East and West in the “Russian synthesis” of St. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow

The report is devoted to one of the central problems of Christian theology: the relationship - methodological and thematic - of its Orthodox and Western components. The author poses this question in the context of the Russian theological tradition and - specifically - using the example of the homiletical heritage of St. Philaret (Drozdov). Does the Russian spiritual tradition have its own significance, not reducible either to the Greek-Byzantine tradition that gave birth to it, or to the influence of Western theology, or to the sum of both? “Russian synthesis” in the theology of St. Philaret, according to the author of the report, is not determined only by overcoming the temptations of Western mysticism, but has independent significance for Christian theology as a whole. The presence of two poles in the Christian world - Eastern and Western - has been the implied “default” context of theological thought for many centuries, even if its subject is the transmundane truths of faith. Does he enrich or impoverish her? This is what should be clarified first of all, and this is what most often remains unclear in theological debates and dialogues. However, the very dedication of the current conference to the memory of St. Philaret of Moscow makes it possible to take the desired step in this direction. Not only because the era in which he lived and his own convictions forced him to actively think through and resolve the problems arising in the relationship between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity, but also because the scale of his theological insights was equal to the scale of these problems. In other words, his theological heritage allows the above general question about context to be translated into the plane of questions, on the one hand, more specific and historically conditioned, but on the other hand, allowing one to give more definite and unambiguous answers, which can then be inductively raised to the answer to the original question. These questions are the following. Does the Russian spiritual tradition have its own significance, not reducible to dissolution in the Greek-Byzantine tradition that originally gave birth to it? Is there a discrepancy with the latter in certain points, only a deviation from the “path of the fathers” and “enslavement by the West” or the acquisition of answers not yet given by the Byzantine fathers? In other words, should universal Orthodoxy take into account, and to what extent, including in dialogue with the West, the “Russian theologian”? We will try to find a guiding example of how to approach their resolution in the homiletical heritage of the saint from the time of his academic activity in St. Petersburg. It was then, reading successively to his students all the main theological disciplines, that at the same time he himself was largely formed as a theologian. However, a direct analysis of his texts must be preceded by several introductory remarks. The basis of the ancient Russian spiritual and theological tradition was the unity of the linguistic element, in which Scripture is practically indistinguishable from Tradition: both are “divine books”, having, respectively, equal significance and authority of judgment. That's what I thought too. Joseph Volotsky, and many more after him. The situation changed only in the 17th century, and it seems that the fact that the first significant theological educational institution in Moscow was not called the Theological Academy, as was traditionally done later, but the Greco-Slavic-Latin Academy, which revealed both a claim for its own place in the East-West opposition (a kind of transformation of the Greco-Latin axis into the Greco-Slavic-Latin triangle), and understanding the importance of the linguistic basis of theology, which in a certain sense determines the entire subsequent course of thought. It is known that among historians of spiritual education in Russia, almost since the century before last, the prevailing opinion is that between its two directions, Greek and Latin, respectively, at that time there was a struggle, which, alas, ended in the victory of the latter, which served as the reason for the long-term predominance in Russian theology of the scholastic method over the patristic one. In fact, this is not entirely true. For Greek spiritual education at that time was not at all independent and was based not so much on the holy fathers, but on scholasticism borrowed directly from the West 1. Thus, the truly significant consequences of the preponderance of the West over the East in the system of theological education came down primarily not to the school method, but to the emergence of a new situation of “multilingualism” for Russian “monolingual” theology. It is here that since then not only the declared, but also the directly experienced line between Scripture and Tradition has passed. From now on, the language of Tradition is Latin, the language of Scripture is Slavic, absorbed from church childhood, secondarily, obviously, Greek (much closer to it - Slavic - than Latin), and later - Hebrew. Although, judging by some memoirs and citations, Greek was even more the language of philosophy 3 and, it seems, to the least extent, the language of the “fathers” (St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, for example, had with him his beloved Macarius of Egypt in the Latin translation 4). Having said this, it is impossible not to notice that St. Filaret, in turn, did everything to ensure that the Russian theological school (with excellent philological preparation) again acquired a unified linguistic basis. We owe to him not only the Russian translation of the Bible, but also the translations of the fathers, which we use to this day, 5 but he himself was raised and trained in the tradition described above, which undoubtedly affected his theological thinking and method. How? In at least a few ways. Firstly, since, as is known, theology in his years was taught in Latin, supported by the testimonies of both Eastern and Western fathers, on the one hand, and on the other, precisely as a Latin-language one, it was obviously not capable of possessing the authority of the ancient Russian “divine books”, so in assessing any patristic opinions in general, a certain critical distance arose, which is quite noticeable in the saint’s own creations. Only Scripture seemed completely divine and its internal self-consistency rather served as a touchstone for testing all other evidence, rather than the latter being the indisputable basis for its interpretation. One of the first among us, it seems, to look at Scripture through the fathers was St. Ignatius. Secondly, of course, the very incomparable energy, conciseness and accuracy of the Latin language was organically perceived by the saint, who was generally extremely gifted philologically, imposing strict and clear restrictions on his equally organically inherent inclination towards mystical experience and experience. (His famous “theology reasons” seems to sound no less laconic and succinct than the Latin theologia cogitate 6). In general, perhaps it was even the undoubted scholastic costs of the educational system of that time, in the case of St. Filaret played a certain positive role, teaching him to be wary of the “ignorance of interpreters” 7 and to form his own conclusion based on familiarity with the primary source, first of all. In general, wanting to use the documents of the era to reconstruct the life of the future saint in St. Petersburg, you experience the involuntary admiration that observation of the youth of a genius usually gives us: this insatiable “propensity for the most vivid perception of impressions,” this spontaneous ease in assimilating knowledge, forms and genres that were unfamiliar just yesterday, this daring readiness to take on tasks that are too heavy for respectable men, this ability from incompatible and alien to create his own, “deep and harmonious” - all this is read, recognized, sparkles in his hasty letters, Latin-concise academic works and poetically perfect sermons - his life is overcrowded, he has no time: he must simultaneously create a school, lay down the general principles of theological knowledge, determine the boundary separating extra-church mysticism from true Christianity, survey the diocese, translate Plato for Olenin, explain the reasons for our extraordinary successes in the war of the twelfth year and much, much more. And he, as Dostoevsky would later say about Pushkin in his famous speech, “comes at the very beginning of our correct self-awareness, which has barely begun and arose in our society after a whole century from Peter’s reform, and his appearance greatly contributes to illuminating our dark road with a new guiding light” - and, of course, even more than Pushkin, he “is a prophecy and an indication” 8, only this prophecy and indication have been read to a much lesser extent today us. He is the first: not because he wants to rise above the rest, but because he alone can bear the responsibility and hardships of the one going ahead. This can easily be confirmed by the example of the first significant theological work of St. Philaret’s “Notes on the Book of Genesis,” written precisely in the same years as the sermons scheduled for analysis. It is true that Western