Глава 4. Русское религиозное сознание в письмах к отцу Иоанну

During the first twenty years of ministry, the peculiarities of Fr.’s spiritual practice were formed. John, who remained with him until the end of his days: a life of unceasing prayer, introspection in diaries, charitable assistance to those in need and a firm determination to change society with the help of Christian commandments. However, at first the shepherd’s fame was not yet nationwide. He became famous throughout the country only thanks to the efforts of the laity. Despite the significance of his liturgical ministry, the main component of his unprecedented success was the fact that he gained the reputation of a priest whose prayers really help people. In the early 1880s, he crossed the line separating ordinary, earthly virtue from supernatural, mystical virtue, which, according to a contemporary hagiographer, distinguished God's chosen saint from everyone else 336. Until now we have considered the path of Fr. John to holiness from his point of view and in his words. Now we will hear the voices of his parishioners, and his fate will appear equally as his own destiny, and as the history of the most diverse views and beliefs that determined the path of others to a virtuous and righteous life. In the first years after being ordained, Fr. John was little different from any other priest: if he was asked to serve a prayer service for the healing of a sick person, he agreed, while the person asking did not have any special expectations that went beyond the generally accepted canon. The turning point came when Kostroma resident Paraskeva Kovrigina insisted that he pray for the healing of her friends. As the priest told priests in Sarapul in 1904, at first he rejected the request: “I refused all the time, not at all considering myself worthy of being a special mediator between people in need of God’s help and God. But Paraskeva Ivanovna’s persistent requests and assurances of God’s help finally defeated me, and with firm trust and hope I began to pray to God for the healing of those who were sick and weakened in soul and body. The Lord heard my, albeit unworthy, prayers and fulfilled them: the sick and paralytic were healed. This encouraged and strengthened me. I began to turn to God more and more often at the request of one or another person, and the Lord did and is still doing many wonderful things for our common prayers. Many obvious miracles have happened and are still happening. In this I see God’s instructions to me, a special obedience from God - to pray for everyone who asks God for mercy.”337 Here two points are clearly visible that will subsequently influence the pastoral “mission of the people’s intercessor”: firstly, the conviction of Fr. John that the Lord will not reject anyone’s prayer; secondly, that he began to feel like an instrument chosen by God for prayerful intercession. Both of these factors determined the specifics of his prayers, which, in turn, explains why people began to turn to him and not to other priests. In other statements by Fr. John, his awareness of his role in prayer for his neighbor becomes especially obvious: “Infants Paul and Olga by the infinite mercy of the Lord and by the prayer of my lasciviousness; were healed from the spirit of infirmity that had possessed them. Little Pavel's weakness was resolved by sleep, little Olga received peace of mind, and her dark face became clear. Nine times I went to pray with bold hope, hoping that my hope would not be disgraced, that it would be revealed to the interpreter, that at least for my persistence the Lord would give me what I asked for; that if the unjust judge finally satisfied the woman who was troubling him, then how much more will the Judge of all, the most righteous, satisfy my sinful prayer for innocent children, that He will look at my work, at my walking, at my prayer words and my kneeling, at my boldness, at my hope. This is what the Lord did; did not put me to shame, a sinner. I come for the tenth time, and the babies are healthy” 338. It is here that the foundation of the future glory of the shepherd is laid. The conviction that praying for others was his special calling, as well as the zeal with which he prayed, with what genuine self-forgetfulness, was transmitted to those around him. The first mention in the diary of the effectiveness of prayer dates back to February 19, 1867: “Lord! I thank You, for through my prayer, through the laying on of my priestly hands, You healed the youth (Kostylev). 19 Feb. 1867. Oh, approval, oh, consolation for the unworthy servant! 