Глава 3. Апостольство, благотворительность и путь к святости

As Fr. believed. John, an ideal priest, in addition to fulfilling his direct duties related to the liturgy, must give instructions to parishioners, as well as engage in charity and help the poor. Active love was only one aspect of priestly social activity. No less important was the apostolic mission - the instructions of the flock - understood in the broadest sense: this is education, and preaching, and an attempt to eliminate the injustices and ills of society. Father John was determined to reorganize the reality around him in accordance with the Orthodox ideal, and his early sermons anticipate the political convictions to which he came in the last ten years of his life. The awareness of the discrepancy between his social status and the position that he, as a priest, should have occupied, made his criticism even more acute. A somewhat literal approach to Scripture, which distinguished the asceticism of Fr. John, extended to his interpretation of the social structure. His idea of ​​an ideal world order was expressed not in the idealization of imperial Russia, but in an attempt to correlate the country with his own ideal of a Christian society. Loving your neighbor just as the Lord loved us is the basis of a pastor’s worldview. Father took literally the most uncompromising lines of the Gospel. For example, “and whoever wants to sue you and take your shirt, give him your outer garment too” (Matthew 5:40). Or: “Jesus said to him: if you want to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to the poor; and you will have treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me” (Matthew 19:21). He was completely imbued with the spirit of altruism that permeates the Gospel text. In 1861 Fr. John described the apostolic era in his diary: “Not a single word from them. that it’s their own to be, but by the way everything is common to them. This is the character of the Christian life! Unity in everything! These are the words that serve for our souls in the darkness of the passions of covetousness, love of money, lack of generalization, and stinginess!” 232 The pastor’s conviction that the community and unity of people is a good thing, and any individuality, “selfhood” is suspicious, has both private and public preconditions. From a social point of view, narrowing the gap between rich and poor was one of the main ways to overcome class inequality. For this, the haves must engage in charity and share with the have-nots - the Christian social doctrine of Fr. John. He strove to realize his plan in private life, feeling the need to alleviate the plight of the disadvantaged whom he met on the street, and to help his neighbor by showing simple human compassion. He considered it unforgivable for himself not to give alms to the poor with an outstretched hand. Father John believed in principle that the Gospel injunction to give everything to one's neighbor should be taken literally, but he discovered that this was not easy to implement in practice. If he could give part of his fortune to the poor and be satisfied with this and would not consider it a sin to leave something for himself, perhaps he would not experience such internal torment. However, he thought that everything he owned should belong to the poor: “Sea water passed through a pipe into my house, isn’t it already sea water just because it was let into my house?.. Just as sea water is the common property of everyone: so isn’t my money the common property of all the poor? And what kind of blindness is it that I look at them as exclusively my property? 233 The scale of the pastor's charity far exceeded the then accepted norm, which was very high compared to the pre-reform era. There was no shortage of opportunities to engage in charity: Kronstadt was then a kind of “garbage dump” of St. Petersburg - the “dregs of society,” city vagabonds, were sent there so as not to spoil the elegant appearance of the imperial capital 234 . Having become a priest, Fr. John devoted himself to caring for the townspeople. He walked around the Kronstadt slums, bringing food and medicine to hungry women with sick children, and provided them with spiritual support. The doors of his house were open to literally everyone in need, and anyone could count on a warm welcome and relaxation here; Soon crowds of beggars began to follow the priest and demand money. A priest who did not ask, but gave money, was such an unusual phenomenon that stories about his unheard-of generosity quickly spread throughout the country, and the poor began to flock to Fr. John to Kronstadt 235. Generosity o. Joanna was all the more remarkable because it was not easy for him. The oppressive poverty in childhood and the difficult financial situation in the seminary years reminded me of it. No matter how much he believed that hospitality was his duty to everyone and that his neighbor was the image of God, it was painfully difficult for him to distribute and not save for a rainy day. Contrary to his will, he happened to closely monitor what each relative or wanderer put on his plate, mentally regretted every extra spoon of sugar and then hated himself for it 236. In public about. John was a generous host; however, from the diaries it is clear how much effort this generosity cost him. He scolded himself for his stinginess and constantly reminded himself that his relatives who came to visit did not take away his “last piece” 237. “How to respond when one of the guests madly eats your sweets, which cost you dearly, and your heart contracts with criminal pity? Use this prayer" 238. The power of Fr.'s inner experiences. John's motives behind his charity can only be appreciated after analyzing passages from his diary. The slightest manifestation of generosity required a strong-willed effort from him aimed at overcoming his own nature. It’s not that he was stingy: he just grew up in great poverty and knew what it was like to live in constant fear of being hungry and being uncertain about the future. To give everything away and save nothing for the future meant for him to completely overcome his thrifty nature. No matter how often he forced himself to do this, each time it was not easy for him “to ignore what was eaten: to imagine that all these are gifts of God, common to everyone; that you are only an assistant” 239. Every meal, every tea party was a test for the priest, during which he tried to overcome his natural tendency to save what little he had. This painful process of overcoming took not even years, but decades. The only thing that encouraged Fr. John in this test - the thought that he was fulfilling God's commandment to do good to his neighbor, as well as the great reward that he felt from his many good deeds. The ratio between what was given and what he received turned out to be almost directly proportional: “Wonderfully, tangibly, the Lord provides for those who give alms: those who have mercy on others themselves receive generous alms from people, under. besides, from God Himself. So I, a great sinner, give alms today (May 5) to a poor old woman and two poor men. - So what? – Having arrived home, I see that I myself have been brought gifts from a kind man: a large pot of unleavened milk, a pot of fresh cottage cheese and 10 fresh eggs. Wonderful are Your works, O Lord! Thy right hand is manifest, O Most Blessed One, against me who sinned” 240. Such a literal interpretation colored the attitude of Fr. John to charity throughout his life. The distribution of alms and hospitality were clear evidence not only of his generous nature, but also of his painfully acquired sense of duty and faith in God. The shepherd was firmly convinced that if he fulfilled the gospel covenant to distribute all his property to the poor, then he would be rewarded a hundredfold for his faith. Father John developed this motivation even further. Since he felt it was his duty to share, he believed that others should do the same. This belief, however, was not in accordance with accepted customs, nor was his approach to the liturgy. Previous generations of Orthodox clergy interpreted the distribution of property to neighbors as a certain ideal and, ultimately, a purely voluntary matter. Russian bishops and priests, as a rule, called on their flock to behave in accordance with their position: the poor - to humbly bear their cross, the rich - to show “mercy”. Even St. Tikhon of Zadonsky, who wrote that offending the rich is a sin, and offending the poor is inhumane, condemned the fraud of merchants, bosses who do not pay salaries, and bribe-taking officials, nevertheless, he always emphasized that one should be content with what one has 241. Social inequality was perceived as part of the natural order of things, and a quote from the Gospel of Mark was cited as justification: “For you always have the poor with you...” (Mark 14:7). Position o. Joanna was different. He believed that for the Russian Empire, which should be a Christian society, a glaring contrast in the standard of living is a real evil. The very fact of the presence of poor people made the comfortable existence of wealthy and wealthy people disgusting. These elements of early Christian views were adapted at that time by adherents of socialist views, however, even in the liberal era of the Great Reforms of Alexander II, it was strange to hear such ideas from the lips of a clergyman 242 . Father John particularly criticized entrepreneurs and anyone who actively sought to get rich. He wrote: “The people who commit the most lies on earth are those who are rich and want to get rich, who grab wealth into their paws by all possible means, despite the suffering of poor people.”243 However, he made no distinction between inherited wealth and ill-gotten wealth. Welfare and inequality in themselves were for him not just costs of capitalism, but absolute evil: “The Lord created everything by division, measure and weight - there are so many gifts of His goodness and bounty that there is enough of them in abundance for all people and all creatures. But the rich, collecting coffers and many many gifts of God into their hands and keeping them rapaciously among themselves, deprive thousands of people of drink, clothing, and work, and bury God’s gifts and talents in the ground” 244. The very idea that the rich were spending their money on luxury goods while their neighbors died in poverty outraged the shepherd. By the mid-1860s. he began to give alms even more widely and encouraged others to do the same. At the same