fathers are quoted more often in the Notes: in the first place is the blessed one. Augustine, followed by St. Jerome 9 and only then – St. John Chrysostom. But reading the “Notes” convinces us much more of the author’s desire to show his independence than of his supposed ability to obediently follow authorities 10 . If the blzh. Augustine is very interested in the question of what the “doubling” of the biblical narrative of creation means, and he resolves it in the sense that the latter was first created in potency - “in the idea” - and then in time 11, then the author of the Notes does not doubt at all (and here he is completely united with Chrysostom) in the historical reality of Shestostom, however, in turn, Chrysostom’s opinion about the display of the image of God in considers man's dominion over creation to be “doubtful” 12. Or again: agreeing with the latter in the interpretation of Adam’s naming of names to creatures, he makes an important addition that the name contains the essence of the thing being named 13: a thought that did not occupy Chrysostom and is completely alien to Augustine, for whom it is clear nomen note notamen 14, but for St. Philaret, extremely characteristic, because the mystery of the name always worried him. The last example is also important because it reveals his passion for Plato, which apparently arose in those same years. Plato was for St. Philaret is a living image of philosophy, in any case, this is exactly how he appears in the Charter of Theological Academies, compiled with the very active participation of the saint, 16, and it is more likely in this sense that he himself can be called a Platonist than in the sense of a direct discovery of “Platonic” texts, in contrast to the same clergyman. Augustine 17. And this is so because he does not superimpose theology on Plato, but on churchism - Plato: Plato as a premonition of light, Plato's dialectic as an ascent from the particular and accidental to the general and true, Plato's dialogue as a genre, used by him with Pushkin's ease on occasion 18 - this is what was first of all organically perceived and experienced by him; this is what went into his own synthesis. The last word, however, requires comment. Nowadays they often talk about “patristic” or “neopatristic” synthesis, meaning by this most often a certain “extract” from the fathers obtained by modern scientific theology. However, there is no doubt that in its direct and first meaning, “patristic synthesis” is not a synthesis from the fathers, but a synthesis accomplished by the fathers. It is in this sense that we will speak further about the synthesis perfected by St. Filaret. And it is clear that, like any patristic synthesis of this kind, 19 as its source material it included not only the patristic Scriptures, which, generally speaking, do not need synthesis, but also various sources of the era, including extra-church ones. The question may be asked what was the need for using such sources and making such a synthesis. And the answer to it is the following: having been sent into the world in order to remove it from the world, the earthly Church, in accordance with this dual purpose, can relate to the world in two ways, seeking either differentiation from it or its churching. The latter implies synthesis. That synthesis was then an objective need of the time is, first of all, confirmed by the worldwide scale of events in Russian history. How could it be possible to differentiate itself from the Western world, which flooded Russia with the invasion of twelve languages, and into which she herself then entered victoriously and gloriously like the Russian Emperor in Paris? But the internal circumstances of Russian life speak of the same thing: it was by that time that Peter’s violent spiritual and cultural reforms had become a tradition, which could only be snatched from life, as alien, by measures no less drastic than Peter’s, although it was hardly possible for anyone at all 20. So, the impossibility of differentiation required a synthesis that would churchize the possible. This synthesis for Russia was accomplished by St. Filaret. We will talk about its broader meaning below. It is also clear that the basis of church synthesis is the general church teaching and its presence in the sermons analyzed has never been questioned by anyone. But synthesis only deserves to be called synthesis when the external and alien organically dissolves in it with the original tradition without damaging it, and moreover: when, as a result of this dissolution, something new is born in the latter. We will now focus on the last two points. There is no doubt and it is well known that society at that time was very keen on Western mysticism, as much of Catholic origin (Thomas à Kempis, Fenelon) as of vaguely Protestant origin (Du Toit, Dousetan). The driving force in its spread were Russian Freemasons such as Lopukhin and Labzin. However, they also published the Fathers of the Church. For example, it was in Lopukhin’s printing house that the first Russian translation of selected homilies of St. Gregory Palamas. This was not an accident, but a principle. The Masons also sought synthesis. However, its essential difference was that it meant churchliness as one of the non-basic and external components. This difference, however, to this day is not obvious to everyone, which serves as a reason both for attempts to present Russian Freemasons as “more ecclesiastical than the church itself” 21 and for accusations of Freemasonry against St. Philareta. Neither one nor the other is correct, but we must remember that both of them used the same texts. And most of all, perhaps, everyone was worried then about the doctrine of “pure love,” about which we must now say a few words, presenting it in the presentation of such a significant author in this regard as the Archbishop of Cambrai, Francois Fenelon 22 . Fenelon was known in Russia already in the 18th century, 23 however St. Filaret became acquainted with his works, apparently already in St. Petersburg. In any case, during the seminary period (i.e., until 1809), traces of his acquaintance with Fenelon are not noticeable either in sermons or in letters 24. On the contrary, it can be argued that in the future St. Filaret maintained a friendly attitude towards the French archbishop throughout his life 25 . Be that as it may, the most consistent doctrine of pure love was set forth by Fenelon in his work “Explication des maximes des Saints,” written to prove that this teaching not only does not contradict the traditional Catholic one, but, on the contrary, even goes back to the tradition of the ancient Church. The essence of his theses boils down to the following. In a person’s relationship to God, several degrees can be distinguished: at the lowest level, a person strives to fulfill the commandments and live virtuously solely for the sake of the advantages that this gives him 26 . At a higher level is “mixed” love - melange - loving God as much for His sake as for the hope of salvation. Finally, the highest place in this hierarchy of love is occupied by pure, or “disinterested” love - amour desinteresse - which loves God for His own sake 27, and will love Him even if we assume that He wants to deprive her of eternal bliss 28. Achieving a state of pure love is preceded by a period of conscious practice of virtues aimed at destroying the self 29 , and one should especially beware of both sensual delight and the search for states of grace 30 . Sooner or later, this will be followed by the “last temptations” 31 - epreuves extremes - during which the soul experiences a state of abandonment (abandon), similar to that experienced by the Savior on the cross, crying out: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me.” In this state, the soul admits that it is unworthy of salvation, and thereby makes to God “an absolute sacrifice of its interests in eternity” 32. The last temptations that have passed, in turn, enter a state of pure love, or “passive contemplation.” Passive not in the sense of doing nothing, but in the sense that the soul no longer wants anything for itself, but only what God wants from it. And although everything done by the soul in this state of grace must coincide with the will of God, which is revealed to us by Scripture and the teaching of the Church 33, “pure contemplation” makes it unnecessary to worry about the fulfillment of individual virtues, for they are all only manifestations of pure love, and the one who has found it thereby fulfills them too 34. The same should be said about “passive contemplation” itself, which is the direct experience of communion with God, in relation to which all sensory or rational ideas about the Divine are lower levels, present in it not separately, but as a particular in the general 35. However, during the days of earthly life, a stable stay in this state is impossible 36 . Having added to this that Fenelon was a convinced Platonist 37, we can finally move on from the protracted introductory part to an analysis of what the saint himself did. We are talking about sermons, the first of which was delivered on the second day of Christmas 1814, and the second and third on Holy Friday, 1816 and 1817, respectively. At first glance, they are separated by too long periods of time to be permissible to combine them into a single cycle. However, the following speaks in favor of the