339 In subsequent years, such evidence of Divine mercy appeared more and more often, but until the end of the 1870s they still remained something new and unusual both for the shepherd and for those at whose request he prayed. He carefully wrote down all the names in his diary, sometimes providing them with comments (“The Servant of God Melitina, after the prayer service I served, soon became healthy, as if someone had lifted her illness with his hand (her words); and she was sick for a long time. Glory to Thee, Lord!”) 340. God's mercy was not limited to healing. On July 30, 1869, he wrote: “30.VII. 69. I called out to the Lord with full hope that the rain would stop and after 5 minutes. the sky brightened" 341. As the news spread about the effective power of the prayers of Fr. John, more and more people turned to him asking for prayer. Initially, there was no question of how miraculous his prayers were, and for most people this was unimportant. They were interested in a specific result - that their child, husband or sister recovered, and not in what reasons the recovery was explained - natural or supernatural. Since time immemorial, people have approached healing shrines and such phenomena as holy relics or miraculous icons 342 in the same functional way. At the same time, no special distinction was made between objects of religious worship and medicines - they were all considered medicinal agents. None of them were completely reliable, some were better for specific diseases than others, but all were taken into account 343. Dialectics of relationships. John with his flock is especially clear from the letters he received. The language of these letters, the requests with which people turned to the shepherd, and what they told him about their lives - all this strengthened him in the idea that he was a mediator, their intercessor before God. However, the influence also went in the other direction. People did not just appeal to the authority of Fr. John; they also used it in their relationships with authorities, with church leaders and with members of their families. Their letters show that his life as a shepherd was formed not only under the influence of his internal spiritual quests, but also under the influence of the turbulent surrounding reality. Political unrest, terrorism, increasing the pace of industrialization - all these processes since the beginning of the 1880s have become not a purely Russian phenomenon, but have acquired a worldwide resonance. The letters are unique evidence of the relationship between the saint and the environment in which he lived. Let's ask ourselves the simplest question: how and why, according to people, Fr. Could John help them? And what does this tell us about the religious consciousness of the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries? In his famous work “Ancient Russian Lives of Saints as a Historical Source,” V. O. Klyuchevsky made an observation that determined subsequent approaches to hagiography not only in the 19th century, but also in Soviet science. He noticed that the lives of saints he studied, apart from their literary value, are of little interest to a historian. Only evidence of posthumous healing miracles can be useful in studying the history of medicine and health care 344. And indeed, if we approach it from Klyuchevsky’s point of view, the abundance of various diseases from which Fr. John was asked to be cured by his parishioners, provides rich material about the state of affairs in the then Russian Empire. People asked him to pray for the healing of any sick person, whether it was about diphtheria, about the rapid fatigue of the eyes of an official, about the deafness of a seamstress, about neurasthenia 345. However, this is still not the main thing in letters addressed to the shepherd. There are other, more striking indicators of the level of public health in the Russian Empire at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. 346 Letters with requests for healing that Fr. received. John are especially informative in terms of what power they thought he had. In addition, the letters make it possible to clarify the question to what extent people then felt the connection between sins and illnesses, body and soul. Firstly (and this is most significant), those who addressed Fr. John was believed in his ability to heal. In this sense, he exactly corresponded to the Christian ideal of holiness. The gift of healing was believed to be the gift of the saint par excellence, and healing miracles were one of the most common “proofs” of posthumous holiness 347 . While other righteous men of that time, such as the Optina elders, became famous mainly for their spiritual insight, the special gift of Fr. John received healing. National fame was brought to him by the appearance in newspapers of letters from grateful people healed by his prayers. The enormous volume of correspondence is one of the most significant proofs that the overwhelming majority of people believed in the help of the shepherd. The largest group of letters to Fr. John (about four thousand) are requests to pray for healing 348. The dated letters refer to the period from 1883 (when the first letter of gratitude was published in Novoye Vremya) to 1908, the year of his death. Just over half of these letters came from women, who, as a rule, asked for others, in most cases for their relatives; men were more likely than women to confess to their “sinful” illnesses. The authors of the letters provided the pastor with very detailed and accurate information, believing that he should know for whom to pray and why. They expressed the most intimate details of their condition without hesitation. For example, in an era when any gynecological diseases were called the euphemism “women’s diseases,” one woman wrote about her thirteen-year-old daughter: “My daughter Emilia’s face has cleared of scrofula, but I am worried that she has a lot of phlegm coming out of her nose and