time, Fr. John made the same high demands on others as he did on himself. Since he considered everything good that happens in life to be a gift from God, it seemed completely natural to him that, receiving generous gifts from above, a person should give just as generously. As a result, Fr. John expected charity not only from those who won or inherited a large sum, but also from those who earned money by “honest labor.” In diary notes for 1869, later converted into a sermon, he wrote: “Shopkeepers who know little, selling leather and soft goods, how many poor people they could dress and put on shoes - and yet they cannot ask for a single shirt, not a single shoe, not a single caftan - and a lot of goods lie with them without moving. Oh, that they would consider it a blessing to dress a beggar as Jesus Christ Himself! Oh, if only they would acquire from the Lord spiritual intelligence that would inspire them to consider this waste as the greatest gain..." 245 Partly hostility about. John's appeal to rich and wealthy people was explained by their desire to spend money on various pleasures, and not to share the “surplus” with their less wealthy neighbors. Obvious wastefulness - and for him this was any manifestation of a craving for worldly goods - was a particularly serious offense. The shepherd went barefoot throughout his school years, saving on shoes, and therefore it is not surprising that he had a completely different idea of ​​vital things than the rich aristocrats. At the same time, the protest of Fr. John's opposition to the immoderate expenses of the nobility came not so much from the neo-Puritan denial of luxury, but from the understanding that with the money spent on expensive dinners and outfits one could buy a huge amount of bread and clothing for the poor. The passion for exquisite toilets seemed to him a shameful waste of time and money. “If we had Christian love, it would not allow such inequality in clothing and houses: the rich would share with the poor, they would eat less luxuriously; Christian love would force us to give up these destructive parasitisms (beautiful surroundings, abundant food, fashionable clothes, strollers)” 246. Didn't pass o. John and past the latest trends in home improvement and architecture. In the middle of the 19th century. More and more sections of society began to consider luxury and abundance as good taste. People began to actively buy furniture, endless decorations and antique trinkets, which was supposed to indicate a certain social status 247. Of course, all this ran counter to the ascetic ideal of the shepherd. (It is curious, although not surprising: his radical contemporaries, especially those who came from the clergy, as well as Soviet and Western historians, also condemned these fashionable trends, and in almost the same terms 248.) The construction boom in St. Petersburg and Kronstadt, which began in the middle of the 19th century, aroused no less anger from the priest: “Nowadays, more than ever, people are overcome by the passion to build and remodel, often what is not necessary at all, and huge sums are spent on these buildings and alterations (600 thousand for the amendment of the Academy of Arts), often obtained by the sweat, blood, and tears of the people. This is a sign of the proximity of the second coming of the Lord: The Lord Himself said that before this people will have a passion for buildings and gardens... Why should engineers and architects begin unnecessary alterations? – Because where wood is cut, chips fly. And here are chips of gold: a lot of them end up in the pockets of architects and engineers. Rich people build and remodel because they have nowhere to put the money” 249. Here about. John also differed in views with the main part of the Orthodox clergy. Priests rarely went so far as to proclaim that the rich must show mercy and share their wealth in order to save souls. The shepherd linked salvation with charity. In his opinion, helping the poor was not just desirable, but obligatory: “Rich! Atone for your iniquities with righteousness; give unrighteous profits to the poor in alms: and then you can hope for salvation. Otherwise you won't be saved" 250. In other words, Fr. John believed that neither such a thing as “righteously acquired goods” nor such a Christian, moral approach to work that would exclude the immediate distribution of what was acquired to the poor was possible 251 . His principle of “retribution” must be taken into account when considering the Christian model of society: a person always has the right to count on the Lord or his brothers in faith to protect and insure him. And Russian society, according to Fr. John, in practice, was not really Christian, because it did not protect the poor. The shepherd demonstrated an equally pragmatic approach to charity. Father tried to explain to his spiritual children that if someone is not able to sincerely sympathize with the poor, then he can at least see in them a potential means for his salvation, and this will prompt him to alleviate their lot. He sought to awaken in his parishioners a sense of mutual responsibility: “Ants make anthills in which they feel warm and well fed in winter; animals - lairs; bees - hives; birds are nests, spiders are webs... and since man was created for community, and the whole multitude of people should, according to God’s intention, form one body, and individually members, then the strong should bear the infirmities of the weak (Rom. 15:1). The hand washes the hand, and the finger washes the finger. With such a rich variety of forces in our society, with such talent, with such a multitude of people who are educated, efficient, skilled, and wealthy, it would be a sin both before God and before people to leave so many of our members (I mean our philistines) cut off, isolated from the social body and from its well-being. Why not connect them with the social organism by building a room for them and giving each of them a job, especially since many of them are capable of various skills - and with the job giving them bread and everything they need? Again I turn to society with my most humble request. In the name of Christianity, in the name of philanthropy, humanity, I appeal: let us help these homeless poor people: we will support them both morally and financially, we will not give up solidarity with them, as with people and brothers... Are we really going to give ants and bees an advantage over us? 252 The concept of a “social organism” and its comparison with the animal world were typical of the social views of the radical thinkers of that time, and above all Dobrolyubov. You can also pay attention to the Christian metaphor of the organism: the Church is the Body of Christ, and every Christian becomes a particle of this Body, receiving the Blood of Christ during the Eucharist 253. Whatever the source of the pastoral views, the growing conviction of the need to view everything from a public rather than a personal point of view forced Fr. John to look for a model of social structure that would be based not so much on the impulse of an individual, but on a radical reorganization of the entire system 254. He believed that the Orthodox Church had much to learn from other communities (both political and religious), especially how to care for its members. Unlike the Slavophiles, Fr. John believed that both Russia and Orthodox Christians lacked the social relations that had developed in the West and in other religions. He called to look at Jews, Muslims, and schismatics in Russia who provide mutual assistance and support to their fellow men 255. Presenting his proposals to improve the living and working conditions of the townspeople to parishioners and city officials, the priest realized that his religious and social functions merged together. His understanding of society as a religious and political whole meant that he could express himself in strictly civil terms and yet feel that he was thereby serving God. Serving the Lord was carried out through serving one's neighbor; a virtuous citizen must be a true Christian: “Every citizen has the right to express his opinion before society in favor of society: therefore, firstly as a citizen, and secondly as a priest, well aware of the glaring needs of a significant part of the bourgeois society, I decide to cast my vote in favor of it: a significant part of the bourgeois society has no place and shelter; while the bourgeoisie must certainly be placed somewhere; the position of society is not natural: it is cut off from the real urban population and left to the mercy of fate, without any care from the City Duma; it has no corner for room, no work for food: no money, no clothes. It lies as a black stain on the local urban society" 256. Convinced that through everyone's efforts it is possible to create a better society and oblige city authorities to fight poverty, Fr. John, calling for change, preferred to emphasize his secular status as a citizen rather than his spiritual rank as a priest. The shepherd’s impulse to give everyone shelter and food was due to the fact that he himself went through the horrors of poverty. He was sure that before talking to the poor about God, it was necessary to satisfy their material needs and provide them with a roof over their heads 257. Thus, providing shelter to the poor became his first priority. However, according to the shepherd, it is not enough to simply give the poor their daily bread; it is necessary to eliminate the poor as a class. In accordance with his understanding of Christian society as a union of equal Christians, Fr. John wanted the poor to become productive members of society. He envisioned a social order in which everyone would have food, clothing and shelter - and at the same time, capable citizens would learn trades. Already in 1868, the priest addressed the City Duma with a note in which he outlined his proposals for the creation of a House of Industriousness for the homeless of Kronstadt. However, the project he proposed was implemented only in 1881. 