other than passive waiting. A thick haze formed, which either darkened or turned pink. And such a pink cloud formed for me - dreams of transfiguration, which made me believe that I would not taste death, but would be taken, as it were, to meet the Lord in the air. And now I have seen in my soul that this is just daydreaming. And therefore, for the first time, death really appeared for me, my personal death. And I think about it with peace and joy, as a meeting with dear departed ones, as a common human destiny, as the will of God, which will be fulfilled when the time comes. And there is a kind of simplicity, peace and clarity in my soul from this thought that at first I experienced it as disappointment - the remnants of the former mania grandiosa 225 - now I see in myself a person who did something, somehow lived, but not very big and whose life’s work will be interrupted with his life. I do not even exclude the possibility of “events” and even transformation and ignorance of death, if the Lord wants and needs it, but then this must come as something new, something that has not yet happened. What I had previously taken for this was childishness, and at the same time a premonition. Of course, I do not at all deny or diminish the importance of eschatology, but I do not want to indulge in it, to shield myself from the serious and honest voice of life. And this simplicity gives me the strength of life, it gives me the opportunity to calmly bear the cross of my unknown, parochial provincial existence without fussiness or striving to get somewhere. The terrible trials among which I live tear off masks and destroy illusions. They make you look at death as a terrible hour of reckoning and powerlessness. But this new feeling of life and death is not from them, it is simply a consequence of spiritual age and growth, the distant “now you let go.” And how easy, how good it is to feel like a simple person in this regard, like everyone else, and with everyone, and it’s joyful to think that a new birth awaits, a new date - with Ivashechka, dad, mom, brothers who have passed away. March 10/23, 1922 Oh my God! What should I do? Teach, strengthen! I returned from confession: the story is now common - hunger, unemployment, thoughts of suicide. And you feel like a criminal, unworthy to enter the Church, to approach the Holy See. Are we Christians? Do we believe? This is the test of our faith... the Marxists are right when they mock “ideology,” so pitiful, so powerless. My ministry has now become some kind of icy nightmare for me. I see very well how easy it is to revel in the sweetness of worship, to surrender to Manilov’s dreaminess regarding one’s “transfiguration,” but I believed: an old woman dying of hunger, whom you bid in the name of Christ with blasphemy, a dying old man, starving and preparing for death by starvation. These women, preparing for suicide, came to confession, and my pitiful, powerless babble, with a complete desire to get rid of it as quickly as possible, to get rid of it, and in essence, with the desire for them to die as soon as possible, to “calm down.” Oh, what a terrible disappointment in yourself, what a merciless criticism of all childish, self-confident illusions... And you don’t have an answer, because you yourself don’t know why, for what and why all these people are dying. But you know your own baseness, your selfishness. With cruel ironic truth, the question is now posed: if you want to be a Christian, and not wag your tongue, give your all. Then. There will be a miracle if you believe, you will move the mountain, but before that. keep quiet. O terrible trial, the terrible judgment of God and the wrath of God, judgment to death and complete, complete accusation! I am now afraid of the sermon, because it exposes me: how can I talk about helping my neighbor when I am all selfishness, when I am afraid of every knock on the door, of every beggar! My God, you left me completely! March 11. I prepared the opportunity to inquire about leaving for my Matryona, but I couldn’t help her, the Lord didn’t bless her, there was such, such a heaviness in her soul. I saw her only at the Holy Chalice when I took communion - an unworthy self-lover, and then she disappeared, probably without a trace, so I don’t even know her last name or even recognize her face. March 27. Palm Sunday. It’s a great holiday, the sun is shining, I served today, we are prosperous, but there is a cast-iron, hopeless heaviness in my soul. I just returned from the zemstvo hospital, where the patients are literally dying of hunger, they are not fed, and you, a well-fed, fat priest, feel like such a godless criminal in front of these sufferers, and the word of consolation is so numb on your lips. A wave of indignation rises against the executioners of Russia, but it is replaced by pain for one’s selfishness. All these dying lips, asking the indifferent “father” for help, they will cry out and testify against me at the Last Judgment. Reasoning with your mind, you understand that given the current magnitude of the disaster, no one can help (only “Americans”), but the heart is tormented and tormented... Lord, have mercy on your people, because the earth has never seen this horror and crime. March 31st. Maundy Thursday is a holy and blessed day, there are many communicants. I have always loved this day and felt this liturgy. Peace comes to my soul, and just yesterday I was in confusion. We received news about Munochka: although God protects her, her first steps in Moscow are difficult and not entirely successful, it could not be otherwise. We must prayerfully support our poor girl! The Lord has mercy on us: for the holiday we are overwhelmed with both money and rations. If only Munochka were with us! But the hunger is the same all around, and the same self-deception and oblivion saves our satiety from them: to give some crumbs with someone else’s hands, but the sharpness of the first impression will be dulled, so you will calm down. Evil and selfish slave! These days I was worried about whether I would get to Moscow, but now I have surrendered myself to the will of God, and there seems to be hope for resources. Apparently, a new thunderstorm is gathering in the church sky; we must prepare for a squall. But our cathedral is still a fairy tale, and a fairy tale, albeit a tragic one, about the lives of all these souls that are revealed in confession: what destinies, what pure and beautiful souls there are even now, in this Soviet sodomy. This is truly wonderful. Every confession during Great Lent, and during Holy Week in particular, lifts me up and inspires me, gives me a feeling of endless spiritual breadth and depth. April 1, 1922 Yalta. It’s already been a month since we saw Munochka off to Moscow, and there’s no news from her. I prayed little and poorly for her and prayerfully helped her and I feel guilty before her. And Nelya has the same feeling, although she, of course, is much more vigilant over her. And a vigil is needed over it. She is such a child, so defenseless in the face of any embarrassment, so timid and fearful. Save her, Lord, from evil. I’m not afraid that evil might have access to her very heart - it doesn’t, she’s pure, but it can break her, torment her, intimidate her - and she’s already intimidated. I believe in the Lord and Mother of God that her life will go as it should. Lord save her! In some ways it’s difficult for her now, her heart hears about her. L.A. Kandinskaya died this night, and again the reproaches of conscience for the callousness of the heart, for selfishness. And she is as gentle as a baby, the Lord called her soon. I gave her communion. Still hungry demands. But I also become insensitive - I quickly forget and calm down, someone else’s grief - and its sea at confession, at services, everywhere - somehow passes by. Or is this the law of self-preservation and the direct help of God, otherwise it would be impossible to live?.. Fedya receives more and more, our satiety increases, but our conscience reproaches us at what unpaid price this satiety is bought: Fedya needs to quickly free himself from this bondage. Meanwhile, it’s impossible to even think about going to Moscow - there’s nothing to do. But I believe that if necessary and when necessary, the means will appear... Lent is already coming to an end, the Holy Holiday is approaching. April 3, 1922 Holy Easter. The sultry and blessed days of Holy Week flew by, and the Lord brought us to celebrate Easter. How great is God's mercy towards us! How could we have thought last summer that we would live to see Easter and meet it in such prosperity that we were even ashamed? But Munochka is not with us, there is no news from her, this is the only thing that saddens us, of course, in our marital status. The service, like all these services in general, was beautiful, ceremonial, majestic, but rather cold. Of course, this is because this is not my church or my parish, although they have become dear to me. But everything is wonderful in life, and you need to feel the miracle happening. Christ has risen from the dead! April 24. Days go by. It's spring already. Munochka is calling to Moscow. She has settled down and is taking care of us, dear girl. My heart constantly aches for her - her personal life is never settled, and that’s the whole point. We have to think seriously about Moscow, we can’t leave her there alone, and Fedya needs it, although I’m scared for Nelya and Seryozha. I wait for the Lord to show the way, and I submit in advance. Personally, I am afraid and embarrassed for myself, because I know that I am going not to joy, but to sorrow, to perhaps the last trials. They are waiting for me there as a “pillar of Orthodoxy,” but this pillar has already rotted: in the depths of my consciousness I have already lost myself and I don’t know who I should consider myself to be: just a Catholic who has not yet decided to proclaim his new faith, or, on the contrary, a new, Eastern Catholic. One thing is clear to me: basically Rome is right and the East is wrong - both about the Pope and about the Holy Spirit. But what follows from this practically for the Eastern Church for me, I don’t have an answer to this and I don’t know how to find it. I feel that the hand of God is leading me, and I must surrender to it, like a cane in the hands of a scribe. But those heart wounds, sacrifices and breaks that await me terrify me, those disappointments and tears that I will cause to my loved ones and dear ones, starting with the Patriarch and Bishop Theodore, Mikh Al 226 and others, oppress me. I think of Moscow as some kind of blank wall or Golgotha. I am so weak and spineless for the work to which the Lord is now sending me, and I have lived my whole life in spinelessness, all of it has gone on the path, on from - to. And so I rejoiced at the found quiet haven, the truth of my priesthood, higher and unshakable than which I know nothing, and this hurricane that has flown upon me breaks me and oppresses me... I began to experience terrible double-entry bookkeeping: before God I feel my conscience calm, but I know that if I express my current thoughts out loud, there will be a terrible scandal and, um, church repression, and I must - sooner or later - do this. Now I still can’t, it’s still early, and I’m not able to answer the main practical questions for myself. For now I must remain silent and bear it, entrusting my thoughts to my notebook, but in Moscow this will no longer be possible, there I won’t be able to, and there is no need to remain silent. How attractive and significant now—from afar—seems the life and work of Fr. IN. Abrikosova 227: like a straight candle he burns before God and does one great thing all his life, serves one great idea with all the strength of his soul, and goes to God, bearing the fruit of a full day’s work. Maybe I will be disappointed closer, but now to me this monotony, this one sound of a taut string, the extraordinary seriousness, rigor and dedication of life seems like a great feat and the greatest gift of life. This is not my failed life lived in laziness. I know that it’s easy to say about me from the outside that I was fussing and changing my tastes all the time, and it’s the same now, you can’t sit without piquant sensations. But God knows that this is not true. I feel my priesthood as a gift from heaven and absolute, and I also absolutely know the inviolability of the priesthood in Orthodoxy. But my only thought now is churchliness, and I see, I see quite clearly, that Orthodoxy is not absolute, it must realize itself and grow into universality. I thank the Lord, during these years and months in Yalta I was freed from so many illusions about myself, about Russia, and about world achievements. I constantly realize to what extent I, and all of us, with Dostoevsky and others, are overwhelmed by intellectual daydreaming, for which we are punished and from which we are now sobering up. I have truly humbled myself as a churchman and have questioned everything I prophesied about earlier, whether I answer I don’t know or simply don’t answer – about the Russian people, their tasks, calling, about my own tasks, etc. Thanks to the experience of the priesthood, I have become immeasurably ecclesiastical, that is, more realistic in my religion and I am not deluded, even downright bored by illusions. I don't feel older in this, but just more mature, older, more experienced. I almost ceased to be interested in literature in religion. And at the same time, such an unbearable and unbearable burden fell on my shoulders, weak and frail, how to make the matter of the remains of my days the question of the division of the Churches - a hopeless question according to human judgment. After all, here I only need to decide to die, maybe fruitless. When I think about this, when I think about the family, about the dear ones who still have to go through, with me, a squall - maybe they won’t understand it and won’t accept it - I am seized by a cowardly fear, I instinctively want to stay in Yalta, hide in Yalta, unknown to anyone. And I am completely unable to comprehend with my mind what is ahead of me. Let the Lord show the way and his commands. I am His servant. I now know my worth, I don’t imagine anything about myself, I know my powerlessness and my failure. It is not proud thoughts—God knows—that control me now. But these thoughts still control me. And I understand well that there will be nothing left of me, “Sergei Bulgakov,” from this misunderstanding. I am looking, I think, for something that is not mine. Lord, open, show, give understanding to Your servant! May 6/19. Yesterday I read a Moscow newspaper with a report about the trial of the clergy and about the summoning of His Holiness the Patriarch to trial, about the reproaches and mockery of him 228. God, how hard it is! It’s as if you were present at the reproach and torture of Christ and the apostles. And this thoroughly pure, crystalline man, a saint, he is my spiritual father, he blessed me for the priesthood, he is my diocesan bishop, I have always been sought after by his disposition, trust and affection, and now from afar, powerless, I silently look at his bonds and his reproach, distant, powerless and unnecessary. I believe that the Lord was not pleased to deign me to share a lot with him, and I am afraid, afraid in the recesses of my soul and cannot overcome this shameful feeling. Lord, protect (?) me with Your power, let me love You more than this life. After all, I understand well that only such an end can be the only worthy end of life, at least in our days, and the Lord spares me, seeing my immaturity and expecting repentance and courage from me. If I am destined to have my own lot (to tell the truth, I am not inspired by the position of a victim for the confiscation of valuables!), then every genuine work of Christ in the world could be bought by suffering and the cross. And if I am destined to prove myself in any way, I must be ready for the cross. The fate of the Patriarch - imprisonment and exile - is predetermined, the process is staged, everything is played out according to the notes. As can be seen from the false reports of the son of lies, the Patriarch behaves with hierarchical dignity and even impresses these apostates, although his position - alas! – shaky and half-thought out. The rest, as I feared, are confused, fleeing, generally showing confusion, of course, it’s not for me, the accursed one, to judge them, I know that I could be more cowardly than anyone, especially thanks to insomnia, but the picture of the examination of the historical Church is not very comforting. I am more and more inclined to think that the mission of the Bolsheviks, even in their anti-church actions, is to awaken the Russian Church, break its historical shell and limitations, but for now - alas! – how the shell feels. The Patriarch is God’s chosen one, like a martyr, but at the same time a completely tragic figure; the fate of our Greek-Russian Orthodoxy is burdened on him, of which, it seems to me, he is the first and last in the modern period of history, the atoning victim of “Greek-Russianism.” To be placed at the helm of the church in the most terrible hour of Russian history (for this is in fact so, and an unprecedented crisis in Russia is taking place), by all of us, the “council members”, voluntarily or involuntarily abandoned, without power, but with responsibility and “accountability to the Council”, brought face to face with the most ferocious and unscrupulous enemies of the faith, in the face of the natural collapse of church unity, he, sacrificial and pure, is doomed to redeem other people's sins, in the image of Christ. A hopeless and great, terrible and beautiful fate. Lord, strengthen him in his agony on the cross! May 11, 1922 Yalta. Saints' Day Cyril and Methodius. Today Seryozha turned 11 years old, let us thank the Lord! A newborn is capricious like a 5-year-old, we did not know how to raise him, and he is weak and frail. It will be difficult for him to live in these times, but may the Lord preserve him and make him wise! You can’t grasp anything with your human mind now. The most terrible news is coming from Moscow, and the most terrible thing is the demonization of the cast-iron hearts of the apostates and the iron force of cruelty and inexorability in connection with the incredible mockery and impudence of the Semitic persecution, the quality of which is worse and more evil than that of Diocletian 229, since then there was no kingdom of the Semites, there was no press pouring out lies and slander in the most impudent ways unrequited, there was no apostasy. But the hardest thing in all this is the humiliating feeling of confusion, lack of faith, and powerlessness. We must prepare for Golgotha, but human feeling keeps retreating... “Behold, now we are going out to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered into the hands of men.” 230, but human weakness said: let it not happen. And in the life of every person there comes a moment when he must say yes to this hour, live, preparing for it, but we want to live, brushing it aside. Lord, teach, strengthen, let me say with all my heart: my heart is ready, my God!.. Today is the day of the first teachers of the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius 231, of whom the first died and rests in Rome, and the second received his bishopric from the Pope. They, the Greeks, preachers among the Slavs and faithful sons of Rome, are a living symbol of what must be done, to which the historical hour calls us. And on this personally significant and solemn day for the world, at the altar, at the liturgy, like a star, a new thought lit up in my soul, which is, as it were, the answer to all my quests of these days: the union of the Eastern and Western Churches is not only an idea and not a task for the future, it is a mystically accomplished fact, at the Council of Florence in 1439 232, which has all the external signs of an Ecumenical Council and does not have nothing defamatory. In Byzantium, the union was an accomplished fact and lasted until the usual Greek mendacity changed with the fall of Byzantium. Other eastern patriarchates also abdicated after them, without any basis declaring the Council a robbery, although their legal representatives were present and signed. From Russia there was Metropolitan Isidore 233 with the bishops, who then returned and did not encounter any opposition from the clergy (“abstained”) and the people, and the prayer for the Pope was solemnly proclaimed in the Assumption Cathedral. And three days later, the metropolitan was arrested by the young (26 years old) Tsar Vasily 234, the bishops “woke up”, and everything went to dust. But what church canonical force does all this have? Now my path is clear to me: I must openly stand on the platform of the Ecumenical Florentine Cathedral, as an already accomplished fact, under the canopy of Sts. Cyril and Methodius. I can and must (of course, still secretly, out of church discipline) offer up liturgical prayers for the Pope from tomorrow on the Resurrection of Christ, and most importantly, my path of church action has suddenly become clear to me. After some time, probably not soon, I will have to make a cry to rally on the basis of the decrees of the Florentine Council, the legal force of which has not been abolished by anyone, although it has been obscured by the schism... Lord, help and bless! St. Cyril and Methodius, pray to God for me, that He may make my heart wise for this service! In our literature, this Council is completely slandered and distorted; everything needs to be clarified again. May 22, 1922 Yesterday we celebrated Nelya’s name day, although in a crowd, but in peace and quiet joy, only Munochka is not with us. Today or tomorrow, along with the great and mysterious feasts of the Trinity and the Holy Spirit, I celebrate the greatest, most blessed and sacred days of my life - my initiation first to the deaconate and then to the holy order. With love and gratitude I remember every detail - people from the most holy, now tormented patriarch and bishop. Theodore and ending with everyone who was then and showed me their love. What blissful, unforgettable days! And now, surrounded by the light of Pentecost, they stand in my memory. Four years of priesthood, thank God! The first year - at the parish in Koreiz during the second Bolshevism, my wedding hour; the second year - in Simferopol, in the unforgettable Helena Church; the third year - Trinity in Koreiz, and Spiritual Day - in Gaspra, a solemn church service (which, however, was replaced by a new threat, the sword of Damocles) and the third year - here in Yalta. I feel myself faced with great difficulties and tasks in the Church that are beyond my strength and in my weakness, but I trust in the grace of God and give myself up as an instrument of God’s will. Yesterday, at the all-night vigil - at the call of Pentecost - I, almost against my will, for the first time developed the range of my current church ideas and felt that I was not speaking my own, but from the Spirit of God. However, I myself could not speak differently and not say what I said, but I myself knew that I was speaking in front of the deaf and in vain - this was confirmed even by Nela, who, as I concluded from her words, did not understand at all what I was saying and where the meaning of my sermon was heading - in general, smart or stupid uselessness or simply strangeness, like many things with me. I need to arm myself with patience and love. And the news coming from Moscow is getting more and more absurd and depressing, more and more strange and creepy. And against the backdrop of this internal collapse, the question of the nature of the Church is becoming more acute. Over these four years, thanking God, I have become much more churchly and Orthodox, although (and perhaps thanks to this) more elementary in my thoughts and feelings, I have significantly freed myself from the taste of theosophism 235 and seem to have overcome the sensationalism in religion 236 with which I was poisoned. Of course, it will seem to the zealots that instead I fell into the worst - into Catholicism, for - I continue the speech adv. Diaboli 237, - I don’t know how to live without new hobbies, and the best way to cure Catholicism forever is to experience it practically. However, I don’t even think that it would be possible for my flabby, externalized being to contain anything - I don’t count on that myself. But “there are different gifts and different ministries,” and if the Lord destined me, at the cost of pushes, sacrifices and disappointments, to seek the truth, I pray to Him that this too would not be done without the Spirit of God. Tomorrow, on this great day of His feast, I celebrate the early liturgy in the lower church of the great martyr Artemy 238. May 23. Holy Spirit Day. I returned from the liturgy - what a bright, joyful and grace-filled service it was! How vividly I felt the mercy of God and the love of God! And especially alive because he felt pardoned. Initially, it seemed that I would be completely left without service for that day, and I accepted this as penance, God’s punishment for my pastoral sins this year, and I, of course, fully deserved it, my conscience tells me about it. But the Lord enlightened me and showed me mercy. I prayed for all the dear and dear ones who were then near me in Moscow, starting with Bishop Theodore and His Holiness the Patriarch, I prayed (secretly) for the High Priest of Rome. June 5/18, 1922 These days were lived again in anxiety and depression. The news from Moscow is difficult. They write that I can’t go there - executions, persecution of the patriarch and church unrest under pressure from the Soviet synod 239. Then the upcoming mobilization and concern for Fedya. Finally, the alarming situation in Europe and here. And the result is complete uncertainty, the unknown... Sometimes it’s hard. It seems that I am betraying and selfish and completely depersonalized at such a formidable and responsible time for the Church, then I am exhausted from powerlessness and fear at the thought of what will happen when I finally say out loud what I think now. My closest friends will turn away from me, my weak voice will have no meaning, and I will be left alone. In general, everything gloomy and only gloomy oppresses the soul, along with the thought of the possibility of imminent death and the situation of the family without it. Of course, this spirit of despondency is from the evil one. And when you remember all the miracles of your life and the inexhaustibility of God’s mercy towards me, then you believe in a miracle here too. After all, I do not rely on my own strength - God sees that now this is not the case, and if my work is the work of God, then the Lord will bless and arrange it, and if not, may it quickly come to naught. But thinking objectively, I still continue to consider myself right and am still affirming myself. Often in recent days I have been thinking about Fr. Pavle and with pain and fear I tell myself that, of course, he will not be with me, although at the same time I feel and understand that he should be with me. I am so insignificant and powerless before him, I bow and give in to him so much that I, of course, could not walk my path near him. I would receive an infinite number of ideas and impulses from him, as it was, and I would try with all my might, willingly or unwillingly, consciously or unconsciously, to imitate him. Now, at a distance of place and time, I seem to differentiate between him and myself more. He, of course, is the only one, he is a miracle of the human mind and genius - he knows this about himself, and this, freeing him from everything petty and vain, gives him the strength and awareness of his superhuman freedom. He is in fact an Uebermensch 240, but at the same time he is also a Christian—a saint. But his strength is not in his holiness, not in the subordination of the lower powers to the higher ones - otherwise - there could not be such a spiritual man of such caliber, but in his iron mind and thirst for knowledge - boundless... F. Paul is too himself, sometimes he is exhausted from this wealth of his, which does not become selfhood for him, but interferes with his childish spontaneity. He is in no way naive or childish, everything with him is mediated, passed through consciousness and will, and in this sense, made, stylized. It’s strange, but for me he has ceased to be a church authority, although I still, no less than before, know his uniqueness; for me he is not infallible in matters of church consciousness, as I essentially believed him to be. And “the pillar and foundation of the truth,” as I now clearly see, was made and, indeed, Berdyaev is right, not in an angry and petty, envious tone, but in essence - there is a stylization of Orthodoxy 241. I remember oh. Pavel once wrote to me that he has his own idea of ​​Orthodoxy and, indeed, this book contains his own Orthodoxy, his thoughts about it. And his Orthodoxy - with such hopelessness in the sense of indissolution and, it seems, insolubility of occultism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism 242, is not historical Orthodoxy, nor is it church Orthodoxy. His personal, human strength, the confidence of self-conscious strength is by no means ecclesiastical strength, as I naively thought all the time. Father Paul is a riddle of riddles and for himself he is a riddle, perhaps, he is the most interesting, significant of the people who have ever existed, and a labyrinth of passages intersects in him, his advice and judgment are the only ones and yet this is not the voice of the Church, it is fatally his own, wisdom next to eccentricity, his own arbitrariness. I, of course, believe in his friendship, he will not leave me, because he is faithful, he is so noble that I would not be unfaithful, but he loves me with his arbitrariness, and, of course, he cannot help but bully me, I see that. Well, am I his equal, just like my weak Seryozha is not a comrade of his smart Vasya, but who has the right to exist, and everyone for himself. Father Pavel, who wrote brilliantly about friendship and with an inflamed thirst for it, is essentially always alone, like Elbrus with a snowy peak, and sees no one around him, on a par with himself. And his affections, “friends” (characteristic of the fatal “stylization” for him, because “letters to a friend” are also a literary fiction, because a friend does not exist, and those naive ones are right who figured everything out and asked who the friend is, and for simple human feeling here stylization is unacceptable and impossible, and yet it was) are the essence of the choice of irrational arbitrariness, why they are so incomprehensible and surprising: "Vasenka" Hyacinths! 243 I have never occupied such a place; rather, with my timid attitude I forced or begged for a reciprocal friendship, always generous and generous, but by no means passionate and not the only one. Yes, all the volitional acts of election, gilding with oneself, with one’s own rays, mirror I: and bishop. Anthony, and Anna Mich, and Elder Isidore 244, and... “Orthodoxy” (precisely in quotation marks, i.e. “Pillar”), and even my smallness and this “stylization” is fatal, hopeless, from strength, from wealth. b m, Luciferian, daimonic (in the Neoplatonic sense), from which it is not possible to free ourselves. Around him I would have been crushed, and my stupid, but immediate and in this sense more genuine church feeling would have been silent. 245 Therefore, it seems to me that I understand why I am removed and separated from him, from the only one in order to experience everything that I am destined to experience 246. And I really don’t know whether I need, whether it’s time for me to go to Moscow and show up, or whether I still need to think and contemplate in silence, until the Lord calls. I entrust myself into his hand! May the Lord show my path! June 17. Storm clouds have appeared on my horizon again, it is possible that danger threatens me from within, and a great one, although it is just as possible that nothing will happen. I surrender myself into the hands of God! I suffer for my family, but personally I regard the prospect of death, if not calmly, although with bewilderment, as a human being it seemed to me that I had one more obedience ahead of me in the church field - to broadcast and call for the unification of the Churches. But whether this idea of mine is displeasing to God (which I still cannot recognize in my conscience) or whether it so exceeds my strength that it is only given to me to announce it posthumously, I don’t know, the Lord knows... Both in Russia and in the Russian Church such abominations are happening that, if I were eschatologically inclined, the line of least resistance and historical fear would be to flee to eschatology and announce the onset of the “abomination of desolation in place.” holy,” – the last times. But I, on the eve of my personal end, am still historically inclined: the task of historical Christianity, the unification of the Churches, has not yet been completed, followed by the flowering and rise of Eastern Christianity (the former “Greek-Russian Orthodoxy”) and the myth of the White Tsar will come true. Now Russia, like Byzantium, conquered by the Turks, is conquered from within by Jews and nihilists, and what is happening is quite similar to the Greek Church under the Sultan. But the Greeks turned out to be a barren fig tree, that impulse, or although the craving for universality, which they still showed before the fall of Byzantium, was replaced by petty, stupid, fanatical, unprincipled national enmity towards Rome, and the barren fig tree was cut off, because, of course, the Orthodox East has been dying a historical death for more than 5 centuries and shows no signs of life. Russia is now in a state similar to what Byzantium experienced after 1453, after the fall of 247. It must spiritually self-determine under the yoke and either fall apart, which it does, or, through the feat of spiritual birth, find the strength to defeat internationality with universal Christianity. Wake it up - wake it up! And after all, Israel is not the same as the Judaism of the international, because the promised time will come when it will begin to be saved, and from him the universal apostles will again appear, who will carry the apostolic preaching to all the ends of the earth. I am disgusted by the old manner of broadcasting and prophesying (even more so irresponsibly), but one can and should hope for this. We Russians are not suitable for this role: we are lazy, weak, timid, feminine, this requires Jewish insolubility, which is now manifested by the impudence of the entire Russian revolution, and especially Bolshevism, unparalleled even in history, but then it will manifest itself as apostolic jealousy. However, I do not yet see any real signs of the conversion of Jewry, but I consider the question of the unification of the Churches to be another issue for tomorrow. Wake it up, wake it up! Glory to You, God! Today I turned 51 years old, old age is coming. Endless gratitude and amazement at the miracles of God’s mercy have enveloped my soul throughout my life, for everything, for everything: for my parents, for my homeland, for Nelya and my family, and for the fact that in all my sins and weaknesses the Lord brought me and allowed me to serve at His Throne. He graciously allowed us to survive this year, not to perish, together with our family, from hunger and from enemies, but preserved, nourished, enlightened! After all, our situation was hopeless a year ago, and the Lord had mercy and arranged everything! How can I be faint-hearted or doubt about the fate of the now shaken and threatened Church, as well as about my personal fate? I calmly entrust myself to the will of God. This year was extraordinary and, moreover, completely unexpectedly significant, I became a universal Christian (vulgo: kat/f/olikom 248) and I consider it the task of my life, as long as the Lord gives it to me, to profess this faith, as the Lord indicates. I know all my weaknesses and do not fall into the slightest illusion about my strengths, that if the Lord sends me, He will teach me, He will arrange my fate, whether I need to go to Moscow or stay here. My sins are grave, especially during this year, spent in a parish dying of hunger: before my eyes, many strangers and people of my own died of hunger, whom I did not help and will bear an answer for them at the Last Judgment, my soul was burdened with great sorrow and the conscious sin of lack of faith and selfishness, and, as before, my prayer is cold and scattered, and my laziness and gluttony remain the same. My other grief and concern is Munochka’s unsettled state, who somehow doesn’t know how to use life gratefully, and the fact that Fedya doesn’t study. But now I just want to thank and glorify the works of God, the countless revealed and unmanifested blessings that have been upon us. And it is especially surprising that this year turned out to be such a turning point in my church consciousness, and yet a year ago it seemed that all work and movement was already over... Clouds hang over me, as well as over the entire Russian Church and the Russian people, but God is wonderful, he works miracles. Lord, bless the crown of summer with Your goodness. I surrender myself to Your will, whether life or death, joy or sorrow, consolation and trials, just teach me to love You! July 27, 1922 Yalta. Great Day Panteleimon 249. Ivashechka's death. Morning. So, the Lord destined to live until the great and sacred day - Ivashechka’s Assumption. For the first time in 13 (already!) years we are spending it outside Oleiz, not at his grave. But today is my service, I will perform the liturgy. The soul is solemn and joyful. Yesterday at Vespers, seeing some red reflections on the royal doors, I experienced a joyful excitement that took my breath away. Quiet and joyful calls of Ivashechka and promises can be heard from there. Not Beatrice 250 - no, I don’t have one and I don’t need her and it’s inappropriate for me, a priest of God, - but the angel of God, who has now grown into a great citizen of heaven, he will meet me and lead me, he, an angel of God, will take my weak, but priestly right hand and lead me to the Throne of God. How mysterious and sacred everything was in those distant days and nights, and how we must thank the Lord for this most burning, most painful suffering that only I have experienced in my life, both for the suffering and for the revelation. And now all this remains both the greatest miracle in my life, full of miracles, and the most significant event. Of course, without this I would hardly be a priest, that is, I would not be what I am, what I was created with. Now Ivashechka’s grave is desolate: there is no one to plant flowers, but, thank God, the cross and the icon on it have survived. Sometimes, over the last year, when you think about death (not cowardly, but simply, in the light of the acceptance of death that I have acquired here), it becomes so light and joyful when you think about all the near and dear ones that God has there and whom I will meet and, of course, on its threshold I will meet Ivashechka. Oh, and then my dad and mom, brothers, relatives, friends, everyone I knew and loved. It seems to me quite clear that death itself will be for me - the appearance of Ivashechka, that pale, graceful young man whom Fr. saw in an artistic and prophetic dream. Pavel (although neither he himself nor I understood the predominantly artistic, and therefore prophetic, nature of this dream, but saw in it, in fact, a prediction, which we were so greedy for), and to see Ivashechka it will be such a delight that the soul cannot withstand and, rushing