bottom, although she will only be 13 years old in May and she is not yet wearing a regulator.” She knew it was embarrassing to mention such details, and apologized for it, but added that, in her opinion, Fr. John must know as much as possible. People included all the symptoms they noticed in the description of the illness, because they either did not know what kind of ailment it was, or they hoped that a comprehensive description of the illness would help to obtain a complete cure 349. Of greatest interest for the study of religious consciousness are those letters in which the request for healing was not the only one. The letters show that their authors, apparently, deeply absorbed the church teaching about the inextricable connection of body and soul and, as a consequence, the dependence between the disease and previously committed sins 350. So, the man asks Fr. John to pray for the forgiveness of his sins: “For which the Lord called me, sending me the disease of my feet” 351. Semi-literate Anna “Aliksievna” wrote on November 23, 1883: “I wish you a Radavatz, O Lord, your high blessed Fr. John I ask for your blessing. Forgive me for God's sake, because of my carelessness, caring little about my sins, I fell into an illness with severe chills and was all relaxed for 4 days, I have been lying very sick. Both of you pray for me, a sinner, so that the Lord will help me put it right” 352. Most people considered illness to be God's punishment, especially those who believed, according to the Church and Scripture, that some illnesses were retribution for parental sins. For example, the peasant Nikolai Shenarius wrote: “The Lord God, for our sins, was pleased to visit me and my family with a great test. For three years now, my 17-year-old daughter has been suffering from rheumatism, hysterics, cannot walk, cannot tolerate any noise, and swears. Lighten our bitter heaviness, grant healing to it, strength and hope to us” 353. Likewise, awareness of the connection between illness and virtue led many women to pray for a change in their husband's character "and also his health" 354 . Of course, there is a temptation to interpret this feeling of connection between sin and illness either as a mechanical adherence to church teaching, or as a conscious tactic, the purpose of which is to gain the sympathy of Fr. John. However, the idea of ​​the connection between sins and illness was expressed in such diverse forms that it refutes the assumption of automatic reproduction of custom. Moreover, in some cases, the belief that illnesses were a punishment for sins led people to promise to change for the better in gratitude for the healing (although few were devoid of pragmatism and made such a promise in advance, before healing). Cossack Polikarp Litvintsev revealed the concept of a person’s spiritual responsibility for illness: “My wife and I suffered the same illness... the doctors discovered catarrh of the stomach, I think that [due to] my sins, my illness is more severely contagious for my wife... I walk with a staff, I am treated with mineral water, I turn to the source of God’s mercy with repentance - pray, Father, for the forgiveness of sins, healing me and my wife Elena, I believe, I hope and promise to correct my life. Cossack Polikarp Litvintsev" 355. According to the value system that, according to the layman, the Lord (or Father John) adhered to, the promise to fulfill many things as a sign of gratitude for the healing was a kind of compensation to the Almighty. Usually people simply firmly promised to improve, but some were more specific, promising to perform certain actions, such as pilgrimage. Thus, a certain Aquilina wrote in May 1898: “I ask for your blessing and teach me what to do with this illness. [If] through your prayers Fr. John, the Lord will deliver me from illness, then I make a promise before God and you, to go with my son to the Kiev-Pechersk shrine to worship the Dormition of the Holy One. Theotokos and saints of the Holy God" 356. This sense of the relationship between physical and mental health is most noticeable in relation to oaths and curses. One peasant woman writes about her deaf-mute seventeen-year-old daughter, who has been in this state since she was four years old. When Pelagia (that was the daughter’s name) began calling her mother names, she cursed her with the words: “May you go deaf!” After this, the girl fell ill, as a result of which she stopped hearing and speaking. It is curious that the mother did not ask Fr. John about the healing of Pelagia, although she desired it. She just wanted to get his advice on how to pray to God for healing, because she realized her responsibility for what happened. Likewise, when Catherine's son insulted her with a curse word, she cursed him back - and he has been sick ever since. She writes about. John: “My son Yegor once insulted me greatly with a curse word, so I could not bear it, and in a fit of anger I cursed him with a curse word, and from then on he began to be unwell with me. I realize that I have sinned before God, forgive and remember me and my sick son Yegor.” This sense of responsibility was not limited to ordinary people. One educated woman in her letter expressed fear that the curses she sent to her children - sometimes in anger, sometimes