latter assumption. Firstly, during this period the saint preached very little at all: partly due to the enormous workload at the academy and the commission of theological schools, partly due to the lack of a church assigned directly to him, where he could address the flock when he wanted or considered it necessary. Be that as it may, over the years, only five sermons were delivered, of which three are the ones we are considering, one for the occasion - upon the consecration of the church in the house of the prince. Razumovsky, and one (on Great Friday 1815), which stood apart in terms of theme, which may have had its own reasons. These reasons, secondly, can be seen in the fact that the sermon on the second day of Christmas, delivered in the presence of the empress, caused the latter’s displeasure, as a result of which, for example, the saint was no longer invited to preach in the house church of Prince A. N. Golitsyn, and which, perhaps in an indirect way, affected his preaching activity in general for some time. Thirdly, the amazing properties of the saint’s genius include a certain a priori unity of views, which, although they undoubtedly developed, did not contradict those expressed earlier, but rather absorbed and fulfilled them, for he “has always been an integral, integral, so to speak, organism, carrying all its rudiments at once, within itself, without perceiving them from the outside. Appearance only awakened in him what was already embedded in the depths of his soul” 38. Fourthly, and this is the main thing, the said sermons are so unified in theme and approach, so closely matched to each other in the interdependence of their content, that if we had not known that they were separated by years, one would think that they were spoken over the course of three days 39 . They precisely present a holistic and perfect theology of love. If you look back to establish how much this topic occupied him earlier, it is not difficult to see that in seminary sermons little is said about love and, so to speak, within the limits allowed for the moral application of dogma. Only the “Word on the Meat-Feast Week” 40 stands out, in which for the first time the main antinomy of Philaret’s “cross” eros is indicated: the antinomy of mercy and judgment. "God is love (1 John 4.8) in His being and mercy in His actions towards man; no matter how many different these actions are, they have one beginning - goodness, and one end - goodness... The same love that came not to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by It (John 3.17), will come to condemn those who did not accept the love of the truth, so that they can be saved ( 2 Thessalonians 2.10).” This passage remarkably anticipates, as will be seen, the main idea of the “Word on Great Friday” of 1816, thereby once again confirming that external influences did not so much shape the saint’s thought as contribute to the identification of intuitions already inherent in it. One could trace how in the sermons of 1809–1814. this inner experience of love 41 is gradually affirmed and refined, seeking the most accurate definition for itself. But now it is enough for us that in the Word on the second day of Christmas 1814 it finally finds its theologically precise expression, and, paradoxically, precisely because here we are not talking about pure love for God, not about Divine love itself, but about love that has nothing in common with them, just as in Plato’s “Symposium” the description of heavenly love is preceded by a description of vulgar love. And this vulgar love is given by the saint a theological name that penetrates into the essence of things: this is love for the world. She, too, can be “pure” in the sense of her open enmity towards God, but in her other guises she is no less dangerous, although, apparently, she is reconciled, or wants to be reconciled, “blended” with the love of God. She is ready to serve Him, as long as she is not prevented from serving herself; ready to be virtuous, if only her virtues were appreciated by the world; ready to go to churches, if only “the world would follow her.” And precisely because love is the soul of all virtues, no matter what virtues - “temperance, hard work, non-covetousness, meekness, charity” - or whatever else this love for the world is clothed in, these virtues “live and breathe the world, and with the world they will disappear. And just as two souls cannot animate a single body, so two loves - love for God and love for the world - cannot animate a single soul.” Where there is no love for God, there is enmity with Him. And when God comes into the world, this enmity can no longer hide behind the backs of visible virtues. This is confirmed by Herod, who apparently wanted to worship the Infant God, but in fact, sought to destroy Him. This enmity cannot help but come to the idea of ​​expelling God from the world, killing and crucifying the Son of God. But God laughs at human madness, and therefore all efforts with God at war with love for the world reveal themselves to be insignificant and accidental. For “who crucifies the Son of God? Warriors? “They are almost as much a tool of suffering as a cross and a nail.” Pilate? – He seems to have exhausted all efforts in defending the Righteous One and solemnly expressed his disagreement with the shedding of His blood... People? - How could he seek the death of the One Whom he tried to make king? High priests? Elders? Pharisees? – They admit that they have no power over anyone’s life... Traitor? He had already testified in the church that he had betrayed innocent blood (Matthew 27.4). Prince of Darkness? “He could not touch the life of Job: now he himself is condemned and expelled.” And if now, completely in accordance with Socratic dialectics, we raise “to a single idea that which is scattered everywhere” 42 in order to answer the question, how “what they did not want, could not, did not know, was accomplished before the whole world by those very people who did not want, could not, did not know”? - it turns out that behind all this random, vain, passionate, hostile, insignificant there is one only thing necessary - Love: “The Father’s love is crucifying. The love of the Son is crucified. The love of the Spirit is triumphant through the power of the cross. So God love the world!” 43 It is not earthly love that destroys heavenly love, but heavenly love overcomes the hostile love of the world, hiding in it in order to kill the enmity with its death “and spread the light and life of love.” So, there is nothing true except love, for “God is loving.” God is love in essence and the very being of love. All His attributes are vestments of love; all actions are expressions of love. In it dwells His omnipotence in all its fullness; it is His truth when the beloved exists; she is His wisdom when she establishes what exists or has existence, according to the law of truth; she is His goodness when she wisely distributes her true gifts; finally, she is His justice, when she measures the degrees and types of her gifts sent down or withheld by wisdom and goodness, for the sake of the highest good of all her creatures.” And the very cross of Jesus, seemingly “composed of the enmity of the Jews and the riot of the pagans,” is in fact only an earthly image of the heavenly Cross of love, which is composed “of the love of the Son of God for His all-holy Father, and love for sinned humanity... apparently dividing the one, but truly uniting the divided.” And therefore, the power of the cross of Jesus lies in the direct action of the divine Love flowing from it. With this triumphant power of the love of the cross, the Church of Christ is invincible, and one day this irresistible force will again, as in the days of the crucifixion, shake the earth and set the world on fire: not in order to destroy the enemies of God, but in order to quickly attract everyone and everything “to Him who was lifted up from the earth.” This true feast of Love, and again like Plato’s “Feast,” ends with a description of Love Incarnate. There is Socrates, here is Christ. This comparison, which involuntarily comes to mind, does not contain anything blasphemous at all, since it is intended to testify as much to the superiority of theology over philosophy 44 as, most importantly, to the Truth embodied over glimpses of truth obtained by the effort of the human mind: behold a man! And this is the Man who stands before the court of Pilate and the crowd. He was brought here not of his own free will, not in his clothes. He not only does not act, He is silent: “What is being shown to us here in Him? - the same thing that Jesus appears without will, without action, without words.” But this external detachment, this, so to speak, “resting in suffering,” is evidence not of weakness, but of the power of love, for “presents to us the image of a man who is extremely patient, courageous, meek, humble, invincible in love by any universal enmity, unshakable in peace with everyone, a passionless, pure, holy man, and - to combine these features into one that embraces them - a person completely devoted to God.” You should stop here and look around. Firstly, in the very sequence of presentation: earthly love, divine love, embodied love - one can hardly see a completely accidental similarity with the structure of the famous Platonic dialogue. Secondly, most likely, the external reason for the ascent from the