258 Father John developed a model of a “workhouse” (“House of Industriousness”), in which the poor would receive direct, practical help, and the rich, who wanted to show effective charity, would find a kind of outlet. Particular emphasis was placed on work - the poor were supposed to work, and not sit back. Father John was often accused of the fact that thanks to him the number of poor people only increased and did not decrease. As soon as the news of his charity spread, the priest’s opponents (among whom was the priest Georgy Gapon, who later led the workers’ demonstration on Bloody Sunday) started talking about the fact that the beggars actually migrated to Kronstadt in order to improve their living conditions at the expense of Fr. John 259. In response to these accusations and to encourage those who want to help the “deserving” poor, Fr. John wrote, placing special emphasis on the fruitfulness of the ideas embedded in the project: “How nice it would be to set up a House of Industriousness! Then many of them could turn to this house with a demand to do this or that thing, this or that thing for us for a certain fee, and our townsfolk would live, work and thank God and their benefactors. And many would rise morally. And if someone, being healthy, did not want to work, get out of the city: Kronstadt is not a breeding ground for parasites” 260. The House of Industry became a model for other workhouses 261 . At first, his workers were engaged in simple activities: gluing the brims of hats, crushing hemp, etc., receiving in exchange food, lodging and a modest salary. Then the range of work expanded, and workshops and living quarters specifically for women appeared in the house (Fr. John especially tried to protect them from prostitution through this), and training in shoemaking and carpentry was also established; A free hospital, a library, a store, and a school were opened, and public lectures and evening classes for adults began to be held. In a word, the House of Industriousness served as an example of how to organize assistance to the poor, which caused approving responses in the press of that time 262. Part of the success was due to the fact that the authority of Fr. John made this endeavor “fashionable,” so that helping the House of Industriousness became one of the favorite activities of such trendsetters of public opinion as L. Rimskaya-Korsakova 263 . Father John sought to provide workers not only with material, but also with spiritual help. In 1881, in his sermon notes, he wrote: “It would be good to take care that the townspeople who have work, and some even live in the House of Labor, can go to Church on Sundays and holidays, as its members, and annually receive Holy Communion. Tain: otherwise it is known that many of them were not in the Church for 10 or more years due to poverty and lack of decent clothing” 264. The last remark is a direct consequence of the fact that in their letters to the pastor many wrote that they could not go to church because they were “poorly dressed” 265. Even though at times it could be a ploy to get money, Fr. John himself experienced similar experiences as a child and understood the feeling of awkwardness that the poor constantly experience. Therefore, at the House of Industriousness there was a home church (attendance was not mandatory), which anyone could go to without embarrassment. The House of Industriousness has become a help to such a huge number of people that constantly funding and maintaining it in good condition has become an urgent need. In the first years after being ordained, Fr. John could not rely only on his own means and was constantly worried about how to maintain the House of Industriousness. One day he fell into a dream: “Walking with St. Through the sacraments I stood for a long time in a prayerful position and mood, looking at the DT, built according to my thoughts and the printed word, praying to the Lord for it, that he would give this humane institution material support and a long existence, until the end of the city. God forbid!.. Oh, if only I could see the fulfillment of my desire during my lifetime! And now we are in debt, and there is no fixed capital, except for 1600 rubles. annual subsidy from the Sovereign, from the leader. book Mikhail Mikhailovich and from the Duma (500 rubles)" 266. For this purpose, the pastor developed a special fundraising program. He regularly came to Moscow and other large cities, collecting money for the House of Diligence. He also sent petitions to high-ranking officials 267. A petition for subsidies for an unlimited period, submitted by the Board of Trustees of the House of Industriousness to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. P. Pobedonostsev, indicates, for example, that Fr. John perfectly knew how to find the necessary words and focus attention on the necessary issues. To begin with, talking about how his center was created and how it functions (and an orphanage, and workshops, and a hospital, and a soup kitchen), he pointed out that the House of Industriousness requires from five to six thousand a year, three of which can be collected in Kronstadt. Noting that the House of Diligence, created “in memory of the unforgettable Tsar-Liberator,” promotes the development of crafts and the productive forces of the people, he asked for an annual subsidy of 1,000 rubles. to maintain it 268. The mention of Alexander II was not just a coincidence. After the emperor was killed, Fr. John met with the governor, wanting to convince him to support the idea of ​​​​renaming the House of Diligence to the “House of Emperor Alexander II.” Being sincerely shocked by the death of the tsar, he was at the same time aware that the mere mention of the emperor’s name would be a guarantee of financial assistance, and thus wanted to simultaneously show patriotism and strengthen the financial position of his brainchild 269 . In addition to the House of Industriousness, which existed mainly at his expense, the pastor supported many other endeavors and institutions: the Red Cross, temperance societies, organizations of veterans who suffered during the war, scholarships for seminarians of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (his alma mater), orphanages and simply his fellow countrymen 270. He received letters of gratitude from almost all charitable and religious organizations of the Russian Empire, from hospitals and even from beekeeping societies, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and from an association providing “fraternal assistance to Armenians who suffered from the Turks” 271 . In their letters, members of these organizations emphasized the gigantic symbolic significance of his help: according to them, thanks to the shepherd’s support for an undertaking, financial investments in it increased. People from all over the empire, who wanted to help their neighbors, but at the same time know where it was better to invest their money, followed the example of the shepherd. As a result, the hundred or five hundred rubles they invested were multiplied many times over. What about. John was often the only savior of many undertakings, as can be seen from the letters of gratitude. Their authors pointed to a feature that distinguished Fr. John from many so-called “friends of the poor” from another political flank - such as Leo Tolstoy and the priest Georgy Petrov 272. While Tolstoy, Petrov and others talked about the need to help the poor, in letters to Fr. It was claimed to John that he was the only one who regularly put this into practice. One might think that the authors deliberately extolled him in the hope of further help, but the individual characteristics of the syllable suggest that most of the correspondents were absolutely sincere in claiming that they had exhausted all sources of help and received an answer only from the shepherd. K. M. Tatarinova, chairman of the Red Cross branch, wrote him the following message during the famine of 1907: “Our dear father, breadwinner, it’s hard to imagine what we would do without your help. We also, as I wrote to you, opened a canteen, now 214 people are always fed... I wrote, father, to various people, asking for help: to the Labor Assistance Committee, led. book Konstantin Konstantinovich, priest. Petrov, asked the latter to indicate to me only persons to whom I could turn for help, and yet received a refusal, and from the authorities. not a word from the prince. Our dear father, direct us to someone. After all, only you, you alone respond to this amazing grief. Our starving population is ready to kiss your feet for your benefit to them, especially since no one will respond to their enormous misfortune... They say that “the people drink” - all this is a lie; not only to drink, but also to forbid their youth to sing, seeing the terrible punishment of God in hunger” (on the letter there is a note from Father John: 500 rubles were sent on February 6, 1907) 273. Although Fr. John initially believed that poverty and social inequality were the consequences of incorrect implementation of the Gospel commandments, however, he also formed his own opinion about the causes of the disease. The idea of ​​the responsibility of those in power to society was central to the pastor, who proposed a number of civil, political and religious measures to eradicate social ills. That is why - which is uncharacteristic for a clergyman of the 19th century. - he did not believe that poverty was something inevitable or that the poor themselves were to blame for it; the poor were created by government policies. He proposed measures that were socialist in essence, but from the conservative positions of Scripture. He drew a concrete scheme of socio-economic redistribution, different from both the capitalist and Marxist models. In the early 1900s, he made his point even more forcefully: “The issue of beggary in our city and in Russia in general must be raised directly and decisively by both the Church and the government. Our poverty has increased extremely, it has nowhere to go - there is no demand for its labors - and we have nowhere to go with it. It overcomes us, it hits us in the eyes on the streets and crossroads, on roads and fences. What to do with it? We have a Duma, and the Duma needs to think about it, especially since our poverty is its adopted child. The resolution of this issue in a positive sense is required by the Gospel, the Church - the Lord himself; Head of the Church and Sovereign, Head of State... oh, if only there were more Zacchaeus among us!” 274 Another sign that the shepherd was thinking on a national scale was his fierce call to fight alcohol abuse not only at the private but also at the state level. In 1869 he wrote: “What urgently needs to be done in Russia? Limit the sale of vodka (a certain measure for a certain number) and prohibit its sale on Sundays and holidays - for the common people, prohibit it with severe punishment, in case of violation of the prohibition... The Sovereign Emperor must pay special attention