due to bad habit - led to them becoming seriously ill, and begged Fr. John to remove this burden from her 357. Even stronger than the connection between a curse and physical illness is the connection between a curse and subsequent mental illness. Both those who cursed and those who were cursed were convinced that a word carelessly dropped in the heat of conflict was fraught with grave consequences. Thus, the woman who angrily cursed her deaf-mute daughter with the words “Curse Anathema from me!” and the mother who believed that she could provoke her daughter’s depression and willfulness by telling her once when she did not listen to her: “Oh, you are not a blessed child!” felt their guilt to the same degree. (the children could later use this against their parents: as the mother dejectedly adds, “she sometimes remembers this”) 358. Fear of damnation was not characteristic only of Russians or Orthodox Christians, or the illiterate. A highly educated Catholic woman in a letter to Fr. Joanna begged him to free him from the curse placed on their family by a relative who had once been “destroyed” by her great-grandfather. The girl stood for three masses, praying to God for retribution for her violated innocence, and the relative feared that retribution could affect the entire family 359. In short, for those who interpreted the curse broadly, it was an element of communication with the spiritual world, be it the temptations of demons or the afterlife. Despite the fact that educated and illiterate people describe their struggles with demons in slightly different terms, it is quite obvious that in essence their experiences did not differ very much 360 . Health was a very vague concept for Fr.'s correspondents. John. This was partly due to the awareness of the intimate connection between soul and body. Letters from peasants often told about the troubles and illnesses of each family member. This demonstrates both the authors' pragmatic desire for the letter to achieve maximum benefit and their confidence that Fr. John can help in almost any situation: “Highly revered and dear father, I resort to your feet, I invoke your holy prayers for my family, all of them are sick. Daughter Agathia suffers from seizures. Son Nikolai suffers from hemorrhoids; he is engaged in fishing; and he has no luck, all losses. Alexander, Fedor and Akim drink heavily. Son-in-law John lives poorly with his wife, beats her, he scared her and she is sick. I hope for the mercy of God and your saints. Prayers that the Lord will not leave me, a great sinner, will calm me down and forgive me, the Queen of Heaven” 361. In the letters we find examples of how behavior branded as sinful was considered a disease that needed to be cured - for example, teenage boys often asked for help in the fight against masturbation. Adults asked to be “healed” from adultery 362. Thus, the correspondents of Fr. John did not distinguish between physical, psychological and religious vices; they were all part of a single physical-mental-spiritual whole. Their idea of ​​this single whole is especially clear in their attitude to mental illness, “obsession” and alcoholism. Despite the fact that both in the Orthodox Church and in the Russian language the concepts of “spiritually” and “mentally”, covering the spiritual world and the wider world of feelings and physical experiences, differed, those who wrote about. John, as a rule, did not make such a fine distinction. For most of them, mental illness was more related to the life of the soul and spirit, rather than a physical illness. For this reason, they most often, in the case of mental rather than physical illnesses, tended to associate current symptoms with actions committed earlier. In this regard, requests for healing from alcoholism are indicative. Father John was one of the most active participants in the temperance movement at the beginning of the 20th century. 363 His well-known sermons on the dangers of alcohol were reprinted in large numbers, republished immediately after his death, and then in the 1990s. 364 Therefore, it was to be expected that letters to the priest with requests to admonish drunkards would make up an impressive part of all correspondence. However, correspondents did not always associate his figure with recovery from drunkenness; he had not yet become like Saint Boniface, who “specialized” in curing alcoholics. From the received about. John's letters related to the problem of drunkenness, more than 90% came from wives or mothers asking for their husbands and sons, four letters from children and only two from alcoholics themselves. The letters describe the destructive behavior of drunkards: destruction of families, beating of wives and children, etc. However, what is most interesting about these letters is that drunkenness (like other types of illness) is perceived and explained in religious terms. Even when women realized the practical consequences of their husband's addiction and sometimes asked Fr. John to find them such a job that they could independently support themselves and their children; most of all, they were worried about the soul of their husband. Moreover, they described alcoholism as a harmful addiction, an “obsession.” Alexandra Timofeevna Konashkina spoke with particular candor