random and multiple causes of the Cross to the one and true one, fulfilled according to all the rules of Socratic dialectics, was the phrase from Du Toit’s “Divine Philosophy”: “One should not think that Judas, the Jews or their Sanhedrin crucified our Savior on the cross; but His only infinite love for us betrayed itself to death” 45 - a phrase that has no further development in the original text. Thirdly, in the description of Love, embodied by infallible biblical features, Fenelon’s idea of ​​“pure love” is enshrined, which, according to the latter, “is completely reducible to the will, desiring only what God desires” 46 . Fourthly, the same “pure love” or that “exercise of love”, which, according to Fenelon, “remaining in its essential action and not being applied to any separate duty, becomes each separate virtue, in accordance with each individual case, for it is an object, as St. Thomas, who precisely defines all the virtues" 47 is transformed into the universal "principle of love", which is translated into completely different planes of existence, with its lower limit having love for the world, and its upper limit going back to the mysteries of the Trinity life, including the economy of salvation and eschatology, as a result of which a grandiose universe of love arises, not only not inferior in scale to Dante's 48, but also surpassing it insofar as theological contemplation is higher than philosophical and poetic. Fifthly, captured in synthesis, all this leads to a rethinking of the traditional hierarchy of the names of God in both Eastern and Western theology, and now it must establish whether the novelty is only formal and accidental or qualitative and conditioned by the entire previous train of thought, which, in fact, is the most important indicator of a true synthesis. Strictly speaking, if the idea of ​​​​the hierarchical subordination of the names of God was adopted by both the East and the West through Dionysius the Areopagite 49, then there are primarily two starting positions: either the Existing or the Good is primary. It is clear that both are easily confirmed by Scripture (I am who is and no one is good, like God), but it is also clear that even more traces of two great philosophical traditions are visible here - Aristotelian and Platonic, respectively - which in this case are rather supported by the texts of Scripture than derived from it. As is known, the author of the Areopagitik himself belonged to the latter, 50 to the first, such an author as significant for the West as Thomas Aquinas 51, but, by the way, also St. John of Damascus 52. However, if St. John, this slight flavor of school is almost indistinguishable in the general course of patristic thought, but in the West the idea of ​​​​the exclusively “intellectual” perfection of God leads to the relegation of rationally indefinable love to the background of ideas about the Divine. Thomas admits that “in God there is love,” but does not consider it appropriate to prove, in the same way as regarding goodness or thinking 53, that it is the essence of God, and even, obviously not by chance, in his biblical references the text God is love does not cite at all. If Thomas claims that deus vult se, then this is a purely intellectual will, which, calming down in itself, gives equally intellectual pleasure 54. God appears here precisely as the “God of the philosophers,” according to the famous saying of Pascal, but not the biblical God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the very possibility of the kenotic 55 descent of God into the world and the mystical ascent of the creature to Him 56 remains unclear, or, in other words, the possibility of meeting God in a personal mystical experience, the possibility of deification. Meanwhile, by moving Love to the top of the hierarchical ladder, we acquire theological advantages, which can be appreciated by remembering St. Simeon the New Theologian, who said that Love is the only “somewhat comprehensible” in God, and defined it as an essence, at the same time endowing it with the properties of hypostasis and communicability 57. And if we now return again to Philaret’s sermons, it may seem that it was precisely this direct experience of love by the Byzantine saints of the 11th century. Centuries later, it found its revelation and fulfillment in the theological synthesis of the Russian saint. And in a certain sense, this is indeed so, although not due to the saint’s familiarity with the hymn of St. Simeon, but due to the unity of the Spirit living in the Church, despite the fact that something external was needed in order for this experience to be expressed more deeply and universally. The essence of the synthesis is that, having defined love as the main one among the cataphatic names of God, thanks to the mysterious polysemy of the concept itself, which absorbs both a certain ontological quality in itself and an action or energy emanating from itself; both moral experience, obvious to everyone, and philosophical intelligence - St. Filaret organically revealed the indissoluble connection between Christian ideas about God, the moral purpose of man and the eschatological destinies of the world. In other words, through the mystery of love, the saint was able to express the mystery of the Trinity: “The Father’s love is crucifying. The love of the Son is crucified. The love of the Spirit triumphs through the power of the cross”; – and the secret of Divine energies: “God is love in essence and the very being of love. All His attributes are vestments of love; all actions are expressions of love”; - and the mystery of the Incarnation, for which the Father sent “His consubstantial Love” into the world; and the mystery of salvation and the Cross, “the deepest foundation and original internal composition” of which is composed of nothing else but “from the love of the Son of God for His all-holy Father, and love for humanity that has sinned”; and the mystery of holiness revealed in “perfect devotion to God”; and the mystery of the last day, when love will flare up with a “sevenfold flame” towards the “desired Bridegroom” 58. And, by the way, it is precisely the fact that in the Russian language, unlike the Greek 59, all shades of meaning are absorbed by one word - “love”, that makes the synthesis of St. Filareta is so convincing and universal. And if the latter is true, then it is also true that the Russian tradition had within itself a predominant reason for its implementation. What has been said seems to be enough to confirm that the theological insights of St. Philaret is fundamentally deeper and more significant than private work on overcoming the temptations of Western mysticism. Now it would be necessary to show that his “Russian synthesis” is also important for the West. Since the time of Dostoevsky’s Pushkin speech, the “worldwide responsiveness” of the Russian spirit has become not only a fact of Russian self-awareness, but has also found confirmation in the recognition of the high significance of Russian culture in the West, among others. However, is it possible that the genius of the people, who so deeply expressed the moral ideals of Christianity in the artistic and cultural field, turned out to be weak and fruitless in the field of Christian thought proper, in theology? Incredible, and yet this point of view on Russian theology prevails everywhere. Meanwhile, the latter’s receptivity to the West is not a consequence of its own lack of self-sufficiency, but, on the contrary, indirect evidence that a thousand years ago it was not the division of the Churches that took place, but rather the separation of the Western Church from the Universal Church, because the West is open to the Russian view insofar as we look at it from the point of view of the whole, which in a hidden form already contains within itself both a contemplated, albeit isolated, and distant part. As for St. Philaret, then, first of all, it was he who did the same work in theology, which was done in its own way in Russian literature, and in Russian music, and in Russian culture in general; and his thought contained both the “idea of ​​brotherly love” and the sobriety of his view, “forgiving the hostile, distinguishing and excusing the dissimilar, removing contradictions” 60. In his person the Russian Church acquired a saint of universal significance. In his synthesis, the context of Greco-Latin polarity served the Orthodox revelation of truth. In his works, the path of Russian theology was indisputably defined as “the path of the fathers.” And if the West wanted, then, having peered at what the saint had done, he could see himself in this “mirror” as the Holy Catholic Church is ready to recognize and accept him. “The Academy of Constantinople had “scholarii” (rectors) who were mostly graduates of Padua. Of these directors, by far the most important was Theophilos Corydaleus, appointed in 1624 by Cyril Lucaris, a native of Venetian Crete, and holding this position until 1641. Having studied philosophy and medicine in Padua, where Caesar Cremonini was among his teachers, Corydaleus became the leading representative of Western philosophy and culture in the Greek East and, probably, did more than anyone else to restore intellectual ties between the two parts of Europe severed for centuries. A fanatical champion of neo-Aristotelianism, he reorganized the Patriarchal Academy on the model of