to this evil. Otherwise, he will answer for inattention at the Last Judgment before the King of Kings and will not escape strict condemnation for careless shepherding” 275. Thus, Fr. John treated the autocrat more like a shepherd - that is, a person clearly endowed with religious authority. However, according to his philosophy, the function of each member of society was determined by responsibility to others and Christian duty, and the point of reference in this coordinate system was the priest 276. The priest's responsibility to society included several aspects. According to Fr. John, in order for his parishioners to live a “conscious” spiritual life, as he desired, they needed to explain the meaning of the Christian sacraments, to which the flock had to be literally accustomed. In accordance with the general course of the Orthodox Church on “working with the population,” a course that corresponded to the spirit of the era of the Great Reforms, he sought to make church instructions understandable and logical. In 1869 he wrote: “Parishioners and students must be shown the meaning of worship, rituals, prayers, St. The cross, icons, their relationship to our life - and not force us to learn by heart the litanies and prayers that the Church constantly repeats even without us” 277. Seeming slight irritation o. John’s disciplinarian approach to worship explains his requirements for the clergy: in order to succeed in instructing the flock, one must take more initiative. In order to fully perceive the church service, which, according to the pastor, can be mysterious and incomprehensible, it is not enough to simply go to church: its meaning must become the subject of study - and teaching. This requires effort both from the laity - “you need to prepare for confession, like a student for a lesson: analyze yourself in detail, think about different aspects, your state of mind” 278, and from the priest: “arrange a reading of the Old Testament in the hall - especially introduce them to the prophets” 279. The comparison with the students is not accidental. In parallel with the service in the Church of St. Andrew, Fr. John in 1857–1882 taught at the local high school to have extra money to give to the poor. His teaching methods contrasted sharply with the more common "cramming" characteristic of religious and primary school education in Russia. Father, who himself spent his first school years in a desperate “struggle” with difficult teaching, suffering from the ridicule of his comrades and the punishment of teachers, strove to ensure that his students and his parishioners learned the material well 280. Although his growing fame eventually forced him to leave the school and devote himself to priestly duties, his students repeatedly recalled his lessons as the only bright spot during their entire education 281 . Thanks to the teaching experience of Fr. John learned to make his instructions understandable to each specific audience. He preached the need for independent spiritual work and assimilation instead of passive acceptance (more typical, in his opinion, of the lower classes) or passive rejection (more typical of the upper classes). Therefore, he felt that he should “inspire his students and laity to accustom their minds and hearts to self-activity at all times, and especially during prayer... this is very useful and enlivens the soul” 282. The appeal to reason and to personal initiative contrasts sharply with immersion in the liturgy, oblivion and loss of oneself, which was considered natural for Orthodoxy 283. Call Fr. John's approach to sober reflection and concentration could, according to Simon Dixon's hypothesis, be considered a “Protestant” tendency in Russian Orthodoxy, but a suspicious attitude towards vague mystical impulses was also characteristic of Orthodoxy itself. The Desert Fathers and many spiritual authorities of the Russian Church constantly emphasized the need for spiritual “sobriety,” warning against excessive ecstasy and exaltation 284 . Calling for a personal acceptance of Orthodoxy through reason and feelings, Fr. John not only brought to its logical conclusion the church didactic aspirations of the era of the Great Reforms, but went even further. The key to understanding the pastor's sense of responsibility for the education of his parishioners is an awareness of its scope: he considered it his duty to guide people in all their actions. Father felt his duty as a priest so keenly that he could neither conceive nor allow any compromise: “At the Last Judgment, our God is responsible for you. I won’t look at whether it’s pleasant for you to listen to me or not, but I’ll do my job... What doctor wouldn’t try to heal or visit the sick? But what then is my title, my chosenness? Do I call in the church pulpit? Am I not a teacher of faith? Am I not the shepherd of the sheep entrusted to me? Am I not the perfecter of the mysteries of faith? No: my right hand will be forgotten if it does not inscribe the words of truth on the charter: cleave my tongue to my larynx, if it does not turn in my mouth to speak the rules of faith and piety!.. May my heart be inflamed, having cooled to the cause of God! “No, as long as I have sense and memory, I will remember until then that woe is to me if I do not preach the good news that the Heavenly Shepherd will require at my hand the blood of his sheep who perished from my negligence and laziness” 285. Since Fr. John, in his pastoral and charitable activities, began to come into more contact with educated people than ever before; the intellectual sphere demanded more and more attention from him. Reason and culture threatened the simple, ideal picture of society created by the priest, even more than such familiar vices as hard-heartedness or greed. Father John felt that secular intellectualism was a kind of moral surrogate, persistently claiming autonomy, independence from all laws except its own, and openly competing with the Church. Seeing the poor and their suffering every day, he denounced the champions of mythical “progress”: “Oh wonderful progress! O wise progress! O progress that brings us closer to the bottom of hell! – What about the progress of heartfelt, living faith? And the progress of Christian love... Christian love not only in the simplest sense, but in such a way as to make up for the glaring, terrifying shortcomings of others who do not have their daily piece of bread, the necessary clothing and shelter? Where are you, true progress? They forgot about you, your name was stolen from you and added to this monstrous, satanic progress! 286 But what was even worse, the pastor believed, was that people who would otherwise have turned to the Church for moral instruction were now looking for it in other places. At the dawn of his priestly career, he was inclined to sympathize with the intellectual pursuits or non-religious entertainment of parishioners, considering their wanderings to be a consequence of blissful ignorance 287 . At first he thought that the problem could be solved through education, for example by translating liturgical texts into colloquial Russian for home reading, so that people knew them as well as European fiction and philosophy. Another way that could help Christians bring all aspects of their lives into harmony with Orthodoxy is the utilization of art: “Sing church songs, psalms of David, play them on instruments” 288. Position o. Joanna was optimistic: he believed that most problems were due to ignorance, and not from conscious protest. If people received a proper Orthodox education, secular culture would become less attractive to them. At the same time, he recognized that people should seek solace (and joy) in faith, and not elsewhere. So, in 1866 Fr. John reflected: “Karamzin holiday. The world has its own holidays, the Church has its own. It is a pity that the Christian world has its own holidays - secular ones - and church holidays are neglected. This smells like paganism” 289. The confrontation between Christianity and paganism was the core of his picture of the world - modern phenomena could also be “pagan” if they did not carry Christian values. The inspirers of pagan culture of that time committed a much more serious sin than its consumers, for they deliberately ignored Orthodoxy and its doctrines. Since the shepherd himself was absorbed in faith and felt it as the burning, direct presence of God, he could not forgive the neglect of religious themes characteristic of the art and press of that time: “Why I hate secular theaters and magazines is because the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is never heard in them; there is never any talk about the great work of his redemption from sin, curse and death, but all is just secular vanity, secular idle talk” 290. “Will you ever hear the name of Christ in the theater in earnest? Will you hear the words: create a pure heart in me, O God? – No: why is theater also called moral, almost Christian? This is paganism in Christianity: it came to us from paganism” 291. Fr. condemned no less than the theater. John and other manifestations of secular culture. In 1867, he anticipated Tolstoy's "Kreutzer Sonata" by blaming music for arousing worldly thoughts and passions, instead of pacifying, purifying and strengthening the soul "in the grace of God" 292 . His idea of ​​paganism was not limited to secular culture. He also rejected “folk” or “grassroots” non-religious culture, considering it sinful 293 . Since the shepherd himself assessed every aspect of his life from a Christian point of view - whether it was eating or how he wished his neighbor good night - he did not allow non-spiritual areas of life or activity to be simply neutral from a Christian point of view. His own worldview was so all-consumingly religious that he could hardly imagine life according to other laws and simply rejected other interpretations of it. Either the act strengthened the person in the Orthodox faith, or it did not 294. The pastor also considered fair the principle according to which “innocent” entertainment and activities were considered sinful only because they lay outside the sphere of active spiritual life and did not contribute to the solution of the most, or rather, the only important task - the salvation of the soul: “I sinned before God: I was at the deer run yesterday; on the rolling mountain. “Everything about us is ungodly: the mountains, the running of deer and horses, and music in the mountains: where are the souls busy saving souls? Where is the concern for pleasing