in a letter dated August 3, 1901. Fully aware that her husband’s drunkenness was bringing daily suffering, she shuddered at the thought that he might turn out to be a servant of the “enemy”: “Being in an unhappy family situation, I resort to your patronage and fall with tears at your feet, humble slave Alexandra Timof. Konashkin, asking your all-powerful prayer for guidance and admonition of my errant husband... [who] gets terribly drunk when he gets drunk on vodka and always begins to swear with nasty, shameful and obscene words without being ashamed of his small children or his wife or old people and even at his relatives, for example. He often swears at his sisters and brothers with nasty swear words. My married life is the most unbearable, from a drunk I always endure insults and violence, desecrating my marital bed, not realizing any holidays or fasts, no measure or time. On the way, he never passes by taverns, as if some invisible force is pulling him, but when he arrives home, he always breaks into abuse, nasty songs and dances, workers often hide without having dinner, small children, like birds from a predatory kite, try to hide somewhere in the corner and shed tears seeing their father’s unrest... Pray for us sinners so that we do not perish in the abyss of sin, so that the Lord will deliver my husband from this poison from enemies and destroyers, but most of all, at least the Lord will save him from impudent death, at least God gives him death and with repentance, since... after drinking vodka, he often falls into some kind of delirium, expressing unclean words, remembering unclean spirits, for example: get away from me, I don’t owe you anything, but I only owe you for vodka yes for tobacco" 365. More varied in content are letters interceding for or written by those who are called “mentally ill.” This concept included a range of behaviors, from obsession to simple willfulness, and seemed to apply whenever a person's behavior deviated from the norm or when he was broken by a difficult situation. In some cases, mental illness was associated with alcoholism: according to relatives, many wives’ psyches could not stand their husbands’ drunkenness, and they turned into hysterical cliques. For both men and women, one of the main symptoms of mental illness was fear of something, but their fears were often different. Russian women, like French women of that era, were more often afraid of the clergy, while men's fears in most cases manifested themselves in thoughts of suicide and were usually attributed to the machinations of the devil 366. The reaction of others to mentally ill people also largely depended on the gender of the latter. In general, those around them, although they were wary of men with disabilities, were still tolerant of them. However, if a woman was declared mentally ill, especially from the middle strata of society, she was, as a rule, placed in a hospital; this was done much less often with men. This inequality was partly explained by the fact that loved ones were more afraid of the man’s reaction to an attempt to isolate him from society. Parents of mentally ill sons, for example, confessed to Fr. John, that they are physically afraid of driving young people out of their homes, but they are no less afraid that their souls will perish or that their children will become vagabonds. They asked the pastor for advice on how to behave with children: gently or harshly 367. Those who had daughters doubted it much less. One young woman, betrayed by her fiancé, was sent to a sanatorium for three years. Another in 1899 in a letter to Fr. Ioannou claimed that her mother had wrongly committed her to a mental institution two years ago; she longed to be released, fearing that she had already lost her soul during her stay here. Another woman was locked up in a hospital in Helsinki for being fond of spiritualism (she writes: “Help me get out of here; I’m not crazy”) 368 . All this confirms that in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries, as well as in France at that time, women whose behavior did not fit within the accepted framework and could, in the opinion of their loved ones, become a disgrace for the family, were much more often than men placed in hospitals under the pretext of depression or hysteria 369 . It is noteworthy that, while in captivity, they saw Fr. John of the one who could rescue them - both because he had great authority in the spiritual and secular environment, and because they knew about the effective power of his prayer. It is in such requests for intervention and intercession that the pastor emerges as an empowered figure used by the people in their opposition to unjust authorities. Another symptom of mental illness, in addition to fear, was considered non-observance of the sacrament and non-attendance to church. These were clear signs of a person’s distance from God and from the community. Soviet authors argued that since panic at the sight of the cup or the sound of the Cherubic song was popularly considered an undoubted symptom of possession, people in a borderline state could unconsciously exhibit these signs; it is difficult to say which arose first - the symptom or the condition 370. Orthodox Christians believed that not attending church and ignoring the