the University of Padua and literally imposed a new philosophy as the basis of higher education, making it truly secular and - under the patronage of Patriarch Cyril Loukaris - freeing it from connection with theology" (F. Sherard. The Greek East and the Latin West. M., 2006. pp. 258-259). And further: In the 17th and 18th centuries. Other centers of Greek education were established in Chios, Athos, Epirus, Macedonia, Patmos - in almost every city of the Greek lands within and outside the Ottoman Empire. All of them answered the Koredalius model and all served as a means of transmitting Western thought and culture to the Greek East. (Ibid. P. 259) Archpriest G. Florovsky, in fact, agrees with this, noting about the Likhuds that they taught Greek, and then rhetoric and philosophy “in the then usual scholastic type” (G. Florovsky, Archpriest of the Ways of Russian Theology. Paris, 1937. Riga, 1991 R. P. 81). It can be argued that pre-Theophanic Russian theology, although it was already taught in Latin, did not know this boundary. However, it did not exist in this form for very long, and was, in fact, not Moscow, but Kyiv, and it gave birth to Feofan. In Protestantism, this same facet arose in a similar, but opposite direction: through translation, and therefore the separation of Scripture from the general field of Latin-language Tradition. However, in Russia this was not associated with anti-hierarchical protest and therefore, obviously, did not have such negative consequences. See, for example, Metropolitan Plato in his autobiography: “At the request of the pyitic teacher, to have Peter in his class, he bypassed the Greek class, and through this he lost his knowledge of the Greek language. But having reached philosophy and seeing that, according to many Greek words encountered, knowledge of this language is necessary... I ardently began to fulfill this desire...” (Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. “From the depths I called to You, Lord.” Works of the Right Reverend Plato, Metropolitan of Moscow. M., 1996. P. 15.) Even a quick glance at the “Painting of Cell Books” by St. provides interesting data. Demetrius of Rostov. Besides several Greco-Slavic-Latin lexicons, he had the Greek Euchologion, the Bible in Greek and Latin and German, the Anthos Chronologikos, but the rest seems to be only in Latin, Polish or Slavic. In particular, in Latin - St. John of Damascus and St. Gregory the Theologian. (See: Yaroslavl Provincial Gazette. 1855. No. 21–25). It is also worth recalling that in the first edition of the Catechism, St. Philaret Holy Scripture was quoted in Russian. As an aside, perhaps it would be worth noting that Latin has served not only St. Filaret, but also Russian literature in general. In any case, it is known that when Merimee wanted to translate Pushkin (I think “Monument”), he considered that the French language was not laconic and succinct enough for this, and translated it into Latin. Here, by the way, is another interesting testimony about the Latin rhetoric of Burgius, according to which the saint studied: “Burgius’s task was to indicate the forms along which thought moves, in its expression obeying the laws of logic, on the one hand, and the laws of creativity, on the other, and to accustom one to the full possession of these forms... The merit of this method: it gives correctness to word expression, cultivates resourcefulness and protects against idle talk. Every word used must have a reason why it was used; but not a single thought should be difficult to find expression” (Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From the Experience. M., 1886. T. 1. P. 260–261). This is what is said in the draft Charter of Orthodox Theological Academies, compiled with the direct participation of St. Philareta. A more extensive quotation from it would be appropriate to give below. Dostoevsky F. M. Complete Works. L., 1984. T. 26. P. 137. Blzh. Jerome, however, speaks more often on philological-historical issues than on theological ones. Archpriest G. Florovsky points out the lack of independence of the Notes, willingly excusing it, however, by the circumstances of the time and the lack of Orthodox exegetical literature proper: “The first books of Philaret: “The Outline of Church Biblical History” and “Notes on the Book of Genesis” were compiled according to Buddeus, and the scientific apparatus was taken from Buddeus. This was completely inevitable during urgent and hasty work” (Florovsky. Cited op. p. 169). The device was probably actually borrowed from Buddey, who has now become a bibliographic rarity, but did Florovsky compare Buddey and Filaret? It seems not. “...it cannot be said that on the sixth day only man was created, and woman in subsequent times, since it is very clearly said about the sixth day: create them husband and wife and bless them, etc.; and this is said about both of them. Hence, both of them were created differently then and differently now: then in the possibility put into the world by the word of God, as if in a seed, even then, when God at once created everything from which he rested on the seventh day and from which, in the order of centuries, everything arises at its own time; and now in an action befitting the time, in the action that God has been performing hitherto, when in due time Adam had to come from the dust of the ground, and the wife from the rib of her husband” (Blessed Augustine. Works. K., 1907 R. T. 2. P. 40–41). “God is the ruler of everything and man is made the ruler of the visible world. This line is used to describe the image of God by Chrysostom and Theodoret, who take the words of God’s advice about the dominion of man as an explanation of the image of God, which, however, is doubtful” (St. Philaret (Drozdov). Notes on the book of Genesis. St. Petersburg, 1816. P. 22). “The intention of viewing and naming animals is explained by St. Chrysostom, when he says that God did this to show us the wisdom of Adam, and as a sign of his dominion. In order to imagine the naming of names as an act of wisdom, it must be assumed that Adam previously had knowledge of the general properties and laws of creatures, and, applying to this general knowledge what he found through experience or close examination in the special types of creatures, he gave them names depicting their nature. Such names are still preserved mainly in the Hebrew language” (St. Philaret. Cited op. p. 47). By the way, St. When translating the Bible, Filaret attached such importance to the Hebrew text that he is sometimes reproached for heresy. Blzh. Augustine. Quote Op. P. 114. By the way, the very moment of naming the names of the blessed. Augustine leaves without interpretation at all. A parallel passage in the Outline of Church Biblical History gives a direct reference to Cratylus. “Among the ancients, Plato is the first pillar of true philosophy. In his writings and in the writings of his best followers, a professor must look for a thorough philosophical teaching...” (Draft Charter of Theological Academies. St. Petersburg, 1823. Part 1. P. 54). In general, a sensible and informative article by V.K. Shokhin was written on this topic (St. Philaret in the history of Russian philosophical thought // Alpha and Omega. M., 1996. No. 04 (11), pp. 211–230). See: at blzh. Augustine, for example: “Is it possible that there is another thing that is similar and another that is likeness, just as there is another that is pure and another that is purity... But purity is not pure from union with something: on the contrary, from communication with it everything that is pure is made pure... Therefore, likeness in the proper sense is called only the Likeness of God, according to which everything was created: because It is similar not from communication with some kind of likeness, but is itself the original Likeness, from communication with which it becomes similar everything that God created through Him” (B. false Augustine. Cited works. T. 1. P. 137). From this point of view, it is worth reading, for example, “The Conversation of the Confident with the Examining One.” Didn't pass St. Filaret and past Plato’s doctrine of eros. There is also an article on this topic: Gosudarev A. A. Plato’s teaching on Eros and the teaching on the love of the cross of St. Philaret (Drozdov), Metropolitan of Moscow // Materials and research on the history of Platonism. Interuniversity collection / R. V. Svetlov, A. V. Tsyba, eds. St. Petersburg, 2000. Issue. 2. The article contains a number of correct observations, but misses a lot (from a theological point of view). For example, Cappadocia. It is also known that a kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. Peter began, but weren’t it the Slavophiles, on their part, who completed the division that accelerated the fall of the kingdom? See, for example, the works of such an apologist of Russian Freemasonry as N. G. Gavryushin, who, for reasons incomprehensible to me, at one time even held the post of editor-in-chief of the Theological Messenger (!). At the same time, it is not without interest to note his obvious hostility towards Saint Philaret - in a certain sense, however, very “flattering” for the latter. I do not utter here the easily disputed name of “quietism,” a doctrine to which Fenelon belongs, of course, beyond doubt. Western researchers often equate quietism and hesychasm. On the part of the eastern, a sharply negative attitude prevails. The difficulty, however, lies in the fact that quietism is an extremely heterogeneous phenomenon and, if desired, one can find in it a sufficient number of provisions confirming both one and the other point of view. At the same time, quietism confuses Catholics because at certain points it goes beyond the scope of Catholic doctrine, and Orthodox Christians because it largely refers to it. Among the latest notable publications on this topic, the following article should be mentioned: Katasonov V.N. Catholic quietism and Orthodox hesychasm // Christian Thought. 