God? The soul perishes in sins, but no one even thinks of saving it. – Why have we been given this short life? Is it just for fun? 295 The roots of the last statement are in the rejection of Fr. John of his contemporary society. In accordance with the fashion of that time, the entertainment industry was widely developed, dedicated exclusively to leisure and entertainment of people - from operettas to summer gardens and carousels 296. The shepherd's rejection of this industry demonstrates such features of his spirituality that are associated precisely with the time and era in which he lived. At first glance, his severity seems to be nothing more than a characteristic form of ascetic criticism of vanity and vanity - this is the most important theme of all Christian sermons from time immemorial. However, upon closer examination in Christian criticism, Fr. John of that period, her connection to time and place is revealed - this is Russia in the mid-19th century, Kronstadt and St. Petersburg. By the end of the 1860s, the shepherd came to the conclusion that Russia was going through particularly bad times, and highlighted specific vices of the era as evidence. Thanks to the combination of topicality with unshakable Orthodox truths, the pastor's sermons powerfully influenced the audience, and he himself began to be perceived by many Russians as a saint sent to earth with a specific purpose - to change their lives. Parishioners found in his speeches the answer to their concerns about the destruction of traditional and immutable foundations: he framed these concerns within an Orthodox framework, thanks to which Orthodoxy became much closer to people. He saw the reasons for the then state of affairs in social ulcers, which he sought to cure, and called on God to condemn and punish the guilty: “The Kronstadt officers do not go to confession or receive communion. This is the fruit of freethinking! This is the fruit of theaters, clubs, dinners, masquerades! Corruption of the soul! Do evil to them, Lord, do evil to the glorious ones of the earth" 297. A call to the Lord to give to those who, in the opinion of Fr. John, was immoral, began to sound with particular force when it came to Leo Tolstoy and the revolutionaries. However, even before gaining national fame, the shepherd was so aware of his priestly mission that he called on the Lord to act on his behalf. All the peddlers of “corruption” were guilty, and especially those who corrupted ordinary people. However, the common people, if they had once been a collective example of virtue in ancient times, were now afflicted with the same disease as the enlightened classes. Thus, the entire Russian society became more “pagan”, and the church hierarchy did not know about it. In the late 1860s, a pastor wrote: “The modern world, according to the teachings of the evil one, is intensifying and has introduced into the life of the people the old corrupt customs, often pagan... The people have taken off the reins of the fear of God, the fear of future judgment, of undying Gehenna, and indulge in drunkenness and debauchery, and the Holy Synod and the local bishops, knowing little about their flock, do nothing against the common evil” 298. By the end of the 1860s, Fr. John determined who was to blame for the decline in morals that he so lamented. The worst criminals are enlightened people, they were the main obstacle to the realization of his ideal Christian society. For a person who received a religious upbringing and was as deeply immersed in Orthodoxy as Fr. John, the ignorance of the educated part of his flock in matters of faith was a shameful phenomenon. In 1866, a little more than ten years after being ordained, he wrote about representatives of the upper class: “(Pupils of the world) ... dolls, soulless statues. Laughter and grief as they come to church, especially to confession!” 299 No matter how great the ignorance of the illiterate commoner in matters of Orthodoxy, he had, according to the priest, a living awareness of sin, and he did not propose models of social reorganization different from the Orthodox. Educated members of society, on the contrary, refused to recognize the primary role of Orthodoxy, even formally. The falling away of the educated part of society from spiritual life became a theme that Fr. John began developing in the late 1860s. When in 1869 voices were heard in defense of a new translation of liturgical books, which could make them more “accessible” to the entire literate public (he himself had once proposed something similar), the pastor was alarmed by the proposed candidacy of a translator. He used this incident to show the gap between educated society and the Church: “Our irreligious, atheistic nature had little in common with the church in its development. Leaving school or seminary and going on public activities, our writers and teachers forgot the Our Father and the Faith, and finally broke with the Church. Until the beginning of the century, the connection somehow remained. On December 14th it burst. Or almost non-existent. Where did we have the biblical language? Who has read our Divine books? Who dealt with religious issues? What was written by the clergy was not read by any of the best or advanced writers (because they were advanced, they laughed), except, perhaps, for Gogol alone (honor to him), who somehow died from his connection with religion (no: religion revives, and does not destroy) ... As a result of this alienation of (imaginary) society from the Church, we did not consider it necessary to retain the half-dead church language in our translation. What can we expect from a translator like Vadim? Vadim, who calls himself an atheist?.. Who is Vadim? Impostor. God did not give him these external means. He himself realizes that he had neither Pavsky nor Skorma at his fingertips - translations from Hebrew into Russian and even a Slavic translation of the Bible ... and he relied on the English translation of Dr. Beppis, a reader in the London Synagogue - on B. - the enemy of Christianity? 300 It is significant that Fr. John notes the date of the Decembrist uprising - December 14, 1825 - as the moment the educated part of society and the intelligentsia fell away from the Church. Although at first glance this revolt was largely a political action carried out by the nobility in military uniform, it was first and foremost a revolt of intellectuals 301 . For the priest, the Decembrist uprising meant not just a desire for a new political order that did not affect Russian Christian traditions, but also the first step of the enlightened class away from the old foundations, embodied in autocracy and Orthodoxy. For the first time we see how a pastor unconsciously equates Orthodoxy with autocracy; this will also manifest itself later, after the assassination of Alexander II in 1881. Fr. John, the gap between the educated part of society and the Church became a constant leitmotif of all his works, starting from the 1860s. Proclaiming the principle of simplicity, he was one of the first churchmen to express the idea that an educated society does not and cannot express the voice of the people; only the Church has true authority to do this. This principle of simplicity was entrenched in the Russian Church for a long time, which had both positive and negative consequences 302. Tense attitude about. John's approach to the enlightened part of society also had a personal connection. Showing the most severe demands on himself regarding charity, the shepherd became no less demanding on others. Likewise, the shepherd’s ruthless struggle with his own outbursts of doubt led to him becoming intolerant of those who refused to embark on the path of a painful quest for God. He had doubts, but he realized that he had to fight and overcome them. Why didn't enlightened members of society do the same? Throughout the 1860–1870s. he constantly contrasted educated people with everyone else. Father John believed that educated people suffer from many vices, starting with the fact that they develop their minds to the detriment of other qualities. The rejection of intelligence replacing morality and “integrity” was previously expressed by many Russian thinkers, from the publisher and freemason of the 18th century. Nikolai Novikov to St. Tikhon Zadonsky 303. Despite the fact that Fr. John went further than his predecessors in condemning “false” education; in fact, he only developed the existing tradition. At the same time, his low social origin prompted the priest to add an accent that was absent from his well-born predecessors. He believed that education allowed privileged members of society to gain a special position. Here, as in the case of his wary attitude towards sensual pleasure, he anticipated Tolstoy and the ideologists of socialist realism - and won the hearts of socially disadvantaged people close to him. In a draft of a sermon for 1866, he wrote about a typical representative of the noble class: “As soon as he receives a bookish education, and puts on a student jacket or an official uniform, he imagines himself that he has become a different person, as if of a different nature, than the uneducated, rude simpletons, considers himself to be some kind of deity in comparison with them - but you are the same accursed sinner, a mortal. Likewise, a woman in a silk or velvet dress with gold and jewelry in relation to the poor” 304. This acute sense of class inequality appealed to many of those who had recently arrived from the countryside and felt uncomfortable both in Kronstadt and St. Petersburg, and therefore joyfully agreed with the rejection of elitism declared not only by Fr. John, but also such printed organs as the St. Petersburg Police Gazette. In the 1860s, before the populist organizations began their terrorist activities, the pastor saw the main sin of the “liberals” in that they defended their narrow class interests and refused to work for the common good. Thus, it turned out that social egoism and atheism are phenomena of the same nature, and education is to blame: “Why are liberals, fanatics, egoists, unsympathetic to their neighbors... people whose goal is to live for themselves, for pleasure, not for business? Because their hearts are not warmed with love for God and their neighbor, they deny God, the foundations and principles of a common holy life, and the rules of morality. So much for education, students! This is for your stupid upbringing, gentlemen teachers! 