sacrament were as typical of sectarians as they were of the insane. They extended this principle even further, sometimes identifying sectarianism not only with antisocial behavior, but also directly with clouding of reason 371. For example, the parents of a twenty-three-year-old woman who came to Sarov to venerate the relics of St. Seraphim, recalled how the Old Believers pestered their daughter and tried to dissuade her from crossing herself with three fingers and worshiping the recently canonized saint. The young woman was so shocked that, according to her parents, she lost her mental balance: three months after her return, she became violent and showed other signs of strange behavior. The parents asked Fr. John to pray for the remission of her sins (and, as a result, for her healing) 372. In the same way, the wife of a man who joined the Khlysty sect and then ended up in a madhouse associated her husband’s illness with sectarianism. She asked not for her husband to be healed, but for him to leave the Khlysty sect and return to the fold of the Orthodox Church, apparently believing that as soon as the connection with the sect was severed, the illness would go away by itself 373. Violence, especially of a sexual nature, has also been linked to mental illness. It was perceived then differently than now, and usually the offender was not blamed: evil was done, the victim, perhaps, provoked it herself, and now she and her loved ones will have to sort it out. For example, the tormented mother of an eleven-year-old girl described how her daughter literally lost her head with fear when a fifteen-year-old village boy attacked her in the dark. In a letter dated 1902, she wrote with grim determination: “Now she spends day and night on my lap and does not let me take a step back; does not allow others to approach. Pray, Father, at least one end to her, or at least she would calm down and let me go from her, even for an hour, there are idiots in families, I will put up with it and don’t complain about God, Father agrees to bear every labor, but not like this” 374. It is amazing how stoicically people, when faced with difficult situations, refused to shift the blame to someone else. Widespread in the Russian village, daughter-in-law, when the head of the family could persuade his daughter-in-law to have physical intimacy, was, as a rule, not considered a disease; at the same time, it could cause serious mental distress. It is noteworthy, however, that the father-in-law who sinned was almost always the last to be reproached. Thus, a priest from Kuban described the situation in the family of his Cossack parishioners: the son returned home from military service and found his wife pregnant, and there were rumors in the village that she had sinned with his father (not vice versa). Both relatives and neighbors began to laugh and mock Stefan. He became embittered, began to leave the house at night and stopped confessing and receiving communion. Further, the priest says, the disease worsened: Stefan saw demons everywhere, even in the church. The priest dared to suggest that this state is very reminiscent of “possession.” But what is most surprising is that Stefan’s parents asked the priest to write to Fr. John to pray for their son, whom they felt sorry for. There is not a hint of the father’s repentance, not a word of sympathy addressed to the young wife 375. That is, the people who wrote about. John, considered refusal of confession and communion to be dangerous, antisocial behavior. A break from Orthodoxy meant that something was wrong with the person. If people perceived illness as part of a spiritual and physical whole, then how did they understand the healing process? Examples of their different attitudes towards medicine and about. John is very instructive. When it came to curing a patient, doctors, icons and saints were means of the same order 376. The doctors themselves (especially women) could ask Fr. John to come to dying patients 377. However, in most cases, people turned to the shepherd only when their hopes for medicine were dashed. The pastor received many letters from people of various social statuses, which described in detail how the patient tried to get medical help (wealthier correspondents mentioned the names of the specialists with whom they consulted), but in vain 378. So, Countess Muravyova-Amurskaya asked the priest to pray for her five-year-old son: “I beg you to pray for my little 5-year-old son Vanya, he is very dangerously ill and the doctors see him in a hopeless condition. But God can do everything and through your lips he listens to your prayer” 379. Another woman consulted with the “famous Professor Pavlov” and admitted in a letter to the shepherd that her son felt better, although the illness did not completely go away. She added at the same time: “I know that the child is suffering for my sins, I do not grumble at God, but it’s hard to see the child suffering, even if it would be better for me to suffer myself... I know that with your holy prayers he will recover sooner than with any kind of medicine” 380. A comparison of the effective power of prayers and medicines, as well as faith in the grace of pilgrimage, is found in a letter from Pavel Afanasyevsky from 1897: “My son gasped when he fell 2 fathoms in the basement. Ointments and medications did not help. Meanwhile, my wife was approaching the last day to leave for the monastery for the feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy. Mother of God. I, as her husband Pavel, let her go with God and said if it gets worse, I’ll let you know, and imagine Father, for example, today the wife left and tomorrow the son gets up and his head is completely healthy. He doesn’t even need the help of a doctor, only now his reprimand is not clear and he finds it difficult to learn. Pray that he will be diligent and eager to learn." 