towards it, will be torn away from the body... But I don’t want to sin and guess the time. Let it be when God pleases. Thy will be done! Lord, I thank You that You allowed me to live to see this day and meet it in peace and luminous heavenly joy about Ivashechka! I’m going to church to serve the liturgy. It has now been a year since, by the will of God, I entered this city to serve in the local cathedral. Thanks to the merciful Lord, who saved my life and that of my loved ones in this terrible year of hunger and atrocity, allows me to stand before His Throne and pray before it. Thanks be to the Lord that He gave me His light and revealed His will - here in this year my eyes were opened, and a revolution and unity with Rome took place in me, which, if only I am confirmed in this, will be my calling and ministry for the remaining years of my life. Everything is wonderful and unexpected, and it has given and continues to give me strength to live and work. But at the same time, the kingdom of the beast is getting darker. During this year, the Russian Church has completely collapsed and lies in the dust before the new masters who mock it; it has suffered such sacrifices from which it will now not recover. She faces a test in the sands of mediocrity and everyday life. For me personally, prospects are also closing one after another. The move to Moscow, which until recently seemed so feasible, is now out of reach, and I cannot get a place there under the current church authorities, I cannot settle financially and will probably be immediately removed, which is why Yalta is actually turning into a place of imprisonment for me. But with a fertile nature! and dear, Ivashechkino. Munochka is in Moscow, lonely, poor. Fedya has lost his place, he and all of us are again threatened with a half-starved existence, he is threatened by the military, he is running wild without an education, finally, he will have to separate from us and go to Moscow - it is unknown for what - this will be even worse and more dangerous than for Munochka. But everyone is healthy (except for Seryozha’s temporary illness, I hope), my Nelitschka is holding up, V. Iv. is alive, the family is safe and prosperous, this is the main thing that now has to be appreciated. Most of my friends were confiscated and deported, but Fr. Paul, whose friendship in the near future will go through a fiery test, when he learns about the revolution that has taken place in me towards union with Rome. Lord, strengthen my faith, save my children and homeland, let me live out the rest of my days without succumbing to the spiritual death that the servants of the Antichrist are sowing. Bless the new summer of Yalta ministry! P.S. Last year it opened with the death of Vera Nick. This is the death of Nat Peter (I, however, am not going to the latter’s funeral). How many died this year and to how many I am answerable - both Kandinskys also died of hunger. S.N. Bulgakov. From the Diary 251 Black Sea between Sevastopol and Constantinople, Italian steamer "Jeanne" So, on the way to a foreign land, expelled from his homeland, to ancient Constantinople! So wonderfully and humanly unexpectedly the will of God is done to us! The hand of Providence took me and brought me out of the dead end in which I remained in Yalta. The last trials were difficult, although when they passed, I see in them the merciful hand of God. Was it possible to leave one’s homeland easily and fearlessly, and was it possible to leave it without experiencing either arrest or emergency punishment. The epic of my deportation began on September 7, when a search was carried out at my place, but, despite the arrest warrant, I was not yet arrested - on the eve of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary. Then I was arrested on the eve of the Intercession of the Mother of God 252 on September 30, was transferred to Simferopol and received my sentence there. On the day of Kazan, BM 253 left from there to Yalta, where on the day of the Entry into the Church, BM 254 received a notice of the requirement to leave. On December 3 he was sent to Sevastopol, where he suffered until the 17th, when he went to sea. Everything I experienced during these three months was both so nightmarish in its cruel senselessness and at the same time so grandiose that now I can neither describe nor even fully comprehend. But this gave the final stamp to what had happened in the soul and facilitated to the last possible opportunity the inevitable and - I believe - beneficial expatriation. It’s scary to write this word for me, for whom just two years ago, during the general flight, expatriation was equal to death. But these years did not pass without a trace: I suffered and lived, and at the same time I saw the light, and I am going to the West not as a country of “bourgeois culture” or a former country of “holy miracles”, now “rotting” 255, but as a country of still preserved Christian culture and, most importantly, the place of the Holy Roman See and the Ecumenical Catholic Church - “Russia”, rotting in a grave, cast me out as unnecessary, after having burned me out I am branded a slave. The situation of the Russian Church is currently hopeless: it has collapsed and is slowly rotting under the yoke of Bolshevik persecution and despotism, while in essence it is living out the last days of its isolation. The work of Russia can now be done, it seems, only in the West - and the path to the “Third Rome”, which has now, like Kitezh, disappeared under the water, lies for me through Rome the second and the first. I am 51 years old, and again it seems to me that new pages of life are opening for me (and in me and for Russia; for, after all, Russia is also in me), in the clarity, with the bright gleams of death already opening. My family is with me, except for Fedya, who, we hope, will join us. Let them live like human beings and, if it’s not too late, educate themselves and learn, in Russia this is no longer possible. Of course, I know that all sorts of trials, homesickness, disappointment await, all this is how it should be, and our situation without funds and the unknown could be embarrassing at another time, but now I have only one feeling as a human being - the joy of liberation and a reverent feeling of surprise and gratitude before the mercy of God. Lord bless our path! - Evening is approaching. Sailing in the open sea - freedom. Thoughts about Russia, about relatives. Russia, how did you die? How did you become a victim of the devils, your own children? What's wrong with you? Never has there been a more mysterious, more incomprehensible riddle. This riddle was given by God, and the devil solves it, rejoicing at the temporary and apparent power. “O unworthy of election, you are chosen” (so the Slavophiles sang), and now we have to say: you are rejected, cursed, but God never rejects or curses, why is Russia rejected? Previously, I understood and interpreted everything, but now I don’t understand this fate of Russia and don’t undertake to interpret it. I believe in God, because I believe in God, which means I believe that what happened with Russia was necessary, it happened not only because of our sins, but also so that the works of God would appear. Only a miracle can save Russia, in a way we don’t know, and what needs and can be saved, but a miracle cannot be foreseen. You have to believe in Russia and you have to hope, but what I see, know and understand gives neither faith nor hope. I can’t even love her, I can only feel sorry for her, and yet I have a duty of loyalty to Russia. Or rather, what lies between the North and Black Seas and occupies a sixth of the world is not Russia, at least for me, I don’t even feel the Russian land, I even tear myself away from it without pain, really, and not just on a Bolshevik piece of paper, I’m expatriating. But where is Russia and does it exist if you don’t feel it within yourself? Do I exist myself? I feel like I've fainted or been in a deep sleep, not knowing where I am, whether I'm alive or what's wrong with me, as if I've lost my weight or volume. What's wrong with me? I don't understand, I don't understand. I will understand, if necessary, if the Lord pleases, but maybe I don’t understand, then this is death, because death is incomprehensible to the living. But I am alive and want to live... I can’t even say that I have pain about Russia, no, there is no pain, just as a cut off leg, a swollen body that has lost sensitivity does not hurt. I don’t want to be ungrateful, a pig, an egoist (I want and find that since I have been given life, I can enjoy this life), I will not give a kick to my unfortunate homeland, but I will neither lie nor be sentimental at the bedside of festering Job, lest the Most High thunder from heaven on the mountain. I am stupid and confused, I don’t know and don’t understand what happened, and this is not my personal lack of understanding and limitations, this is the way it is. God understands and knows what He is doing when He moves and pushes ice blocks, moves the earth and shakes it, but we do not understand. Atlantis 256 sank, although according to human understanding it could not have sank, and it is not clear why it sank. God understands, not us. Of course, I can see and take into account mistakes and delusions, but even with all of them, that death, that submersion of Atlantis, the death of Russia could not have happened, but it did. Death is incomprehensible, at least for us who remain on this side of death, the living, who cannot rise above the difference between life and death. Russia is saved, resounded in my heart before the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 as a revelation of the Mother of God (in Her Master Icon) 257, and I am faithful and believe in this covenant. But in response to this, Russia historically perished, which means that it will be saved through destruction and death, resurrecting, but the resurrection is incomprehensible to us, it is a miracle. Thus, inextricable contradictions crowd into the mind and heart. She is stricken, mortally and forever torn and wounded. Will she be healed? - by the grace of the Holy Spirit, but also a miracle, a new creation, and this heart is incurably wounded and hurts. Of course, in extreme cases, you can do without a homeland, when there is a Motherland - the Church, but I should not, cannot and do not want to ever give up my homeland and, therefore, I am dying for the rest of my life until the Lord heals the demon-possessed Russia. His will be done. 19.XII. 1922 (1.1.1923) Morning at sea. Tonight we celebrated the New Year on the ship with horns and shots... When I look back at “Russia”, I feel like such a pitiful nonentity, which, without even noticing, was accidentally dumped and thrown into the role of a hanger-on for Western Europe, and such an offensive and bitter feeling of powerlessness. And at the same time, a miraculous rescue from the lion’s cave 258 - it was not for nothing that we left on December 17, the day of the prophet Daniel and the Three Youths 259. To the sounds of the New Year celebrations, I again thought about my constant thought about the union of the Churches, and again I became afraid of the difficulties of this union. The difference in styles - it’s not for nothing that Latin haters cling to them so stubbornly! After all, it is bitter, unbearable, united, living according to different calendars, celebrating St. Saints at different times. Easter and Lent 260. And in the dark masses of the people, in whom a dark zeal for Orthodoxy is now awakening, a change in the style and church of the calendar will cause the greatest protest, as the most tangible: the legacy of old hatred and alienation! And these essentially everyday, ritual differences turned out to be and may still turn out to be stronger than dogmatic unity! How difficult it is to be on the verge of two eras, on a historical boundary, neither here nor there. But what to do? When I thought and sketched out my Jaltica 261 in Yalta, I did not think about anything except the truth and the question itself, and the fact that I would have to talk about this and testify to the whole world would then seem to me an absurd and unrealizable fairy tale. But there is nothing secret that does not become obvious, and what is said in a whisper is proclaimed in congregations 262. Now the impressions of Constantinople and the “Eastern Patriarchs” await me; I need to test myself with more and more new tests. We have already reached the mysterious waters of the Bosphorus and for the third day we have been standing in quarantine at the entrance to Constantinople. The prose and boredom of quarantine dulled the first impression, but it was regal and beautiful. In the evening, along the summer sea on a moonlit night, we approached the Bosphorus, a gate opened in the wall of the shore, and we entered the quiet waters, framed by soft shores, sliding as if on glass. The pressure of thoughts agitated my soul, and these marvelous shores delighted my eyes. Here is the key to European and world history, here is Justinian 263, here is Constantine the Great 264, here: John Chrysostom, Photius 265, Byzantium and its fall, here is the knot of the political destinies of the world, and to this day has not been unraveled, but even more tightened! The mind contains such a wealth of memories and such an intensity of feelings, thoughts are lost. There were several steamships in the roadstead. Our steamer, full of emigrating Jews, sad, caricatured, but old-testamental and simiotic, immediately entered into relations with another steamer, standing in the roadstead from Romania: it was full of Jews moving to Palestine. We, too, turned out to be a zealot for this cause, a conversation began in Hebrew, and then a large, although not very harmonious choir from that ship sang their national songs for a long time, and as the day faded, the words of the song quietly faded away. Lord, how touching all this is: from Bolshevik Palestine to this Palestine? And they are everywhere! And the next day, their own people from Constantinople came to them, then the Jewish society sent gifts (they gave it to us too - anecdote!), and here they are their own. What permeability, what insolubility this people has: old people and children go, in winter, to America and Palestine, self-confident, not lost, noisy, funny and touching. The chosen people, together and the rejected and sacer 266 in the double sense of the word. However, we didn’t have to immerse ourselves in mysticism and contemplation for long; the next day sanitary control and quarantine began. Its most unfortunate consequence is that we may have to spend Christmas Day here, or come on the very eve of it. I think with alarm whether this really has a transformative significance for my future life, and I will be deprived of the opportunity to serve... But the Lord has been so merciful to me all the days of my life, will I really be deprived of what is life for me? I consider the present as a penance imposed on me. I think how Fedya’s young soul will absorb all impressions if the Lord brings him here. 23. X II. 1922 (51.1923) We are in quarantine, languishing. They say we’ll leave tomorrow, if so, then we’ll meet Rozhd Khr on the ship in Constantinople. Sometimes I feel anxious about the many difficulties and disappointments that now lie ahead, but I drive away this cowardly feeling as a sin before God. My thoughts, of course, are about my homeland. For what and why was she rejected by God and doomed to rot and die? Our sins are heavy, but not enough to explain our destinies, the only ones in History. I will not repeat Job’s friends and together with him I will begin to reproach God for my homeland! 267 Russia did not deserve such a fate, it is like a lamb bearing the burden of the sins of the European world, and it was slain and corrupted. There is a mystery here: one must bow and hope by faith, but this is inaccessible to the human mind. All the fiends of hell have flocked and are strangling Russia and... [line unintelligible], Lord. So, we celebrate the day of R.Hr in the godless international prose of the steamship quarantine. The Lord did not deign to have sweet prayer on this day. Today is marked by a difficult test for me: in the morning my dear Nelitschka slipped and fell in the cabin and injured her leg. At first it seemed that if not a fracture, then a dislocation, the poor woman suffered terribly, and the whole hopelessness of the situation became acute both in quarantine, when immediate help was required, and in the unfamiliar world city of Kle. And all the joy from the anticipation of contemplating it faded away, and a new burden of life fell on tired shoulders. In the middle of the day, Nelitschka felt better; they denied a dislocation, although the situation was unclear. Lord, bless tomorrow, born in Bethlehem, have mercy on us. Christmas. Kovani. Steamboat "Zhanna" Here is our great holiday, but - alas, without worship, without church joy, in a foreign land, on a ship, in quarantine and, most importantly, in anxiety for my beloved, not to mention the unknown future, which there is no way to even think about. She suffered through the night and lies bedridden. In the evening, I felt the amazing, unique, heart-audible silence of Christ’s night, when the Lord showed the immensity of his love for the world, and at night I yearned for Var Iv and seemed to hear her longing in my heart. On the ship the day, gray and foggy, unfolds as usual. They say that today we will be in Cles, but I will not be destined to see it from the sea. The Lord will give something upon landing! God bless! "Jeanne." Political quarantine Yesterday there was police control, I was promised that I would be released today at 10 a.m., but today the whole day passed, and yet no pass was sent. They left, one after another, behind everyone there were those who came to take care, but we were left alone, cold, hungry, lonely. And there was such an hour that I cried several times, looking at the children, and the whole future seemed to me in a hopeless light, especially since my lyres were quickly melting. These were hours of testing faith, when cowardice entered every fiber of the soul. But then it felt better and went away. There was hope for unloading tomorrow. Today is a bad day, rainy, Nelichka is in bed, you don’t know where to go in this huge desert city. The Jews again provided help, their committee will disembark us, lonely and orphaned, defenseless. Here at every step you see and become convinced what kind of world forces these are and what provincials we Russians are in comparison with them! In any case, tomorrow we hope to descend on Turkish soil. Lord, bless and make the path easier for the children and Nelitschka, may Your holy will be done! Day of St. Seraphim 268. An eternity passed during these days and, of course, there were difficult and exhausting impressions, not to say disappointments. I haven’t seen Klya yet, due to the difficulties of the settlement, the continuous running, Nelya’s broken leg and the terrible rains and mud. The first impressions were painful: we traveled around the city from place to place (from the notorious farmsteads where we were not accepted), N. A. Vlasenko and Yu. N. Rentitskaya appeared as a kind angel. Immediately, like caustic mists, impressions of the decaying emigration crept into my soul: need and poverty, melancholy and despondency, an inevitable but sad picture. I, of course, am not yet able to understand this, but I see and feel how difficult everything is, and also: how strong Bolshevism is both here and generally outside of Russia. However, the hardest and most difficult thing awaited me in the area of ​​the church - a sharp and completely old-fashioned missionary clash with the Catholics, who also used missionary techniques here. The mood and attitude towards the question of the unification of the Churches of Arch Anastasius 269 and all his clergy is no different in essence from that of Anthony 270, they have experienced nothing and learned nothing, no spiritual movement and no strength, but bitterness both from powerlessness and from the aggressive mode of action of the local Jesuits 271. And I, the unfortunate one, feel my lack of will and powerlessness in front of this wall to such an extent that in the depths of my soul I am already thinking about capitulation and am only aware of my weakness. God, help, teach, strengthen... I feel so mediocre, powerless and timid. And at the same time, the questions themselves acquire a tragic character: I owe allegiance to my Church: - an infidel is powerless and unnecessary, like a priest who has taken off his cassock, and I cannot and should not create unrest and a new schism at this terrible moment. And at the same time, I cannot extinguish the light that has lit up in me. It may get to the point where the question becomes: either - or, but I don’t want this, I don’t allow it, I can’t, I want: both - and. But, oh my, this is my natural spinelessness and lack of will, the desire to sit between two chairs. But I can't do otherwise. How much easier it was for Vl. Solovyov in comparison with me: he was not a priest and did not live in this terrible, responsible time 272. And I am bound by canonical discipline, and together with the dictates of conscience. Lord, help me, Mother of God, protect me with your cover of autumn. The Lord has helped financially, and we are settled, but everything here is so painfully difficult. This is already the second week in Cle, and there is the same turmoil and cloud in my soul. I feel completely powerless in the face of the looming questions. On the one hand, every day and hour brings with it new features of the collapse of Orthodoxy together with Russia and the complete immobility of those residing here, and even more so of the local ethnographic Churches. All of them are mutually indifferent and weak, so that, in essence, we can only talk about maintaining familiar relationships, and not about support, and the Russian Church drags out a miserable existence of refugeehood. And on the other, the onslaught of militant Catholicism, confident, intelligent, strong, whose victory is as irresistible as dreadnoughts over tame triremes 273 . The island of Orthodoxy is being washed away, and any attempt to protect it only demonstrates its worthlessness. The National Church is not maintained by Orthodoxy, but by lack of culture, inertia and nationalism. In Russia there was only the onslaught of Soviet, life-church violence, but here there was fierce, corrupting impotence. I feel paralyzed in all my actions and endeavors. I am needed here, and they grab hold of me as if I were an authority, but I carry an inconsolable storm in my soul. The Lord left me to experience all my weakness and inadequacy. And at the same time, the tearful spectacle of the local refugee: what sheep scattered without a shepherd, what sorrow and what hopelessness! Now I wake up at night with pain for my homeland and for my homeland, for my family, for the Church. This is some kind of melancholy of the last days. Meanwhile, you need to find yourself, you need to settle into a new life. There can be no question of speaking out loud here with your ideas for the dialogues “At the Walls of Hers<onis>”: this is not literature, but a responsible action. And yet, there is only one way before God and before people: to raise honestly and directly the question of the union of the Churches and the conditions of this union. But when I really come into contact with Orthodoxy, you see such a thickness of inertia and prejudices that there is a completely clear consciousness of one’s utopianism and hopelessness. Either leave the dead to bury their dead 274 or criminally breed a new schism and unrest when the Church is exhausted. You can’t be inactive, you can’t act, and this ἐπоχή 275 sometimes gives a kind of feeling of mortal hopelessness. I repeat again and realize that I cannot live in rupture with my native Church and outside of it, and at the same time, whether I have outgrown it or not, its crisis has occurred in me and has weakened me. God, help me, I don’t know the way... and how unnatural, how mortal the life of emigration is, how joyless. When you think that this will take years, uh, until the end, you just get lost. Or is this the first time? Only for the children, for them there, there. at home - after all, there is only death. Yesterday I had the good fortune to visit St. Sophia, God showed me this mercy - not to die without seeing St. Sophia, and I thank my God. I experienced such unearthly bliss, in which all my sorrows and worries, past and future, were drowned as insignificant. Something absolute, indisputable and obvious was revealed to the soul. Of all the marvelous churches I have seen, of which St. Mark and Notre-Dame 277 left the most enchanting impression on me, this is a church, der Dom 278 in an absolute and indisputable sense, a universal church. This is indescribable in human language lightness, clarity, simplicity and wonderful harmony, in which heaviness completely disappears - the heaviness of the dome and walls, this sea of light pouring from above and owning all this space, closed and free (“Lift up your eyes, O Zion, and see how your children have come to you from the west, north and sea and from the east” 279), this grace of marble lace and the beauty of the columns, this royalty is not luxury, but it is the royalty of the golden walls and marvelous ornaments that captivates, conquers, touches, convinces... The limitation and heaviness of the small suffering I disappears, it is no longer there, the soul spreads through these vaults and itself merges with them, becomes the world, I am in the world and the world is in me. And this feeling of a melted block on the heart, this feeling of being winged, like a bird in the blue sky, gives not happiness, not joy - but bliss - some final knowledge, of everything in everything and everything in itself - of all things, peace in unity. This is, indeed, Sophia, the actual unity of the world in logos, the connection of everything with everything, the world of divine ideas ϰόϭμος νoητόϛ 280. This is Plato, christened the Hellenic genius of Byzantium, this is his world, his mountainous region, where souls ascend to the contemplation of ideas. Plato's pagan Sophia looks and comprehends itself in Christian Sophia 281, the Wisdom of God, and truly the temple of St. Sophia is artistic, therefore, visual proof and proof of the appearance of St. Sophia, the sophiness of the world and the cosmicity of Sophia. This is not heaven and not earth, the heavenly light above the earth is not god or man, but divinity itself, the divine cover over the world. How clear the feeling of our ancestors in this church became, how right they were when they said that they did not know where they were, in heaven or on earth: in fact, they were neither in heaven nor on earth, but between, in St. Sophia: this μεταζύ 282 was the philosophical providence of Plato. St. Sophia is the last and silent revelation of the Greek genius about St. Sophia, a gesture to the centuries that the theologically fading Byzantines were no longer able and were not able to fully understand and express, and, however, she lived as the highest revelation in their souls, born in Hellenism and manifesting itself in Christianity. And here, in Sofia, for Sofia, in connection with and about Sofia, the divine Sofian symphony of Orthodox worship sounded. And here, with new strength, persuasiveness, self-evidence, you comprehend the meaning of the words of St., unknown to him. Justin Philosopher 283 that Socrates and Plato were Christians before Christ, and Plato is the prophet of God about Sophia in paganism. I have never heard or thought that St. Sophia is Plato's kingdom of ideas in stone, rising above the chaos of non-existence and its victorious idea, the actual everything, everything as one, all-unity. It is revealed and shown to the world. God, how holy, how wonderful, how invaluable all this evidence is... You enter... And from everywhere, above and below, from all sides, the soul is filled with this feeling of space and freedom, immensity and limitation, not the struggle of the border - πέρας - with the immensity of ἄπειρον 284, but of bright joyful harmony - the mystery of St. Sofia. You stop before the dome: it’s ahead. From the walls, this gold sounds quietly and harmoniously, set off by a marvelous and noble ornament. How can the walls of the Church not be golden, not sparkling with imperishable, stainless gold? How could the walls and buildings of the heavenly Jerusalem 285 that descended to earth not be golden? This goes without saying and is shown here. Before your eyes are these columns on the right and left, in the distance the altar rises, and the vault invites you to come under it, to experience its heavenliness, and you enter, you stand under it, in its very middle, it quietly and powerfully embraces the soul and enters it. You throw your head back as far as you can in order to swallow this vault deeply, drink in it and dissolve in it, and the soul floats away in its immensity, the feeling of heaviness, physicality is lost, you fly, fly like a bird. But again you lower your head and again look in amazement at the towering altar, at the side colonnades, at the choir columns with their lace of marble, with the incessant sound of the gold of the walls, and again you fly away to the vault. Oh, I know, more than once in my life I have experienced this feeling of bliss in front of the great creators of art, divinely inspired creations, and each time it was its own, non-repetitive - also bliss, but always different and individual. And here, after slavery, slavery to the most vain and despicable elements of the world, this freedom in Sofia, this flight in the azure. You approach the altar, empty and deprived of its throne. Here the thought involuntarily rushes to the past: how everything was here if the robbed skeleton of the church is so marvelous. What was here when the Patriarch and the Tsar with all the clergy and synclit, in golden robes, in the gold of heavenly Jerusalem, performed sacred acts in this altar, and the church was filled with worshipers, and incense was burned: when there was the fullness of the living Sophia, and not her dead body. What was the purpose of worship in this church? There was no such thing on earth as the beauty of sophia - a divine service. And now... now the church of God, but not the Christian one, has been taken away from Christ and given to the False Prophet. But even now they pray here and pray with dignity, more worthy than those to whom the church belongs. God removed the lampstand and gave the church to a foreign people. They prayed. How beautiful, graceful, and dignified this prayer was, how beautiful they themselves were, peacefully and reverently bending down and then rising in prayer, how noble their oriental melodies sounded in their prayers. They, having captured the Church, desecrated it, gave it their face, their soul. Of course, they didn’t notice, they don’t know St. Sofia, limited it to the mosque, but they showed up and are reverent “locum tenens.” And their prayer, their piety produces a charming, soul-soothing impression: “from your lips and from those who piss you brought praise” 286 . They are babies and pissers. The church was taken away from the unworthy and for the time being entrusted to locums. And I couldn’t help but think: they are more worthy than us, those who were recently planning to “plant a cross on St. Sophia” in order to disgrace there with his bad taste and slavery. But Sofia did not allow this, rejected the uninvited and stayed with her previous children. And so be it. Sophia is the Church, the universal, absolute church of universal humanity and the Universal Church, which has for the Christian world in its history a meaning similar to the Temple of Jerusalem, an integral meaning. The Jerusalem temple belongs to the Old Testament, the beginning of history, therefore it had to be abolished. The New Testament Church belongs to the universal future of the Church, but now there is no Universal Church in its historical power and glory, after the schism of the church, after Photius and Vettularius 287 it was taken away from Christians and given to locums. And again: what blindness, what childishness we have when we consider ourselves, the Russia of Nicholas II and Rasputin, the Holy Synod, Plehve and Pobedonostsev 288, worthy and ready to erect a cross on Sophia: they say they even prepared a cross on the Church in St. Petersburg, from some parish church. They thought, like Mohammed, to enter Sofia with bloody boots and lay their paw on the wall there, to captivate these walls with the synodal choir. But the Lord looked at us in anger and laughed at us. And your ways are right, O Lord! But - or Sofia is archeology, a monument of the past, museum value - but it speaks against this. she herself: let him who has eyes to see and ears to hear judge and testify to this - here the Spirit of God rushes, the grace of God, the call of God, the command of God, the immutability of the promise, Sophia lives a divine, immortal life, Sophia is an amazing fact for the consciousness of both modern and all times of Christianity; or – Sophia – symbol, prophecy, sign. The Old Believers have a wise belief, as I see now, that Sophia will be restored at the end of the world. If we free this thought from the eschatological fear that colors it, then this means that Sophia will be realized, will become possible only in the fullness of Christianity, at the end of history, when its most ripe and final fruit will be revealed, when the White Tsar will appear, and to him, and not to the political “All-Slavic Tsar,” 289 Constantinople will open its gates, and he will erect St. Sophia, and it will not be Rasputin’s who will illuminate it a protege, but an ecumenical patriarch, the Pope. And therefore the story is not over... We are still in the “Middle Ages” in the sense of barbarism and we are moving towards the new Middle Ages in the sense of inspiration of History - ahead, although we already see and feel its end, where it is going, but history is not internally over, it is at full speed, and away from the fog and fear inspired by the difficult hour of history, listen to the voice of St. Sophia, her prophecy, she is not in the past, but in the future, she is a call to the centuries and a prophecy, history will end internally in Constantinople and only then will it become possible, without fear and not from fatigue, to talk about the “epilogue of history”, Solovyov spoke about this early. 290 There is a story, history has not ended internally until there is no Christian saint in the world. Sophia, until she became, at least for a moment, a victorious fact of history, this is what St. told me. Sofia. Of course, the ordinary “Orthodox” consciousness believes that the time of Sophia is in the past, when there was an Orthodox Tsar and Patriarch in Constantinople. But this is obviously not so: it was Byzantium, definite, local and in relation to the rest of the world, forcibly tyrannical, as well as in relation to the local, imagining itself as the Universal Church. But St. Sophia, although created by Byzantium, or more precisely, by all Hellenism, rises above Byzantium, is its negation. How was St. possible? Sofia in Byzantium? How could it have Justinian as its builder, who also reflected the features of a Byzantine? This is a mystery, no, this is a mystery. Or does this mean, as is most natural to think, that Sophia adequately expresses Byzantium, but then she would have to perish with her, but she lives, just as Plato lives, although there are no longer Hellenes (and there are only their ethnographic relatives)? And can Byzantium, this spectacle of church robberies and violence against the Church, and at the same time the constant arrogance of the local Church, be a sign of a worthy Sophia? Of course, only the genius of Hellenism, who lived in Byzantium, could give birth equally - the theology of the Ecumenical Councils and St. Sophia, and nowhere outside Hellenism - least of all in Rome, which also did not know and did not understand itself, its own nature, and the ministry of the Ecumenical High Priest mixed with earthly dominion - would this be possible. This is indisputable evidence of the originality of the Eastern Church, handed over to Russia from Byzantium; it cannot and should not be lost, and under the leadership of the ecumenical high priest - the division of the Churches was and is nourished by misunderstanding and neglect of this truth; by its restoration - and only by this alone - can it be overcome (otherwise attempts at union will have the same fate as before). And St. testifies to this. Sofia. Involuntarily the thought rushes to our Russian, home, family churches, full of such warmth and comfort. And the same heavenly dome above them, but this dome over the “domestic church”, the sky in a cage, in a house... This is also a heavenly dome, but not the vault over the entire universe that St. speaks of. Sophia, he is his prius 291, precedes him both in time and in history, presupposes him. This is intimacy, early Christianity, catacombs, a monastery, a home church, but this is not world history, not Comte’s Humanity - Vl. Solovyov 292, and St. Sophia is this Humanity. And you slowly move from place to place, from point to point, and this vault of heaven opens in new overflows, in new perspectives; time has stopped, and yet they call me, I have to leave. And there Muslims pray, sing, fall, bow in the holy place, now empty, at St. Throne. How noble, how majestic the face of a praying Turk, how beautiful his movements. No, it’s too early to liberate and erect a cross over St. Sophia, when the crosses are removed from our home Russian churches, let the locums who have blocked our sacred images with their shields and Arabic prayers piously pray there. God, how mysterious the history of [unintelligible] man is. Russian Slavophiles always attributed the prophecy about Byzantium to the Russian Orthodox Tsar, the All-Slavic (Tyutchev) 293. But this is not enough for Sofia. What is Russia for space? – province. - Slavism? ethnographic group. But Sophia is universal, it is not national, local, but the Universal Church, which has called all nations under its dome. And they want to make it a local, people’s, parish church, a cathedral of the world. And at the same time, the covenants of the kingdom were given to the East, the Eastern Church, Byzantium and Russia. But just as Sophia was created when there was no division of the Churches, so it was returned to the Christian world only when it was no longer there: just as our Slavophiles did not understand that it is impossible for an ecclesiastical province to have Sophia as a church. The only Church must give birth to a single White Tsar, but this Tsar is a historical task and a dream of the East, which has tragically failed so far, and under the ruins of the kingdom the Church also crumbled, after the second Rome the third collapses, but a new Rome is resurrected, which in the one ancient Rome received its barms 294, and Moscow is only an intermediate point on the way... 295 S.N. Bulgakov. Letter to P.A. Florensky 296 August 17 – September 1, 1922 Yalta. 