2006. No. 3. However, its scientific value is reduced by the fact that the article 1) was written based on several online “translations from translations”; 2) Such important sources as “Explanation of the maxims of the saints on the inner life” by Fenelon, Speransky’s letters to Zeller and comments to them by St. Theophan the Recluse, not taken into account at all; 3) the goal stated at the beginning of the article – “to prove the incompatibility of quietism and hesychasm” – replaces the conclusions. The question, therefore, remains open. But as an example, it is not without interest to mention that J. Arndt was at one time accused of “synergy” by Lutheran theologians. Be that as it may, the author has not yet encountered any works that examine the phenomenon in all its complexity and ambiguity. However, for further presentation this, in fact, does not matter, since we are not talking about an assessment of the ascetic practice of quietism, but about a presentation of the teaching made by Fenelon. Metropolitan Plato even used in the Word for the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary (1787) the text of one of Fenelon’s sermons: “Selected from the word spoken by Mr. Fenelon on the day of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary” (Plato (Levshin), Metropolitan. Instructive Words. M., 1792. T. 13. P. 310). The first mention of Fenelon is found in a letter to his relatives dated November 28, 1811. The saint reports that Prince. A. N. Golitsyn gave him “the spiritual works of Fenelon in French.” Suffice it to say that the text of the so-called “daily prayer of Met. Philaret" is a direct translation from Fenelon. “One can love God not for His sake, but for the sake of certain benefits received from Him, which depend on His power, and which one hopes to one day receive from Him. This is the love of the old Jew. Keeping the law in order to be rewarded with the dew of heaven and the fat of the earth. This is not chaste or filial love, but purely slavish” (Oeuvres de Fenelon. P., 1857. T. 2. P. 4). “There are three different degrees or three ordinary states of the righteous on earth. The first love God primarily because they are righteous; but this love, although sincere and dominant in them (principal et dominant), is not yet free from fear for its own interests. Others are even more in love, but this love, although sincere and predominant in them, is still mixed with hope for one’s own interest, precisely as one’s own... These two types of love... in my definitions I call interested love. The third, incomparably more perfect than the first two kinds of righteous, have a love that is completely (pleinement) disinterested, which is called pure in order to make it clear that it is not mixed with any other motive than the desire to love the only supreme beauty of the Divine in itself and for its own sake” (Ibid. P. 7). Wed. opinion about pure love of St. Theophan the Recluse: “Some people love God because they have a lot of good from Him; another loves God because he expects some good from Him; another loves God because he expects all good from Him; another loves God because He is God. Love is revealed by action in such a way that another makes only a part for God, leaving a part for himself; another does everything for God; and another sacrifices himself and everything to God unconditionally. Loving God as God, with complete self-sacrifice, without any pretenses, is pure love. Climacus says about himself that even if God sent him to hell, he will also invariably love Him there with all his soul” (Letters about spiritual life. M., 1998. pp. 46–47). “God cannot fail to reward the faithful soul; but she can love Him with such disinterest that this view of the God who brings bliss will in no way increase her love, with which she loves Him for His own sake, without thinking about herself, and with which she would love Him no less, even if she had never received bliss” (Oeuvres de Fenelon... P. 8). “Usually in a state of purer love, hope is far from disappearing, far from being accomplished, and retains its difference from love. 1. The skill is firmly infused into the soul and it conforms to those virtues that must be fulfilled. 2. Exercise in a given virtue does not always merge with love - that’s right. This distinction or detailed designation of virtues is not a distinction of their purposes. All virtues must have one goal, although they are truly different from one another. St. Augustine assures that love realizes in itself all the virtues. Saint Thomas says that love is the form and principle of all virtues” (Ibid. P. 9). “Thus, when some holy mystics, in holy dispassion, accepted inspired desires and rejected all others, one must be on every possible guard against thinking that they wanted to reject those desires and acts that Scripture enjoins upon us, and accepted only those that were supernaturally inspired. This would be a blasphemy against Scripture and at the same time exalting frenzied inspiration over it. Desires and other acts of inspiration, of which the holy mystics spoke, are those which the law prescribes, or those which are encouraged by reasoning, and which arise in the dispassionate or disinterested soul, always ready to receive the inspiration of grace without any selfish zeal of love to receive grace being mixed in with it” (Ibid. P. 13). “These extreme trials or abandonment that must be passed are temptations by which a jealous God wishes to purify love, leaving it no means, no hope for its own interest in eternity. These tests were described by many saints as a kind of terrible purgatory that could deliver souls who endure it to the end from otherworldly purgatory.” (Ibid. P. 14.) Although, of course, “The soul that in these extreme trials leaves everything to God is never abandoned by Him” (Ibid. P. 15). “...Then the soul is separated from itself, it dies on the cross, crying out with Jesus Christ: God, my God, why have you forsaken me? And in this involuntary despair she makes an absolute sacrifice of her own interests in eternity” (Ibid. P. 16). “The will of God is our only rule, and love is entirely reduced to the will, which wills only what God wills, and makes it willing... There is a positive and written will, which provides for good and forbids evil... There is a will of God, which appears in us through the inspiration or attraction of grace, which is found in all the righteous. This will must always be assumed in full agreement with the written will...” (Ibid. P. 19). “This very exercise of love, which is called contemplation or silence, remaining in its essential action, not being applied to any separate duty, becomes each separate virtue, in accordance with each individual case, for it is an object, as St. Thomas, who precisely defines all the virtues” (Ibid. P. 27). “Pure and direct contemplation is negative in the sense that it does not voluntarily engage in any sensory image, in any definite idea, as St. Dionysius; in other words, no limited and isolated idea of ​​​​the Divine: but it rises above everything sensible and discernible, in other words, accessible and finite, to stop only at the intellectual and abstract idea of ​​​​being, which has no limits and limitations” (Ibid. P. 28). “...In the end, this means saying the same thing as Cassian, who says in the first interview, that pure contemplation is never continuous in this life” (Ibid. P. 27). See, for example, his Dialogues des morts. But between his Platonism and the Platonism of St. Filaret cannot be equated, just like between the latter’s platonism and the platonism of the blessed one. Augustine. Quote from the same “Pushkin speech” by Dostoevsky // F. M. Dostoevsky Complete Works. L., 1984. T. 26. P. 145. To be fair, it should be noted that the saint did not include the last of them (the Sermon on Great Friday 1817) in his later lifetime collections of works. Although, given his extreme severity towards his own creations, there could be other reasons for this, which do not contradict the integrity of the plan assumed here. But in the same meetings the Word on the second day of Christmas and the Word on Great Friday of 1816 were delivered one after the other. Be that as it may, below these three sermons will be considered as a single opus. Unfortunately, the exact year of its pronunciation has not yet been established and ranges between 1806–1809. Here's a short "love story": 1. 1810 Word on the day of the Annunciation: “The truth, listeners, should not be terrible to lovers of the truth: since perfect love casts out fear (1 John 4.8). Let us listen to love; then her voice, menacing to the ear, will be sweet to our hearts” - “Hear how a single verb frightens and encourages, amazes and strengthens; or, better yet, first it encourages and strengthens, then it frightens and amazes. My kingdom is my strengthening hope! Not being of this world is a striking fear. What insightful concern for our weakness!...” (1. 