305 The main idea about. John - and here again he echoes Tolstoy and the radical intelligentsia of the 1860s - is that talent is useless if it does not bring spiritual benefit to the people. There is a single criterion for everyone, and only it makes sense to be guided by 306. Because of such an ingenuous approach to everything, he, for example, could not come to terms with the approval that the “suicides” (to which the priest equated death in a duel) of Pushkin and Lermontov received. The problem for the pastor was rooted in the discrepancy between spiritual and secular ideals. First Fr. John believed that they could be reconciled, but by the 1890s—ironically, precisely at the time when secular culture was beginning to explore the spiritual field—his attitude toward secular culture had become fiercely oppositional. He was especially outraged by society’s enthusiastic attitude towards the “immoral” Tolstoy and Tchaikovsky: “This is who the world glorifies - and how it is glorified: they simply adore it! Rewarded with thousands of crowns! Are they erecting monuments that cost hundreds of thousands, with which many charitable institutions could be built? What can we expect from the Lord at His Judgment - after death, no secular figures who are so lawless and have not repented to God, and have been awarded countless secular people like them!” 307 The pastor came to the conclusion that the purpose of the priest is to indicate what contributes to the spiritual growth of the individual and what does not. While still believing that the revival of the sacraments was the basis of spiritual renewal, he also believed that the social role of the priest in the integral society that he envisioned should expand. The priest should follow the example of the prophets of Israel and inspire his flock with passionate speeches 308 . The key word in a pastor’s understanding of the priest’s social mission is “convict.” The priest could not turn a blind eye to evil or human errors - he had to “convict mercilessly” 309. It is necessary to overcome fear of the rich and powerful of this world (a weakness that Father John admitted to himself), find courage in oneself and fight anyway: “The priest must be above this lordly arrogance of noble and pampered people and not servile, not indulge this arrogance, not humiliate himself, not be cowardly in the face of the powerful of the world, but behave in a dignified, sedate, even, pastoral manner - in serving leisurely, inhumanly. Whims, discontent, lordly arrogance, coldness towards matters of faith must be denounced” 310. One example of such denunciation concerns the mummers - Fr. John tried to show them how badly they were doing, and even chased the carriages of the most violent revelers into the streets 311. He took a more aggressive stance in his preaching and published writings. The priest felt that the confrontation between him as a priest and the most rebellious part of the flock had developed into a war. These rebellious ones believed (and the shepherd was aware of this) that Fr. John has no right to interfere in their lives; and yet he continued to insist. It was precisely the uncompromising and even in some cases aggressive rejection of the vices of the society of that time that distinguishes Fr. John from most of the other saints, his closest contemporaries. If we name only the two most famous, then Seraphim of Sarov and Tikhon of Zadonsk were revered for their meekness and gentleness; The Optina elders Ambrose and Macarius preferred to censure people indirectly and allegorically, in the form of parables 312. Father John, instead of focusing on the inner spiritual life or giving advice only when asked, instead of seeing the priest's mission only as administering the sacraments or consoling, was convinced that the priest should be a warrior and strive to change the world around him. Here, as in the case of his anti-aesthetic utilitarianism, he had more in common with such radical socialist thinkers as Dobrolyubov and Chernyshevsky (by the way, both came from church families) than with the majority of the Orthodox clergy of his day. However, all the energetic aspirations of Fr. John encountered resistance. Being the third priest in the Cathedral of St. Andrew, he had to obey not only the rector, but also his deputy. He could do charity work, and occasionally he was entrusted with preaching a sermon, but his liturgical duties were strictly defined, and the ability to conduct educational classes for church parishioners or provide them with pastoral care at home was limited both by the church authorities and by parishioners who did not like the pastor's active attention to their vices. Diaries of Fr. John is full of references to the fact that at every step he was hampered by the hostility that came from the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Isidore and higher priests. The church authorities were wary of the pastor's undertakings, which were perceived as excessive zeal and a deviation from the model of behavior appropriate for a priest. They tried to punish him in a variety of ways: they resorted to disparaging remarks, and forced him to wear the oldest and most soiled vestments on major holidays 313. However, resistance was not alien to the shepherd himself. According to the charter of the Cathedral of St. Andrew, the priests had to add up all the funds earned from services (requirements) not included in the liturgy and divide them equally. Most of these services were conducted by Fr. John as a junior priest; and then before his eyes the money went to others. This alone was unpleasant; but later he discovered that one of the priests was not contributing part of the income to the general treasury 314. Only about. John helped the poor, while other priests did not show such compassion. The shepherd clearly realized that he had no right to condemn others, but the rampant inequality still continued to weigh on him: “I am envious, for I envy my brethren, seeing the honors bestowed upon them and the increased external well-being, that is, wealth increased and preserved through saving and not giving to the poor; I am annoyed that I alone have to squander the small wealth I have collected everywhere with my great labors; that the brethren, for whom I work a lot and whose wealth I increase with my labors, do not participate with me in almsgiving, do not make it easier for me to give alms to the poor, especially the younger priest, who receives on an equal basis with me, with extremely little and lazy labor - and for this reason I am often indignant at the blatant disproportion in reward for labor and in giving to the poor, of whom there is no number; I’m irritated, I’m angry with the abbot, who has accumulated many tens of thousands of rubles and doesn’t give it to anyone, lives calmly and serves as if he were innocent of anything, as if he had a clear conscience” 315. At school, innovations and religious zeal of Fr. John also encountered protest from his superiors. In 1865, he complained that the school director took students to the theater, arranged dances for them, allowed them to eat fasting meals, but did not allow him to read soul-saving books in class 316. His colleagues didn't always approve of him either. In 1869, he writes about the mortal insult that an art teacher inflicted on him by welcoming everyone but him to a meeting of the pedagogical council. This incident hurt him so much that he couldn’t get it out of his head for at least two hours, and just by looking at the icon of the Savior, he experienced instant relief. However, even this did not help as much as it should: at the end of the meeting, he said goodbye to everyone except the ill-fated colleague 317. Reaction o. Ioanna is curious about such collisions. The shepherd's relationship with God was so trusting that he had no doubt: the Lord was on his side. Just as later the shepherd would pray to the Almighty to pacify Tolstoy and the Minister of Finance Sergei Witte, in the same way at the beginning of his priesthood Fr. John called upon Him to punish—or at least to reason with—those who made his life miserable, especially if they subjected him to public humiliation. For example, when a drunken merchant insulted him in public, saying that priests are worthless people and cannot lift a finger without the blessing of the Metropolitan, Fr. John prayed that the Lord would punish the offender and teach him not to blaspheme or insult the priesthood. He noted to himself that he must condemn such behavior during the sermon, beginning it with the words: “In one city there lived a rich merchant ...” 318. After another similar incident, Fr. John wrote about the insult that the school director inflicted on him regarding the prayer that the students read before classes. According to school officials, prayers only take time away from lessons. “They waste time! - comments Fr. John. “It takes half a minute, and he sometimes chats in the staff room for a quarter of an hour.” God, curb the director’s wickedness; let his pride turn to grief. Wake up!” 319 The feeling of the gap between the consciousness of the righteous and the crowd, inevitable in virtually any situation, was especially acute in the case of Fr. John, for he consciously linked his own salvation with the salvation of his flock. In fact, the two hypostases of the priest merged into one. His spiritual path was inextricably linked with the spiritual development of his parishioners: the uniqueness of his apostolic, priestly mission was determined by how successfully he converted those around him. It was more of a symbiosis than an independent existence of two hypostases. And this is not surprising: in the liturgy, as in the theater, there is a living, active interaction between those who serve and those who stand and pray. If the priest or the choristers are indifferent to what they are doing, it is difficult for the laity to pray; if the flock is indifferent, then it is difficult for the priest to continue the service with due concentration and zeal. Often parishioners helped Fr. John: looking at them, he felt the strength to overcome temptations and demons 320. However, more often than not, it was not support that came from people, but resistance. One of the main reasons for nervousness. John, when he tried to eradicate the vices of his parishioners - the position of the priest in Russia at that time. The contradiction between the respect of the pastor himself for his rank and the status that the priest actually occupied in Russian society manifested itself at every step. Most often it arose in such an everyday situation as a blessing. According to the Orthodox charter, the priest or bishop had to raise his hand, cross himself as a sign of blessing and, with a final gesture, extend his hand to the blessed layman for application. Accordingly, the layman had to bow his head before the priest or bishop, cross his arms on his chest and then kiss the hand extended by the clergy. Despite the fact that the blessing procedure looked exactly like this in theory, in practice in the 19th century. it began to mean something completely different. Many representatives of high society and the intelligentsia, supposedly Orthodox, could not bring themselves to kiss the hand of someone who, in their opinion, occupied a lower position in society (or refused to do so simply on principle). Many priests came to terms with this attitude and tried not to give blessings unless they were specifically asked, which was subtly portrayed by N. S. Leskov in the novel “The Cathedral People” 321. On the contrary, Fr. John sought to bless almost everyone and became furious when he was refused. In cases where a layman did not kiss his hand and literally left it hanging in the air, the pastor perceived this as neglect and a sign of disrespect for his office. “A priest should know who to give his hand to, and especially not to give it to young noble ladies,” he wrote in his diary for 1867. 