17. VIII. 1922. Yalta. Jaltica (Letter to a Friend) My dear and only, royal friend! I am now writing this church confession to you... Personally, for me now there is nothing more important and necessary than for You to understand and approve of me, for at the thought of a divergence (I don’t even dare to say about a breakup, because I don’t believe in it) with You, my heart aches, my soul trembles and faints, and I don’t know how I will survive it. After the family, which is my common self, I love You more than anyone in the world, I am surprised, I honor, I adore, I adore, like a schoolboy teacher or, to put it more precisely, like a loser who has known the full extent of his weakness, but not so born blind as not to recognize the living genius next to him in all his supernaturalness. You know this, you know what You mean to me, how grateful I am to You for everything, for everything. You were a faithful friend to me even at the wedding supper of my priesthood: before the throne of Christ you stood as a fellow servant when I brought my vows to Him, and together we tasted the Cup of the Lord. And you performed my first liturgy with me, leading me by the hand like a mother leading her child, or better, like an eagle teaching a young eaglet to fly and breathe the air of the heights of heaven. And we parted with You after the liturgy celebrated together more than four years ago. And our earthly friendship; in which You condescended to me and with which you made me happy, Christ the Savior Himself crowned at His supper. The Lord sent me to great trials, temptations and enlightenments during these years that I went through without You, thinking with horror about You, whether You were alive, trembling at the thought that I was left alone without You. This time was filled with great miracles of God, and I can’t even say and understand now how long this time was, forty years or four years: time stopped, curled into a point or unfolded again into an endless ribbon, but every day the sun of my life rose and set, every second my heart beat, letting me know that by the power of God’s creation I live in the world, in this country, I belong to Him, and he belongs to me. And this was a new life for me, for there was an unknown life in the priesthood. Oh, how great and incomprehensible is this mystery! How, indeed, a priest is a different person, a new creature! Throughout my past life, I look at how the soul of a dead person probably looks at a discarded body, or a butterfly at its chrysalis. I saw my, or our, portrait, so infinitely dear to me, both in memory and in meaning, but I look at myself there exactly like that, from the outside, as at my former body, which, however, is no longer mine, like a cut off nail, because I firmly and undoubtedly know that this is not me, although there was me in a previous life (a rare case, you might say, of comprehending “discontinuity” and, for example, overcoming the “law of identity”!), and only straining my memory, I restore my unity with this... intellectual. ... I am a priest now and only a priest: everything else in me fell silent and froze, if, however, there was anything to freeze. After all, now I know very well that my entire professorship and scientific career was just one misunderstanding in the sense of the absence of this element in me, although the opposite seemed to others from the outside (even to Rozanov 297), and in any case, both externally-biographically and internally-spiritually, it burns and burns out in the fire of the priesthood, and without any resistance, I have freely surrendered myself to this rebirth for four years now. I know that this “whole” will bring a smile to some seasoned and seasoned churchman who has been counting his priesthood for decades. And let him smile at himself, but you know that time is a relative quantity, depending on the content and intensity. And in my life, for which God determined the crooked path of an illegal comet, cutting off many alien orbits, in my declining years, after a long and tedious life, full of continuous reincarnations, or at least disguises, this is not a little. And besides, my experience now included the parish priesthood, which gave me at least one sip to taste the waters of all-Russian “Greek Orthodoxy” in concreto 298, that is, first of all, in myself and through myself. My share also included these sad, terrible months of testing faith and love - a hungry priesthood in a hungry Crimea in the midst of famine... And to this there is continuous turmoil, ecclesiastical and secular. I remember this to say once again that in war, months, or even weeks and days, go by over years, and I, truly, already feel the experience of a parish priesthood behind me. Among our brethren, Veresaev 299 has not yet been born who would write “Notes of a Priest” with a sensitive religious soul, and not the empty everyday pictures that are written. I don’t intend to be such a Veresaev, but I firmly and clearly know that without this experience my church consciousness would not have received the concreteness that it has now: you can learn to swim only by throwing yourself into the water, and I didn’t take up this science of my own free will. So, here is the result of this segment of my life: these years I lived in the priesthood, I thought and suffered in the priesthood, and - I would really like to say this without false boldness and hypocritical humility - and the priesthood lived in me, kindling the gift of its grace (character indelebilis 300 of the priesthood, after all, this is its axiom!). Of course, I thought and theologized - with all the power of passion that is only accessible to my frailty - and all the same old questions: about gender (taking on new shapes with a change in orientation, because just think, for me the revelations of old age are already beginning, that is, again a completely new illumination of life and a new orientation), about a new consciousness and, most importantly, about the dogma of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Trinity. All my theological thoughts, contemplations, studies were devoted to this latter: this is the center of my entire consciousness 301. But nevertheless, it was and is still theology (although, of course, not only theology). But the area in which the revelations of thought were at the same time revelations of life, where I vividly felt the very element, in myself and outside myself, above myself, is churchliness, the same eternal problem of the Church. It cannot but be raised anew and tested in the face of the collapse of worlds and church upheavals, but in addition to the scandal and crackling heard only on the surface, in the depths, in the agent, where daytime noises are no longer heard, new signs, hieroglyphs or omens appear (“vexilla” 302), about them the night of the soul constantly conducts a whispered conversation, looking into their mysterious depths as if in multi-star sky. And in this silence my priestly soul lived and looked and looks into this depth, constantly feeling its “pillar and foundation of truth.” And at the same time, with complete surprise, in spite of all my previous self-awareness, passions and prejudices, obeying an imperatively tearing antinomy, some kind of iron dialectic, I came to the realization that I had already outgrown the previous understanding of churchliness, and again I must take the staff and set off again on the path, perhaps, the last path of my old age. And the first and last - human and more than human - priestly, the thought is about You: will I really go on this path alone. Is it possible that separation awaits me here - ah, mb, and a spiritual break (why soften the truth? This is unworthy of our friendship!) with You. Will God really require this, it seems to me due to my human weakness, an unbearable sacrifice for me? Or, hope stirs - this still won’t happen and so... I can’t even imagine how, you, even without merging with me in my thoughts and feelings, will still remain with me, which I pray to the Lord, for He sees that I did not voluntarily sin against our friendship, but may He resolve the involuntary sins of weakness and ignorance! He imprisoned us all in order to have mercy on everyone. So, may the Lord have mercy on me, and may I not lose You in this life. I know my weakness. It is such that without checking by You and according to You, without Your approval, I cannot decide to put the final point, to say the final word to the most seemingly sincere and undoubted of my experiences, and Your disapproval will paralyze my weak forces - such power over me was given to You by Christ. But He too - and I also cannot, I do not know how to doubt this - now commands me to follow my own path, the path of truth. This is the antinomy of life, it is far more painful and difficult than our decorative and prosperous school antinomies. So, accept my bold and, of course, inept confession, and give me the answer to it as a fellow priest, my friend, my hope, and consolation! Take heed. It is impossible to tell these countless and endless days and nights, when the soul struggled and languished under the unbearable burden of the death of Russia, this continuous dull pain, which was interrupted by acute paroxysms. I lived (and live) in complete solitude, in which I nurture and beg for my present thoughts, placed before the Throne of God and before (with) my flock. And in a strange way - under the influx of these thoughts and feelings - one basic pain and longing became more and more acute in me - about churchliness. Here, in this fundamental and decisive point, You must understand me correctly: not about the Church, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, which I know, believe and love with all my heart and mind beyond any doubt, but precisely about churchliness, about the socially mystical (here for the first time, without apologizing or being embarrassed, I speak about “sociality”, for I have also felt its revelation). Mb, in the depths of my being, I felt more and more a fatal dissatisfaction with Greek-Russianism and a new spiritual hunger, I felt more and more a kind of fatal loneliness and church orphanhood... I know that You will understand what I am talking about and will not read me a common moral: the mystical Church, in which I am everything and in everything, is, as it was for me, the highest and even the only reality, and I recognize this in every Eucharist, in every sacred service - this is not what this is about. And I’m not talking about actual personal loneliness at all, that is, solitude, because if I lived on a desert island, then everything would be the same. And it is also impossible to quench this thirst with friendship (I comprehend this absolutely accurately), about which You were able to reveal, as it were, a revelation, for friendship - and according to Your comprehension - is the cellular structure of the organism of the Church and is vital only in the Church, as a mystical sociality, is valuable only by ecclesiasticality, i.e. already presupposes its presence, but in no case replaces it, otherwise the result is the most dangerous hope in the sons of men, “charm” together (“Ern and Sventsitsky” 303 - an example of such church self-deception passed before our eyes in this mystical company), and no matter how much I love and honor You, even in relation to You I would not want to make the mistake of a religious judgment: friendship is the Church and in the Church, but In no case should the Church become Friendship; it is not Friendship. In a word, friendship also gives the answer to a completely different feeling, to a different hunger than the one that was increasingly taking possession of my soul. Everything that I knew and that was in my soul remained in place, crystallized and strengthened. But along with this clarity of church consciousness, a new feeling incessantly arose: the soul was reaching somewhere with its tentacles, looking for something around which it could establish itself, entwin itself and bloom. And all the answers that exist and which You gave with the greatest brilliance and completeness about the pillar and affirmation of the truth, became insufficient, because they became understandable in their incompleteness, human too human vision and therefore inevitable stylization. And, most importantly, incompleteness: for for You yourself the Church is not only a mental vision, which is comprehended by mental vision, felt by spiritual art, recognized by spiritual taste, judgment of spiritual beauty: Sophia - Friendship - Jealousy etc., but is, indeed, the pillar and affirmation of the truth. Not only dynamics, which can only be spoken of as a verb, but also statics, a noun. After all, for You, churchliness is not only a mystical life, but also pillar-like boundaries, an iron indestructible hierarchical system, power that sets the limit to all autocracy. You have revealed all the feminine fullness of the Church, but where is the masculine? where is the Church Stone? I am distracted, instead of telling a story, I begin to argue, but I have constantly looked and am looking in Your spiritual mirror, and I want to be not only understood by You, but to bring You closer to me, no matter how small I am. How can I not want this if I recognize myself on the path of truth, and Truth itself helps its youths... From the entire sum of my experiences - personal and patriotic, prayerful and parish, from all the experience of a Russian priest in our days, in the dark depths of the church consciousness, a funnel was drilled more and more clearly, outlining its new center. And for a long time I was not able to realize what this meant. It was one sleepless October night in 1921 in Yalta: in the melancholy of the night my always-present thoughts rushed about - about Russia, about Orthodoxy, about the future. And suddenly “the hand of the Lord was on me” 304 - otherwise I don’t know how to define and understand it - a whirlwind flew over me, my heart began to beat, and something clearly and undoubtedly spoke the answer in me: to Rome! I testify that this was new for me, unexpected and somehow forced. Thoughts rushed, overtaking and crowding each other, unfolding their panorama. After this night, I - once again in my life - stood up as a new person, with a new idea in my soul, with a new theme of life. I was in some kind of joyful amazement and horror, I fought with God and argued with Him. For I knew what this meant for me geographically, I knew how weak my strength was, I knew that these few remaining years of old age would carry an unbearable burden, but God is stronger than us and we cannot resist Him. And at the same time there was light, and joy, and new life. Here you go. Now I have told you everything, you will understand the rest yourself: “vexilla regni.” 305 But still I’ll add something. It is surprising the superficiality with which the Pope is always judged as an external authority, but in this case Christ will be the external authority, and His Gospel will be corpus juris 306. But the fact of the matter is that the Pope, plena potestas 307, the infallibility and unconditionality of church authority, is, first of all, an internal fact that we find in the soul, in the depths of churchliness: it is not given, but given, si n’existait pas, il faudrait l’inventer 308. After all, what else is the history of the Western Church really like: blindness, deception, religious psychosis? The invisible in the visible - the Church is mystical and historical, just as every priest or bishop is the same mystical fact: Fr. Paul or St. Theodore, but also lepeuç 309. Why is the Pope an external authority, and not an object of faith, a first bishop; to whom it is inherent - ex cathedra 310 - to exercise the sacrament of faith and power? We easily attribute this sacrament to the Ecumenical Councils “as it pleases the Holy Spirit and us” 311 (for this conciliar definition is the sacrament of faith, you will agree with me on this), why do we stumble at the thought of the Pope? And this idea - I would like to say - this fathering gives a completely new feeling to the church, gives the fullness of this feeling and through this reveals the incompleteness of my previous feeling. Newman 312 said - in a fit of “conversion”: The Church is the Pope. And this is true, at least to the same extent, as true are all those definitions of the Church that are given in mystical language (in particular, by You). This means that the leadership of Peter in the Church, its living leader and center, the hierarch of church unity, gives an all-pervading feeling, completely different, opposite to the lonelyness and loneliness that is experienced outside of this connection. Invisible, but real threads connect with the department of ap. Peter, and a strong hand holds and affirms. There is a spiritual father on earth, given by Christ himself. And in the light of this new knowledge, it is simply incomprehensible to me, it seems like some kind of misunderstanding that You - with Your acuteness of mystical vision - do not see this, you are passing by this Sacrament of power and faith, without which the church’s fullness was not complete (i.e., the truth is not true) and brushing it off with words... school theology or Slavophilism (in “Pillar” 313). In any case, if you do not accept, if you reject the dogma about the Pope, then not in the same way as it has been and is being done before, but by turning your face to him and fully comprehending what it is about. I haven’t even seen this from You. All roads lead to Rome, that is, they lead to the center of problems about the Church, and you are convinced of this experimentally with every movement, with every effort of thought (this is the property of the center in relation to all points of the periphery), and therefore, as you yourself well understand, apologetics and counter-apologetics of the papacy can be carried out in a thousand ways. But I don’t want to repeat this clever uselessness here, but I want to open my soul to You, as it was, and in this inner event such a “rock” is exposed that no one can help but see with impunity. And this mystical revelation about the Church, which, I repeat, came to me apart from all external influences and impressions, became, of course, the living center of all my thoughts and feelings... And this was all unexpected because I was accustomed - this is so well known - to treat with prejudice, suspicion and antipathy towards all union attempts and sentiments. But in the light of a new sense of life, and, of course, I began to understand myself, and Russia, and all my previous deeds and thoughts, and our common thoughts with You, in a new way, and this is what I want to tell You about most of all. I’m to blame: there was one small external push that seemed to wake me up and forcibly direct my thoughts in this direction: I had to join one Catholic woman to Orthodoxy. It was good for her and she needed it for family reasons; it was, in essence, a transition to the Eastern rite, which made it possible to receive communion, so it was not difficult for me with her. But I asked my pastoral conscience: can I, with new conviction, “seduce” it, as from half truth to complete truth, as from better to better? And how can I instill in her all the theological subtleties about the filioque 314, etc.? I answered myself: no, and I was shocked by this. This was before that October night. Did you have to join? Do you remember how, before accepting the priesthood, we talked about it, and I said that I strive for the secret work, I want to be a priest, not a pastor, and El Iv still objected to this. At that time, like you, I considered her opinion a misunderstanding, but now I think that she was right. An Orthodox priest is not only a priest, but also a shepherd, since he is a priest, he is a mystical center of power, and therefore rights and responsibility. And I say this not only as a parish priest (although in this position it is clearer), but also simply as a priest, who cannot help but confess, preach, teach - in any form, as long as he warms up and does not freeze his gift. And in this service of the priesthood, a special mystical feeling of church sociality, connection with the one Church, and with the illnesses of this feeling develops and becomes more refined. In his “priesthood,” the Orthodox priest is completely satisfied and well-fed, for he tastes the unearthly bliss of the sacrament and the angelic joy of priestly service: one side of churchliness, about which you and I have always shared thoughts and feelings, is, indeed, an unshakable stone of pillar and affirmation. But in the other side of it, which I will conventionally call church-social, I soon felt; not all is well. For the internal task and thirst here is the unity of church connection and power, the inner consciousness of universality, and the reality - local, dull, parish, ambiguous or ambiguous - is some kind of particularism and amateurism. I’m not talking about the fact that, in fact, in the current state of the Russian Church, there is not only a universal, but even an all-Russian, even a general diocesan consciousness in the pastorate: there is a parish, somewhere a deanery, finally, an eparch, a bishop - such is the loose, crumbly material from which our ecclesia 315 is glued together, which so easily crumbles. But this sad external state is only a revelation of the nature of our churchliness, generated by “Greek-Russianism,” that is, national particularism instead of universal supernationalism (this sounds bookish, but in fact the sun lit up in my soul when I saw both this particularism and nationalism in myself and, I think, parted forever with the remnants of my religious Slavophilism). And it is this church nakedness and helplessness that is most clearly reflected in the most intimate points, especially in confession and teaching. Our priesthood is weak-willed and therefore powerless, and this is not in the sense of personal weakness, but of its church frailty. Others manage to point this out as a plus to the good “father”, in contrast to the predatory and tenacious directeur de conscience 316 priest, but the confessor is undoubtedly d de con, otherwise he is simply a minister of demands, ex opere operato 317, absolving sins, a priest, and not a shepherd. From parish confession they run to the monastery, to the elder, where they are not only more attentive, but stricter, more serious, because there the atmosphere of churchliness is denser, but its quality is the same. There is something missing inside, no backbone, no muscles of power, no internal connection with its original source - the fatal loneliness of a shepherd, somehow, somehow doing his job, afraid of power, from which, however, one cannot free oneself. And it is remarkable that the bishop, with whom there could be this internal mystical connection, is also more of a superior than an authority; he does not help the priest, just as his brothers standing next to him, just as lonely and mutually alienated, do not help him. There is no Pope in the heart and there are no mystical threads connecting with the Authority, that is, with Rome, and therefore the whole nature of Orthodox shepherding is powerless and frail. One could be platonically touched by this meekness and humility, until it became clear that this is a weakness that cannot be touched and which cannot even be tolerated. The militant church should not consist of disabled people, and this disability explains all the fatal features of our Slavic weakness, licentiousness, vagueness, slavery: like the priest, so is the parish. – You will understand me at a glance, and I don’t need to give you everyday or historical reinforcements when it comes, first of all, to the very nature of the priesthood, and then churchliness. You can say yes or no to this nature, but you cannot deny its existence. And since I saw and recognized it in myself and in others, I say no, because one cannot say yes to weakness and inadequacy. Mb, you say: Catholicism is still worse, - I will answer: historically - maybe everything happened, but mystically - ubi papa ibi ecclesia 318 - the soul cannot be without a center. The current experimental times have also produced an experiment in churchliness: we all sit down and change into church positions: from the Synod to the Council, from the Council to the Patriarch, from it we fly head over heels, God knows where, and the same nagging feeling of longing for the Universal Church remains in our being. So that you don’t think that what I’m talking about is a disappointed intellectual who is fed up with everything, or S.N.B., who is personally known to you; who is destined to move from - to even into the priesthood, I will say in all my conscience that this self-knowledge is not at all a disappointment. After all, I know all the positive qualities of the Russian Orthodox priesthood, as many from the outside do not see, and for myself personally I am blessed that I am in its ranks. And yet, the “Greek-Russian” Church is in paralysis, not at all in the kind that church liberals spoke about together with Dostoevsky, but in the internal, purely logical: flabbiness of the tissue due to weakness of the heart muscle, a break with the center of the unity of the Church, schism... And our whole historical repulsion from Catholicism, the internal fear of it is understandable, and here, indeed, is the limit for “Greek-Russianism”, here we have a different feeling of the Church, sharp, clear, honest, but difficult, therefore disgusting. From eternal sloppiness, hereditary amateurism, you will have to become “specialists.” If we were to actually write—of course, for a few and only for internal use—the second Veresaev’s “Notes of a Confessor,” we would bite the tongues of many in our Orthodox boasting. And we are also proud of the Catholic “confessional”. I am convinced that, although there are sins and deviations there, confession is more significant, stricter, and more healing. That is why the priests there receive and maintain power over souls, because they have this power within themselves. And we grin and arrogantly condemn. And our entire parish life, at best, is full of benevolence and warmth, and on average it is fraught or lukewarm, but does not have the tension and burning sensation that it should have. The latter is considered a property or disadvantage of Catholic “fanaticism”, but in fact this is normal church energy, love is jealousy, jealousy is fire and death, this does not need to be explained to You and not to me. And that is why Russian Orthodoxy is falling apart so easily and silently, and even seemingly painlessly... I also mentioned our eternal church ambiguity and polysemy. You know what I'm talking about. We have nothing indisputable and unambiguous, except in the area of ​​sacrament and sacred rites, that is, apostolic hierarchical succession. Do we have canonical, not usurped power? We have forgotten when we had it, if we ever had it. And every power we have is a very zealous and sometimes fierce boss (and the more fierce the more usurpative), but it is struck by a fatal ambiguity, so that either it must be obeyed out of fear and for conscience, or it is sinful to communicate with it. This was felt most painfully by the patriarch, who was doomed to tragically reveal this canonical misunderstanding (did the patriarch have ecclesiastical power?), and I’m not even talking about what happened and what will happen after him. Our dogma is ambiguous: You and I recognize (or do not recognize) a lot of things that the church authorities regard completely differently, without being embarrassed by this, but at the same time always risking falling under its canonical step. And, in particular, even in my current state, I continue to consider myself Orthodox, although I know how much I diverge from the official, but always “wandering” theology. And even on the most important point: in the canonization of saints and in liturgical and canonical innovations, large and small, this ambiguity associated with the absence of a single supreme ecclesiastical authority, some kind of ecclesiastical illegality, is not eliminated, and the more you think about this evil, the more painful it becomes. What other canonizations and innovations can we see in the Russian Church... And this impasse has no end. Until everything was chained and motionless, there was a mask of canonical beauty, but now everything has thawed and stank. Here we are passionate about the question of the Name of God, but this dogma - whether accepted or rejected equally - is doomed to remain a canonical ambiguity, and at best, even the Local Council will not have the power to pronounce a dogmatic definition (and if it pronounces something unacceptable to us, we still do not recognize this Council, we do not “receive”). But there cannot be an Ecumenical Council; there is no one to authoritatively convene it! And what guarantee will there be that each subsequent Local Council will not reconsider matters in the opposite sense, as was the case with the constant Councils of the Palamite disputes, where three Councils, over the course of less than 10 years, decided three mutually opposite decisions, in accordance with the changes in political influences at court 319 (by the way, for some reason you take these Councils seriously as an authority, why?) After all, the Local Council is doomed to all sorts of accidents. We are doomed both in the present and in the future to this church ambiguity and instability, and with every attempt to move we will sink and get stuck. You can't live like that. This is a sin before the Holy Spirit and the Bride of Christ! We are doomed to church ambiguity and Protestantism, fatal, inescapable. Yes, Protestantism! It seemed to me that I had been at war with Protestantism all my adult life, and this is true, since I had before me a rationalistic, tasteless Protestantism, and I was sincerely surprised and did not understand when I myself fell under the reproach of Protestantism from the Catholic side, now I understand: what is terrible is not historical Protestantism, which is not even terrible at all, for it spreads according to the law of all sectarianism and arbitrariness, but mystical Protestantism, religious-philosophical, even ecclesiastical, which is our common destiny given the paralysis of ecclesiasticalism. With this look I now look at both my path and yours. It is difficult for the rich to enter into the Kingdom of God, and so You are rich and strong with your wealth, which you know that Your human, genius and church power is indistinguishable, one passes into the other, one mixes with the other. In Your humanity I want and know so much firmness and steel, no matter what - Christian or Stoic, Orthodox or Catholic, the predicate is connected with this subject, in any case, a certain “pillar and affirmation” would be obtained, about which a weak and flexible shoot could be wrapped (as I was wrapped around You). But she is better than others - only You know the difficulties of this wealth. You are the Venus de Milo 320, who everywhere pleases and consoles with her nobility and beauty, whether You are a Neoplatonist (as nature essentially gave You) or a Christian, and You are always an ascetic and ascetic of ideas, whatever they may be. In a word, every adjective to Your noun is so grandiose, expensive and beautiful that it enchants in itself, even if You were not a Christian and since You are not a Christian, at least Greek-Russian (despite all Your stylization and predilection, there is generally little Russian in You, both in blood and in spirit, and this is good, and in Russian life such a crystal cannot - or cannot yet - be formed). And yet, all this must somehow be thought out in order to raise the question of the church’s essence, where we are talking only about root ties, and not flowers and fruits: not everything that Fl brilliantly says will be ecclesiastical at the same time, will be the voice of the Church in him and through him. And at the same time, the tasks of churchliness, in accordance with his gifts, increase immeasurably: not the Church, but he himself becomes for himself and for others “the pillar and affirmation of the truth,” groping for it within himself and embellishing it (“the flower grower,” jokes Tern 321, “the stylist,” swears B 322, but in essence, in a certain sense, both are right). Your power is such that if you know it, as You yourself know it, not only my smallness cannot cope with it, but also those stronger than me, I think, no one can directly cope with Your superstitious feeling with exciting, supernatural insight. You, in your own way, are an infallible Pope by your strength, and this is Your natural papacy conquers, and yet You are not the Pope, and Your word about The Church is not the word of the Church. Therefore I will be bold about You. I remember you wrote to me when I was still a student: my idea is Orthodoxy. Remember, even then I was amazed by this, and now, in the light of the setting sun of my life, often thinking about it, I am amazed: yes, it is so, You have Your Orthodoxy, which, for better or worse, is so different from historical Orthodoxy that even it is incomprehensible (after all, You know how incomprehensible You remain, and, moreover, not in your mathematicians and gobbledygook, but right in the vital piece of your church bread, which You show in the Pillar), so that, in essence, either they or You are Orthodox. Moreover, you internally, as they say, do not even trace your loneliness from this church or to him, the church body; You contrast ἐν διά δυοίν 323 friendships in order to completely get rid of them. And at the same time, You take from them (yes, “from them”) the sacrament of the priesthood and its power, you even obey them, bend before them, not even respecting their commands (like this pasting over the word Sophia in a dissertation at the request of the bishop 324), but at the same time you remain your own pope, your own “pillar and affirmation”, which You, to top it all, project on the screen of Orthodoxy. And this is your fate until you find in yourself not only a pillar and affirmation, but also a pillar of affirmation, a rock. Peter, you will not hear the firm voice and command of Peter... I do not expect this now and cannot even imagine, but I involuntarily think what a shock will occur in the spiritual world when you see in yourself your Protestantism, that is, your individualism, your church loneliness, from which only the firm hand of the one who is commanded by God to establish his brothers can be brought out. I hope you will understand these inept and clumsy attempts of mine to express my thought: of course, without this personal mysticism, dogma-seeking, without personal creativity in general there is no life; It does not exist in the depths of Catholicism, with the Pope, but there is an antinomically coupled pole - self-denial, victory over Protestantism of one’s thoughts, feelings, quests and finding for oneself, indeed, a pillar and affirmation in the truth; and this is painfully joyful and sweet, and this is not-me; but the super-ego; The Church and its sacred power, authority. How many injustices have been said (even You repeat them in the Pillar) about the external nature of this authority (as if the authority of the Ecumenical Councils is less external than the Pope), but the main difference between the authority of the Pope and the Councils (for the fact of the infallibility of the Church and, therefore, its doctrinal authority is not in doubt) is that the Councils are a thing of the past, archeology, which does not bind me or binds me little in today’s quests, to us is glory God! - an Ecumenical Council becomes needed again, and it not only does not exist, but cannot exist in the East, and the Pope is a living authority, the voice of the Church in actu 325, with whom not only must one always be taken into account, but before which one must always be ready and bow, to his commands to surrender, having conquered Protestantism in oneself, for the latter is a constant possibility, a spiritual temptation that always lies in wait for the natural man; sacrificed on the altar of faith. The struggle with one's own contradictions is a feat of faith; self-immolation, which the worldly man does not want, hates; and that is why everywhere there is such hostility against Catholicism, which is not aroused by vague and flabby (“meek”); and therefore tolerant, undemanding Orthodoxy. And, of course, for aesthetic Protestantism, how convenient and tempting it is to replace the hard and solid rock of authority with an “aesthetic criterion,” spiritual taste; religious aestheticism, especially since in fact, in its place and in its field, this is a high and irreplaceable force (do Catholics know this worse than us?), and this displacement is accompanied by a mixing of cards; which results in typical dead ends and vicious circles; and in the end, the only criterion of churchliness remains the naturally Protestant ego of the author himself; who managed to bypass the question and lead himself into the self-deception of churchliness: und der König absolut etc. 326 And in relation to dissidents, spiritual taste also has a spiritual sword in reserve: accusations of “prelest”; in which the entire Catholic Church is deceived (how painful it is for me, even in You, to meet these unfair reviews - about Thomas Kemp, about Francis 327: no matter how great Your authority is for me and no matter how subtle Your artistic taste; but even I cannot be forced to believe You unfoundedly). You will say: nevertheless, the matter is only about external authority and external subordination to limited Roman clerics; who do not comprehend the needs of the new religious consciousness. It is they who comprehend more than our theologians; but this makes me remember the most painful and revealing question for me now; – about our brainchild – Rel Phil Academy 328. This dream was the light of my (I think) our life. In it, it seemed, was the meaning and justification of what was happening, and the religious Future was connected with it. This is not just a school, but a new consciousness, a new Church, which is at the same time old in its true essence. I felt myself holding in my hands the threads of this Future and somehow assigned to it. Of course, the main place in it belongs to You (but a zero attached to one also gets its meaning), but the point is; the task itself exceeds both You and us, for it was a church task. What did we want? To reveal the true Orthodox Church in all its beauty, depth and breadth, giving Orthodox answers to all the needs of our time and all of them, thus containing them within its fence. Philosophy, occultism, science, art, all not as subjects of teaching only (this is only the immediate, external task), but their internal assimilation, so to speak, the orthodoxy, the ecclesiasticalization of their being. This is the last task in the field of religious consciousness (further, and at the same time, comes religious action), and therefore there would be a world task in which the entire knot of world history lies. I, of course, am not so stupid and naive as to attribute this ability to myself, and not even to You, with all the supernaturalness and uniqueness of Yours - the task was given to us - so it seemed - by the Church, was born in the church consciousness, and, being assigned to a great and wonderful task, I could not even ask myself whether it was within the power of me or us, and why it was only within the power of the Highest Power performing it. But nevertheless, we knew that the axis of Orthodoxy and world history now passes through us, and we felt called and sent to the cause of Orthodoxy. It was not a prophetic, personal calling from God like the prophets (strangely enough, now I feel much more called personally), it was consciousness, its testimony, but it seemed to guarantee with its certainty that our work would be accomplished. This is how I understood you, and you will not deny that it was like this: we were not talking about a school that would be better than the spirit of the academy, but about a new era of consciousness (what the writers chatted about à la Merezhk, we will do - that was the feeling). However, our work did not succeed, just as A. N. Schmidt failed to find suitable members