136). 2. 1811 Word on the day of Pentecost: “The Father appeared with promises of love and mercy and led the sinner, terrified by almighty justice, to the intercession of the Son.” – “As the light from the Sun of Truth multiplies in the mind, the heart warms and ignites. Divine love drives out self-love from him, burns up the thorns of carnal desires in him, cleanses him; abolishes it and mutually attracts new light into the soul.” 3. 1811 Word on the 4th week after Pentecost: “Having given existence to nothingness, He gave existence a law according to which it would act for good: acting according to this law is life. The noblest creatures received freedom, which is the ability to fulfill the law, in the consciousness of its perfection, out of love for the Lawgiver.” 4. 1811 Word on the consecration in the Kazan Cathedral...: “we must erect within ourselves both an external altar in order to sacrifice sensuality to God, and an internal altar in order to offer Him a broken spirit (Ps 50.19); perform this burnt offering of the old man so that only the heavenly fire of pure, Divine love remains in the soul and then leave it to God Himself to speak His new covenant in us, to make us conformed to the image of His Son, the habitation of His Spirit, His churches (Rom 8.29; 1 Cor 3.16; 2 Cor 6.16).” (1.150). 5. 1811 Word at the funeral service... Stroganova: But filled with a living feeling of God’s goodness and actively affirmed in his love, can an ascetic of faith and virtue remain at enmity with himself? Having made peace with You, God of the heart, he says, I make peace with myself in Your presence; amid constant vigilance in the performance of my duties, I will rest calmly in your providence; devotion to your guidance is my safety. In peace together I will sleep and rest, for you, Lord, have filled me with hope (Ps 4.9). 6. 1811 Word for the Nativity of Christ: He does not recognize any love worthy of Himself that is not based on love for Him; every pleasure in which we seek ourselves partially, every thought inclined towards creatures, every distraction is a distance from Him 7. 1812 Word on Great Friday: “Jesus, but also to revere her. In His death, listeners, He loves man. For God loved the world, for He also gave His only begotten Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but may have eternal life (John 3.16). Of course, the Wise One wrote about this love: strong as the death of love, cruel as hell jealousy (Song 8.6). since life seemed to man a dubious supporter of God’s love: this love betroths him to itself with death. Man has fallen away from the love of God; jealousy, like a cruel hell, opened hell in his fall: but love, like a strong death, dies for him, and quenches jealousy, closes hell, ignites his extinguished love, gives him new life. The suffering Intercessor of God and men reconciles the zeal that rests in the saints with all-encompassing love, justice with mercy, death with life, man with God. The death of Jesus is the focus of created existence and the completion of redemption announced from Him (John 19.30) completes the completion of creation (Gen. 2.2), and prepares for the completion of all renewal (Rev. 21.6). (1. 172–173). 8. 1812 Word for the consecration of the church... in Golitsyn’s house: “He will appear himself and visit (Blessed Macarius of Egypt. Conversation 33 // Spiritual conversations, message and words. Holy Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, 1904. P. 247), as one of those visited by His grace explains, he will visit the soul through all of it. outcomes, paths and feelings. He will come through a closed door (John 20.9) and will appear in its inner foundation; will comprehend and approach on the path (Lk 24.15) of external activity; will precede in grief (Matthew 28.16) the thought of God; will shine in the spirit with its unapproachable light; will kindle in the heart of the one who surpasses the understanding with his love (Eph 3.19). A person will not so much feel his life and existence as the presence and action of his beloved Savior. No one lives, but Christ lives in me (Gal. 2.20). 9. 1812 Discourse on the Lord's Prayer: “Finally, there is a certain kind of evil in damaged nature, which is not so much in the internal essence of things as in opinion, in the action of only an external and transitory sensation. It is not always the scourge of retributive Justice; but the rod of love often strikes, a bitter medicine and, so to speak, an unripe good.” 10. 1813 Word on Great Friday: “Thus the cross of wrath is transformed into the cross of love; the cross that blocked paradise becomes a ladder to heaven; the cross, born from the terrible tree of the knowledge of good and evil, through the irrigation of Divine blood, is reborn into the tree of life.” “Just as the visible, material cross is the sovereign sign of the visible kingdom of Christ, so the mysterious cross is the seal and distinction of the true and chosen servants of the invisible kingdom of God. He is the precious pledge of God’s love, the Father’s rod, not so much punishing and crushing as shepherding and comforting.” 11. 1814 Word on the day of the descent of the Holy Spirit: “There was a time when the apostles, especially the holy temples of the Holy Spirit, did not feel the One living in them. They already possessed the gift of miracles, but did not yet understand the beginning and did not notice the direction of the force acting in them. The spirit of love appeared in them as the spirit of wrath, and those called to the ministry of salvation were ready to bring down the fire of consumption from heaven.” 12. 1814 Conversation from Psalm 83 after the consecration of the church... in the house... Kochubey: “It is not slavish fear that drives me to Your service, Lord, but more than Your love, casting out my fear, draws me to follow You. It is not Thy treasures and gifts that my desires crave; I desire and love Thy villages, Thy closeness, and Thy fellowship. I don’t think of approaching You with my lips alone, - Your love will contain all of me and my whole being delights in the living God” - “In order to teach us more about this approach to God that takes place in pure love, the Psalmist who guides this conversation allows us to notice especially two states of lovers of the house of God.” 13. 1814 Word on the Introduction: “God is our Lord by right of redemption. “It happens that we, wanting to retain our beloved property, to which our right is being disputed, agree to reacquire it by purchase - and sacrifice other property to unfair claims in order to ensure the possession of what we love. Thus, the infinite love of God marvelously strengthens its eternal right over us, in the unparalleled work of our redemption... O incomprehensible dominion of love, which, in order to prevail over us, betrays itself to us; and acquires us in order to bestow everything on us!” (1.209) – If love for a creature can be sacrificed to another love for a creature: then is it possible to make a lesser sacrifice for the love of God, like all types of legitimate love for oneself and others? And can the Divine Bridegroom offer lesser demands to those desiring betrothal to Him, like these: whoever wants to come after Me, let him deny himself (Matthew 16.24). He who loves his father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me: and he who loves his son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me (Matthew 10:37). There should be no barrier, no mediation, no shadow should fall between Him and the soul. My brother is mine, and I am to Him (Song 2.16), she sings to Him in the Song of Songs.” Plato. Phaedrus // Works: In 3 vols. M., 1970. T. 2. P. 205. Word on Great Friday. 1816 The saint definitely distinguished one from the other and called philosophy “cold” (for lack of love? - P. Kh.) Du Toit M. Divine Philosophy. M., 1818. Part 2. P. 179. The principle of love is also carried out by Dante quite consistently: from hell, which “was created by the first Love,” to the contemplation of this Love itself, “which moves the sun and luminaries.” A more detailed comparison could be the subject of a separate interesting study. “Why, you ask, do we begin affirmations about the divine from the primary, and divine withdrawals from the latter? Because, making a statement about the All-Superior One, it is appropriate to begin a hypothetical cataphase with something more related. When taking away from that which is higher than any taking away, begin to take away from that which is more distant. Is not God more life and goodness than air and stone? And is He not more likely to be hungover and not angry than to be unable to be expressed in words or thought?” (Dionysius the Areopagite. On the divine names. St. Petersburg, 1994. pp. 357–359). “Scholia: Air - since in the Kingdoms it is said about a “still breath” (1 Kings 19.12); “a stone,” said the prophet (Ps. 117.22). More than these, such statements and expressions as “life” and “goodness” are suitable for God. Likewise, when the opposite is taken away, such phenomena as hangover and anger are more distant from God and alien to Him; and the fact that He is inexpressible in words and unthinkable is more fitting and closer to God, because He is above all mind and word” (Ibid. p. 