322 He was so angry at people's disregard for his blessing that he composed a prayer-curse in Church Slavonic, in which he branded the proud 323. After such antics from parishioners, Fr. John increasingly experienced an alarming feeling that all his hopes for the social reconstruction of Russia were crumbling. His ordination occurred during the era of the Great Reforms, which came after the abolition of serfdom in 1861. The reforms, coupled with a general democratic mood, contributed to the blurring of social boundaries. In the ensuing chaos, it became less clear (but no less important) who was recognized as a respected member of society and who was publicly disdained. Father John, who, despite the fragility of his social position, respected his dignity, did not take well to such antics, such as, for example, insulting words addressed to him, which he heard on the street from a passing cadet 324. But what was especially unbearable for him was that he often felt awkward while serving in the church. The presence of generals, officials, rich men and well-dressed ladies filled him with awe. He was horrified that he felt calm and confident in front of ordinary people, but in front of educated laymen who did not have spiritual wisdom, he felt a sense of false shame and fear. He begins to doubt the truth of some expressions in prayers, to be embarrassed and afraid to utter “the words of the Lord and the words of our Mother Church” 325. The consciousness that he was “betraying” Christ and the Mother of God, internally cringing due to the presence at the liturgy of “bishops, archpriests, various officials - secular, military, school - rich and famous,” suppressed Fr. John 326. (By the way, it is noteworthy, although not surprising, that the high-ranking clergy had no less discouraging effect on him than the high-society laity. He did not for a minute forget that his father was a sexton, and not an ordained deacon or priest, and that he stood very low in the unofficial hierarchy of the Orthodox clergy 327.) He literally understood Christ’s command: “For whoever is ashamed of Me and Of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, even the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (Mark 8:38). Therefore, the priest considered his class prejudices a sin and a shame. “Are they not all worms before the Lord?” - Fr. exclaimed mentally. John. “O you of little faith! Raise your voice, especially when your stupid, frightened heart tells you to be silent." 328 The feeling of inferiority could take extreme forms, for example, when he believed that some general present at the service was preventing him from calling on the Holy Spirit; or when, in the presence of two ship captains and a pilot, it seemed to him that some parts of the litany were inappropriate 329. Father John felt deep shame and anger because, despite all the awareness of the distance between himself and high-ranking members of society, he was nevertheless drawn to them more than to the poor. This is partly due simply to the fact that priests could count on financial assistance from the rich. Some began to serve in more favorable conditions, some received greater rewards for their efforts, others could be offered an excellent meal and a glass of wine after service. Father John, like any poor priest, was very susceptible to such temptations, but at least he lamented about it. As he guiltily noted in 1868, “when a rich man calls for a christening or a prayer service, you hurry with pleasure, especially if you are waiting for a treat after the service; when a poor man asks to baptize his child in church after the liturgy or to serve a prayer service, you become irritated and angry” 330. Even worse, according to Fr. John, there was a desire to cheat and shorten the prayer service when he served the poor. He constantly reminded himself that he needed to overcome such desires and, coming to the overcrowded, cramped and dirty dwelling of the poor, say to himself: “Remember that the Lord and the angels are here, God sees you” 331. However, the reasons for these shameful feelings and desires of Fr. John lies not only in the desire for earthly goods. His ambivalence towards rich and poor had a complex background and was not explained only by material reasons, for his social motivations had deeper roots. Despite the fact that biographers constantly emphasize the deep connection between the shepherd and the people, he experienced alienation and ambivalent feelings towards the poor people among whom he grew up, starting with his own mother. By the way they behaved and dressed, you could immediately determine who was in front of you: a “white bone” or a mob, and the difference was especially felt at the level of basic hygiene - whether a person took a bath and how often, whether he smelled fragrant or exuded a stench, whether he had teeth in his mouth, their rotten remains, or nothing at all. Precisely because Fr. John grew up in poverty and sought to avoid it by any means; he could not come to terms with the fact that he was being pushed again into the world from which he had escaped: in the early 1870s, he shuddered at the sight of the poor, who disgusted him with their unkempt appearance, rude speech, manners, gait, and clothing 332 . In 1884, he mentions the terrible stench emanating from the crowd gathered for a prayer service 333. At the same time, Fr. John treated the rich and those who had the opportunity to take care of their appearance, as well as physical beauty, with almost sinful pleasure. He wrote down for himself that the desire to see attractive people is akin to a sweet tooth 334. Realizing that as a Christian he must treat everyone equally, he was still unable to remain impartial to the people who came under the blessing, and in his soul he constantly preferred the external beauty of the parishioners to the meekness and humility of the poor 335 . It is all the more significant that Fr. John was able to overcome his instincts. Combining tireless self-criticism and prayer, he managed to be equally hospitable to any layman. His weaknesses are not surprising; what is surprising is how carefully and in detail he noticed them and how selflessly he fought against them. For those around him, these efforts were hidden - they saw only his kindness and generosity. Despite everything, his path to holiness was marked by unremitting attention to both the needs of others and his own shortcomings. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 1a vol. Quote from 2 Corinthians 8:14–15. About Varvara Shklyarevich’s work with these poor people from the outskirts, see: Mirskaya Chernitsa // Paradise Flowers from the Russian Land / Comp. P. Novgorodsky. Sergiev Posad, 1912. pp. 283–290. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 144 vol. For a description of the social unrest in Kronstadt, see: Mikhail (Semyonov), hieromonk. Father John of Kronstadt: Complete biography with illustrations. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 38. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 29 vol. Right there. D. 14. L. 14 (1874); D. 3. L. 8. Tikhon (Zadonsky). On the responsibilities of the rich and the poor // Works: In 15 volumes. St. Petersburg, 1825–1826. T. 1. P. 173. Bakunin M. God and the State. N.Y., 1970. P. 75. The situation could have changed at the turn of the century. See: Hedda J. Pastoral Care and Social Activism in the Russian Orthodox Church, 1880–1905. (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1998). GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 77. See: Artistic decoration of the Russian interior of the 19th century: Essay-guide / Ed. N.I. Ukhanova. L., 1986, especially chapter 2: “Historicism. 1830–1880s.” See, in particular: Church and Palace // Shamaro A. The Case of Abbess Mitrofaniya. L., 1990. P. 135–189; Goscilo N. Keeping A-Breast of the Waist-land: Women’s Fashion in Early-Nineteenth-Century Russia // Russia, Women, Culture / Ed. by Goscilo H., Holmgren B. Bloomington, 1996. P. 47–52. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 50. Review of trends in the construction and architecture of St. Petersburg in the mid-19th century. see in the book: Lunin A. L. Architecture of St. Petersburg in the mid-19th century. L., 1990, especially chapter 1: “From classicism to eclecticism.” Of course, Fr. John supported the construction of churches; The government also provided support. See: Krasko A. B. Merchant charity in St. Petersburg in the 19th – early 20th centuries. (using the example of the Eliseev family of merchants) // These same memories remain forever (Memorial aspect in the culture of Russian Orthodoxy). Proceedings of the scientific conference, November 29–30, 1997. St. Petersburg: Russian National Library / Foundation for the Study of the History of the Orthodox Church in the Name of St. Dimitry of Rostov, 1997. P. 114. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 78; italics mine. Wed. with the ideas of Sergius Bulgakov, described in the work: Rosenthal B. G. The Search for a Russian Orthodox Work Ethic // Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, 1991, pp. 57–74. Additions to the Church Gazette. No. 1 (1909), op. in the collection: Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt/Comp. T. A. Sokolova. M., 1998. pp. 35–36. See: Dobrolyubov N. The Organic Development of Man in Connection with His Mental and Spiritual Activities // Selected Philosophical Essays. M., 1948. P. 72–103. Fyodor Rtishchev followed a similar path, starting with giving alms and then founding two hospitals. See: Klyuchevsky V. O. Good people... P. 81. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 91. Nikolaevsky A. The Great Shepherd of the Russian Land. Munich, 1948. P. 27. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 1. RGIA. F. 796. Op. 174. D. 743. L. 1. Gapon G. A. Notes of Georgy Gapon. Essay on the labor movement in Russia in the 1900s. M., 1918. pp. 45–46. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 79. See: Voort van der T. (prot.). The practice and theology of charity in the Russian Orthodox Church // Orthodox theology and charity (diacony). Sat. articles. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 123. The House employed an average of 22,600 people per year. The workshop taught handicrafts and dressmaking for four years, with students receiving all the money they earned. For a description of the House’s services, see the book: V. M. [Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky)]. Two days in Kronstadt, from a student’s diary. Sergiev Posad, 1902. pp. 172–194; Lindenmeyr A. Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia. Princeton, 1996, pp. 170–174. Mrs. Rimskaya-Korsakova was presented with an icon as a gift on October 19, 1892, with thanks from Fr. John for her ten years of service to the House. See: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 141. About women’s charity in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th – beginning of the 20th centuries. see: Lindenmeyr A. Poverty Is Not a Vice. P. 13–16, 125–129; Meehan-Waters V. From Contemplative Practice to Charitable Activity: Russian Women’s Religious Communities and the Development of Charitable Work // Lady Bountiful Revisited: Women, Philanthropy, and Power / Ed. by McCarthy K. New Brunswick, 1990. P. 142–156. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 2 vol. See, for example: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 13. L. 57–58. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 254. L. 94. See, for example, the diary entry about how from November 25 to December 4 he was in Moscow and collected money for the House. Right there. D. 23. L. 122. RGIA. F. 1574. Op. 2. Unit hr. 708. L. 81–82. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 38 rev. For income for 1889–1908, see: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 22. Fundraising Letters 1874–1908 see: Ibid. D. 47. Compare: Preobrazhensky I.V. New and traditional: spiritual speakers oo. Grigory Petrov and John Sergiev (Kronstadt). Critical study. St. Petersburg, 1902. Letter dated January 30, 1907, see: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 47. L. 118. The mention of the Duma is associated with the policy of resettlement of the poor and vagabonds to Kronstadt, which began in the 1850s. Zacchaeus was the chief of publicans (tax collectors), and then he repented and promised Christ that he would reimburse the people for the money that he had unjustly taken (See: Luke 19:8). GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 16. Right there. D. 13. L. 65 rev.; original italics. Father John also blamed his schooling for his lack of faith in himself and his judgment of others too highly. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 24. L. 40 (1896). On spiritual education in Russia, see: Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From the Experience: Autobiographical Memoirs: In 2 vols. M., 1886–1887. T. 1. pp. 39–46, 97–106; Manchester L. Secular Ascetics: Russian Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons in Secular Society, 1861–1917 (Ph. D. diss., Columbia University, 1995). P. 241–385. On religious education in general, see: Eklof V. Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, Village Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861–1914. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1986, pp. 40–42, 155–176 (on parochial schools). See student memories in the book: Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. Description of the life and work of Father John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1910, pp. 76–102. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 3. Max Weber develops this idea in his work: Weber M. The Sociology of Religion. Boston, 1964, pp. 44–46. Dixon S. The Church’s Social Role in Saint Petersburg, 1880–1914 // Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine / Ed. by Hosking G. A. N.Y., 1991; The Art of Prayer, An Orthodox Anthology. L., 1973. P. 264–270. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 66. Father John uses the word “cathedra” in relation to himself, whereas usually it was used exclusively when talking about bishops. Right there. D. 10. L. 74 vol. Father John believed that such transformations should begin with the Octoechos, the central book for daily morning and evening Orthodox services. Right there. D. 11. L. 16 vol. Reference to Psalm 50. One woman, for example, repented in confession that she attended weddings and listened to music. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 31. L. 121. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 9. L. 74 vol. Y. Lotman and B. Uspensky argue that the absence of purgatory in Orthodox doctrine contributed to the formation of Russians in the 18th century. dualistic, or binary, picture of the world (Lotman Lu. M., Ouspensky B. A. Binary Modls in the Dynamics of Russian Culture to the end of the Eighteenth Century // The Semiotics of Russian Cultural History. Ithaca, 1985. P. 30–66.) However, as Eve Levin pointed out to me, the absence of purgatory does not necessarily lead to dualism: a more likely premise – sermons of the 17th century. (private conversation, 1998). GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 8. L. 15. See descriptions of contemporaries in the book: Zasosov D. A., Pyzin V. I. From the life of St. Petersburg in the 1890–1910s. L., 1991. pp. 116–128. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 11. L. 3 vol. These words (do evil to them, O Lord; do evil to the glorious ones of the earth) refer to the Psalter and the service of Holy Week. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 80; italics mine. This charge—that the white clergy knew their flock from the inside, while the black clergy was distant from its real needs and problems—was central to the conflict between the parish clergy and the monastics who made up the episcopate. See: Freeze G. L. The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton, 1983, pp. 123–125. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 11. L. 16 vol. Right there. D. 4. L. 8; original italics. Vadim is the pseudonym of the author of the underground translation, who was criticized for being unscientific. See: Savva (Tikhomirov), owner. Autobiographical notes // Theological Bulletin. 1899. T. 2. P. 722. One of the most detailed works on the Church Slavonic language: Kravetsky A. G., Pletneva A. A. History of the Church Slavonic language in Russia (late XIX–XX centuries). M., 2001. Seton-Watson N. The Russian Empire 1801–1917. Oxford, 1967. P. 184. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 3. Novikov N.I. The story of the innocent imprisonment of boyar A.S. Matveev. M., 1776; Gorodetzky N. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk: Inspirer of Dostoyevsky. Crestwood, N.Y., 1976. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 10. L. 37 vol. In the late 1860s, the way people dressed accurately reflected, although not to the same extent as under Paul I, their occupation and social status. See: Korshunova T. T. Costume in Russia in the 18th – early 20th centuries: from the collection of the State Hermitage. L., 1979. The phrase “the foundation and beginning of a common holy life” again suggests that Fr. John unites himself and the Orthodox Church with the people, while at the same time distancing himself from the intelligentsia. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 9. L. 36 vol. Alexander Semenov-Tyan-Shansky explains the indifference of Fr. John to secular art by its origin - nature and direct reflection on the Divine could perform for him the same function that music and painting performed for others. See: Alexander (Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky), bishop. Father John of Kronstadt. New York, 1955. P. 188. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 54 vol. By the end of the 1860s, Fr. John made a plan for himself to achieve imitation of the prophets. See: Ibid. D. 14. L. 42. This incident, which happened in the 1870s, is mentioned in the memoirs: Levitsky P.P. Archpriest John Ilyich Sergiev of Kronstadt: Some features from his life. Pg., 1916. P. 6–7. See review: Sumarokov E. N. Eldership and the first Optina elders // Elder Macarius of Optina. Harbin, 1940. pp. 52–78. See, for example: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 8. L. 52; D. 12. L. 22, 55; D. 14. L. 29 rev., 40 rev.; D. 23. L. 31–31 vol. Entry dated March 16, 1881. Ibid. D. 23. L. 2. Leskov in “Soboryans” showed how palpable these social implications are when receiving the priest’s blessing, when the self-confident anti-clerical Termosesov suddenly approaches the hand of the astonished Father Savely - and then, betraying his ignorance, approaches the deacon Achille to take another blessing, despite the fact that only priests and bishops had the right to bless. Leskov N. S. Cathedrals. New York, 1952, pp. 231–232. In turn, Father Savely was not going to greet the local aristocrat Plodomasova in any way other than a bow; she had to ask his blessing and bend down herself to kiss his hand. pp. 57–58. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 1. Right there. D. 13. L. 67 vol.. For a discussion of the hidden differences between the statuses of a “clergyman” and a “clergyman,” see the book: Freeze G. P. Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia. P. 155–164. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 13. L. 51 volume; D. 14. L. 84. Here the idea of ​​Fr. John that his audience has its own perception that runs counter to the pastoral. Right there. D. 13. L. 51 rev.; D. 14. L. 84. Right there. D. 3. L. 85 (1857).