of the new Church of the “Third Testament” 329. Years of separation came, when I trembled for Your precious life - with it both the light of my own life and the meaning of the upcoming story would go out for me: if You are not there, it means that earthly history has internally ended, and there is no great, new content in it, the play has been played. But the inner voice of hope told me that You are alive (like Fedya, who disappeared then 330 34), and there will be a Future. And when I found out that You were alive and well, I waited with trepidation for news from You, about You and about Him, and not even so much external, but internal. And when I finally received Your letter, I felt that He was not there. The letter was friendly, but external. Of course, you can’t write about the most important and necessary things, but I would also read what was not written. And this impression was confirmed by the next letter, where you write that you do both (with amazing variety), “while remaining yourself.” Oh, of course yes! What can depersonalize you as a creative person! I never doubted this: wherever and whenever You are, You will always remain yourself. But I also wanted to know Your church superego, and I did not feel it. In relation to modern churchliness, You have become sideways, with disgusting indifference: let “they” cook up their vulgarities. However, vulgarity has already become a tragedy, and “they” are bound by power and strength with Your priestly self, which cannot be reduced to potentiality. And I don’t feel the other one yet. But this is a separate discussion; let me return to our idea. I kept asking myself: why did our idea fail outwardly? Our few surviving employees die or disperse, the years pass, and we are left alone... But then I began to test myself and the very idea: what do we want? true Orthodoxy, in a conscious and defiant opposition to historical Orthodoxy. True, we are in the Church and we take our diamonds from her, from her treasury, but our creative work consists of selection and use. Still, one cannot escape the fact that the spiritual foundation of everything is: we are Orthodoxy, we are its infallible and autocratic organ, in us and through us it is revealed and recognized. We cannot think otherwise; without this, everything falls apart. And when I saw this with complete clarity, I was amazed and recoiled. I realized that I was in the Protestant charm of religious self-affirmation (truth, for me it was a type of friendship: outside of me, in another, in You, but in this case this ἐν διά δυοίν was only a refined form of this religious self-affirmation), and I even became scared at the thought of what would have happened if our plan had been outwardly successful, and that it had not succeeded, I saw the merciful hand of God. In any case, now I have seen the light, and I don’t want to want the unchurch. This story of an unrealized plan showed for me how deeply Protestantism is rooted in us - mystical ego-papism. Of course, even now I consider such a school to be of paramount importance as an educational institution, but its nerve should be completely different: it should be a church school. You say: theological academy? no, its tragedy lies in the fact that it could not be a church school without possessing internal churchliness, dedication and the mystical connection of each and every one with the Church in its living center, and this internal failure of the spirit of the academies is only one of many denunciations and “Greek-Russianism” mistaking itself for the Church. You say: clerical, Jesuit? Of course, all human affairs bear the stamp of the earthly vale, and churchliness is covered with a patina of clericalism. But - I will answer historically - Catholicism has sufficiently demonstrated its flexibility and vitality in changing living conditions, and in Rome they will be able to appreciate new quests and opportunities (the new “order”). The main thing is that then this matter will be overshadowed by the grace-filled cover of church authority and saved from delusion. I don’t want to part with our dream, and let me still dream that we will finally find, together with the church foundation, a church form for it, instead of some kind of “free”, arbitrary one and instead of a church school. In any case, I perceive our failure in what was the work of life for both of us as natural and as the mercy of God, so what kind of luck could there be? When in my inner experience it became axiomatically obvious to me that there is a Pope, that is, that there is a primacy of St. Peter and the living bearer of church unity, the infallible head of the Church militant, the sacristan to whom the plena potestas belongs (oh, how joyful, how bright and sweet this thought is), I - at the same time, earlier and later - turned again to a scientific revision (by the means available here) of the question of the dogma of the papacy. And it was as if my eyes were opened to the Gospel texts about the primacy of Peter, which weighed with absolute weight on the scales of the question. Tu es Petrus 331, this is the command and will of the Lord I. Christ, which without any reasoning, unconditionally and limitlessly must be obeyed. It was as if for the first time I saw these words in the true form as they were spoken, without the usual apologetic nibbling of corners, interpretation, reinterpretation: a little here, a little there, until it was possible to completely erase the power of the initial impression. This is, indeed, a matter of spiritual, theological, scientific taste - trust or distrust in these interpretations, and I decisively lost this taste and freed myself from the hypnosis that covered the direct command of the Lord. And in the conversation on the road to Caesarea F 332, and in other places that are always cited by Catholics and against Catholics (You know them), one thing is absolutely clear; that the Lord entrusted Peter with special power in the Church and, of course, the successors of his see. Even You struck me with a passing but characteristic remark about Peter’s three-fold questioning of love and the Lamb’s thrice echoing of him, in which You, contrary to Catholics, saw a personal conversation (coarsening Your thought), and not Peter’s new solemn intonation: this is incomprehensible to me in You, and it seemed to me in general that in “The Pillar” the question of the Pope and Catholicism was not yet fully experienced by You and is considered partly in the light of “my idea of Orthodoxy” 333, which for some reason did not need primacy (along with its hierarchy), partly according to the accepted Orthodox template (sit venia verbo 334). I say this not for the sake of polemics, but because I listen inwardly to every word of Yours. So, I involuntarily read the Gospel now with “Catholic” eyes, that is, the way it is written, and I cannot and do not want to read it differently, to be arbitrary over the sacred text, allowing myself any retouching in it: in the Gospel it is written about the primacy of St. Peter, the grain of the dogma of the papacy is given, which develops from this grain like a plant. After all, You know how things stand with the history of this dogma in the first centuries: approximately the same as with the whole hierarchical question: Protestants successfully prove historically that there were initially no three degrees of priesthood, and they appeared later, but to us this tradition, against which we can endlessly fight historically, seems born blind before the internal reliability of the tradition. This can be said even more about the veneration of the Mother of God and Her holidays (the Assumption!), which seemed to be completely absent in the eyes of scientific critics in the first centuries, but is all the more reliable for the judgment of church tradition. With the papacy, historically the situation is even more favorable, and it seems that there was no time when there were no traces of the exceptional significance of the chair of the apostle. Peter, which in the era of the Ecumenical Councils is completely undeniable for everyone, so that only apologetic retouching remains to be done. But nevertheless, this whole mass of experience receives its strength only from the inner light of apperceptive dogma, thanks to which these endless disputes take place whether papacy is a dogmatic fact or an abuse of Roman lust for power. I, of course, cannot, and I don’t want, I’m not interested in inventing a new, untold argument in this dispute, especially since, it seems, everything has already been said both pro and contra. I think that you will not argue with me on this: historically it is equally impossible to either overthrow or prove a dogma, you can only show it, and this possibility regards the papacy more favorably than for many dogmas, and for me it seems historically clear that for the Ecumenical Councils the popes play both a leading and decisive role (and all the tweaks and antics addressed to Honorius, Liberia 335, etc. induce sufficient counteraction), with the constant heresy of the East, both emperors and popes. Of course, the dogma of papal primacy was not proclaimed before the councils of Lyon III, Florence and Vatican 336, but this does not mean anything, since it was still in life, it happened with other dogmas, it was and is with the dogma of the Mother of God and ... of Sophia. At the same time, it is quite indisputable, or not to retouch, but to look with open eyes, that many great fathers and teachers of the Church, such as St. John Chrysostom, Theodore the Studite, Maximus the Confessor 337 and others from the East revered Rome, and among the Westerners this was implied by itself (of course, you do not share this false and even heretical method, adopted in “reprove theology”, to set aside the judgments of the Western Fathers and reckon only with the Eastern). The most tragic and fatal figure in the entire history of Christian Europe and, especially, the “Greek-Russian” east is “St.” (yes, “saint”!) Patriarch Photius. I was most interested in him, breaking off the classic volumes of Hergenrother 338, where he makes only documents speak, studied Photius himself, along the way I became convinced of what blatant and unscrupulous lies are written about him in Russian literature (in particular, by Lebedev “himself” 339), and I see with all clarity that he is a usurper and an ambitious man who sacrificed the good of the Church to his ambition. His talents and polyhistracy are unique (mutatus mutandis 340 They remind you), but he is a deceitful, crafty, demonically ambitious Greek who, against the background of the general cultural separation of the worlds of East and West, poured in his poison of division. For me, this is now, I repeat, the most gloomy and fatal person in Christian history (regarding the quotation marks in “saint” - ἰσαπόστολος 341 - sic! I can say that I have followed this history and believe that this canonization - not earlier than the 16th century! - is one of the church-political acts that require revision). As for Michael Cerullarius 342, this petty ambitious man is not even a “saint” among the Greeks. and not ἰσαπόστολος. I am not saying, of course, that the Latins were innocent of strife and schism in particulars; what is important is that they were right in essentials. Well, when the schism took place, “accusatory” theology began, the mill began to work. You know this music well. What is interesting is not this, but the fact that until the fall of Byzantium, the question of the Pope never left the stage of the most sincere and heated discussion among the Greeks. Now, just these months, I became acquainted with this completely forgotten or unknown “polemical dogma,” and for me, and not only for me, but for all of Orthodox theology, this was a real discovery. Only after the fall of Byzantium, when Hellas ended, Byzantium ended, and Istanbul began, with the embittered, envious and dark anti-Latinism of the epigones, prejudices against Rome in the style of Anthony Volyn 343 began to crystallize, without causing objections, and we took this insanity for Orthodoxy and diligently instilled it in theological schools. The Photius gap had innumerable consequences in world history (it is surprising that our apocalypticists in their interpretations of the symbols of the Apok found everything - Luther, Mohammed, Napoleon, etc., but no one found Photius), and, in particular, not only habit and alienation formed, but also enmity, in which we remain. Now about the dogmas of Catholicism. I know that for You there will be no question either about the Immaculate Conception, or about the Latin Liturgy, which happily existed before the rupture, and the beatitude of the saints and about the purgatorium 344 - here, at most, there may be only a conversation about theological subtleties. Apart from the primacy of the Pope, the serious and only question is the filioque or its opposite Photian formula ἐϰ μόνου τού πατρός 345 . It is not news to you, of course, that all these years I have not deviated from the question of the Holy Spirit, and tried to get acquainted with theological literature, in particular, the filioquistic dispute. Initially, I was a resolute opponent of the filioque (it is remarkable that the same thing is repeated with many outstanding Uniate Greeks, for example, Patr I. Vekkom, even Card Vissarion 346, although it also happened the other way around: Gennady Scholarius 347 from a Uniate-Latinophron became a militant Latinophobe), but then he increasingly understood both his historical and dogmatic correctness and his inner truth. To the extent available, I have studied and am studying this polemical literature from the Greeks since the 9th century, starting with the Mystagogia of Photius 348, in the Photian and anti-Photian literature, up to the last theses of Bolotov 349 on the question of the filioque, and as a result I have clearly come to the conclusion that Photianism is ἐϰ μόνου τού πατρός is a non-Orthodox innovation, and the dominant one among the fathers was either διά πατρός 350 or filioque... (and, of course, “coming from the father” in the symbol leaves this question completely open, and it did not exist then). This was also recognized by Bolotov in his theses, and there is no point in breaking down the open door against retouchers, like Bishop Sylvester, partly Makariy 351. And essentially I came to the conclusion that filioque is the truth, and in any case, the third Hypostasis in the adventure is connected not only with the First (which Photius asserts one-sidedly), but also with the Second. It is not worth presenting all the complex paths of thought here, for You it is not necessary, but in You, in addition to careless and hostile words about “Catholic theology”, in Your metaphysical scheme A-B-C the third member, C, turns out to be directly connected with the second and only indirectly with the first, i.e., it also comes out as διά or filioque (which is essentially the same thing; it differs only in the shades of thought). This is by the way. In any case, apart from my attitude towards Catholicism, in this matter, as a theologian and metaphysician, I am a “filioquist”, to put it in rough and conventional terms. In any case, Photius' ἐϰ μόνου τού πατρός is contradictory and unorthodox, and all subsequent Photius theology did not add a single significant argument to the dispute, ending with Mark Eph 352 and Scholarius. But all this is not important, that is, my opinions, theologumena and philosophumena 353, I now know my worth and know the maximum internal weight of my opinions, and, besides, I changed them so many times during my numerous ideological novels and continue to change them, that I myself do not have complete confidence in the strength of my opinions (I’m even afraid that their firmness will not stand the test of Your criticism), and insofar as I rely on my opinions, I always I admit the possibility of infatuation and seduction. But the dogmatic fact is important, the discovery of which in all its strength was a real discovery for me, giving me an ecclesiastical foundation for my dogmatic speculations, and I want to bring You face to face with this fact, demanding from it one or another answer. This fact is the Ferraro-Florence Council of 1438-9, which is a genuine - eighth - Ecumenical Council 354, authoritatively, by the Holy Spirit, uttering a number of primary dogmatic definitions (about filioque, about papal primacy, etc.). This council was not only slandered as shamelessly and brazenly as the Byzantines knew how to do, who taught this to our theologians, but it was simply erased even from the book of times, as if it never existed (but there was some kind of congress of swindlers: Isidore, Bessarion with the Pope at the head, defeated, however, by the valor of Mark of Ephesus) and it can be ignored. And therefore, I repeat, it was a real discovery for me when I saw that this was not disputed by anyone, but only a godlessly real Ecumenical Council slandered. As far as it was possible for me, I peered and read into all its features, its figures became specific historical figures for me, those works of theirs that were published in the Migne 355 patrol, I read to the line and say this with complete conviction. It was a real ecumenical council both in terms of the completeness of the representation of all Churches, and in the seriousness, dignity and duration of its work, and even in the complete almost unanimity of its decisions, signed by all participants, except for Mark of Ephesus, who followed in this, as they rightly said at the Council, the example of the disobedient Church Arius, Nestorius 356 and others. In general, this figure is a mixture of Antony-Illarion and Iliodorus 357, hysterical, even epileptic and demagogue, at first he tried to cling to the forgery of supposedly patristic texts, but when he was defeated, he stopped going to meetings where an answer should have been given to him, having fallen ill in time with his own, he kept trying to run home, and at the last meeting of the Greeks, after almost two years of unction with the Latins, he proclaimed that they - heretics with whom one cannot have communication, nevertheless promised the emperor to sign an act of his own resolutions, but upon his return, but in fact he immediately began Iliodor’s demagoguery against the Council. And he still has the conscience to talk about violence against the Greeks, when even for the rebellion against the Council no measures of church discipline were applied to him. In general, these Anthony's conversations, typical of the Greeks, about bribery, violence on the part of the Pope and the Emperor (who allegedly forbade Mark to appear at the meetings as an irreconcilable arguer, but meanwhile he actually ran away) are terribly exaggerated, especially if we compare under what pressure from one or another party the Ecumenical Councils were held at court, which did not prevent them, like the Florentine Council, from revealing the Sacrament of Faith. Yes, there is no reason to deny the significance of the Flora of the Council as an act of authoritative proclamation of Church truth, and its later rejections at private Councils are completely without force, otherwise nothing would have remained long ago from the first Ecumenical Councils - I think that you will not argue: Ecumenical Councils are a sacrament performed by the body of bishops of all Churches, it cannot be abolished by individual bishops. Moreover, there were many Greeks who defended the union ardently, sincerely and passionately, who came to it after hesitation and struggle. After all, the Greeks went to the Council (especially, apparently, Mark) with a frivolous self-confidence that they would crush the Latins, and without accepting their dogmas at all (this was the case with Vissarion, and with Gennady Scholarius, etc.), but since the decision was made to hand over the Universe to the Council, it is impossible not to subordinate your personal opinion to this decision. At the Council there was the flower of Byzantine theology and science, so the battle was real and decisive. The Greeks rejected the Council after the fall of Byzantium, when they became completely mad with Latinophobia, and the “Eastern Patriarchs” also followed (and then only church-historical extras, as now), and in Moscow, the boy-prince (20 years old) Vasily the Dark simply arrested Isidore - and that’s all. By such means the Ecumenical Council cannot be abolished, which demands recognition and submission for itself at least after 500 years. The Greeks, and together with them we and the entire Eastern Church, committed perjury, because when celebrating the Liturgy together after the Council, both parties vowed before the Holy Gift to remain faithful to it. If before this Council (not counting the Lyon Council 358) both sides could be considered guilty of schism, now we, the Eastern Church, are schismatics. And this sin entails inevitable punishment - Byzantium fell, and with it the Eastern Church became impoverished. Now our Byzantium has fallen, and the Russian Church has become impoverished. If You confidently and paradoxically connect the death of Russia with neglect of the dogma of the Name of God, which has not yet been revealed in the Church, then what should You say in the face of this perjury and Church rebellion and schema. This sin must be recognized and corrected, and until then our Church cannot overcome the spirit of slavery and enslavement, which was and remains its lot. So, the union of the Churches took place in 1439, although it has not yet been implemented or used, we are already in unity with Catholics, and therefore there should be no talk of any transition or even union with Catholicism. At the same time, there should be no talk of latinization, since the Eastern rite was recognized as equal to the Latin in all its originality, both at the Council of Florus, and especially in our days. But we must fulfill all righteousness - and reveal the truth of the Florus of the Cathedral. The Pope of Rome is the supreme bishop of the Universal Church with infallibility as a teacher of the faith, and his ecclesiastical authority affirms (and not my conjectures) the truth of the filioque. This is what now stands for me as an indisputable dogmatic reality. If you can, tell me the fact of the VIIIth entire cathedral. It is my Orthodoxy that demands unity with the Western Church and recognition of the Pope, in the depths of which I first intuitively and then historically discovered this, for the Orthodox Eastern Church is the Church not of 7, but of 8 Ecumenical Councils! The Florence Council has not lost its power and cannot lose it due to our sinful blindness and negligence. Let there be a community of Florentine unity! All this would be true regardless of Russian issues, but the death of Russia, and the catastrophic collapse of the Russian Church and the obvious rotting of the Russian people are thunder and trumpets from heaven. In the history of the Church and in world history, the present time in Russia is similar to the fall of Byzantium, only here is an internal, and there an external conquest, the questions, disorder, and moods are similar, only the age of world history is different: then the second Rome fell and buried the royal, Constantinople Church under its rubble (for the Hellenic Epigone Church after it already belongs to a different era, in essence outlived itself and, as a relic, lost its historical meaning, and the power of life), but the Third Rome began, albeit of the second edition, Moscow, a new royal church arose, of which Grozny was the first conscious Caesar Pope 359. (I speak here briefly, in hints, I outline the trains of thought with a dotted line, but it’s enough for You. You will understand.) The Russian Revolution, having taken away the Tsar, beheaded the Russian Church and deprived Greek-Russianism of its head, it is uncontrollably crumbling, and this is happening before our eyes: persecution and blows from the outside, Protestantism from the inside, if not worse. And at best it can be opposed only by conservatism, immobility and restorationism. And this collapse cannot be stopped, we cannot get out of this canonical swamp in which we are stuck. Of course, mystical points and altars remain and will remain, but the historical Church will not recover on its own and will not even retain what it has, both under terrible external blows and even more so under the pressure of its own internal powerlessness; Moreover, church ignorance and savagery are approaching, which also befell the Greek Church (and after all, Byzantium was no match for Moscow). You need to face bitter reality fearlessly, and You know all this. You don’t need to be convinced of this, and even without that you, apparently, do not see anything other than “vulgarity” in the broad Russian Church, at least the clergy. I don’t look at it that way, I see here a church tragedy and church punishment - for rebellion and perjury against the VIII Ecumenical Council. The All-Russian Council, the patriarchate, various patches - all this very quickly revealed its impotence. Either Russia irrevocably perished along with the Russian Orthodox Church (as in essence Byzantium perished in 1453, for today’s Greeks are neither Hellenes nor Byzantines) or... there must be new historical yeast, a new Chersonis 360, μετάβασις εἰς ἄλλο γένος 361, turn from east (no longer existing) to west. I re-tested my “Russian idea”, and the results quite unexpectedly turned out to be in complete agreement with Chaadaev 362 and Vl. Solovyov (and precisely in what I especially arrogantly treated him with, now I see in him a true servant of God). Here I expect You to say with eschatological fatalism: there is no second birth, it’s too late. And I hear in what is happening: I am creating everything new 363, and all Leontyevism 364 is simply sinful. Here, of course, the inner voice, the sixth sense, decides: is the story over and the end has already begun, or will there be a story, and we are in history. Previously, I was very susceptible, along with all amateur writers, to irresponsible and, in essence, flabby and cowardly eschatologism. Now I clearly see how much there were poems here, and illusionism, which takes its “imagination” for mystical reality (how many such imaginations have I seen in myself over the years, and how sobering this insight was), and simply the inability to get down to business (I, of course, did not acquire this skill, so I will die a slacker, but I bring repentance to God for my idleness - You, again, understand perfectly well, what am I talking about). During these years of searching and in this solitude, I discovered very simple but true things: about myself, that I will die like all people, and I accept this with grateful humility and tenderness, and before I sincerely became a Schmidtian 365 - with the corresponding mystical imagination, that I will not taste death on the occasion of transfiguration; about the world, that history has not yet ended and that it is a sin to think like that, and we need to be guided by history, and it began to seem to me (but it only seemed that it could be, also δόξα 366) that before the end there was still a great flowering of Christianity, the new Middle Ages (which you are talking about), and Russia, having survived the tragic fate sent to it by heaven, predetermined in Chersonis, where the Greeks together with baptism poisoned us with their envious and arrogant specialism, they will begin a new life together with all of Christian Europe. And when the traces of the Antichrist counterfeit of the White Tsar, the Caesar Pope, are mystically erased, under the leadership of Peter, she will fulfill her work, which is, after all, also the White Kingdom. But this requires μετάνοια 367, and then another education. In its current form, the Russian character is no good: it is jelly without any backbone, it is, indeed, a slave state, which is why the present-day Sovrossiya is a grandiose anthill of slaves. And this slavery must be defeated, the new Russian man, before whom Dost stood in confusion, and so in Alyosha he could not say anything (and unconsciously spoke about the secular order, that is, about what he himself scolded as Catholic Jesuitism). Orthodoxy - “Greek-Russianism” turned out to be untenable in the education of the Russian people, and this is because it itself was sick with schism and slavery, for this slavery has always been there, and it is this that melted its bones and muscles. Do not think, of course, that I am naively and simply calling on the Jesuits (although, somehow, imperceptibly for myself, I am increasingly positive about the spiritual Catholic chivalry), but I believe that if a shift and repentance occurs in us in this regard, then this will be taken into account both in heaven and in the scales of history. After all, now, as in general in times of crisis, we have to think not about the masses, but about the command staff, about a handful of people, faithful, brave, strong, who can do great things, but they need to be educated. Speaking outwardly and crudely (just don’t use this for polemical invective), we need order organizations that do not correspond to Russian anarchy combined with slavery. Need new yeast. But this consideration also smacks of utilitarianism. The truth commands us to think about unity with the Western Church, and that’s all. You will say, of course: is there life there too? Is Catholicism alive and is it capable of infusing life that it itself does not live? For me there is no such question. But, of course, I think that the union with the East and for the West would be a grandiose event, the onset of the fullness of the Church, which would be the beginning of a new era in history. You will say, as you used to say before: nothing will come of this, Catholicism and Orthodoxy will be ununited until the second coming. This means that you can unite with all sorts of Western folly: Protestantism, anthroposophism, 368 the international, but not with the Church. It was still possible to judge this way - although before the revolution, and not now. But the main thing, I think, is that it is a sin to judge in this way, it is not given to us, it is not allowed. Let the Owner take care of the harvest; it must be sown. Many will also say (our dear M.A. 369, all the naivety and helplessness of Orthodoxy and hostility towards Catholicism are especially typical): they will eat us up, of course, “Fr. O. Jesuits,” and that’s it, beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing. I’ll say to this: we’ve already been gobbled up and are being gobbled up anyway, it’s too late to scare us with this, but who’s gobbling it up? everyone but Christians, so this fear is false and exaggerated. Besides the fact that I don’t expect anything but good for Russian flabbiness and weak-willedness from Catholic education, which may turn out to be the only light in partibus infidelium 370 (after all, that’s where things are going), I’m not afraid of it. I believe and know the Russian soul, Russian talent, in general the Russian genius, which needs education, but is not afraid of it. In addition, the time of national external partitions is a thing of the past, the international reigns in the world, and nationality is now an internal, spiritual, primordial fact. And just as earlier in Muscovy we could marinate into schism and unrest and simply suffocate, and Peter forcibly broke the window and let in the air, so now we need to save ourselves from our insolvency, but not in a secular and godless way, but by unity with the Church. I repeat: this is a tragedy. Before the court of world history, the Russian people are not to blame for the fact that their train, placed on a siding, hit a dead end, but all those who do not lead them out of this tunic, do not recognize it, and do not help are guilty. I’m not talking about specifics yet, but about historical tasks. But, they say (even this is visible in You), Catholic spiritual life, their holiness, their mysticism is spiritual charm, there is only one and only way of spiritual life in Orthodoxy, in the eldership. I simply don’t believe this and won’t attach any importance to these general gestures. The gifts are different, and the ministry is different, and this single spiritual path is either a pale abstraction, a wall that does not correspond to the diversity of the spiritual experience of the East, especially in different eras of church history, or this path, truth and life is Christ, but try to take Christ away from the Western Church - before the division or after the division? One must be Anthony Vol (and, alas! out of fear of Catholicism, which Orthodox Christians incessantly experience in the depths of their souls, I know this from my own experience, many join him) in order to make such a fratricidal condemnation, I leave it without consideration. Of course, the Western ones have always - even before the division of the Churches - been bolder than the Eastern ones, this was the natural ground for growing alienation and division, however, this alienation has long been overcome by the internal penetration of the West - into our theology, into our culture and literature. And then what do you have to be to say that everything that is not ours is charm? The little through which I feel and know this life, on the contrary, excites only surprise, even with my sensitivity: Gothic, scholasticism, Dante 371 and Thomas Acquas 372, Francis and Ignatius of Loyola 373, etc. And in me only joy is aroused by the thought that there is a whole world - alien, but at the same time native, which still remains unexplored. And I think the same about their religious practice, about their spiritual orders, and the oratorio, and their liturgical features (the cult of the Heart of Jesus, the Mother of God, veneration of the Eucharist, etc.). Yes, I have almost no doubt that I don’t need to convince you of this. Of course, the form of Latin theology and its style, with which some of the features of Catholic theology are associated (its so exaggerated and often so misunderstood and underestimated “juridism”), has a lot of specifically Latin in itself, which will probably remain essentially alien to us, but which most of all, positively or negatively, consciously or unconsciously, influenced our school theology. And what can we, in all honesty, oppose as our own style? the Byzantines (of course, not the modern Greeks) had it, but we: the works of Bishop Sergius or Metropolitan Anthony? Or maybe Florensky’s opera omnia 374, but they are even further from the “Orthodox style” than Catholic theology. I’ll say one thing: for most of my life, as you know, I’ve been messing around with Protestants, and now that my eyes have been opened to Catholic theology, I feel like I’m in my native world, which until now for some reason remained alien... I'm cumming. Here is a chaotic, hinted expression of what was born in me as a result of the experience of my priesthood, and in general the self-awareness of my Orthodoxy, and at the same time of all the tragic and terrible things that I have experienced and are experiencing now. The mission of the Russian revolution is to destroy the mediastinum - the Red Jewish International - to unite the Churches and overcome the Church of Judaism. I am the first (or almost the first) to reveal my secret to you (for it is still a secret from the world). I look forward to your feedback with trepidation. Not only externally, but even internally, I don’t put an end to it. You can convince me otherwise, if at all possible. In any case, alone, without You, I cannot say the last word before God and before my heart. It’s so scary, so difficult, but at the same time I feel God’s work here. Amen! V.I. Guerrier. Second State Duma 375 A noble and excellent speech was made by Deputy Bulgakov, a cadet in the name of the party, but not in ethics. He spoke “not as a person sitting here or here, but simply as a Russian person who loves his homeland and is present at a terrible examination of its current state.” More than others, he was under the depressing impression of “the stunning modern Russian tragedy that unfolded before him. At first, when we listened to the commission’s report, our hair stood on end from the horrors that were happening in prison.” “One side was heard. Then another one spoke. She also started with an indictment. I confess that I listened to it with no less horror and with no less despair than the first indictment.” No less than this “adversarial process”, the sensitive deputy was burdened by the fact that most of his fellow speakers became parties to this process. And even more painful for him was the thought that what was happening before his eyes in the Duma was an accurate depiction of what was happening in reality - that bloody battle, that fight that our present life represents. He responded painfully to the fact that “we are so accustomed to these horrors that we read almost indifferently in the newspapers: so many were killed, so many were torn apart by a bomb, such and such horrors of pacification were carried out there. We live in this horror, but we do not notice it. We are going wild, becoming barbarians.” But what aroused bitterness and hatred in others prompted the philosophically minded author of the collection “From Marxism to Idealism” to look for a way out not in “that one side or the other will win and then trample on the other side, but in the fact that some kind of higher reconciliation will occur, on some moral and legal basis higher than the current struggle.” But it was not just these civic feelings that others shared with him, not just this political idealism, which not many understood, that was the main merit of the Oryol deputy, but the way he reacted to the request, how he understood and defined the meaning of requests in general. He saw in the request a “helping hand” that the people’s representation extends to the authorities in order to find common ground, so that the authorities can come into contact with the people, can earn the trust of the people, necessary for the fatherland. This is very good and very far from not only the revolutionaries’ view of the request, but also from the point of view that the Moscow Cadets developed in their “Guide for Speakers at Rallies.” From his point of view, the Oryol deputy could not be satisfied with the state of affairs. “We have,” he said, “two sides, of which one side is fragmented, scattered, having lost the consciousness of its direction and at the same time staining the snow-white garment of freedom with lumps of dirt - on the other hand, the authorities of the government, the bearer of the idea of ​​law, which also came down from the pedestal of power and took the position of a fighting side. “These two sides of the matter, i.e., the request to the Duma and the response to the request, represent, as it were, two completely equal fighting sides. This is the whole horror of our situation.” Deputy Bulgakov saw the horror of the situation precisely in the fact that the authorities arouse not only distrust, but even a direct feeling of hatred - and this is an abnormal situation in a healthy state. The authorities must raise their prestige, and in Russia a power that bears the law must be created that would have moral authority. But it is the responsibility of popular representation to help the authorities raise their prestige. Never before have such words been heard from the center of the State Duma as those that we have emphasized! Never have the policies of both the first and second Dumas been so correctly characterized and condemned: “When the question of means of fighting the government was considered here, they confused the following: the fight against the government in the sense of the fight against existing representatives of power is one thing, but the fight against the authority of the government in the country is completely different. We may be dissatisfied with one government or another; but we need a government with moral authority, and it is our task to create such a government.” Deputy Bulgakov ended his speech with the following words, expressing his attitude to the ministerial response to the request: “When the government declares that some members of the police have committed a violation of the law, I am satisfied to a certain extent, although to a very small extent, because in any case the case has been given a legal course. Finally, when the government, standing on the ground of the fighting side, tries to justify or soften its actions, then I am horrified, then I am afraid that the outstretched helping hand will remain unanswered, but I would not want that.” I would like for the speaker to be called after listening to this speech, like one of the speakers of the French Revolution - mais concluez donc! 376 But D. Bulgakov did not draw a practical conclusion from his speech, which was so necessary at that time. He did not offer a formula that would correspond to his political thought and, at the same time, clearly expressing it, would enable others to join it. The question had to be decided how the State Duma would react to the ministry’s response to its request. Not only the moral authority of the government, but also the moral authority of the State Duma itself before the government and the country depended on this answer. Deputy Bulgakov was applauded simultaneously, which rarely happened in the Duma, both from the right and from the center. Consequently, there was hope that an agreement could take place between these parts of the Duma regarding the formula for moving on to the next business. But it didn't happen. E.K. Gertsyk. Memories 377 Bulgakov became her friend during these years. Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov is a former Marxist and Social Democrat, and now a true believer - in the future a priest and spiritual father of the best among the Russian emigration. In the years I am talking about, he was already the author of several books on Orthodox mysticism. These books with a friendly inscription lie with us, but somehow it happened that both of us, having only looked here and there, did not diligently read them, and so I do not have a complete idea of ​​​​his worldview. The reason, perhaps, is that there was no integrity in himself. On one side is orthodoxy, which connected him with the pillars of Moscow Orthodoxy, with the elders of Zosima Hermitage. Appearing in a circle of people close to us, he devoted himself to their topics, unsteady and risky, bringing into them that freshness of perception that others no longer had. The same age as most of our friends - between thirty and forty - he seemed younger thanks to some chaos that had not yet fermented within him. My sister and I were amused by him, whom various rulers with pectoral crosses revered as their own, to discover some slightly blasphemous poet, to interpret Wilde, the music of Scriabin 379, to meet the attentive, lighting gaze of his beautiful dark eyes. Narrow-shouldered, not free in his movements, all of a kind of plebeian type - only his eyes were beautiful. From the time of Marxism, he retained the fervor of argument and how harsh and cruel he was, attacking dissenters, be they atheists, theosophists of various persuasions - not a note of the Christian spirit of reconciliation. And it amused us all the more that he listened to any heretical words from Adelaide, without rebelling. Bending over her, he said something to her at length, and she, having stopped listening to him, answered completely out of place. If I was close, it happened that I would intervene: “Adya, but you didn’t hear... Sergei Nikolaevich is exactly what he’s saying...” But maybe her “inappropriateness” was just what he needed: he leaves softened. Having seen him off, the sister returns with a tired step: “Nothing. he wasn't offended. It was something boring and no matter what, but I love it when his eyes light up like that - so brown and... kind." She was a little disingenuous: however, his brown and deep eyes, when he spoke to her, were not kind, but admiring. His passion for Adelaide was the subject of gentle jokes among those closest to him. Berdyaev sits down next to her and, his eyes sparkling cheerfully: “Did you visit Sergei Nikolaevich? Was he very “sophisticated”?” Sophia, Wisdom, the feminine principle or feminine breath in the Divine is the object of Bulgakov’s secret worship. The French have an apt expression: avoir le courage de ses opinions 380, I would say: le courage de ses amours 381. It was this courage of his passions that Bulgakov lacked - or it was not given to him easily, with agony. In the sixteenth year he was absorbed in the publication of one book. Anna Schmidt, a modest employee of a local left-wing newspaper, lived in Nizhny. Several years before the death of Vladimir Solovyov, she wrote to him that it was revealed to her: she is the embodiment of Sophia, the Soul of the world, whom the philosopher worshiped, with whom all his poetry breathes. Something in Schmidt’s letter struck Solovyov. He went to Nizhny, saw her, tried to sober her up, exchanged letters with her, read with attention her prophetic writings, which, of course, her newspaper colleagues had no idea about. Many years after this, following some threads, Bulgakov found Solovyov’s correspondent, now a gray-haired old woman, but still faithful to the same thoughts, and talked with her. Soon she died. And now in his hands is her archive - correspondence with Vl. Solovyov and her own writings. Sergei Nikolaevich prepared them for publication, wrote a long preface, gnostically interpreting Schmidt’s insights, but did not publish the book at the Put publishing house, where he was editor-in-chief 382, ​​he published it at his own expense, anonymously, and did not even dare to put his name under the preface. And there the deepest and dearest thoughts to him were expressed! Lack of courage? Maybe not only that. Perhaps he deliberately protected his love and his melancholy as private, intimate, non-binding? I remember another of his sweet heresies from the same time. Usually spending the summer in the Crimea, near Yalta (the estate of his wife’s parents), he more than once encountered the Tsar’s car, suddenly approaching from around a bend, and the sight of this already doomed man - the evil fate of Russia - awoke in him immense pity and love. With all the skills of radical political thought, he knew the inevitability of revolution and the death of tsarism, but stronger than this, his feeling for the unfortunate anointed one burned from within. When talking about the king - and they arose incessantly then - he winced painfully, but sometimes, especially when his sister was his listener, he surrendered not only to the torment, but also to the sweetness of this feeling. In his thoughts about Russia, its fate, the fate of the Tsar, there was a maddening intoxication - something in common with the intoxicated ideas of Shatov in Dostoevsky 383. Perhaps the attraction to the priesthood arose in him primarily as a desire to bring into harmony his too rebellious, chaotic essence. How difficult it must have been for him to retrain these intelligent hands, accustomed to writing, to the sharp gestures of argument, to the smooth priestly uplifting! I didn’t have to see him as a priest, but I think that he achieved harmony and his voice acquired the confidence that he lacked. In 1925, when Adelaide died, he wrote to me from Paris: “A long, long time ago, back in Moscow, I had a feeling about her that she knew no sin, stood not above it, but somehow outside it. And this was her strength, wisdom, charm, gentleness, inspiration. Where will I find the words to thank her for everything she gave me during these years - sympathy, understanding, inspiration, and not only to me, but to everyone with whom she came in contact. I don’t even know, I can’t imagine that there were blind people who didn’t notice her, but to notice her meant to love her, to be illuminated by her light. I have learned from the experience of a long life that only holiness is irresistible and victorious, everyone, everyone in the depths of their souls thirsts for it and seeks it - only one - and wants nothing else, and if they see it and recognize it, everyone will leave it and follow it. That is why the Mother of God is irresistible because She is all purity and holiness. Oh, if only people knew... Why am I saying this most cherished thing in my soul? Because I can’t help but speak only cherished things about her and for her, for she too was cherished. Our old relationship, you know, it happened before your eyes. I saw her for the last time in Simferopol in 1920. She changed a lot, grew old, but her inner light remained the same, only it shone even brighter and purer. She accompanied me to the post office, I somehow knew that I was saying goodbye to her forever, that I would not see each other in this world. Her letters were always joy, consolation, light. The more the depths of my heart were revealed to me along my path, the more radiantly I saw her image. I loved everything about her: her voice, her deafness, her look, her special diction. At first I loved and appreciated her work most of all, then she herself became important and necessary for me, with her wondrous, inexhaustible creativity of life, the genius of her heart. In recent years we have lived far away. If we lived closer, I could help her with her church life, but it is unlikely that she needed help in her personal spiritual path. In any case, it was as it should be, and she was obviously given the opportunity to realize herself to a large extent alone. I bow deeply to her grave (my dear, hot, scorched southern cemetery - how I know it and how painfully I love it)!..” I don’t know if he would have spoken in such simple, calm words about his long-standing feelings for her if he had not been a priest. OK. Lokteva. S.N. Bulgakov in Kiev in the fall of 1918 384 Participation of S. N. Bulgakov in the work of the Local Council of the All-Russian Orthodox Church in 1917–1918. and his acceptance of the priesthood in June 1918 became a milestone in his activities as a church politician, a religious thinker and simply a believer; the final resettlement to Crimea was a milestone in his personal biography, marking the beginning of the period of emigration. Of all the events of 1918, the history of Bulgakov’s stay in Kyiv is the least known and the most difficult to reconstruct. It is known that Bulgakov was elected to the Council from the laity of the Tauride diocese and took part in two sessions of the Council out of three 385. At the last, third session, which began its work (according to the new style) on June 2 and ended on September 20, 1918, Bulgakov, not just as a participant, but as a member of the Supreme Church Council elected at the first session and who had become a priest by the time the third session opened, was not present. Bulgakov himself describes the course of events after his ordination as follows: “... I had to meet in a new way with the family, about which I had already received news. Therefore, two weeks after my ordination, with the blessing of the Patriarch, I went to Crimea to meet with my family for a month, after which I intended to return to the place of my former, professional, and new, priestly ministry. However, I was not destined to return to Moscow. I met my people safely and spent a legitimate month with them. Then I made an attempt to return to Moscow via Kyiv. But from here I was unable to do this for a whole month: circumstances changed. So I was forced to return to Crimea.” If the events that surrounded his departure from Moscow are clear, then there is no clarity with those that followed: the date of Bulgakov’s final settlement in Crimea, as well as the time and event framework of his forced Kyiv “sitting” remain extremely vague. Perhaps clarifying the circumstances that detained him in Kyiv will make it possible to clarify this dating. And this is not a matter of simple biographical accuracy: the second Kiev period of Bulgakov’s life was not as bright and long as the first, when he held the position of an ordinary professor in the department of political economy and statistics at the Kiev Polytechnic Institute and at the same time a private assistant professor in the same department at the University of St. Vladimir 386, but it turned out to be no less eventful. According to the calculations of M.A. Kolerov, Bulgakov left Moscow approximately June 25, 1918 according to the old style, i.e. at the beginning of the third session of the Council 387. Obviously, and without planning to return before its completion, Bulgakov precisely pointed out in his memoirs two threads connecting him with Moscow - teaching political economy at Moscow University and priestly service in the Church of the Prophet Elijah in Obydensky Lane, to which he was assigned. He could only get to Koreiz (where his family was located on his mother-in-law’s estate) and back from Crimea to Moscow only through Kharkov or Kyiv. Most likely, his first road to Crimea passed Kyiv - and in this sense, Bulgakov’s memoir is true. The fact is that by May 1918, the entire territory of Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula were under German occupation, where at the end of June the first Crimean regional government, M.A., was formed. Sulkevich. This completely complicated the complicated relationship between Kyiv and Crimea before, under the Ukrainian Central Rada. From July to September 1918, the government of the Ukrainian Hetman P.P. Skoropadsky did not enter into official contacts with Crimea, demanding its unconditional entry into Ukraine, which, in turn, significantly complicated transport links between Crimea and Kiev 388 . In such conditions, with the unsettled relationship between the Soviet authorities in Moscow, Ukraine and Crimea, a roundabout path became natural, especially since it had already been tested by many participants in the Council 389. In turn, Kyiv was chosen by Bulgakov as an intermediate point on the way back to Moscow for many reasons: first of all, the academic year of his daughter, M. S. Bulgakova, a student at Kyiv University, was beginning. Perhaps extensive acquaintances among the former Moscow professors, who settled at the Tauride University in Simferopol, and Crimean politicians, one of whom S.S. Crimea (Neumann), a little later, in November 1918, became the head of the second regional government, and helped Bulgakov obtain official documents for travel through the zone of German occupation. From Kyiv, Bulgakov had a chance to get to Moscow: the summer decisions of the Ukrainian and Soviet delegations at the peace negotiations between Ukraine and the RSFSR gave hope for streamlining railway communication between them. The fact of Bulgakov’s arrival in Kyiv is also confirmed by V.V. Zenkovsky in his memoirs “Five Months in Power” 390. However, he mistakenly connects Bulgakov's arrival in Kyiv with the road to Crimea, and not with the return road. Another thing is important: Zenkovsky dates Bulgakov’s arrival in the fall of 1918 and talks about his stay in the city for a month. This evidence should be trusted based on at least the following facts. First of all, Bulgakov could not arrive in Kyiv before the end of August: on August 9, confusion in the official relations between Crimea and Ukraine resulted in a customs conflict and the closure of the Ukrainian-Crimean border. In mid-August, Kyiv newspapers reported that, due to the closed border, trips to Crimea were possible only with German trains with the permission of a special department of the German commandant's office in Kyiv, and petitions were accepted if there was a special reason for departure and were considered for an “indefinite period” 391. The same thing happened with travel from Crimea to Kyiv. In fact, until the beginning of September, official Kyiv ignored the fact of the existence of an independent Crimean government, and only at the end of the month did Ukrainian-Crimean negotiations begin, which were interrupted again on October 10. However, in September, railway communication between Ukraine and Crimea became possible 392. In addition, Zenkovsky reports that he spent with Bulgakov the entire time the latter was in Kyiv 393. But since the end of August, with the permission of P.P. Skoropadsky Zenkovsky was on vacation in Crimea for three weeks. He met with Bulgakov upon his return to Kyiv, that is, not earlier than mid-September. It is necessary to date Bulgakov’s arrival in Kyiv to mid-September 1918. At least his letter to M.M. is known. Zamyatina, sent from Kyiv on September 23, 1918. 394 Initially, the prospects for Bulgakov’s departure to Moscow were encouraging: through Kyiv newspapers, in early August, a message was circulated about the joint decision of the Ukrainian and Soviet delegations to form and send the first trains to Moscow 395. However, to travel, it was necessary to obtain permission from the Soviet delegation and sign up for the “live queue”. The formation of trains was postponed: throughout August, Kyiv newspapers placed advertisements from issue to issue about the conditions of travel to Moscow, reporting that the lists of those who received permission would be published (!) “in the near future.” Registration of those interested took a long time, and even Muscovites who had not compromised themselves in any way had to wait at least a month for permission to leave. By the beginning of October 1918, communication between Kyiv and Moscow became regular. But Bulgakov never left for Moscow. It has already been suggested that the main role in this was played by letters that reached him through letters from Moscow, as well as Kyiv newspapers and rumors about the outbreak of the “Red Terror” 396. Which of the reasons played a decisive role - events in Soviet Russia, separation from family, the possibility of a normal and free existence in Crimea or the inability to get to Moscow - is unknown. But in the new conditions, it became clear that he, as a person of clergy, could no longer occupy a secular chair in higher educational institutions. The atmosphere in which he made the decision not to return to Moscow is illustrated by the fact that some of the Council delegates from Ukraine and Crimea refused to participate in the third session of the Council (for reasons not only related to the difficulty of communication). In particular, Bulgakov’s acquaintance from the first Kyiv period, member of the Council of the Council and professor in the department of theology of the Kyiv Theological Academy P.P., also refused a trip to Moscow. Kudryavtsev 397. Forced to spend a whole month in Kyiv, Bulgakov unwittingly became a witness to events in local socio-political and church life, which, strictly speaking, were not actually Ukrainian. The situation that appeared before his eyes in Kyiv was more reminiscent of the now relict period of the Provisional Government, but only with local specifics that slightly changed the emphasis. First of all, he found his former colleagues at the Kyiv Polytechnic and Kyiv University divided not only by political sympathies, but also into “wide Ukrainians” and “Russian patriots” (with numerous options for intermediate positions such as “pro-Hetman orientation”), and in relation to the Church - into “autocephalists”, supporters of the idea of an independent Ukrainian Church, and “cephalists”, adherents of the Moscow Patriarchate (also with a large number of intermediate states). And he found Zenkovsky, who was closest to him, in the post of Minister of Confessions of the Skoropadsky government, which, since May 13, had been unsuccessfully trying to restrain the extremes of opposing currents in the Church and carry out at least the minimum of necessary reforms. Zenkovsky quite accurately described the atmosphere in the church life of Kyiv into which Bulgakov plunged: “We saw him almost every day - and, naturally, we constantly talked about church topics. When Bulgakov got acquainted in detail with the history of my relationship with M. Anthony, with all my actions as Minister of Confessions, he was horrified by the “misunderstandings” that became clear to him here.”398 Let us note that the most incredible rumors circulated among the participants of the Council about the activities of Zenkovsky as Minister in Moscow, mostly unfavorable for the reputation of Zenkovsky himself. During his stay in Kyiv, Bulgakov found himself involved in a conflict, quite remarkable for the mentality of the time in the church environment, between Zenkovsky as the Minister of Confessions and the First Hierarch of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who in every possible way resisted the policy pursued by the minister and tried to remove him from the government. At the same time, Zenkovsky was neither a “rich Ukrainian” nor a “Russian patriot.” Metropolitan Evlogy (Georgievsky) spoke about his activities in 1918 as an irreconcilable opponent of Ukrainian nationalist extremes in his memoirs, while Ukrainian nationalists considered Zenkovsky “a Ukrainian among the moderates” 399 . Bulgakov was not satisfied with the role of a simple observer of the matured conflict and tried to intervene in it as a mediator. As a result, his position turned out to be very difficult: on the one hand, as a priest and member of the Supreme Church Council, on the other hand, as a private individual who, by chance, found himself in Ukraine and did not have the right to directly interfere in local affairs. Zenkovsky’s memoirs preserved the content of the conversation that Bulgakov had with Metropolitan Anthony: “His first attempt to speak with Metropolitan Anthony was so unsuccessful, accompanied by such rudeness and even insults addressed to Bulgakov himself, that he had to not only abandon the role of “peacemaker,” but also stop his visit to Metropolitan Anthony himself. From Bulgakov’s story (although he did not want to tell everything that happened to him with M. Anthony) I learned that M. Anthony is deeply convinced that I was bribed by the Uniates, that my activities are aimed in every possible way to contribute to the decomposition and destruction of Orthodoxy. When Bulgakov began to defend me, M. Anthony said rudely: “Perhaps you were paid too? How much?”400 Zenkovsky does not mention any other attempts by Bulgakov to intervene in the conflict. But he does not mention at all the very remarkable publishing project he started during that period. On October 1, 1918, the first issue of the Slovo newspaper was published in Kyiv. It was declared as a “daily church-social, political and literary newspaper” and an organ of the Ministry of Confessions. The government allocated a substantial sum for its publication, and ministry official V.N. Lashnyukov 401 was appointed editor. The newspaper’s program stated that “Slovo” “aims to disseminate the ideas of “Christianization of life” and at the same time “will acquaint readers with the history of the Ukrainian Church, poetry and art” 402. Despite the fact that, to please the spirit of the times, some of the articles were published in Russian and some in Ukrainian, the newspaper was clearly “pro-Russian” in its orientation both in socio-political and church affairs. Due to the latter, “Slovo” aroused rejection on the part of Ukrainian circles and partly contributed to the deterioration of the position of Minister Zenkovsky 403 . The name of the editor, the focus of the newspaper, as well as the list of its contributors, including K.M. Ageev, A.E. Zhurakovsky, V.Z. Zavitnevich, B.A. Evreinov, P.P. Kudryavtsev, F.I. Mishchenko, V.D. Popov, A.I. Pokrovsky, V.I. Ekzemplyarsky, B.V. Titlinov, N.F. Mukhin, remind us of another Kiev publishing project - the newspaper “Narod”, in which in April 1906 Lashnyukov, Bulgakov and Zenkovsky took part 404. However, it can be considered indisputable that Bulgakov had nothing to do with the emergence of the new edition. The entire newspaper “Slovo” is the brainchild of Zenkovsky and his close friend, Lashnyukov 405 . It is worth noting that the initiators of the publishing project of 1906 were also not Bulgakov and his Moscow associates, but Zenkovsky and Lashnyukov. Rumors that the Ministry of Confessions had decided to start publishing its own newspaper appeared in Kyiv at the very beginning of September 1918. In particular, on September 11, on the pages of one of the Kyiv newspapers, Lashnyukov was supposed to give explanations about these rumors and his allegedly already appointed editor 406. The “Word” was conceived as an organ not of a direction, but of an institution - the Ministry of Confessions. Another thing is that a very specific part of Kyiv public and church leaders and publicists took advantage of the opportunity. The leading representatives of this trend, in addition to Zenkovsky himself (in 1918, who continued to be the chairman of the formally existing Kyiv Religious and Philosophical Society), were V.N. Lashnyukov, first chairman of the Religious and Philosophical Society P.P. Kudryavtsev and editor-publisher of the magazine “Christian Thought” V.I. Ekzemplyarsky, all known for their critical attitude towards the official Church, “religious-social” sentiments and radicalism in solving problems of the external structure of church life. Others of the newspaper's stated contributors were either members of the Religious and Philosophical Society 407 or authors of Christian Thought. After the formal closure of Christian Thought in early 1918, some of its authors, who had not lost interest in church and social issues, were in dire need of literary and organizational shelter. Novaya Gazeta became the direction for which Zenkovsky became not only the actual but also the formal leader. As for its organizational “shell,” one of the attempts of this kind can be considered the revival in the fall of 1918 of the Brotherhood in the name of the Sweetest Jesus, created in Kyiv a year earlier and including almost the entire composition of the participants of the “Slovo” 408. Arriving in Kyiv, Bulgakov was faced with a ready-made project. He had neither the time nor the need to join him. It is difficult to imagine that he would be interested in a project that is so strongly reminiscent of the scandalous and painful story for him with the newspaper “Narod” and is so closely connected with the problems of Ukrainian independence. But still, there was one aspect in the plan for the new newspaper that could not leave him indifferent - the search for ideology and specific forms of a genuine “religious community.” It would be a simplification to believe that in 1918 Bulgakov had already completely abandoned the idea that had been nurtured for so long. The content of his works of this period, where the concept of “religious community” does not disappear, but, on the contrary, develops, testifies for itself 409. Having become a member of the Supreme Church Council and strengthening his connection with church affairs, Bulgakov seemingly crossed over to the other side of the “church walls”, but then in a letter to A.S. To Glinka (Volzhsky), he formulated his difference from most of the church people around him, which had become undeniable for him: “I love them, only here I feel in my native environment, in comfort, but... everything that we knew about ourselves before even remains with greater strength and validity even now. Whether there is a “new religious consciousness”, or a “third testament”, or a secular culture, there is something radical in us that remains incomprehensible, closed, non-existent. In the end, I had affection, or even friendship, for everyone with whom I came into contact, but at the same time I remained alone” 410. Strictly speaking, by 1918, only Bulgakov’s idea of ​​the place of “Christian politics” in the system of Christian values, its methods and boundaries had changed: radicalism and the actual political emphasis in their interpretation had completely disappeared. The former integral concept of the “religious community” has narrowed down to the problem of the place of the Church, the religious-ecclesiastical worldview, and the church person in the life of modern society and the state. Therefore, Bulgakov’s real participation in the new Kiev project was added to daily conversations with Zenkovsky on church and social topics 411. In Bulgakov’s “Autobiographical Notes,” in the description of the period under review, there is a mention, difficult to actually comment, of an attempt to return him again to the ideas of “Christian politics” - “like a dog for vomit” 412. By it, Bulgakov could mean a publication project in Petrograd with the participation of A.V. Kartasheva, V.I. Ekzemplyarsky, K.M. Ageev's two-week magazine "Church and Life" (1916–1917) 413, but most of all, Zenkovsky's Kiev project of 1918 corresponds to such a sharp mention of Bulgakov. This would be all that we could say about this episode in the life of Bulgakov, and agree that the return “to vomit” did not take place if the article “Freedom and the Church”, signed with the initial – B, had not appeared in the issue of Zenkovsky and Lashnyukov’s newspaper dated October 10, 1918. The characteristic signature (Bulgakov often signed his articles and, in particular, articles in “The People”) this way, the features of the author’s style, the focus of the article and its subject matter suggest that he was its author. This assumption is supported by the very fact of his conversation with Metropolitan Anthony: the article “Freedom and the Church” is emphatically aimed at defending Zenkovsky’s policy against the local church hierarchy. Her anonymity is easily explained from the point of view of the position of an unofficial representative of Moscow that Bulgakov occupied at that time on the Ukrainian issue. If our assumption about Bulgakov’s authorship of the article in the Lay is correct, then it was a journalistic continuation of his activities as a member of the Department for developing a position on the relationship between the Church and the state at the First All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity in 1917, and later as a member of a similar department of the Council, which found its completion in the report “On the relationship of the Church to the state” that he read at the meeting of the Council on November 17, 1917. 414. Like the report, the article in Slovo was devoted to proving the inadmissibility of the separation of Church and state. It is also interesting that in 1917 Bulgakov had already polemicized on this topic with Zenkovsky at the All-Russian Congress of Clergy and Laity. Zenkovsky, as a delegate to the congress from “Christian Thought,” was also a member of the Department for developing regulations on the relationship between the Church and the state and spoke at its meetings against Bulgakov’s thesis on the inadmissibility of the separation of the Church and the state. Zenkovsky contrasted Bulgakov’s ideal (the union of Church and state, in which the state, if it does not want to break with its historical and spiritual foundations, is obliged to support the Church in its needs, and the Church, in turn, is obliged to saturate the state body with evangelical ideas) with the moral necessity of separating the Church from the state. Both of them referred to the provisions of V.S. Solovyov, but drew directly opposite conclusions from them. Although the congress supported Bulgakov with an overwhelming majority of votes (800 to 9), Zenkovsky continued, not from the rostrum, but from the pages of Christian Thought, to defend his point of view about the impossibility of the Church influencing public life through the state 415 . But, it seems, the experience of managing the Ministry of Confessions in the Skoropadsky government radically changed his point of view, and the conflict with Metropolitan Anthony allowed him to formulate the following: “On the one hand, the Church needed freedom, the development of conciliar government in it, on the other hand, it is completely impossible for me to take the point of view of “separation of the Church from the state” - so understandable within the borders of European states” 416. This conclusion could only please Bulgakov. We have no information about any other forms of Bulgakov’s participation in the religious and social life of Kyiv in the fall of 1918. But the very fact of publishing the article in Slovo was moral support for the Kyiv “religious social activists” and Zenkovsky personally, who were forced to independently seek new forms of church life and overcome the conservatism of the local church hierarchy. Considering the authority that Bulgakov enjoyed from Zenkovsky, he can be considered the inspirer of the church policy of the Ukrainian Minister of Confessions in September 1918, at the center of which was the question of the relationship between the Church and the state. This issue, on Zenkovsky’s initiative, was brought up to the Third Session of the Ukrainian Council scheduled for October 28 (following the example of the All-Russian Council, convened at the end of 1917 to organize local church life), and it was the development of relevant bills that Zenkovsky was busy in September-October 1918. In “Kyiv Thought,” the organ of the Kyiv Cadets, which clearly sympathized with Zenkovsky, on October 20, 1918, an article was published with a succinct depiction of the current situation: “The Ministry of Confessions foresee great friction at the upcoming session, especially in connection with the systematic persecution that has recently been carried out by the reactionary clergy in relation to the Minister of Confessions V.V. Zenkovsky.” At the same time, it was explained that the expected complications are directly related to the bills submitted by the ministry to the session for consideration “related to the establishment of new relations between the Church and the state” 417 . However, Bulgakov’s “influence” was limited by the duration of his stay in Kyiv, and Zenkovsky, along with the entire cabinet of ministers, was forced to resign on October 19, 1918. The Slovo newspaper continued to be published until December 31, 1918, but with a different orientation, author and editor. The new Minister of Confessions A. A. Lototsky, who took office on October 24, turned out to be an extreme supporter of autocephaly, which immediately entailed a change in both church policy and the direction of the newspaper. True, until November 11, the newspaper was still published under the editorship of Lashnyukov, but he was soon forced to leave this post 418. As an organ of autocephalists, the newspaper did not last long: on December 31, the editors announced the closure of the newspaper due to its unprofitability, in other words, unpopularity among the local clergy, almost entirely pro-Russian orientation 419 . In his “Autobiographical Notes,” Bulgakov gave a succinct definition of his then position in relation to the church environment and the “religious community,” using a phrase that was perfectly suited for his entire second Kyiv period: “In two camps he is not a fighter, but only an accidental guest.” The search for and finding one’s identity in the church hierarchy and Orthodox doctrine, “Christian sociology” and the ecumenist movement were still ahead. Application. [WITH. N.] B[ulgakov?]