359). “... let us now move on in our speech to the very name of goodness that theologians decisively distinguish from all others applied to super-divine divinity, calling Goodness, as it seems to me, the Divine Being itself, bearing in mind that for Good to exist - as for goodness in essence - means to spread goodness into all things” (Ibid. p. 89). “Every thing exists because it has being. This means that not a single thing, whose essence is not being, exists due to its essence, but due to participation in something else, namely, in being itself. But what exists through participation in something cannot be the first being: for that which it participates in order to be is prior to it. But God is the first being, and there is nothing higher than him. Therefore, the essence of God is His being. Moses was taught this highest truth from the Lord (Exodus 3.13–14)... The Lord answered: “I am who I am. So say to the children of Israel: Jehovah has sent me to you,” thereby indicating that his proper name is “Jehovah.” But every name is established to designate the nature or essence of some thing. It turns out that divine being itself is its essence, or nature” (Thomas Aquinas. Summa against the pagans. M., 2004. Book 1. P. 131). And further: ““The good is that to which everything tends, by successful definition,” - with these words the philosopher begins ethics. But everything strives to actually be, in its own way; this is clear from the fact that everything is by its nature being. This means that the essence of good is actual being.... But God is an actual being, and not a potential one, as has been proven. Therefore, he is truly good” (Ibid. p. 179). “Therefore, it seems that of all the names attributed to God, the most important is He, just as He Himself, answering Moses on the mountain, said: Thus the son of Israel said: He has sent me. For, having combined everything in Himself, He has existence, as if some sea of ​​essence - boundless and unlimited. And as Saint Dionysius says, the most important name of God is good. For in relation to God it is impossible to say first about being and then about the fact that He is good” (St. John of Damascus. An accurate statement of the Orthodox faith. M., 1994 R. S. 27–28) From the fact that God thinks, it follows that thinking is his essence. In fact: thinking is an act of the thinker, contained in itself, and not transferring to something else, external, as, for example, the act of heating transfers to what is being heated. After all, the thinkable does not suffer anything because it is thought, but the thinker thereby becomes the thinker. But everything in God is the divine essence. This means that to think is the divine essence, and the existence of God, and God himself, since God is identical with his essence and his being (Thomas Aquinas, op. cit. p. 217). Intellegere est ei [dei] delectabilissimum Thinking for God is the greatest pleasure (Thomas Aquinas, op. cit. p. 332). For “everyone, other things being equal, loves himself more than anything else: evidence of this is that everyone by nature loves more what is closer to him. Therefore, God in his bliss, which is Himself, rejoices more than others in their bliss, which is not identical with themselves” (Thomas Aquinas. Cited op. p. 435) “...One could say that the emphasis in some exclusive manner on the Divine and indivisible essence of God, the concept of God as Summum ens, leads to the concept of the real absence of God in our world...” (Sherard. Op.cit. p. 127). “Love (pothon) for the Savior,” says St. Simeon, precisely “is the action of the Spirit, or rather His essential presence, visible within me as light... For love (Agape) is not a name, but a Divine essence, communicable and incomprehensible, and completely Divine. What is communicated is comprehensible, and what is higher than it is in no way. That is why I told you that that love (pothon) is comprehensible and that it is hypostatic, as communicable and comprehensible. For everything that is comprehensible and communicable is, of course, an essence, hypostatically communicable and in the same way comprehensible... The Divine and uncreated nature is pre-essential, since it surpasses the essence of everything created; being called essential, it nevertheless has essence and hypostasis...” (St. Simeon the New Theologian. Creations. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1993. Vol. 3. P. 220). Finally, this same approach allows us to look at the problem of the relationship between the mystical practices of the East and West from a slightly different angle. In the Byzantine tradition, deification was understood as communion with the uncreated light. Without knowing or accepting this teaching, Western mysticism obviously intuitively followed the path of experiencing love as a mediator of deification. I say “intuitively” because intellectual ideas about God are noticeable in the same, for example, Fenelon: “Sovereign Being is aware of Itself and loves Itself. His love for Himself is not a blind movement, but an enlightened self-admiration based on the contemplation of His perfection. It loves all its creations not equally, but depending on how similar they are to Him. The perfection of God is the initial rule of His love for Himself and for all other beings. So, the rule of the most perfect finite will is the rule of the infinite will. To love God for His own sake and all things for Him is, therefore, the universal law of every rational creation. God does not act here as an omnipotent lawgiver who could give another law for his creation. This is a necessary, unchangeable, eternal law, inherent in His nature, and from which He would not allow either Himself or any other rational being to evade” (Oeuvres de Fenelon... P. 31). But at the same time: “God is the only one who can extract us from ourselves, appearing to us infinitely worthy of love and imprinting us with His love. Everything that is romantic, unrighteous, and impossible in relation to creation is real, righteous, and due in relation to sovereign Being” (Ibid. P. 32). And further: “The idea of ​​pure love is a divine imprint given to man from his creation. Its traces can be found even among the pagans... Good, says Plato, does not consist in any separate thing either on earth or in heaven. But good exists for itself, being always one in itself. Love for this unchanging good deifies a person, it transports him, it delights him to that same thing. A person cannot be happy in himself; and what he has most divine in himself is to come out of himself for the sake of love” (Ibid. P. 33). And yet, all the many forms of Western ecclesiastical and extra-church mysticism, it seems, can be reduced to this thesis about the mediation of love, which allows us to bridge the gap between the self-closed intellectual perfection of the Divine essence, cognizable only by reason and only by analogy, and the human heart as the true focus of life. And, without going into discussions now about the delights and dangers that lie in wait on this path, and about how much and which of the Western ascetics and mystics succeeded or failed to advance along it, we must still admit that this path itself does not contain anything contrary to the tradition of the Church, if only because the St. Simeon the New Theologian directly confirms that divine love reveals itself in him as light, and St. John Cassian writes about it this way: “Then the prayer of our Savior will be completely fulfilled in us, with which He prayed to the Father for His disciples, saying: The love that You loved Me be in them, and they in Us; that they may all be one: as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You, so may they also be one in Us (John 17.26), when that perfect love with which He loved us (1 John 4.19) passes into the disposition of our hearts, upon the fulfillment of this Lord’s prayer, which, as we are sure, cannot remain in vain. This will be when every love, every desire, every exercise, every effort, every thought of ours, everything that we see, what we say, what we hope, there will be God, and that unity that now exists between the Father and the Son and the Son with the Father will pass into our feelings and minds, that is, so that, just as He loves us with sincere, pure and indestructible love, so we cleave to Him with an everlasting and inseparable love, uniting with Him in this way, so that everything we hope for, think about, whatever we say, is God...” (St. John Cassian. Works. Trinity-Sergius Lavra, 1993. P. 354) Although archim. Cyprian (Kern), for example, (and he is not alone) believes that “Agape is completely independent of Eros, since these are two completely independent concepts” (Cyprian (Kern), Archimandrite Orthodox Pastoral Ministry. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 343), however, the Areopagite writes: “And let no one think that we, contrary to the Sayings, honor the name Love. Indeed, in fact, it seems to me unreasonable and stupid to pay attention to the letter, and not to the meaning of speech... After all, some of our clergy even consider the name Love (Eros) more divine than the name Affection (Agape). After all, the divine Ignatius writes: “My love has been crucified.” Scholium: Note that “Affection” means “Love” and that the more divine name is Love” (Dionysius the Areopagite, op. cit. p. 123). Dostoevsky. Quote Op. T. 26. P. 131.