. Freedom and the Church 420 Until there was “freedom,” it seemed to everyone that this concept was completely clear. Everyone longed for freedom and were not even interested in finding out what the desired freedom was. But then the revolution took place; the people received freedom, a whole collection of “freedoms”. And to the considerable surprise of many, it turned out that freedom is not such a simple thing. Freedom “desired” seemed limitless. The freedom achieved first of all required the definition of its boundaries. In the boundlessness of freedom, freedom itself suddenly began to be lost. However, as soon as one started talking about the “boundaries” of freedom, an indescribable noise arose about the notorious “counter-revolution.” This noise deafened unfortunate Russia and robbed the masses of the ability to intelligently understand surrounding phenomena. Confused by this noise, the people rushed along the path that led to an unheard of catastrophe. Something very similar happened with the church liberation movement. They sought freedom of the Church. But when they achieved it, a discrepancy in her understanding immediately emerged. Two church currents sharply emerged. Some declared: the freedom of the Church should be unlimited. Freedom is freedom. Let the state power, which previously bound church freedom, cease completely to interfere in church affairs. Let it leave the Church entirely to itself, only providing it with “daily food,” that is, paying for the church budget from the state treasury. The Chief Prosecutor's Office put pressure on the church authorities - down with the Chief Prosecutor's Office immediately! There is no need for anyone, neither the chief prosecutor, nor any other intermediary between the Church and the state. The Church itself will convene the Council, it will organize itself; and let the state only subscribe to church decisions in order to give them state power. Representatives of the old Church and the old church regime spoke in this spirit immediately after the revolution. This understanding of the “freedom of the Church” was simply in the interests of the dominant church circles before the revolution, allowing them to painlessly apply to new conditions of life. Complete freedom of the Church, with the elimination of any participation of state power in the church structure, extremely advantageously resolved the difficulties in which the church leaders of the old regime found themselves. Since the Church will immediately be given the right to organize itself, then, of course, it will be “arranged” by the old dominant church environment, in whose hands the entire apparatus of church power is in its hands. She will also convene “her own” Council, which will carry out “necessary” reforms without affecting the interests of the ruling church elements. Naturally, such “freedom” greatly smiled upon the conservative church movement. Another movement in the Church, on the contrary, said that freedom cannot be without borders. The freedom of the Church, to be true freedom, must inevitably be conditional, and especially in the first moments of church reorganization. The transition to “freedom” first of all requires the presence of a certain force capable of ensuring real church self-determination; and such a force can only be state power. The revolution liberated the Church not in order to strengthen the regime of class domination that had previously existed in it; and such a strengthening would have been achieved by leaving the church structure to the old church authorities. The responsibility of the state, which liberates the Church, is to ensure the internal freedom of church self-determination, that is, the emancipation of the church community, hitherto unjustly suppressed. State power does not even have the moral right to withdraw from participation in the matter of church reform until a real, popular-public conciliarity is organized, for at a transitional moment it is the representative of the hitherto dispossessed church people. When the Church receives a conciliar reorganization, then the role of state power will naturally be reduced. Its task of regulating internal church relations will no longer exist. But there will always remain another task of the state apparatus related to church-state relations. As long as the state gives the Church material means, and as long as it assigns state duties and state rights to church institutions and known church acts, until then there can be no talk of the complete elimination of state power from church affairs. The state will rightfully have a certain control over both the expenditure of the funds allocated to it and the use of state rights and advantages granted to the Church, and control is not only formal, but also in essence. Otherwise, there would be a state within a state and a situation would be created that no organized statehood could allow. The Church could free itself from this inevitable control only in one way: separation from the state and transition to the position of a private religious society. However, even in such a situation there still cannot be absolute freedom, because every private society is under some control of the freest state itself. It is not difficult, of course, to see that sound logic is entirely on the side of the second understanding of the freedom of the Church. To dispute his arguments means to go against the grain and practice sophistry. Freedom without borders cannot exist anywhere - neither individual, nor public, nor national, nor church. Unlimited freedom only in flights of thought, experiences of the spirit; but not in the actions of human hands. Unfortunately, this situation is difficult to reconcile with those church circles that demand, in the name of supposed freedom, the complete elimination of the state from the sphere of church affairs and protest against any “intermediaries” in church-state relations, as if mediation is not an inexorable necessity arising from the above state of affairs. These dissatisfied circles vehemently attacked the chief prosecutor's office and agitated against V.N. Lvov; At one time they were not satisfied with the establishment of the Ministry of Confessions. The Russian Ministry of Confessions just did not have time to provoke against itself the same kind of agitation that the revolutionary “chief prosecutor” caused; but had it continued to exist, agitation would undoubtedly have risen. The problem for supporters of unlimited freedom is resolved exclusively by separation, and if the Church begins to make impossible demands on the state, then the state will easily come to the conclusion that it is more convenient for it, by renouncing rights, to renounce its responsibilities towards the Church. And if Russian Bolshevism was not directly guided by such a consideration, then the latter would still sooner or later have been brought forward by the course of church policy, which went in an “irreconcilable” direction. We must admit that in Ukrainian church life there is a tendency to repeat Russian mistakes. Irreconcilable churchmen say here too: let the state power give us complete freedom, let the state move away from the Church, not interfering in church affairs, but only issuing loans to it, protecting its rights and privileges. But do these churchmen really want the logic of things to push Ukraine one way or another towards Russian conclusions? M.A. Kolerov. S. N. Bulgakov in Crimea in the fall of 1919 421 The article reproduced below was first cited in a commentary on S. N. Bulgakov’s dialogues in the collection “From the Depths” 422 and was subsequently used as an illustration of how Bulgakov continued to follow Solovyov’s “dialogical” tradition after 1918 423. However, it is obvious that the article is not only one of the rare reports about the life and creative plans of Bulgakov during the Civil War, but also the only evidence on a number of facts of the cultural history of white Crimea. Published from a newspaper publication: Great Russia. Rostov-on-Don. No. 339. Wednesday 6 (19) November 1919. P. 2. Vegetus. Week about Bulgakov (Letter from Simferopol) This is how we can title the past week in the mental life of Simferopol. S. N. Bulgakov, a famous writer and professor at Moscow University, now a priest of the Orthodox Russian Church, brought so much into this life with his arrival. S. N. Bulgakov spent last winter and summer on the southern coast of Crimea, in Koreiz. The priest of the Koreiz Church left Crimea before the arrival of the “second Bolsheviks” and returned only recently. In the Koreiz church, built by the mystic nobles of the early 19th century, S. N. Bulgakov, replacing the indicated priest, began his priestly service, turning into “father” and “Father Sergius.” From Koreiz o. Sergius Bulgakov came to Simferopol for the Tauride Diocesan Congress 424. This congress in itself was very interesting. It was held amicably and worked under the chairmanship of Archbishop Demetrius 425 fruitfully and smoothly. At the congress, both issues of the economic existence of the clergy in the current difficult conditions, and issues of the spiritual revival of the Orthodox Church were discussed. The reports of the priests and laity who came to the congress revealed a terrible danger to the Church in the form of a rapidly growing wave of sectarianism. Measures to combat this phenomenon were discussed. It was proposed to develop the activities of the mission and conduct energetic propaganda by publishing and distributing relevant brochures and leaflets. Fr. spoke on this issue at the congress. Sergius Bulgakov. Without denying the need for propaganda and missionary work, he argued that the best type of propaganda is not negative, but positive, and he ardently called on the clergy to deepen and self-affirm in the faith, to raise the inner depth and external splendor of worship in the church. It's about. Sergia made a deep impression on the participants of the congress. In addition to the congress, Fr. Sergius spoke to Simferopol society almost every evening with some kind of report. In the “Society of Philosophical, Historical and Social Knowledge” at Taurida University, in the presence of many professors and students of the university, as well as representatives of the Simferopol intelligentsia, S. N. Bulgakov read his unpublished dialogue “Three” - about United Russia and the mystical nature of power. The dialogue ends with a poetic story about the end of history, about the holy king and the Antichrist - partly in the style of Solovyov's story about the Antichrist. For the general public, in the crowded huge hall of the Simferopol Men's Gymnasium, S. N. Bulgakov said an inspired word on the topic “The Spiritual Roots of Bolshevism.” These spiritual roots, according to the speaker, go deep into history - into the rationalistic sentiments of the 18th century, into the missionary aspirations of an earthly paradise without God among the Jerusalem Bolsheviks 2000 years ago; especially in Russian society, the ideological founders of modern Bolshevism - the leaders of the radical and socialist intelligentsia of the 19th century - Belinsky, Herzen, Dobrolyubov, Chernyshevsky, and in many ways - Tolstoy; They are opposed to those who did not depart from God - Pushkin, Lermontov, Tyutchev, Dostoevsky, Slavophiles, Vl. Soloviev; we must go with these people. More and more, the struggle between Christ and Antichrist is emerging in modern life. You have to choose who to go with. This report was read by S. N. Bulgakov at a public meeting of the Tauride Orthodox Religious and Philosophical Society 426 chaired by Bishop Veniamin 427 . At another public meeting of the same society, S. N. Bulgakov said the word “in memory of V. V. Rozanov,” giving a vivid image of the original Russian writer 428. At a closed meeting of the society, S. N. Bulgakov read his thoughtful philosophical report “about St. relics”, where he gave, so to speak, the ontology of St. relics. At the opening of the “commonwealth of students” (senior classes of secondary educational institutions) organized by the same society, Father Sergius also gave a speech about the Church and socialism. I hope to write more about this community. All these speeches by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov undoubtedly had enormous significance for the spiritual life of Simferopol society, those who were previously in the corresponding mood, the reports of Fr. Bulgakov was encouraged and strengthened; those who hesitated were pulled in their direction; those who completely disagreed with the speaker’s thoughts were given, at least, a great spiritual impetus. Some socialists were offended by Chernyshevsky; There was a rumor in the Jewish community that Bulgakov had come to organize a Jewish pogrom... 429 It will not be long before complete spiritual renewal takes place in Russian society; Weeks such as the one that elapsed in Simferopol, however, quickly bring us closer to the coming Great Russia. Materials of the investigative case of professor priest Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov (1921–1922) 430 Based on the documents of the investigative case of S.N. Bulgakov, from the archives of the GPU-NKVD-KGB, one can reconstruct the following chronicle of the events that preceded his expulsion from Russia. The investigative file is kept in Simferopol, in the Directorate of the Security Service of Ukraine in Crimea, organized on the basis of the local KGB Directorate. 1) In December 1921, Bulgakov was registered by the GPU for the following stated reasons: as the second priest of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Yalta, “enjoying authority among the clergy and believers,” as a former member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party, as “a monarchist by conviction, carefully concealing his political views.” 2) September 20, 1922 in a house on the street. Darsanovskaya, 5, where the Bulgakovs lived, was searched. S. Bulgakov was given a written undertaking not to leave the place. 3) On October 7, the Crimean political department (KPU) instructed its Yalta border department (YPO) to “immediately arrest Sergei Bulgakov and, together with the material, transport him to the investigative and operational unit of the KPU.” On October 13, on the basis of a memo from the commissioner of the secret group YAPO KPU Izrailev, S. Bulgakov was arrested. On 17 and 20, he wrote two statements addressed to the head of the Yalta special department of the Communist Party of Ukraine with requests to bring charges against him, interrogate him and speed up the progress of his case. 4) On October 21, Bulgakov was allowed a ten-minute meeting with his wife. On the same day he was taken to Simferopol to the Communist Party of Ukraine prison. 5) On October 22, an encrypted telegram from Moscow, signed by the head of the investigative and operational department of the GPU Menzhinsky 431, arrived in Simferopol. It was ordered that “Professor Bulgakov be sent abroad indefinitely after his arrest. Charge Article 57 of the Code. Report execution." 6) Only one interrogation took place. The “Prosecution Interrogation Protocol” is dated October 28, 1922. The questionnaire part has been completed: 2. First name, patronymic – Sergey Nikolaevich. 4. Marital status – married. 5. Nationality – Russian. 6. Province and district - the son of a priest of the Oryol province. – Livny. 7. Volosts and villages - (dash). 8. Place of residence: Yalta, Darsanovskaya, 5. 9 . Position held - second priest of the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Yalta. 10. Education – higher. 11. Social status – (dash). 12. Party affiliation – non-partisan, former Christian socialist. 13. What did you do and where: a) until 1914 – professorship, b) before the February Revolution - too, c) before the October Revolution - too, d) until now - since 1918 as a priest. 14. Information about previous convictions - under the old regime, 1902 in Kiev for socialism, expelled from Moscow in 1911. The “Charges” column was left blank, as was the reverse side of the “Prosecution Interrogation Protocol.” 7) November 1, 1922 S. N. Bulgakov was released from arrest and left for Yalta. Warned of impending deportation. Every three days it is registered in the Yapo KPU. 8) On November 23, an official resolution was issued by the authorized secret department of the investigative and operational unit of the Communist Party of Ukraine of Malli. S. Bulgakov was accused of “political unreliability, specifically expressed in active scientific work against the labor movement under B. tsarist government. After reviewing the investigative material, I found that, according to the telegram of the Communist Party of Ukraine No. __ dated 17.08. g. gr. Bulgakov is subject to transfer to the investigative department of the GPU, according to the telegram of the GPU No. __ gr. Bulgakov on the basis of Art. 57 of the Criminal Code is subject to deportation from the territory of the RSFSR. In pursuance of the last telegram, it was decided: gr. Sergei Nikolaevich Bulgakov, 51 years old, to be expelled from the RSFSR without the right of return, giving him a two-week period to liquidate his household affairs.” 1) On December 13, S. Bulgakov gives the Yapo KPU an obligation that the first ship leaving Yalta for Sevastopol will leave the Yalta district in order to travel abroad from Sevastopol. 2) On December 27, 1922, S. N. Bulgakov, together with his wife Elena Ivanovna, 54 years old, daughter Maria, 24 years old, and son Sergei, 11 years old, was exiled outside Russia (on a ship to Constantinople). (Simferopol. August 1995) When working on the commentary for this publication, the results of research by V.V. Sapov, reflected in the publication: Bulgakov S.N. Quiet Thoughts, were used. M., 1996. For the first time: Bulgakov S., prot. Autobiographical notes. Paris, 1946. pp. 7–23. Republished in: Bulgakov S. N. Quiet Thoughts. M., 1996. pp. 308–319. Published according to the latest edition. Jacob's Ladder (biblical). – On the way to Harran, Jacob had a prophetic dream: a ladder standing on the earth touched the sky, and Yahweh’s angels ascended and descended along it; Yahweh, standing on the stairs, predicts an abundance of offspring for Jacob and promises his protection (Gen. 28:12–19). Bulgakov devoted his work “Jacob’s Ladder” to a detailed interpretation of this biblical image. About Angels" (Paris, 1929). At the Koreiz station in Crimea, where the estate of the parents of Elena Ivanovna Tokmakova, Bulgakov’s wife, was located, the Bulgakov family usually spent the summer months. The settlement across the river is called Zasosna. Sergius Church is the church of Sergius of Radonezh (c. 1321–1391), the founder and abbot of the Trinity-Sergius Monastery (originally a boyar from Yaroslavl). Sergius was the initiator of the introduction of communal regulations in Russian monasteries; actively supported the unification and national liberation policies of Prince Dmitry Donskoy, to whom he was close. George the Victorious is a Christian saint, great martyr. According to Christian tradition, he was a native of Cappadocia (in the territory of modern Turkey). Martyred in 303 during the persecution of Christians under the Roman Emperor Diocletian. Patron of agriculture and cattle breeding. According to legend, the city of Kitezh sank to the bottom of Lake Svetloyar and thus escaped destruction by the Tatars; The same legend states that in calm weather above the lake you can hear the bell ringing from the church of the city of Kitezh. This refers to the feast of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, one of the twelve Orthodox church holidays. Installed in memory of the death of the Virgin Mary - the mother of Christ. Celebrated on August 15 (28). Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius is a monastery founded by Sergius of Radonezh in the mid-14th century. (since 1744 - Lavra), 71 km north of Moscow (modern Sergiev Posad). The architectural ensemble includes: fortress walls and towers of the 16th–17th centuries, the Trinity Cathedral (1422–1423), the Spiritual Belfry Church (1476), the Assumption Cathedral (1559–1585), hospital wards with the tented church of Zosima and Savvaty (1635–1638), the refectory (1686–1692), the royal palaces (late 17th century), etc. On the territory of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra there are the Moscow Theological Academy and Theological Seminary. What is meant here is the tendency to combine the images of the Mother of God and Sophia the Wisdom of God, which is very characteristic of ancient Russian art; see: Trubetskoy E.N. The meaning of life. M., 1994. pp. 239–241. According to legend, the icon of the Tikhvin Mother of God was painted by the Evangelist Luke. In the 14th century, it ended up in Rus' and was found in 1383 by fishermen on the Tikhvinka River. A church was erected at the site where the image was found in Tikhvin, and in 1560 Tsar Ivan the Terrible built a monastery here. The icon became famous for its healings of the sick, miracles, deliverance from troubles and misfortunes. During the Great Patriotic War, the icon, considered the patroness of the northern Russian lands, was taken to the USA. Choir - in a Christian church, a raised platform on both sides of the altar, a place for singers during worship. Maundy Thursday (Thursday) - on this day Christ gathered his disciples in Jerusalem for the Easter supper (dinner) before the Jewish Passover. When they began to have dinner, Jesus Christ prayed, took the bread, divided it, gave it to the disciples to eat and said: “Take, eat, this is My Body, which was broken for you for the remission of sins.” Then he took the cup of wine and said: “Drink from it, all of you, this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Do this in remembrance of Me." Thus, the sacrament of Communion was established. Great (Holy) Saturday is the day when, after his death on Calvary, Christ was laid in the tomb by his disciples and mourned by them. Typikon - church charter. A diplomat is a kind of long-skirted robe. This refers to the so-called “Sergius Compound” in Paris, where the Orthodox Theological Institute was located, of which Bulgakov was a professor. Levites - in the Old Testament, representatives of the tribe of Levi, destined for the priesthood; in a figurative sense - the class of clergy. Liturgy (Greek - “public service”; in the Orthodox Church - Divine Liturgy) is the main divine service of the daily cycle, performed before lunch (hence the other name - mass). The order of service dates back to the 4th century. 2 Eucharistic liturgies are celebrated - St. John Chrysostom (daily) and St. Basil the Great (with more extensive prayers; 10 times a year). The Divine Liturgy includes parts: proskomedia (Greek - “offering”) - the symbolic sacred preparation of the Holy Gifts (bread - prosphora - and red wine), performed on the altar, as a rule, with the altar closed; the liturgy of the catechumens (i.e., those preparing to receive Baptism) - pronouncing litanies, choral singing of psalms, reading the Apostle and the Gospel, etc.; Liturgy of the faithful - the consecration of the Holy Gifts (their transubstantiation into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ), the communion of clergy and believers, the recitation of litanies, the choral performance of chants (the main thing is the Eucharistic canon). Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts of St. Gregory Dvoeslov without the Eucharist is celebrated on certain days of Great Lent. Mary of Egypt (VI century) – Christian saint. According to legend, in her youth she was a harlot; Having joined the pilgrims going to Jerusalem, she turned to faith and lived for 47 years in repentance in the Trans-Jordanian desert. “Standing of Mary of Egypt” is the name of the penitential service in the Orthodox Church during Lent. Holy Week (Holy Week) is the last week of Lent before Easter. Bulgakov's youngest son Ivashechka died on August 27, 1909 in Crimea from nephritis in his fourth year of life. See note. 2. In 1918, shortly after being ordained a priest, Bulgakov followed his family to Crimea and was forced to remain there throughout the Civil War, until his expulsion from Russia at the very end of 1922 (see the essays “Ordination” and “Yalta Diary”, published in this edition). This refers to Bulgakov's trip to Athens at the beginning of 1938 to the pan-Orthodox congress of theologians. While living in Crimea under the Bolsheviks, in 1918–19, I wrote a thick notebook with the story of my life, over a period of about 30 years. When I was deported, I left it, it seemed, in good hands, but during the next panic before the search, the notebook was buried in the ground and perished. Its content is irretrievable, neither in memory nor in soul, just as the record of my spiritual dying before my ordination cannot be restored, and I regret this more than the biography. And this was the first death and the first resurrection; they were now followed by the second death and the second resurrection. (See 1942 entry: “My Ordination.”) For the first time: Bulgakov S., prot. Autobiographical notes. pp. 25–33. Republished in: Bulgakov S. N. Quiet Thoughts. M., 1996. pp. 319–324. Published according to the latest edition. Zander Lev Alexandrovich (1893–1964) – student and follower S. N. Bulgakova, researcher of his work. “For there must also be differences of opinion among you, so that they may be revealed skilled among you" (1 Cor. 11:19). According to the story of Job, as told in the Bible, God sent him the greatest trials: first he destroyed all his flocks and took away seven sons and three daughters, and then struck him with leprosy. Job showed himself to be a truly righteous man and did not curse God, but he challenged God to a “contest,” that is, he began to prove the injustice of the punishment imposed on him. “Oh, that I knew where to find Him,” Job exclaims, “and could approach His throne! I would lay my case before Him, and fill my mouth with excuses; I would have known the words with which He would answer me, and I would have understood what He would say to me... Then the righteous could compete with Him, and I would forever receive freedom from my Judge” (Job 23:1-7). In the end, Job is proven right in his persistence, and God again gives him health, wealth and prosperity. The temptations offered to Christ in the desert by the devil became a symbol of human temptations in general (Matthew 4:3,6,9). Bursa (from Middle Ages Latin Bursa - bag) - a hostel for poor students at medieval universities; in Russia until 1917 - at theological schools and seminaries. vices of age, not of man (lat.). Dobrolyubov Nikolai Alexandrovich (1836–1861) - Russian literary critic, publicist, revolutionary democrat. Since 1857, he has been a permanent contributor to the Sovremennik magazine. Developing the aesthetic principles of V. G. Belinsky and N. G. Chernyshevsky, seeing the purpose of literature primarily in the criticism of the existing system, he developed the method of so-called “real criticism” (articles of 1859–1860: “What is Oblomovism?”, “Dark Kingdom”, “A Ray of Light in a Dark Kingdom”, “When will the real day come?”). Akathist (Late Greek akathistos, from a - negative prefix and Greek Kathizo - I sit down) is a Christian church song of praise. It is performed standing by all those present. Alexander II (1818–1881) - Russian emperor since 1855. The eldest son of Nicholas I. He abolished serfdom and then carried out a number of reforms (zemstvo, judicial, military, etc.). After the Polish Uprising of 1863–1864 switched to a reactionary domestic political course. Since the late 70s. Repressions against revolutionaries intensified. During the reign of Alexander II, the annexation of the territories of the Caucasus (1864), Kazakhstan (1865), and most of Central Asia (1865–1881) to Russia was completed. In order to strengthen its influence in the Balkans and help the national liberation movement of the Slavic peoples, Russia participated in the Russian-Turkish War of 1877–1878. A number of attempts were made on the life of Alexander II (1866, 1867, 1879, 1880); On March 1, 1881 he was killed by Narodnaya Volya. Alexander III (1845–1894) - Russian Emperor since 1881. Second son of Alexander II. In the 1st half of the 80s. carried out the abolition of the poll tax and lowered redemption payments. In the 2nd half of the 80s. carried out “counter-reforms”. Strengthened the role of the police, local and central administration. During the reign of Alexander III, the annexation of Central Asia to Russia was largely completed (1885), and the Russian-French alliance was concluded (1891–1893). Words from the speech of Nicholas II, delivered on January 17, 1895 to the delegates of zemstvo, noble assemblies and city dumas, who greeted him on the occasion of his accession to the throne: “I learned that recently in some zemstvos voices have risen, carried away by senseless dreams about the participation of representatives from zemstvos in internal government... Let everyone know that I... will defend the beginning of autocracy as invariably as my father.” (quoted from: Miliukov P.N. Memoirs. M., 1991. P. 120–121). When delivering a speech, the emperor made a slip of the tongue; the prepared text contained words of groundless dreams,” but this statement immediately became popular I remember the following symbolic gesture: on October 18, 1905, in Kyiv, I left the Polytechnic with a crowd of students to celebrate the triumph of freedom, having a red rag in my buttonhole, like many, but, having seen and felt what was happening, I threw it into the latrine. And the Gospel was revealed to me with the following text in response to my silent questioning: “this generation is being driven out by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:21). The dialogue “Night” (1919) remained unpublished; he is mentioned once again in Bulgakov’s book “The Apocalypse of John” (M., 1991.P. 189). I think that my external fate here is similar to the fates of seminarians Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky. Chernyshevsky Nikolai Gavrilovich (1828–1889) - Russian writer, publicist, literary critic. In 1856–1862 one of the leaders of the Sovremennik magazine; in the field of literary criticism he developed the traditions of V. G. Belinsky. The ideological inspirer of the revolutionary movement of the 1860s. In 1862, he was arrested on charges of political connections with A.I. Herzen and drawing up proclamations “Bow to the lordly peasants from well-wishers”, and imprisoned in the Peter and Paul Fortress. In 1864 he was sentenced to 7 years of hard labor (the charge was not legally proven, the evidence was fabricated by the investigation), then he was exiled. Chernyshevsky, like Dobrolyubov, studied at a theological seminary, but both of them left the seminary with disgust for the bureaucracy that reigned in the official Orthodox Church. Vodovozov Nikolai Vasilievich (1870–1896) – Marxist, son V. I. Vodovozov, a famous Russian teacher; was married to the sister of Bulgakov's wife. Struve Petr Berngardovich (1870–1944) - Russian politician, philosopher, economist, historian, publicist, academician of the Russian Academy of Sciences (1917, expelled in 1928). In the 1890s theorist of “legal Marxism”, conducted polemics with the populists, author of the RSDLP Manifesto (1898). Since the early 1900s. leader of Russian liberalism, editor of the magazine "Osvobozhdenie", one of the leaders of the "Union of Liberation". Since 1905, a member of the Cadet Party and its Central Committee. Deputy of the 2nd State Duma. Since 1907, he was the de facto director of the magazine “Russian Thought”, a participant in the collection “Milestones” (1909), and the initiator of the collection “From the Depths” (1918). After October 1917, he fought against the Bolsheviks, one of the ideologists of the White movement, a member of the “Special Meeting” under General A. I. Denikin, a minister in the government of General P. N. Wrangel, and the organizer of the evacuation of his army from the Crimea. Since 1920, in exile, editor of the magazine “Russian Thought” (Prague), the newspaper “Renaissance” (Paris), etc., taught at the Universities of Prague and Belgrade. On the paths of God's Providence, these times and periods of human life obviously have their own mysterious pre-establishment. My beau-père (Brother-in-law (French); N.V. Vodovozov was married to Maria Ivanovna Vodovozova (nee Tokmakova) (1869–1954), sister of E.I. Bulgakova.), N.V. Vodovozov, died of consumption at the age of 25, in the heyday of intellectual pride and nihilism. Does this mean that he had nothing left to live out on earth and was recalled to other spheres for this purpose? A clear allusion to the words of the “tempter serpent” in the Bible: “... but God knows that in the day that you eat of them, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like gods, knowing good and evil” (Gen. 3:5). “But he made himself of no reputation, taking on the form of a servant, becoming in the likeness of men, and becoming in appearance like a man; He humbled himself, becoming obedient even to the point of death, even death on the cross” (Phil. 2:7-8). For the first time: Bulgakov S., about t. Autobiographical notes. pp. 71–93. Republished in: Bulgakov S. N. Quiet Thoughts. M., 1996. pp. 330–344. Published according to the latest edition. As the title suggests, Bulgakov intended to write memoirs about the events of the five years from the revolution to his expulsion from Russia. “Agony” is the title of the first (unfinished) chapter. error in choosing an object (lat.). Constantinople - Constantinople, which occupied a special place in the concept of “Moscow - the Third Rome”, in the Slavophile utopias of Slavic religious-national unity led by Russia and in the theocratic utopia of Vl. Solovyov, whose closeness Bulgakov admits here. Kerensky Alexander Fedorovich (1881–1970) – Russian politician. Advocate. Leader of the Trudovik faction in the 4th State Duma. Since March 1917, Socialist Revolutionary; in the Provisional Government: Minister of Justice (March - May), Minister of War and Navy (May - September), from July 8 (21) Minister-Chairman, from August 30 (September 12) Supreme Commander-in-Chief. After the October Revolution, he was the organizer (together with General P. N. Krasnov) of the anti-Bolshevik uprising on October 26–31 (November 8–13). Since 1918 in France, since 1940 in the USA. One of the organizers of the League of Struggle for People's Freedom. Milyukov Pavel Nikolaevich (1859–1943) - Russian politician, historian, publicist, theorist and leader of the Cadet Party. In 1917, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Provisional Government of the 1st composition (until May 2 (15). After the October Revolution - an emigrant. Author of works on the history of Russia in the 18th–19th centuries, the February and October revolutions. Bulgakov wrote about this in detail in his article “Heroism and Asceticism” in the collection “Milestones” (1909). This refers to the largest defeats of the Russian army during the Russo-Japanese War: in the battle on the Yalu River (Yalujiang) on ​​April 18 (May 1), 1904; surrender of the Port Arthur fortress on December 20 (January 2), 1904; defeat of the Russian squadron near the island of Tsushima on May 14–15 (27–28), 1905. Rasputin (real name Novykh) Grigory Efimovich (1864 or 1865, according to other sources 1872–1916) - a peasant of the Tobolsk province, who became famous for his “divinations” and “healings.” Providing assistance to the hemophiliac heir to the throne, he gained the unlimited trust of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna and Emperor Nicholas II. Killed by conspirators who considered Rasputin's influence disastrous for the monarchy. Oedipus is the son of King Laius of Thebes in Greek mythology. Oedipus, on the orders of his father, who was predicted to die at the hands of his son, was abandoned as a baby in the mountains. Rescued by a shepherd, he, without knowing it, killed his father and married his mother, becoming the king of Thebes. Having learned that the oracle's prediction he received in his youth had come true, Oedipus blinded himself. This refers to the transition from Marxism to idealism that Bulgakov made in the first years of the 19th century. The Liberation Union is an illegal political association of the liberal intelligentsia in Russia in 1904–1905, grouped around the magazine “Osvobozhdenie” (published in 1902–1905 in Stuttgart and Paris, 79 issues were published, editor – P. B. Struve). He began his activities by organizing a banquet campaign and zemstvo congresses. The political program envisaged the introduction of a constitutional monarchy, universal suffrage, and partial distribution of land to peasants. Members joined the Cadets Party, the left wing formed a group of “bezglavtsev”. On October 17, 1905, the Manifesto of Nicholas II “On the Improvement of State Order” was promulgated, in which it was promised to “grant” constitutional rights to the people (“the unshakable foundations of civil freedom”). “This generation is driven out only by prayer and fasting” (Matthew 17:21). By “this kind” we mean demons. The idea of ​​the “Union of Christian Politics” was put forward by Bulgakov in the article “An Urgent Task” and caused quite sharp criticism from liberal circles (see Section II of this edition). Later, Bulgakov recognized this idea as erroneous; in 1917, in the brochure “Christianity and Socialism,” he wrote: “The desire is often expressed that we have an independent party of Christian socialists. However, preaching a special party of Christian socialism means belittling the universal verbs of Christianity and putting the Church itself in the position of a party” (Sociological Research. 1990. No. 4. P. 127). “The Living Church” is an organization of renovationists of the Russian Orthodox Church (1922 - after 1945), which aimed to review and change all aspects of church life. In the first place among the “Living Churchers” was the political reorientation of the Orthodox Church, its adaptation to Soviet power. In the article “Heroism and Asceticism (From reflections on the religious nature of the Russian intelligentsia).” The participants of the “Novoselov circle” are listed, about which N. A. Berdyaev wrote in detail in his philosophical autobiography (see: Berdyaev N. A. Self-knowledge. M., 1991. pp. 185–187; chapter VII). Samarin D.F. – Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod; in 1915 he was removed from this position at the insistence of G. E. Rasputin. Novoselov Mikhail Alexandrovich (1864–1938?) – religious writer, publisher of the Popular Religious and Philosophical Library. Kozhevnikov Vladimir Aleksandrovich (1852–1917) – cultural historian, publicist; student and publisher of the works of N. F. Fedorov. The main works are “Philosophy of Feelings and Faith...” (1897; about I. G. Gaman), “Buddhism in comparison with Christianity” (vol. 1–2, 1916). Open 21, 5. These words contain a prophecy of “general apokatastasis” (restoration); for more details see: Bulgakov S. prot. Apocalypse of John (An Experience in Dogmatic Interpretation). M., 1991. pp. 209–243. Ern Vladimir Frantsevich (1882–1917) – Russian religious philosopher; in the spirit of the ideas of eastern patristics and the philosophical ideas of V. S. Solovyov, he developed the doctrine of logos as the creative principle of being. The idea of ​​“discontinuity” of development by V.F. Ern was outlined in the article “The Idea of ​​Catastrophic Progress” (Ern V.F. Soch. M., 1991. pp. 198–219). The First State Duma (April 27 – July 8, 1906) was convened after the publication of the Manifesto on October 17, 1905; the central issue in it was the agrarian one; In connection with the radical nature of the agrarian bills submitted for discussion in the Duma, on July 9, the tsar’s manifesto on its dissolution was published. 169 deputies of the First State Duma (cadets, Trudoviks and Social Democrats) tried to appeal to the people in order to convene a new Duma; they moved to Vyborg and on July 10, 1906 adopted the so-called “Vyborg Appeal” (“To the people from the people’s representatives”), in which they called on Russian citizens not to give “not a penny to the treasury, not a single soldier to the army” until the Duma was convened. 167 of them were sentenced to three months in prison, which meant they were deprived of their voting rights in the Duma elections. For more details see: Vinaver M.M. History of the Vyborg Appeal. Pg., 1917. Novgorodtsev Pavel Ivanovich (1866–1924) - Russian lawyer, philosopher, sociologist, head of the school of “revived natural law” in Russia. Professor at Moscow University (1904–1906), rector of the Higher Commercial Institute (1906–1918). Member of the Cadet Party (since 1905) and its Central Committee (1917). Since 1920 - in exile, since 1921 in Prague, where he founded and headed the Russian Faculty of Law at the University of Prague. Main works: “Introduction to the Philosophy of Law”; “The Crisis of Modern Legal Consciousness” (1909); "On the Social Ideal" (1917). Kartashev Anton Vladimirovich (1875–1960) – Church historian, professor at the Theological Academy, one of the leaders of the Religious and Philosophical Society in St. Petersburg. In exile, from 1919, he was a professor, first at the Paris Theological Institute, and then at the Religious and Spiritual Academy. Author of the major work “Essays on the History of the Russian Church” (vol. 1–2; Paris, 1959). Anthony (in the world Alexey Pavlovich) Khrapovitsky (1864–1936) - Russian church leader, theologian, metropolitan. Since 1921 - in exile, where he became the head of the Karlovac Synod in Belgrade, one of the jurisdictions of the Russian Orthodox Church in Europe, which took a particularly irreconcilable position towards the Soviet Union. Gringmut Vladimir Andreevich (1851–1907) – editor-publisher of the Moscow News newspaper, monarchist. Vostorgov Ioann Ioannovich (1866–1918) – priest, one of the organizers of the “Union of the Russian People.” Dubrovin Alexander Ivanovich (1855–1918) – founder and chairman of the council of the “Union of the Russian People”, was shot after the October Revolution. “Union of the Russian People” is an organization of Black Hundreds in Russia. Created in November 1905 with a center in St. Petersburg, it had over 500 departments in a number of cities. Supervisors: A. I. Dubrovin, V. M. Purishkevich, N. E. Markov. The monarchical and chauvinistic program simultaneously contained demands to improve the situation of the working people and to get rid of the dominance of the bureaucracy. In 1908, the “Union of Michael the Archangel” emerged from it. In 1910–1912 split into two independent organizations: the “Union of the Russian People” and the All-Russian Dubrovinsky Union of the Russian People. “Religious and Philosophical Society in Memory of Vl. Solovyov" was founded at the end of 1905 in Moscow. Initially, it included S. N. Bulgakov, V. F. Ern, E. N. Trubetskoy, V. P. Sventsitsky, P. A. Florensky, later V. I. Ivanov and N. A. Berdyaev began to attend the society’s meetings. The society existed until 1917. Merezhkovsky Dmitry Sergeevich (1866–1941) - Russian writer, religious philosopher; Merezhkovsky’s work “On the causes of decline and new trends in modern Russian literature” (1893) became an aesthetic declaration of Russian decadence; one of the founders of religious and philosophical meetings in St. Petersburg (1901–1903; in 1907 they were resumed as meetings of the Religious and Philosophical Society and continued until 1917). D. Merezhkovsky and his wife Z. Gippius became the founders of the “new religious consciousness” - a philosophical movement that aimed to renew religious life and develop new forms of combining religion and culture. N.A. Berdyaev, V.V. Rozanov, Vyach took an active part in developing the principles of the “new religious consciousness”. Ivanov and others. This refers to V. S. Solovyov’s article “The Great Controversy and Christian Politics,” in which he wrote: “Just as Christian morality has in mind the implementation of the kingdom of God within the individual, so Christian politics must prepare the coming of the kingdom of God for all humanity as a whole, consisting of large parts - peoples, tribes, states” (Soloviev V. S. Soch.: In 2 vols. M., 1989. Vol. 1. P. 59). so that (to the patient) it seems as if something is being done (for him) (lat.). Proverbs 26:11: “As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly.” The Union of October 17 (Octobrists) is a right-wing liberal party of officials, landowners and the large commercial industrial bourgeoisie of Russia. The organizational formation of the party was completed in 1905. The name of the party was given in honor of the Manifesto of October 17, 1905, which, according to the Octobrists, marked Russia's entry into the path of a constitutional monarchy. It came out with demands for popular representation, democratic freedoms, civil equality, etc. The number of people together with the affiliated groups was about 80 thousand people. Leaders: A. I. Guchkov, P. L. Korf, M. V. Rodzyanko, N. A. Khomyakov, D. N. Shipov, etc. Published over 50 newspapers (Slovo, Voice of Moscow, etc.). The largest faction in the 3rd State Duma was alternately blocked with the moderate-right Cadets. By 1915 the party ceased to exist. Bulgakov himself used this term to characterize his political orientation. In the Duma, which worked from February 20 to June 2, 1907, he spoke nine times. His speeches at the 8th and 40th meetings, devoted respectively to the activities of military courts and overcoming the irreconcilable confrontation between the government and revolutionary forces, caused a particularly great resonance (about the last meeting, see the memoirs of V. Guerrier, published in this edition). The State Duma met in the Tauride Palace in St. Petersburg. Stolypin Pyotr Arkadyevich (1862–1911) – Minister of Internal Affairs and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Empire (since 1906). In 1903–1906 governor of Saratov, where he led the suppression of peasant unrest during the revolution of 1905–1907. In 1907–1911 determined government policy. In 1906 he proclaimed a course of socio-political reforms. Began implementing the Stolypin agrarian reform. Under the leadership of Stolypin, a number of major bills were developed, including on the reform of local self-government, the introduction of universal primary education, and on religious tolerance. Initiator of the creation of military courts. In 1907, he achieved the dissolution of the 2nd State Duma and introduced a new electoral law, which significantly strengthened the position of representatives of right-wing parties in the Duma. Mortally wounded by the Socialist Revolutionary D.G. Bogrov. The Beilis case is a trial (Kyiv, September–October 1913) of the Jew M. Beilis (brick factory clerk) on a false accusation of the ritual murder of a Russian boy. Organized by the tsarist government and the Black Hundreds. Caused a protest from the progressive public in Russia and abroad; the jury acquitted Baylis. According to the new electoral law of July 3, 1907, initiated by Stolypin, two-stage elections were introduced, which led to a sharp reduction in the number of representatives from the national outskirts; the total number of deputies was reduced to 442 (in the 1st Duma there were 478, in the 2nd - 518). lit.: “talking cattle” (German). Khvostov Alexey Nikolaevich (1872–1918) – Minister of Internal Affairs in 1915–1916. Diet - maintenance of State Duma deputies. The Balkan Wars were fought in 1912–1913. and ended not five years before the First World War, as Bulgakov writes, but less than two years before it began. The first of them was fought by the countries of the Balkan Union (Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and Montenegro) against the Ottoman Empire (October 9, 1912 - May 30, 1913). The war ended with the defeat of Turkey. It was followed by the short-lived Second Balkan War (29 June – 10 August 1913), in which Bulgaria fought against Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro and Turkey. The war ended with the surrender of Bulgaria. This refers to P.I. Novgorodtsev. This refers to the public lecture by S. N. Bulgakov “War and Russian Identity”, published as a separate brochure in the series “War and Culture” (M., 1915). Feofan (in the world Vasily Bystrov) (1873–1943) – Archbishop of Poltava, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Shortly before the outbreak of World War I, Rasputin visited his native village of Pokrovskoye in the Tobolsk province. Here, in agreement with Hieromonk Iliodor (S. Trufanov), the peasant woman Guseva inflicted a severe wound on Rasputin with a knife in the stomach. It was only by miracle that he survived, using some herbs for his healing. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod D. F. Samarin was removed from his post in 1915 at the insistence of Rasputin, and through his efforts Metropolitan Vladimir (Epiphany) was transferred from the capital to Kiev. Varnava (Nakropin) - Bishop of Tobolsk, friend of Rasputin. Pitirim (Oknov) - bishop, exarch of Georgia, was appointed Metropolitan of Petrograd thanks to the efforts of Rasputin. M. A. Novoselov devoted an entire brochure to proving that Rasputin was a member of the Khlysty sect. The brochure, which appeared in 1910, was immediately withdrawn from sale and confiscated. This opinion became widespread, although it was later subjected to reasoned criticism; see: O. Platonov. The truth about Grigory Rasputin // Russian Frontier. 1922. No. 1 (13). Apparently, the name is given erroneously and refers to the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, the mother of Emperor Nicholas II, who opposed Rasputin’s influence at the Court. Guchkov Alexander Ivanovich (1862–1936) - Russian capitalist, leader of the Octobrists. Deputy and since 1910 Chairman of the 3rd State Duma. In 1907 and since 1915, member of the State Council. In 1915–1917 Chairman of the Central Military-Industrial Committee. In 1917, Minister of War and Navy of the Provisional Government. One of the organizers of the Kornilov rebellion. Since the 1920s - in exile. See: Morning of Russia. 1914. August 5. No. 181. Dorian Gray is the main character of O. Wilde’s novel “The Picture of Dorian Gray” (1891), who rejected moral laws for the sake of eternal beauty and youth. Shpet Gustav Gustavovich (1879–1937) – Russian philosopher, follower of E. Husserl’s phenomenology. Vice-President (1923–1929) of the State Academy of Artistic Sciences. Works on hermeneutics (interpretation), philosophy of language, aesthetics, history of Russian philosophy, etc. Translator of Hegel’s “Phenomenology of Spirit” (translation published in 1959). Repressed; rehabilitated posthumously. This refers to Nikolai Nikolaevich Romanov (1856–1929) - Grand Duke, grandson of Nicholas I. At the beginning of the First World War, he was appointed supreme commander; On August 23, 1915, after a series of defeats for the Russian army, the Tsar removed Nikolai Nikolaevich from his post and transferred him to the Caucasian Front, taking over the supreme command. After 1917, N.N. Romanov lived in exile. Purishkevich Vladimir Mitrofanovich (1870–1920) – one of the leaders of the “Union of the Russian People”, “Union of the Archangel Michael”, the extreme right in the 2nd–4th State Dumas. Large landowner. Participant in the murder of Rasputin. After the October Revolution, the head of an anti-Soviet organization. Protopopov Alexander Dmitrievich (1866–1917/18) – Russian public figure. Member of the 3rd and 4th State Dumas (since 1914, comrade of the chairman), member of the Progressive Bloc. In 1916 leader of the nobility in the Simbirsk province, founder and editor of the newspaper “Russian Will” (1916–1917). From September 1916, manager, in December 1916 - February 1917, minister of internal affairs and commander-in-chief of the gendarme corps. He tried to suppress revolutionary protests in Petrograd in February 1917. After the October Revolution, he was shot by the verdict of the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission. Zosima Monastery - Sister monastery in Volokolamsk district, founded by the Monk Zosima of Volokolamsk (XVI century) together with Adrian of Volokolamsk. F. Yusupov spoke about his participation in the murder of Rasputin in the book “The End of Rasputin” (M., 1990; first edition – Paris, 1927). Maklakov Vasily Alekseevich (1869–1957) – one of the leaders of the cadets, a lawyer (brother of N.A. Maklakov, Minister of Internal Affairs of the Russian Empire in 1912–1915, a supporter of an unlimited monarchy). Deputy of the 2nd–4th State Duma. In 1917, ambassador to France. After the October Revolution he lived in exile. Author of works on the history of Russian social thought and the liberal movement. In the article “Tragic Situation,” V. A. Maklakov wrote in a transparent manner about Nicholas II as a “mad driver” (Russian Gazette. September 27, 1915). Compare: Bulgakov S.N. At the feast of the gods // Milestones. From the depths. M., 1991. P. 306. Lvov Georgy Evgenievich (1861–1925) – prince, large landowner. Deputy of the 1st State Duma. Chairman of the All-Russian Zemstvo Union, one of the leaders of Zemgor (the joint committee of the Zemstvo and City Unions, created on July 10, 1915 to help the government organize supplies for the Russian army). In March - July 1917, head of the Provisional Government. After the October Revolution in exile; in 1918–1920 head of the Russian Political Conference in Paris. Zemstvo congresses are illegal meetings of participants in the zemstvo movement with the aim of developing a common political program and coordinating speeches in zemstvo assemblies. Originated in the 1870s. In 1903–1905 5 zemstvo congresses took place. Lopukhin Alexey Alexandrovich (1864–1927) – director of the police department. After he was removed from his post in 1905, he went to print accusing the police department of printing anti-Semitic proclamations and exposed Azef. On this occasion, E. N. Trubetskoy wrote an article “On the Lopukhin case” (Moscow Weekly, 1909. No. 18. pp. 1–6). Rachinsky Grigory Alekseevich (1859–1939) – literary critic, philosopher, translator. love of fate, fate (lat.). Uspensky Leonid Vasilievich (1889–?) – philosopher, student of S. N. Bulgakov, later professor at the Faculty of Law of the Central Asian University in Tashkent. Ugrimov Alexander Ivanovich (1874–1974) – agronomist, professor, expelled from Russia in 1922. Igor Platonovich Demidov (1873–1947) – journalist, in exile he was P. N. Milyukov’s deputy in his capacity as editor of the newspaper “Last News”, published in Paris. Fudel Joseph Ivanovich (1864–1918) – priest, writer, close friend of K. N. Leontyev, publisher of his Collected Works. Sturmer Boris Vladimirovich (1848–1917) - Russian statesman. Since 1904, member of the State Council. With the support of G.E. Rasputin and Empress Alexandra Feodorovna, he was appointed Chairman of the Council of Ministers (January - November 1916), at the same time - Minister of Internal Affairs (March - July) and Minister of Foreign Affairs (July - November). After the February Revolution he was arrested and died in the Peter and Paul Fortress. The Cross Worship Week of Lent is Sunday, which begins the 4th week of Lent, as well as the entire week designated for special veneration of the cross. Wed. in the story of A. M. Gorky: “In one of the dirty street newspapers, someone published his impressions of a trip to Tsarskoe Selo. In an illiterate article, intended for the amusement of the street and telling about how Nikolai Romanov saws wood, how his daughters work in the garden, there is this passage: The sailor gives Alexandra Feodorovna a ride in a rocking chair. She is thinner, haggard, wearing all black. Slowly, with the help of his daughter, he gets out of the rocking chair and walks, limping heavily on his left leg... “Look, I’m sick,” someone from the crowd remarks. - I became mad. If Grishka were to come here,” someone in the crowd giggles, “she would get better quickly.” Deafening laughter sounds. Laughing at a sick and unhappy person - no matter who he is - is a boorish and mean thing. The Russian people are laughing, the same ones who five months ago treated the Romanovs with fear and trembling. But the point is not that cheerful people laugh at the woman’s misfortune, but that the article is signed with the Jewish name JoS. Heisin" (Gorky M. Untimely thoughts. Notes on revolution and culture. M., 1990. P. 97). For the first time: Bulgakov S., prot. Autobiographical notes. pp. 34–43. Republished in: Bulgakov S.N. Quiet thoughts. M., 1996. pp. 344–350. Published according to the latest edition. In 1918, I described my life up to the age of 30 for children in a thick notebook, which was irretrievably lost in the ground in Crimea during one of the next panics, after my deportation from Russia (1922–1923). See Bulgakov’s article “The Religion of Human God by Ludwig Feuerbach” (1905). Chuprov Alexander Ivanovich (1842–1908) – economist, statistician. “Und Bulgakoff ist fromrn geworden” (“And Bulgakov became pious (devout)” (German) conveyed to me the amazed exclamation of Karl Kautsky, one of the leaders of the German Social Democracy (this can be meaningfully conveyed as follows: “Bulgakov has gone crazy!”). Epitrachelion (from the Greek epitrachelion) is part of the priest’s vestment, an apron embroidered with patterns, worn around the neck and worn under the chasuble; Without the stole, not a single service can be performed. This refers to the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1917–1918, at which the patriarchate was restored in November 1917. Tikhon (Belavin Vasily Ivanovich) (1865–1925) – Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (since 1917). Elected by the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church. During the Civil War he called for an end to the bloodshed. He opposed the decrees on the separation of Church and state and the confiscation of church values. In 1922 he was arrested on charges of anti-Soviet activities. In 1925 he called on the clergy and believers to be loyal to the Soviet regime; released from prison and was under house arrest. Canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. On the fiftieth day after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, fire descended from heaven on his disciples, individual tongues of which rested on each of them; they were filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues (Acts 2). Here God revealed himself in the form of the Trinity; hence the name of the holiday. Shortly before this, during the Christmas holidays. His Holiness the Patriarch forced me (still a layman) to compose the text of his first message, announcing his accession to the Patriarchal Throne, which I did (it was read in churches at Epiphany) At the same time, I will also mention such a funny and characteristic detail of this whole event. When I came to the Moscow Consistory on Saturday (the eve of Trinity Day, appointed for my ordination) to straighten out my protégé case, it turned out that he was absent from it. a written certificate regarding my wife that she is of the Orthodox faith and married to me in her first marriage. Although I, being not only a member of the Church Council, but also the Supreme Church Council elected by it, assured the secretary of the consistory about this, this was not enough, the corresponding paper was necessary. When he turned to the office of the Holy Council for this, it turned out that it could not be obtained from there. Imagine my excitement when I realized that everything was hanging in the air for me because of this clerical formalism, nothing here could help and there was even nowhere to turn, because the Patriarch himself, if only he could cope with the inexorability of the offices here, was already leaving (for St. Petersburg). Meanwhile, the day was already leaning towards the second half, everything was agreed and decided (even down to the newspaper notes about the upcoming ordination, which were deliberately postponed until the morning of Trinity Day itself). And at the last minute, the saving thought struck me to contact the secretary of the office of the Moscow Commercial Institute (S.N. Bulgakov worked as a professor at the Moscow Commercial Institute since 1906), where I was a professor, for the issuance of such a certificate. I sent a hasty messenger, and the freely issued certificate satisfied the consistory, and thus my karma (Karma (Sanskrit - action) is one of the basic concepts of Indian religion (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism) and philosophy, complementing the concept of samsara. In a broad sense, it is the total sum of actions performed by every living being and their consequences, which determines the nature of his new birth, reincarnation. In the narrow sense - the influence of completed actions on the nature of present and subsequent existence.) political economy opened the gates of the Danilov Monastery for me. I experienced a feeling of the miracle of God’s mercy that had happened over me. A lot of friendly care and affection was shown in order to dress me in “spiritual things”, then in its own way it was no less difficult than now. God helped me from those days to always maintain a “spiritual” appearance, although there were times when they demanded that I betray him under threat of death. June 11, 1918 This refers to the day of the Holy Trinity; see above, note. 7. Preis Nikolai Nikolaevich is Vyach’s friend. I. Ivanova, a frequent visitor to meetings in Ivanov’s apartments in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Ivanov Vyacheslav Ivanovich (1866–1949) – Russian poet. Representative and theorist of symbolism. Poetry is focused on the cultural and philosophical issues of antiquity and the Middle Ages (collection “Helmsmen of the Stars”, 1903; “Cor ardens”, parts 1–2, 1911). In his literary and philosophical works (including the book “Furrows and Boundaries”, 1916) he developed the religious and aesthetic concept of creativity. Since 1924 he lived in Italy. Trubetskoy Evgeny Nikolaevich (1863–1920) - prince, Russian religious philosopher, jurist. Brother of S. N. Trubetskoy. He sought to harmonize V. S. Solovyov’s teaching on “all-unity” with orthodox Christian doctrine. Works on Solovyov, on the theory of knowledge, on the meaning of life. Vasily Konstantinovich Khoroshko is an acquaintance of S. N. Bulgakov. Glinka (Volzhsky) Alexander Sergeevich (1878–1940) - literary critic, close friend of S. N. Bulgakov. Gershenzon Mikhail Osipovich (1869–1925) – Russian historian of literature and social thought. He was close to neo-Slavophiles. Participant in the collection “Milestones”. Works about P. Ya. Chaadaev, about “Griboyedov’s Moscow”, about Westerners and Slavophiles, about A. S. Pushkin and I. S. Turgenev. Shestov Lev (real name and last name - Lev Isaakovich Shvartsman; 1866–1938) - philosopher and writer. In his philosophy, full of paradoxes and aphorisms, Shestov rebelled against the dictates of reason (universally valid truths) and the oppression of generally binding moral norms over the sovereign individual. He contrasted traditional philosophy with the “philosophy of tragedy” (at the center of which is the absurdity of human existence), and with philosophical speculation - the revelation that is given by the omnipotent God. Shestov anticipated the basic ideas of existentialism. Askoldova Ekaterina Alekseevna (1864–1944?) – sister of the philosopher S. A. Askoldov (Alekseev). For the first time: Bulgakov S.N. Autobiographical notes. Diaries. Articles. Orel, 1998, pp. 77–112. Published upon first publication. Gaspra is a village located 10 km from Yalta and 2 km from Koreiz, where Bulgakov lived with his family. Fedichka - Bulgakov’s eldest son Fyodor Sergeevich (1902–1991); artist, since 1938 – member of the Union of Artists of the USSR. Munochka is the daughter of Bulgakov Maria Sergeevna (1898–1973), in emigration she was married to K. B. Rodzevich, her second marriage was to V. A. Stepurzhinsky. Ivashechka (1905–1909) – Bulgakov’s son who died early; see note. 22 to a fragment of Bulgakov’s memoirs “My Motherland”. Transfiguration of the Lord - Chief, or Apple, Savior; Holy Transfiguration of Jesus Christ on Mount Tabor. Celebrated on August 19 (6). Shmidt Anna Nikolaevna (1851–1905) - a journalist from Nizhny Novgorod, who believed that she was the earthly incarnation of the Divine Sophia, who was Vl. Solovyov, and Solovyov himself – one of the earthly incarnations of Jesus Christ. Schmidt claimed to express a new religious revelation in her theological and mystical treatise “The Third Testament”. Bulgakov, together with P. Florensky, took part in the posthumous publication of Schmidt’s works and dedicated the history of relationships between Vl. Solovyov and Anna Schmidt three articles, united under the general title “Vladimir Solovyov and Anna Schmidt”. The estate of Bulgakov’s wife E.I. Tokmakova was located in Oleiz. Bulgakov called P. A. Florensky a friend with a capital letter. After the death of his wife, Lydia Zinovieva-Annibal, in 1910, Vyach. Ivanov married his stepdaughter Vera Konstantinovna Shvarsalon (as he himself claimed, at the mystical prompting of his late wife); she died on August 8, 1920, at the age of thirty. Abraham (Abram) - in the Bible the ancestor of the Jews, the father of Isaac. At the command of Yahweh, Abraham was supposed to sacrifice his son, but at the moment of the sacrifice he was stopped by an angel. Nelya is the wife of S. N. Bulgakov, Elena Ivanovna (née Tokmakova; 1868–1945). Serezhechka is the youngest son of Bulgakov, Sergei Sergeevich (born 1911), currently lives in France. Gethsemane (literally: a press for squeezing oil) (Matthew 26:36; Mark 14:32) - a garden on the slope of the Mount of Olives, separated from Jerusalem by a narrow valley with the Kidron stream; in it, Jesus Christ was handed over by Judas into the hands of soldiers. Christopher (III century) - a saint who suffered during the persecution of Christians under the emperor Decius (249–251). He was famous for his strength. Having learned that Christopher had accepted the Christian faith, the emperor decided to use cunning to persuade him to renounce Christ. He entrusted this to two harlots, but instead Christopher converted these women to faith in Christ, for which they were tortured. Christopher himself was thrown into a red-hot copper vessel, but he remained unharmed. Having subjected Saint Christopher to new tortures, the torturers finally cut off his head. This happened in Lycia (in Asia Minor) around 250. In the West they resort to the help of St. Christopher during contagious diseases and when traveling Nilus is a church writer, author of the book “Great in Small” (Sergiev Posad, 1905), in which the so-called “Protocols of the Elders of Zion” were published. Nilus claimed that the documents he published were authentic protocols of a secret meeting of the world Jewish government, at which plans were developed to seize power over the world. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fake, fabricated by the secret police to incite anti-Jewish pogrom sentiment in Russia. Nesterov Mikhail Vasilievich (1862–1942) - Russian painter, Honored Artist of Russia (1942). He created poetic religious images associated with the ethical quests of the 1880–1910s. (“Vision to the Youth Bartholomew”, 1889–1890; “In Rus'”, 1916); painted deep, poignant portraits of national cultural figures. The text refers to a double portrait of S. N. Bulgakov and P. A. Florensky. Apparently, this refers to Patriarch Tikhon, who was Bulgakov’s spiritual father in Moscow. Bulgakov's Catholic passions were expressed especially sharply in his essay “At the Walls of Chersonis.” See also the letter to Florensky published in this edition, in which Bulgakov invites his friend to convert to Catholicism together. This refers to frequently cited arguments against the possibility of rapprochement between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, primarily the adoption by the Catholic Church of new dogmas: the addition to the 8th member of the Creed, which proclaimed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father, the words “and the Son” (lat. filioque); the adoption of the doctrine of purgatory at the Council of Florence in 1439; the adoption in 1870 by the First Vatican Council of the dogma on the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith; the proclamation in 1854 by Pius IX of the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary and in 1950 by Pius XII of the dogma of her bodily ascension to heaven. Unleavened bread is unleavened bread used in the Roman Catholic Church during the celebration of the Eucharist. The custom of replacing leavened bread, which is used in the Orthodox rite, with unleavened bread first appeared in the 7th century. in some Spanish churches, in the 11th century. – everywhere in the West. This refers to Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky (1866–1936), who sharply opposed any attempts to renew the Orthodox Church and its rapprochement with the Catholic Church. This refers to the theory developed in the letters of the monk Philotheus about Moscow as the “Third Rome”. According to this theory, only certain peoples in history are “chosen” by God to preserve the true faith. The fall of Byzantium was considered from the point of view of the idea of ​​a “wandering kingdom”: the first two Romes (Rome itself and Constantinople) fell, Moscow should become the new, third Rome - only in Russia the Christian faith should now be kept pure. In connection with the eschatological expectations of the era of Philotheus, another thought was added here: “there will not be a fourth Rome,” i.e., the Russian kingdom will have to be a stronghold of Christianity until the end of the world. This refers to the church reform carried out by Peter I and which made the Orthodox Church completely dependent on the Russian autocracy; The Holy Synod, created by Peter, acted as an instrument of state control over church life. “sacrifices” not only of the “spirit”, but also of the “body” (it.). A poem by Dmitry Karamazov, which he reads to his brother Alyosha in his confession (see: Dostoevsky F.M. The Brothers Karamazov. Part I. Book III. Chapter III). This refers to Patriarch Tikhon, Mikhail Alexandrovich Novoselov and Bishop Theodore Pozdeevsky (1876 - 40s of the twentieth century), rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, since 1917 - abbot of the Danilovsky Monastery. Vladimir Vladimirovich Abrikosov came from a Moscow merchant family, converted to Catholicism in 1904, was ordained a priest in 1917, and expelled from Russia in 1922. Patriarch Tikhon was first arrested and placed under house arrest in November 1918 after anathematizing the Bolsheviks for starting the Civil War and destroying churches; however, he was soon released under pressure from believers. In 1922, he was arrested on charges of anti-Soviet activities. The long-prepared trial against him opened in May 1923, but was terminated in the spring of 1924 under pressure from international religious circles. On April 7, 1925, Tikhon signed an appeal in which he repented of his negative attitude towards the new government and called on believers to cooperate with it. The next day he died suddenly “from an attack of angina pectoris,” as stated in the official death certificate. Diocletian's Persecution - persecution of Christians undertaken in 303–304. Diocletian, Roman Emperor 284–305. Cyril and Methodius are brothers from Thessaloniki (Thessaloniki), Slavic educators, creators of the Slavic alphabet, preachers of Christianity. Cyril (c. 827–869; before accepting monasticism in 869 - Constantine, Constantine the Philosopher) and Methodius (c. 815–885) in 863 were invited from Byzantium by Prince Rostislav to the Great Moravian Empire to introduce worship in the Slavic language. The main liturgical books were translated from Greek into Old Church Slavonic. Council of Florence - Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church 1438–1445, convened by Pope Eugene IV. The main goal of the Council was to overcome dogmatic differences between the Eastern and Western Churches and conclude a union between them. The Turkish danger forced the Byzantines to conclude the Union of Florence (July 1439) on the terms of recognizing the supremacy of the Pope, accepting Catholic dogmas while preserving only the rituals of the Orthodox Church. However, the union did not come into force either in Byzantium or in the Russian state. Metropolitan Isidore of Moscow was a participant in the Ferrara-Florence Council and signed the union there. Upon returning to Moscow, he was taken into custody, but escaped; died in Italy. Vasily II the Dark (1415–1462) – Grand Duke of Moscow from 1425. Son of Vasily I. He won the war with the appanage princes (1425–1453). He limited the independence of Novgorod and Pskov. Blinded (1446) by Prince Dmitry Shemyaka (hence the nickname). He did not accept the results of the Ferrara-Florence Council and rejected the union of the Orthodox Church with the Catholic Church. Apparently, this refers to the books “Philosophy of Economics” and “Non-Evening Light”, in which the influence of Vl. Solovyov and his dream of the future union of philosophy and religion in a new higher mystical knowledge (theosophy). It was during the “Yalta sitting” that Bulgakov revised his previous beliefs and recognized philosophy as a “heretical deviation” in relation to religion and its Truth. Sensualism in religion is the reduction of religion to feeling, its recognition as a special form of sensory-affective attitude towards the world. Bulgakov criticizes this understanding of religion in detail (in relation to Schleiermacher’s religious concept) in the book “The Nevecherniy Light” (see: Bulgakov S.N. Nevecherniy Light. M., 1994, pp. 38–45), however, elements of such religious “sensualism” were certainly contained in this book itself. Artemy (Greek: healthy) - great martyr, suffered in 362, during the era of Julian the Apostate. From a purely negative attitude towards the Church, the Bolshevik leaders in the early 20s moved to more subtle tactics: placing their people in the main positions in the church hierarchy and subordinating the Church and its policies to Soviet power. One of the first events on this path was the organization of a new Local Council to condemn Patriarch Tikhon for counter-revolutionary activities and remove him from office. The “Renewal” All-Russian Church Council, which deprived Tikhon of his rank, took place in early May 1923. This refers to the article by N. Berdyaev “Stylized Orthodoxy” (Russian Thought. 1914. Issue I), containing sharp criticism of the religious philosophy of P. Florensky. Bulgakov devoted many pages to criticism of the occult, neoplatonic and gnostic elements in religion in his book “Never-Evening Light”, but it must be recognized that his concept of religion, developed in this book, itself contains all these elements. Apparently, the understanding of this fact became one of the reasons for the final abandonment of philosophy in the 20s. Vasily Giatsintov, a student at the Moscow Theological Academy, was friends with P. A. Florensky, who married his sister Anna Mikhailovna. Anthony Florensov (1847–1918) – bishop, elder. Anna Mikhailovna, nee Giatsintova, is the wife of P. A. Florensky. Isidore of Georgia (d. 1908) – hieromonk of the Gethsemane monastery. N. K. Bonetskaya wrote well about the strange relationships of attraction and repulsion that determined the friendship of Bulgakov and Florensky in her article “Russian Faust and Russian Wagner,” published in this edition. And with him, apparently, I feel it without words and conclude from the indirect signs that reach me - again there is a relapse of that long-past and extinct, it seemed, Luciferian underground, which was tightly closed, but not overcome (for it is insurmountable “αγχιραδξη”, because he himself called himself the unfortunate “Heraclitus”) by a superhuman effort of will. After the capture of Constantinople by the Turks, the population of Byzantium found itself in an alien religious environment; professing the Orthodox faith became a crime; the same thing happened in Russia after the Bolshevik revolution. In Greek, katholik'on is the main church of the community, where everyone goes; later - the local church. In Slavic languages, the word “catholic” was translated as “conciliar”, i.e. the aspect of the unity of the Church was emphasized here. On the contrary, in the Western, Latin tradition, this concept emphasized the aspect of universality; therefore, “catholic” is translated as “universal.” Panteleimon (Greek: all-merciful) - great martyr and healer, originally from Nicomedia, son of the Greek Eustorgius, converted to Christianity by the presbyter Ermolai, suffered during the reign of Maximian, in 304. Beatrice is Dante’s beloved and the heroine of his “Divine Comedy”, personifying female perfection; It is she who opens the heavenly realms to Dante. For the first time: Vestnik RHD. 1979. No. 129. pp. 237–268; No. 130. pp. 258–274. Republished in: Bulgakov S.N. Quiet thoughts. M., 1996. pp. 351–389. Published according to the latest edition. When working on the commentary for this publication, the results of research by V.V. Sapov, reflected in the publication: Bulgakov S.N. Quiet Thoughts, were used. M., The Protection of the Mother of God is a holiday of veneration of the Mother of God as an intercessor and prayer book for peace. Celebrated on October 14 (1). The icon of the Kazan Mother of God was found in Kazan in the 16th century. under miraculous circumstances: the Mother of God appeared in a dream to a little girl, to whom she showed the place at the fire, and the icon was found there. The day of her discovery (July 21, 1579) is celebrated as a church holiday. The icon disappeared from Russia in 1904. Currently kept in the Vatican. Introduction to the Church of the Mother of God - Mary’s parents introduced their three-year-old daughter into the Jerusalem Temple on this day, where she stayed until she came of age. Celebrated on December 4 (November 21). A. Herzen wrote expressively about the West as a country of “bourgeois culture” and “philistinism”; The West called “the land of holy miracles” Versilov, the hero of F. Dostoevsky’s novel “The Teenager”; finally, K. Leontyev wrote about the “rotting” of the West. Atlantis - according to an ancient Greek legend preserved by Plato, a once-existent huge fertile densely populated island in the Atlantic Ocean west of Gibraltar, which sank to the bottom due to an earthquake. Questions about the existence and causes of the death of Atlantis remain controversial in science. This probably refers to the icon of the Vladimir Mother of God - one of the few surviving shrines of the pre-Mongol period. According to legend, the Apostle Luke wrote it on a board from the table at which the Savior ate with the Most Pure Mother and Righteous Joseph. The Byzantine Emperor Theodosius sent the icon as a gift to Kyiv. She was placed in the convent of the Mother of God in Vyshgorod. In the middle of the 12th century. it was moved to Vladimir to the famous Assumption Cathedral. From that time on, they began to call it Vladimirskaya. The icon of the Vladimir Mother of God first came to Moscow in 1395, when the hordes of Khan Tamerlane approached the city. Grand Duke Vasily Dmitrievich, not relying only on the strength of his army, sent for her to the Assumption Cathedral. And on September 8 she was brought to Moscow; According to legend, it was she who saved Rus' from the Tatars. The Sretensky Monastery now stands at the meeting place. Currently, the icon is kept in the Tretyakov Gallery. This refers to the miraculous salvation of the prophet Daniel, who was thrown into a den of lions by King Darius as a result of a conspiracy among the courtiers; An angel sent by God stopped the lions' mouths, Daniel emerged unharmed from the den and was exalted by Darius (Dan. 6). This refers to three Jewish youths who did not want to renounce their faith and worship the “golden image,” and by order of Nebuchadnezzar they were thrown into the oven, from where they emerged unharmed by the will of God (Dan. 3:1–29). Lent is Lent, lasting seven weeks from Maslenitsa to Easter. Variant of the title of Bulgakov's dialogues "At the Walls of Chersonis". Host - a meeting, gathering, a lot of something. Justinian is the church name of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I (482 or 483–565), proclaimed a saint; Emperor since 527. Conquered North Africa, Sicily, Italy, and part of Spain. He codified Roman law (Corpus Juris Civilis), stimulated large-scale construction (the Church of St. Sophia in Constantinople, a system of fortresses along the Danube border). Constantine I the Great (Constantinus) (c. 285–337) - Roman emperor from 306. Consistently centralized the state apparatus, supported the Christian Church, while also preserving pagan cults. In 324–330 founded the new capital Constantinople on the site of Byzantium. John Chrysostom (between 344 and 354–407) - one of the main fathers of the Church, a Byzantine church leader, bishop of Constantinople (from 398), representative of Greek church eloquence. The most common liturgy is associated with the name of John Chrysostom. In Byzantium and Rus' he was the ideal of a preacher and a fearless accuser (including for Avvakum); canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church. Photius (c. 810 or c. 820–890s) – Patriarch of Constantinople in 858–867, 877–886. He contributed to the spread of the influence of the Byzantine Church in the Slavic lands (Bulgaria, Moravia), which led to a conflict with the papacy. Expert in ancient literature, compiler of the famous collection of ancient fragments “Myriobiblion”, author of theological works and letters. Bulgakov believed that the activities of Photius significantly influenced the emergence of a deep schism between the Eastern and Western Churches (see the letter published below by S. N. Bulgakov to P. A. Florensky). The Bible, in the Book of Job, tells how God sent terrible punishments to Job; Job’s friends urged him to humble himself and accept God’s will without complaint, but Job began to “murmur” against God, proving that he did not deserve these punishments. The day of St. Seraphim of Sarov is celebrated on August 1. Anastasy (Alexander Alekseevich Gribanovsky) (1873–1965) – metropolitan. He played a major role in organizing and holding the All-Russian Local Council of 1917–1918, which elected Patriarch Tikhon. Since 1919 - in exile; after the death of Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky) in 1936, he succeeded him as head of the Russian Church Abroad. This refers to Antony Khrapovitsky. Jesuits are members of the Catholic monastic order (“Society of Jesus”, Latin “Societas Jesu”), founded in 1534 in Paris by I. Loyola. The Order became the main weapon of the Counter-Reformation. The Jesuits established themselves not only in European countries, but also penetrated into India, Japan, China, and the Philippines. The Jesuits appeared in Russia at the beginning of the 18th century; in 1719, by decree of Peter I, they were expelled. In 1801 their existence was officially recognized, but in 1820 Alexander I banned their activities. In 1610–1768 There was a "Jesuit State" in Paraguay. The basic principles of the organization of the order: strict centralization, absolute authority of the head of the order. This refers to the well-known Catholic hobbies of Vl. Solovyov, which Bulgakov shared during the period of his life described. "Dreadnought" (English: "Dreadnought", lit. - undaunted) is an English battleship (built in 1906). Had ten 305 mm turret guns and 24 76 mm guns, 5 torpedo tubes; armor up to 280 mm. Until the 30s. “Dreadnoughts” were the name given to battleships of this type. Trireme (lat. triremis - having three rows of oars) - a combat rowing vessel in Ancient Rome with three rows of oars, located one above the other in a checkerboard pattern. In Ancient Greece, ships similar to triremes were called triremes. Lit.: abstention from judgment (Greek) - a term of skeptical philosophy, denoting a state of mind when we neither affirm nor deny anything. A little later, this diary entry was revised by the author and published under the title “In Hagia Sophia. From a notebook" (Russian Thought. 1924. No. 6/8. P. 229–237). St. Mark's Cathedral is the main church of Venice. According to legend, returning from Aquileia, where he preached the holy faith, Saint Mark was caught in a storm and stopped on one of the islands of the lagoon. An angel appeared to him in a dream and told him that here he would find peace. These words of God's messenger were subsequently inscribed on the standard of the Venetian Republic: “Peace be with you, Mark, my evangelist!” Saint Mark suffered martyrdom in Alexandria, where he was later buried. From here his body was secretly taken out by two Venetian merchants: they told the Saracen customs officers that they were carrying corned beef. In 828, the sacred relic was delivered to Venice. Within a few years, the Venetians built a cathedral for their new saint among the monastery gardens. In 976, the original cathedral building burned down from a fire that spread here from the residence of the doges. The church was soon restored with some additions, but a hundred years later it was replaced with a completely new building. The history of the modern St. Mark's Cathedral dates back to the 11th century. The construction of the church lasted several centuries. With its plan in the shape of a Greek cross, round domes and magnificent arches, a portico in front of the entrance - in its entire appearance the new cathedral was reminiscent of Byzantine churches; the Constantinople Church of the Holy Apostles served as a model for it. Notre-Dame de Paris Cathedral (Notre-Dame de Paris) is an architectural monument of early French Gothic in Paris on the island. Sieve. 5-nave basilica (1163–1257, length 130 m, width 108 m, interior height 32.5 m) with a transept and two flanking western towers (height 69 m). Stained glass (XIII century), sculpture on the facades (c. 1165–1225) and in the choir (XIII–XIV centuries). Cathedral (German). “Lift up your eyes around Zion, and see: behold, your children have come to you like a divine light, from the west, and the north, and the sea, and the east, blessing Christ in you forever” (from the “Easter Canon” of John of Damascus). intelligible cosmos (Greek) - a term denoting the world of ideas in the philosophy of Plato and the Neoplatonists. Sophia, the Soul of the World, in Plato’s philosophy is a connecting link between the world of things and the world of ideas, ensuring the emergence of things in accordance with their ideal prototypes. The same function belongs to the Christian Sophia, the Wisdom of God (the Old Testament teaching about Sophia is contained in the books “Proverbs of Solomon”, “Wisdom of Solomon” and “Song of Songs”). between, in between (Greek). Justin Philosopher and Martyr (c. 100 - c. 166) - one of the first Christian apologist writers, father of the Church. Executed in Rome, where he ran a Christian school. Author of two apologies in defense of Christians (150 and 162) and the philosophical and theological treatise “Conversation with Tryphon the Jew”; tried to use the heritage of Greek philosophy to reveal Christian doctrine. “limit” - with “limitless” (Greek). The heavenly Jerusalem is the place where God’s chosen people will live in eternal unity with God (Rev. 21:1–4). A symbol of the final, transformed state of the world and humanity. This refers to the division of the Universal Church into the Catholic and Orthodox Churches; Bulgakov attributed the beginning of this process to the era of Photius (see above, note 14). Synod (Holy Synod) (from the Greek synodos - assembly) - one of the highest government bodies in Russia in 1721–1917. He was in charge of the affairs of the Orthodox Church (interpretation of religious dogmas, observance of rituals, issues of spiritual censorship and enlightenment, the fight against heretics and schismatics). It was headed by the Chief Prosecutor, appointed by the Tsar. After 1917, the Holy Synod was an advisory body under the Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia. Pleve Vyacheslav Konstantinovich (1846–1904) - Russian statesman. Since 1902, Minister of the Interior and chief of a separate corps of gendarmes. He pursued a policy of disintegrating the revolutionary movement from within, suppressing strikes and peasant uprisings. One of the active supporters of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905. Killed by the Socialist Revolutionary E. S. Sozonov. Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich (1827–1907) - Russian statesman, legal scholar. He taught jurisprudence and law to the heirs to the throne (future emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II). In 1880–1905 Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. He played a significant role in determining government policy in the field of education, on the national question, etc. One of the initiators of the policy of counter-reforms. This refers to the Slavophile idea of ​​​​unifying the Slavs under the rule of the Russian Tsar and restoring Byzantium with its center in Constantinople; it was metaphorically vividly expressed in F. Tyutchev’s poem “Prophecy” (1850): In the renewed Byzantium, The altar of Christ will again overshadow, Fall before him, O Tsar of Russia, - And rise as an all-Slavic king! This refers to the “Brief Tale of the Antichrist” in “Three Conversations about War, Progress and the End of World History” by Vl. Solovyov, written by him at the very end of his life. Previous, primary; foundation, reason (lat.). This refers to the idea of ​​​​a certain semi-mystical integrity of humanity, expressed in the article by Vl. Solovyov “The Idea of ​​Humanity in August Comte.” Barma is a false necklace that was worn by the Moscow tsars upon ascending to the kingdom. In the essay “In Hagia Sophia” the ending follows: “A new, truly third Roma-Amor will arise, which will answer all yearnings. And let it not be as noticeable in the external paths of history as Rome, Byzantium, and Moscow towered in it. But before the end (however, this will be the end, as an accomplishment), the fullness of the Church must appear. St. prophesies about her. Sofia, her sound rings endlessly in our hearts. And her chosen ones will hear this ringing and come to it... Or is this just daydreaming? Oh, how I learned - in these terrible years - both in myself and in others to punish this sentimental daydreaming as a fatal weakness from which Russia is mortally ill! How sophisticated my eye was to see it where I had not suspected it before, how much, much in Russian literature, and in the Russian people, and in myself was devalued and tasteless under the influence of this. How unbearable all irresponsible Slavophilism has become! So what? Once you got out of the stone bag into the free world, you couldn’t stand it and felt dizzy again? The construction of houses of cards and new schemes has begun again? But “I will not be silent for the sake of Moaning and for the sake of Jerusalem I will not rest.” And if this voice sounds powerlessly in a wounded soul, I hear it. This is not mine, not vague flickerings of mood, not “imagination”, this is the voice of history, this is the overwhelming power of the Church. But they call. It's time to go." (Bulgakov S., prot. Autobiographical notes. P. 102). For the first time: Correspondence between priest Pavel Alexandrovich Florensky and priest Sergius Nikolaevich Bulgakov. Tomsk, 2001. pp. 161–189. Published upon first publication. Rozanov Vasily Vasilyevich (1856–1919) - Russian writer, publicist and philosopher. Plotless essay-diary prose is an undifferentiated fusion of everyday and philosophical, political and intimate, tragic and “vulgar” (books “Solitary”, 1912; “Fallen Leaves”, vols. 1-2, 1913-1915; “Apocalypse of Our Time”, 1917-1918). The religious-existential mindset is combined with criticism of Christian asceticism, the apotheosis of family and gender, in the elements of which Rozanov saw the fundamental principle of life; cult of national origins. Literary critical works about N.V. Gogol, F.M. Dostoevsky, M.Yu. Lermontov. specifically, in a specific form (lat.). Veresaev (real name Smidovich) Vikenty Vikentievich (1867–1945) - Russian writer. Stories about the quest of the intelligentsia at the turn of the 19th–20th centuries: “Without a Road” (1895), “Notes of a Doctor” (1901). Critical and philosophical works about F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy. Documentary works about A. S. Pushkin (“Pushkin in Life,” 1926–1927; “Pushkin’s Companions,” 1936–1937), N. V. Gogol. indelible character (lat.). Apparently, Bulgakov has in mind the book he wrote during these years, “The Tragedy of Philosophy (Philosophy and Dogma),” where the understanding of the dogma of the Holy Trinity occupies an important place. Sventitsky (Sventitsky) Valentin Pavlovich (1880–1932) – priest, writer. “And the hand of the Lord was with him” (Luke 1:66). These words in the New Testament refer to the birth of John the Baptist. set of legal norms (lat.). A short version of Voltaire’s famous words: “If God did not exist, he would have to be invented” (French). priest, priest (Greek). from the pulpit (in full priestly powers) (lat.). “...it pleased the Holy Spirit and us” - the words with which the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils traditionally began. First used by the Apostolic Council: “For it is pleasing to the Holy Spirit and to us not to place on you any more burdens than this necessary: ​​to abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and things strangled, and fornication, and not to do to others what you do not want to do to yourself. If you observe these things, you will do well” (Acts 15:28–29). Newman John Henry (1801–1890) – cardinal; Before his ordination, he converted from Anglicanism to Catholicism, accepting the dogma of papal infallibility. The following phrase was uttered by him during this transition. This refers to the book “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” by P. Florensky. Unlike the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church recognizes dogmatic development, which began with the addition of the words “and the Son” (lat. filioque) to the 8th article of the Creed, which proclaimed the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father. This addition was made at the Council of Toledo in 589 and introduced into ecclesiastical practice in the Frankish Empire c. 800 g church, from Greek εκκλησία. leader of consciousness, conscience (French). minister of cult, sacred rite (lat.). where the Pope is, there is the Church (lat.). This refers to the Councils held in Constantinople in 1341–1347. and dedicated to the theological dispute between the hesychasts led by Gregory Palamas and their opponents led by Barlaam. The council, held in June 1341, attempted to reconcile the opponents; at the following Councils - in May 1342 and in November 1344 - the teaching of Palamas was condemned; only at the last Council, held in the spring of 1347, was it recognized as canonical and included in the dogmatic system of Orthodoxy. Venus de Milo is the generally accepted name for the Greek marble statue of the goddess of love Aphrodite (mid-2nd century BC). Found on o. Melos (Southern Greece). Currently kept in the Louvre. Considered a model of female bodily beauty. Ternavtsev Valentin Aleksandrovich (1866–1940) - Russian religious philosopher and writer. one through two (Greek). In preparation for defending a master's thesis on the book “On Spiritual Truth. The experience of the Orthodox feodicy" (Issue 1-2. M., 1913), Florensky had to exclude from the book the chapters "Sophia", "Friendship", "Jealousy" and some others due to accusations of inconsistency with the dogmatic teachings of Orthodoxy (for more details, see: Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). From the history of the book "The Pillar and Statement of Truth" // Florensky P. A. Works: In 4 t. M., 1990. T. 1 (2). in reality (lat.). Und der König absolut, Wenn er unsern Willen tut - And the king is autocratic if he does our will (Albert von Chamisso. Songs of the Night Watchmen). Thomas a Kempis, Thomas Hemerken, Hemmerlein or Molleolus (c. 1380–1471) - Dutch Christian writer. From 1406 - in a monastery near Tswolle; was close to the pre-Reformation movement of the Brothers of Common Life. The treatise “On the Imitation of Christ” gained extraordinary popularity (over 2 thousand editions) and was translated into all European languages ​​(into Russian by K. P. Pobedonostsev). Francis of Assisi (lat. Franciscus Assisiensis) (1181 or 1182–1226) – Italian preacher, founder of the Franciscan order, author of religious poetic works (“Praise of Virtue”, “Praise of God”, etc.). Since 1207, he subordinated his life to serving the spiritual heritage of Jesus Christ, becoming a preacher. Soon he had followers in Italy and almost all European countries, who organized themselves into Franciscan brotherhoods. In 1228 he was canonized. Stories and legends about him are collected in the anonymous collection “Flowers of St. Francis of Assisi." Florensky and Bulgakov developed a project for the Religious and Philosophical Academy in Moscow in the spring of 1917. It was assumed that the academy would be a scientific and educational institution aimed at identifying the universal, pan-human role of Orthodoxy and Orthodox Russia. See note. 6 to the “Yalta Diary”. At the end of 1920, Bulgakov’s eldest son Fyodor could not leave Moscow for a long time to join his family; see: “Yalta Diary”, entry dated November 17, 1921. You are Peter (lat.). This refers to the words of Jesus Christ in the Gospel of Matthew: “...I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17–19). In Greek, the word “stone” πέτρος and the name of the Apostle Πέτρος are the same, in Latin “stone” is petra, and the name of the Apostle is Petrus. Caesarea Philippi (Matt. 16:13; Mark 8:27) is a city in the north of Palestine near Mount Hermon in the area of ​​​​the source of the Jordan, built on the site of the ancient settlement of Baal-Gad (or Baal-Hermon) by Herod Philip. Famous words of Jesus Christ addressed to St. Peter from the previous note. were uttered precisely in a conversation on the way to Caesarea Philippi. This refers to Florensky’s claim to a unique, “own” understanding of Orthodoxy in the book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth.” let it be accepted condescendingly (lat.). Honorius I – Pope 625–638, anathematized at the Council of Constantinople for his teaching about the will of Jesus Christ. Liberius - Pope in 352-366, during the era of fierce disputes between Arius and Athanasius the Great and the development of the Nicene Creed. At the Council of Lyon in 1274, the custom was officially established according to which the Pope alone disposed of the sees of bishops who died in Rome, at the papal court. The Council of Florence in 1439 adopted a Definition that affirmed the primacy of the Roman Pontiff over the entire Church and over all Christians. I Vatican Council 1869–1870 accepted the dogma of the infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals. Theodore the Studite (759–826) – Byzantine church leader, from 798 the abbot of the Studite monastery (in Constantinople); led the fight against iconoclasm. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580–662) - Byzantine theologian, the main opponent of the Monothelites (supporters of a compromise between orthodox dogma and the Monophysites, who recognized that Christ had two natures, but one will and “energy”). In 653 he was arrested, tortured, and exiled. Commentator "Areopagitik". The task of man in the mystical concept of Maximus the Confessor is to restore the integrity of his nature and the cosmos. Had a strong influence on John Scotus Eriugena and medieval mysticism. Hergenrother Joseph (1824–1890) – church historian, cardinal; this refers to his work: Hergenroter J. Photios, Patriarch von Konstantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften und das Griechische Schisma. Bd. 1–3. Regensburg, 1867–1869. Lebedev Alexey Petrovich (1845–1908) – Church historian, author of the famous works “The History of the Division of Churches of the 9th–11th Centuries” (M., 1900); “Essays on the internal history of the Byzantine-Eastern Church in the 9th, 10th and 11th centuries” (Moscow, 1902). changing what is needed (lat.). Equal to the Apostles (Greek). Michael Kerularius (Kerullarius) (c. 1000–1058) - Patriarch of Constantinople from 1043. He defended the independence of the Byzantine Church from imperial power and from the papacy. The conflict in 1054 between Michael Cerularius and the papacy (when he and the Roman legate Cardinal Humbert anathematized each other) is the most important stage in the division of the Churches. Due to a clash with the Byzantine Emperor Isaac I, who confiscated part of the monastery lands, Michael Cerularius was removed and exiled at the end of 1058. This refers to Anthony (Alexey Pavlovich) Khrapovitsky. Purgatorium - purgatory. This refers to those parts of Catholic teaching that have no analogues in Orthodoxy. John XI Vekkos (1275–1282) – Patriarch of Constantinople; initially he sharply opposed the union of the Western and Eastern Churches, but then became an active supporter of the unification. Vissarion of Nicea (1403–1472) - archbishop who defended the independence of Orthodoxy at the Council of Florence, but then became a supporter of union; was elevated to the rank of Catholic cardinal and lived in Italy. Gennady Scholarius (1400–1464) – patriarch in 1453–1459, participant in the Council of Florence, where he supported the union; upon returning to Constantinople, he led the anti-unification party. This refers to the main work of Photius, directed against the Catholic Church, “On the Mystery of the Holy Spirit.” Bolotov Vasily Vasilyevich (1854–1900) – Church historian. Author of the famous “Lectures on the History of the Ancient Church” (vol. 1–4, St. Petersburg, 1907–1918). This refers to his work “On the Question of the Filioque” (St. Petersburg, 1914). Sylvester (Stefan Vasilyevich) Malevansky (1827–1908) – bishop, author of the famous work “The Experience of Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, with a Historical Presentation of Dogmas” (Kyiv, 1884–1886). Macarius (Mikhail Petrovich) Bulgakov (1816–1882) – metropolitan, author of the work “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” (vol. 1–2, Kolomna). Mark of Ephesus (d. 1450) - Byzantine metropolitan, defender of Orthodoxy and opponent of the union at the Council of Ferrara-Florence (1438–1439) and after it. “theologumen” and “philosophumena” (particular theological and philosophical positions) (lat.). Ferraro-Florence Council (1438–1439) – the first part of the Council of Florence, the Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church 1438–1445, convened by Pope Eugene IV. The main goal of the Council was to overcome dogmatic differences between the Eastern and Western Churches and conclude a union between them. The Turkish danger forced the Byzantines to conclude the Union of Florence (July 1439) on the terms of recognizing the supremacy of the Pope, accepting Catholic dogmas while preserving only the rituals of the Orthodox Church. However, the union did not come into force either in Byzantium or in the Russian state. The Orthodox Church never recognized this Council as ecumenical. A well-known publication of the works of the Church Fathers and famous theologians, carried out in two series - Greek (161 volumes) and Latin (220 volumes); publisher – French abbot Jacques Paul Migne (1800–1875). Arius (d. 336) - presbyter in Alexandria, who laid the foundation for the Arian controversy in Christian theology. He argued that Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity, is not consubstantial with God the Father, but was created by him. The teaching of Arius - Arianism - was condemned as heretical by the ecumenical councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). Nestorius - Patriarch of Constantinople in 428–431, the founder of the Nestorian heresy. Nestorius argued that Jesus Christ, being born human, only later assumed the divine nature; this doctrine was condemned as heresy at the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was re-condemned in the Decree of Chalcedon - the famous creed of the Nicene Ecumenical Council, which opened on October 8, 451 in Chalcedon (hence the name), which formulated the dogma of the two natures of Christ. Nestorianism enjoyed significant influence until the 13th century. in Iran and from Central Asia to China. Nestorians are now found in Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Anthony apparently means (as in most cases above) Metropolitan Anthony Khrapovitsky; which Hilarion is meant is unclear; Iliodor means Hieromonk Iliodor Trufanov. At the Council of Lyon in 1274, the custom was officially established according to which the Pope alone disposed of the sees of bishops who died in Rome, at the papal court. This was the first step towards the official approval of the priority of the Pope in the Catholic Church. Ivan IV the Terrible (1530–1584) – Grand Duke of “All Rus'” (from 1533), the first Russian Tsar (from 1547), son of Vasily III. Since the late 40s, it has ruled with the participation of the Chosen Rada. Under him, the convening of Zemsky Sobors began, the Code of Law of 1550 was compiled, and reforms of administration and the court were carried out (Gubnaya, Zemskaya and other reforms). In 1565, the oprichnina was introduced. Under Ivan IV, trade relations were established with England (1553), and the first printing house was created in Moscow. The Kazan (1552) and Astrakhan (1556) khanates were conquered. In 1558–1583 The Livonian War was fought for access to the Baltic Sea, and the annexation of Siberia began (1581). The domestic policy of Ivan IV was accompanied by mass disgraces and executions, and increased enslavement of the peasants. Chersonis (Chersonese) - an ancient city, in the V-I centuries. BC e. ancient polis, from the 1st century. an aristocratic republic, dependent on Rome, from the 4th century. - from Byzantium. In the Middle Ages (until the 15th century) it was called Kherson, Korsun. Currently, there are ruins on the outskirts of modern Sevastopol: ruins of walls with towers, neighborhoods, churches, a theater, workshops, etc. Since 1978, it has been a State Historical and Archaeological Reserve. transition to another gender (Greek). Chaadaev Petr Yakovlevich (1794–1856) – Russian thinker and publicist. In his “Philosophical Letters” (written in 1829–1831), he expressed the idea that the Orthodox Church contributed to the reign of “slavery” (serfdom) on Russian soil and thereby delayed the spiritual development of Russia (see: Chaadaev P.Ya. Complete collected works and selected letters: In 2 vols. M., 1991. T. 1. P. 347); Chaadaev believed that Catholicism is the most adequate expression of Christianity. Later, in “Apology for a Madman” (1837), he abandoned this belief. Leontyev Konstantin Nikolaevich (1831–1891) - Russian writer, publicist and literary critic; late Slavophile. Considering the main danger of liberalism with its “bourgeoisization” of life and the cult of universal well-being, he preached “Byzantinism” (churchism, monarchism, class hierarchy, etc.) and the union of Russia with the countries of the East as a protective remedy against revolutionary upheavals. This refers to A. N. Schmidt’s passion for mysticism. transformation, change of thoughts (Greek). Anthroposophy (from anthropo... and Greek sophia - wisdom) is a movement in the spiritual life of the twentieth century, emanating from the “science of the spirit” founded by R. Steiner - supersensible knowledge of the world through self-knowledge of man as a cosmic being. In 1913, the Anthroposophical Society was founded (in 1988 it had about 47 thousand members in various countries), and in 1923, the “Free University of Spiritual Science” (Goetheanum) in Dornach (Switzerland). The ideas of anthroposophy were implemented in pedagogy (Waldorf schools), art (eurythmy), medicine, agriculture, etc. This refers to M. A. Novoselov. In infidel countries (lat.) - an addition to the title of bishops of non-Christian countries, adopted in the Middle Ages. Dante Alighieri (1265–1321) - Italian poet, creator of the Italian literary language. In his youth he joined the “Dolce Sti Nuovo” school (sonnets praising Beatrice, autobiographical story “New Life”, 1292–1293, edition 1576); philosophical and political treatises (“Feast”, unfinished; “On popular speech”, 1304–1307, edition 1529), “Epistle” (1304–1316). The pinnacle of Dante’s work is the poem “The Divine Comedy” (1307–1321, edition 1472), a poetic encyclopedia of the Middle Ages. He had a great influence on the development of European culture. Thomas Aquinas (1225 or 1226–1274) – philosopher and theologian, systematizer of scholasticism on the basis of Christian Aristotelianism. The teaching of Thomas (Thomism) became part of the official doctrine of the Catholic Church; in the 19th century it was revived in the form of neo-Thomism, proclaimed in 1879 in an encyclical by Pope Leo XIII as the only true philosophy. Loyola Ignatius (1491?–1556) – Spanish nobleman, founder of the Jesuit order. Developed the organizational and moral principles of the order. complete collected works (lat.). For the first time in a separate publication: M., 1907. pp. 156–160. Published from this edition. Gerye Vladimir Ivanovich (1837–1919) – Russian historian. Organizer and director (1872–1905) of the Higher Women's Courses in Moscow. Author of essays on the Great French Revolution, on medieval figures of the Catholic Church; lectures on general history; articles on education issues; memories. The Second State Duma met from February 20 to June 2, 1907. draw a conclusion (conclusion) (French). For the first time in a separate publication: Paris, 1973. pp. 150–151. Repeatedly: M., 1996. pp. 174–176. Published according to the latest edition. Gertsyk Elena Kazimirovna (1878–1944) is a translator who knew many figures of the Silver Age well and left memories of them. This refers to Elena Gertsyk’s sister Adelaide, to whom this chapter of “Memoirs” is dedicated. Wilde Oscar (1854–1900) – English writer. In exquisitely ornamented verses he is close to the French symbolists. Lyrical tales, sublime in style and content. In the philosophical novel The Picture of Dorian Gray (1891), he debunked the decadent idea of ​​beauty alien to morality. Social-critical trends in the comedies “Lady Windermere’s Fan” (1892), “An Ideal Husband” (1895), “The Importance of Being Earnest” (1899). Tragedies; articles about literature and art; autobiographical poem “The Ballad of Reading Gaol” (1898). Skryabin Alexander Nikolaevich (1871/72–1915) – Russian composer, pianist. Scriabin’s work embodies the ideas of ecstatic aspiration to unknown “cosmic” spheres, the idea of ​​the transformative power of art. Professor at the Moscow Conservatory (1898–1904). have the courage of your convictions (French). courage of one's passions (French). The publishing house “Put” was founded in 1909 with funds from M.K. Morozova and played a huge role in the development of Russian philosophy at the beginning of the twentieth century; closed in 1917. In addition to Bulgakov, the editorial staff running the publishing house included E. N. Trubetskoy, N. A. Berdyaev, G. A. Rachinsky and V. F. Ern. Shatov, the hero of the novel “Demons,” is obsessed with the idea of ​​the “Russian God”; In the image of this hero, Dostoevsky caricatured the religious nationalism of the Slavophiles. For the first time: Studies on the history of Russian thought. Yearbook 1997. M., 1997. pp. 209–331. Printed from the first edition. See: Bulgakov S.N. Autobiographical notes. Paris, 1946; Acts of the Holy Council of the Orthodox Russian Church 1917–1918. T. I–II. M., 1994. About the first “Kiev period” (1901–1906) by S. N. Bulgakov, see: Lokteva O. K. Unknown article by S. N. Bulgakov (1904) // Russia and reforms. Vol. 2. M., 1993; Kolerov M. A. S. N. Bulgakov and the religious and philosophical press (1903–1905) // Questions of Philosophy. 1993. No. 11; Sergei Bulgakov. Letters to P. B. Struve (1901–1903) / Preface and publication by M. A. Kolerov, comments by M. A. Kolerov and O. K. Lokteva // New Circle. No. 4. Kyiv, 1993. P. 246–259; Kolerov M. A., Lokteva O. K. S. N. Bulgakov and the religious and philosophical press (1906–1907) // Persons. Biographical almanac. Vol. 5. M.; St. Petersburg, 1994. “The first death and the first resurrection”: Letters of S. N. Bulgakov 1917–1923. / Publication and notes by M. A. Kolerov // New World. 1994. No. 11. P. 208. See: Doroshenko D. Remember about the recent past (1914–1918). Lviv, 1923. See the memoirs of this Metropolitan. Eulogius (Georgievsky): Metropolitan Eulogius. The path of my life. M., 1994. Our way (Kyiv). August 14, 1918. P. 3. See: Zarubin A.G., Zarubin V.G. The Crimean regional government of M.A. Sulkevich and its policies // Domestic history. 1995. No. 3. Zenkovsky Vasily. Five months in power. P. 160. “The first death and the first resurrection”: Letters of S. N. Bulgakov 1917–1923. P. 207. See: Our way (Kyiv). August 3, 1918. P. 3. Kolerov M. A. [Notes] // “The first death and the first resurrection”: Letters of S. N. Bulgakov 1917–1923. P. 207; Kolerov M. A. [Notes] // Waiting for Palestine: 17 letters from S. N. Bulgakov to M. O. Gershenzon and his wife (1897–1925) // Unknown Russia: XX century. Vol. 2. M., 1992. P. 142. Zenkovsky Vasily. Five months in power. P. 168. See: Metropolitan Evlogy. The path of my life. M., 1994; Doroshenko D. History of Ukraine 1917–1923. T. I. Ushgorod, 1932. Kyiv thought. October 2, 1918. P. 2. Word (Kyiv). October 1, 1918. P. 1. See the critical article against “Slovo” published in the nationalist-oriented newspaper “Novaya Rada” dated October 6, 1918. about the newspaper “People” see: Kolerov M. A., Lokteva O. K. S. N. Bulgakov and the religious and philosophical press (1906–1907). Having been released from prison in 1909, to which he was sentenced for publishing the newspaper “People,” V. N. Lashnyukov actually found himself “at the bottom of his life.” But by 1915, with the help of the former publisher of “The People” V.I. Vinokurov and V.I. Ekzemplyarsky, who took personal part in his fate, he completely restored both his former circle of friends and his reputation as a religious radical publicist. Until 1918, he collaborated in a number of Kyiv newspapers, together with Zenkovsky, he was an active participant in the Christian Thought magazine published by Ekzemplyarsky, and published several of his own brochures with religious content. For more details about the fate of V.N. Lashnyukov, see his letters to A.S. Glinka (Volzhsky): RGALI. F. 142. Op. 1. Unit hr. 241. See: Kyiv thought. September 11, 1918. On the history, composition and members of the Kyiv Religious and Philosophical Society, see: Sherlyakov S. On the history of philosophical societies in Kyiv // Philosophical and sociological thought. Kyiv, 1993. No. 7–8. It is appropriate to note the inaccuracy of the assumption made by the author of the article that the Religious and Philosophical Society formed in 1908 and the Scientific and Philosophical Society, formed in 1914, allegedly united in 1918 under the chairmanship of Zenkovsky into a single Religious and Philosophical Society. This is contradicted by the announcement published in the newspaper “Slovo” on November 17, 1918 about Lev Shestov’s supposed lecture “Self-Evident Truths” at the Kiev Scientific and Philosophical Society. Brotherhood in the name of the Sweetest Jesus: Conversation with Fr. P. Prokhasko // Slovo (Kyiv). October 5, 1918. P. 4. See: Bulgakov S.N. Non-Evening Light. Sergiev Posad, 1917. “The first death and the first resurrection”: Letters of S. N. Bulgakov 1917–1923. P. 203. Bulgakov S. N. Autobiographical notes. P. 79. For the announcement of the publication of the magazine “Church and Life,” see: Christian Thought. 1917. No. 1. See: Bulgakov S.N. On the relationship of the Church to the state. M., 1917. See: V. Zenkovsky. All-Russian Church Congress//Christian Thought. 1917. No. 7/8–9/10. Zenkovsky Vasily. Five months in power. P. 169. Kyiv thought. October 20, 1918. S. Word (Kyiv). November 14, 1918. P. 3. Word (Shev). 31 breast 1918. P. 1. Reproduced from newspaper publication: Slovo (Kyiv). No. 9. October 10, 1918 (Scientific Library of the State Archives of the Russian Federation). For the first time: Studies on the history of Russian thought. Yearbook 1997. M., 1997. pp. 332–326. Published upon first publication. Kolerov Modest Alekseevich (b. 1963) – editor-in-chief of the REGNUM information agency. Kolerov M. A., Plotnikov N. S. Notes // Milestones; From the depths. Sat. M., 1991. pp. 560–561. Sapov V.V. Notes//Novgorodtsev P.I. On the social ideal. M., 1991. P. 590; Rodnyanskaya I. B. Notes // Bulgakov S. N. Works: In 2 volumes. T. 2: Selected articles. M., 1993. P. 723. In June 1917, at the Tauride Diocesan Congress, Bulgakov was elected a member of the All-Russian Local Council from the laity of the diocese. Archbishop Dimitri (Abashidze; 1867–1942/1943) – Bishop of Tauride and Simferopol. The Simferopol newspaper “Tauride Voice” reported on another event of this RFO - the report of I. P. Chetverikov “V. V. Rozanov and his attitude towards Christianity” May 4, 1920. “Rozanov’s mistake, according to the speaker’s conviction, lies in sanctifying the spontaneity of the human soul.” Chetverikov’s opponent in the debate was Bulgakov (Leopoldov. About V.V. Rozanov (Prof. Chetverikov’s report) // Tauride Voice. May 6 (19), 1920. pp. 3–4). Bishop (later Metropolitan) Veniamin (Fedchenkov; 1880–1961) - in 1919 - Bishop of Sevastopol, vicar of the Tauride diocese. About his church collaboration with Bulgakov, see: Metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov). At the turn of two eras. M., 1994. P. 267. In Crimea, they learned about Rozanov’s death, which occurred on February 5, 1919, from the obituary of A. A. Izmailov in the Kharkov “Creativity”. For a reprint of the obituary, see: South (Sevastopol). No. 6. July 31, 1919. P. 3. Obviously, the story reflected in the later correspondence of Bulgakov’s close acquaintances also goes back to one of these rumors. On January 13, 1923, M. O. Gershenzon, talking about his concerns about the fate of Bulgakov to L. B. Kamenev, wrote to L. I. Shestov: “I knew that he [Bulgakov] kept aloof from politics all the time; but K. did not listen to my assurances; in the end he said: don’t you know that B. wrote a call for Jewish pogroms, which was posted in all the cities of Crimea? I replied, of course, that this was an outrageous lie, that B. was incapable of this; and he told me: Rodichev himself confirmed this fact in a foreign newspaper.” (Gershenzon M. O. Letters to Lev Shestov (1920–1925) / Publication by A. d’Amelia and V. Alloy // The past. Historical almanac. Issue 6. M., 1992. P. 277 (See about these rumors the feuilleton published in the newspaper “Volya Rossii” (1920. No. 45. 5 November. S. 3): Its theorists are called “fathers,” and the practical executors of its commands are called fathers. The most prominent theorist of this science in our time is Fr. Bulgakov, who was under the government of General Wrangel as an intermediary between heaven and the security department. At the current stage of science Fr. Bulgakov rose slowly, having gone through a number of trials. In his youth, Fr. Bulgakov was embarrassed by the demons of socialism, and in those days he, along with P. B. Struve, was a Marxist. The Marxist system, however, did not satisfy the excited spirit of the young scientist. His state at that time can be characterized by Khlestakov’s exclamation in a letter to Tryapichkin: - It’s boring, brother Tryapichkin: the soul demands high things. And in search of the high, S. Bulgakov became an idealist, and then a God-seeker. He was attracted to superstellar worlds, timeless truth, otherworldly wisdom. S. Bulgakov shook off the dust of the earth from his feet, turned his face away from the demons of socialism and labor politics, took a vow of humility and obedience and took monastic vows. What profound revelations the mind of Fr. Bulgakov, already experienced in the superstitions of secularism and the temptations of the devil, called socialism! And in his message to the flock, Fr. Bulgakov summed up his idealism, God-seeking, humility and Christian virtue. In an unctuous voice he calls: Beat the Jews and again roar “beat the Jews!” - Just something to do? – the famous Chebyryachka, who, as you know, was visited by “doctors and professors”, could exclaim. And brother Chebyryachkin, without any preliminary Marxism, idealism, God-seeking and tonsure, would simply formulate the modern longing for Fr. Bulgakov: – I want to go “wet.” In the learned language of Chebyryachkin’s salon, “on the wet” meant robbery with murder. So the religious-mystical spirit of Fr. Bulgakov found his peace in the bosom of Chebyryachka, a regular visitor to whose salon Fr. Bulgakov could have been without losing the honor of her chosen society. And now, finally, it is clear why and why Fr. Bulgakov was so eager for the cross. But, ah! There is nothing new under the sun. U o. Bulgakov has a predecessor, Tomsk Bishop Macarius. That was also during the revolution. In 1905, in the city of Tomsk, Black Hundreds set fire to a house where the local intelligentsia had gathered. And when the fire of several hundred people was burning brightly, Bishop Macarius came out in full vestments and blessed with the cross... the cackling Black Hundreds. The most Christian Tsar Nicholas II elevated Bishop Macarius to Moscow metropolitan status for his deeds of Christian love. So, the glorious theoretician of Crimean religious mysticism is Father Bulgakov. As practitioners of this religious system, two “Bateks” emerged and occupied a prominent position. Old Man Makhno and Old Man Balakhovich. When going on “business,” both dads can ask for blessings from Father Bulgakov: - Come on, father, bless. Let's go for the wet. And, raising the cross, Father Bulgakov could answer: - Blessed will you be, my children. Have you, O beloved sons, taken gasoline to make the lamps of the raped daughters of Israel burn brightly? - Don’t doubt it, father: in extremes we are kerosene. N. Rakhmanov is the pseudonym of the writer Arseny Nesmelov (real name - Arseny Ivanovich Miropolsky; 1889–1945). For the first time: Bulgakov S.N. Autobiographical notes. Diaries. Articles. Orel, 1998. pp. 429–431 (publication by N. Nikolaenko). Printed from the first edition. Menzhinsky Vyacheslav Rudolfovich (1874–1934) – political figure. Lawyer. Participant in the revolution of 1905–1907. and October 1917 in Petrograd, commissar of the Military Revolutionary Committee (MRC). Since 1918 - People's Commissar of Finance of the RSFSR. In 1919, People's Commissar of the RKI of the Ukrainian SSR. Since 1919 - member of the Presidium of the Cheka, since 1926 - chairman of the OGPU. Member of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party since 1927.