381 However, here they resorted to prayer and Divine help only when they saw that medicine was powerless. And for example, when Averky Samokhin, in a letter dated May 5, 1906, asked Fr. John to heal his son, he did not even mention doctors: “We used all sorts of measures, served prayers, took from the chalice of St. near three churches they brought water with the Chalice, there is no change to this innocent martyr” 382. “All measures” here means “all possible Divine means.” The fact that the author of the letter calls his son a martyr is further evidence of a religious approach to suffering. The strongest confirmation of people's faith in the gift of prayer of Fr. John is found in three telegrams, each of which describes a similar situation: someone has just died, but there is not the slightest sign of decomposition of the body. Relatives report Fr. John that the funeral was postponed in the hope that with the help of prayer it would be possible to resurrect the deceased (according to Novoye Vremya, such a case was recorded at least once) 383. Shepherd, like many of his correspondents, recognized medicine. The son of the writer M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin recalled how his parents tried to receive Fr. John and the famous doctor S.P. Botkin, so as not to offend the doctor, and were amazed when they saw that they greeted each other like old friends 384. There was a case when the priest forbade consultation with doctors and hit the table with medicines with his fist; but more often than not, he not only recommended which doctor to contact, but also called his own. He also agreed to speak at the opening of new pharmacies or societies of homeopathic medicine. Ironically, during the period of state policy of atheism, Soviet researchers turned the pastor's willingness to consult with doctors against him, calling such behavior hypocritical for a priest 385. However, here, as in many other respects, Fr. John simply shared the beliefs of his flock: medicine and prayer coexisted in the Orthodox cosmology of the then Russia, repeating the situation of the late antique period 386. This may be why some correspondents asked whether they should see a doctor, go to holy places (and if so, where exactly), or visit the shepherd himself 387 . The most striking evidence of people's faith in the abilities of the shepherd is that many of them independently decided to refuse medical help. It is surprising that most often it was not illiterate peasants who did this, but educated, wealthy city dwellers. Thus, one wealthy woman writes: “We have heard so much about your universal help and decided to ask your saints. prayers and healing, and I wrote to you for the first time in July, at that time my husband went to Moscow on business and at the same time wanted to consult with doctors, but I advised him against it, sweat. that I sent you a letter and was so hopeful, I was waiting for my husband’s arrival, I was in full confidence to see him completely healthy, but I was so upset when I found out that he also couldn’t hear. Father! One hope is in God! I beg you to pray... I will be very, very grateful to you." 388 The final phrase is typical of the style of educated and wealthy people: they considered the expression of gratitude both a tribute to decency and a sign of inner dignity. Among the poor and less educated laity, phrases like “I will be grateful to you” were not in use, and they, as a rule, wrote about. John: “I will pray for you too.” There are a lot of subtexts in this phrase. Firstly, the poor and uneducated realized much more deeply than the rich that no service is free, and this certainly applies to the help of a priest. Most of them were eager to pay at least a nominal fee. So, for example, a poor peasant who described his illness and diagnosed that it was a punishment for his youth spent “in drunkenness, debauchery, and other harmful acts,” made his “continued contribution” - one ruble. However, those who could not give even this promised to at least pray 389. At the same time, there is another, deeper subtext. In the eyes of the overwhelming majority of his correspondents, Fr. John was not a lone star showing the way to a righteous life, but part of a huge constellation of Orthodox piety, to which they included themselves. The priest or saint did not exist in some special divine universe inaccessible to mere mortals. Perhaps he was closer to the Lord than they were, but the shepherd’s correspondents realized that they were walking with him along the same path - the same one that had previously been traversed by people who had become recognized saints. That is why they specifically mentioned that they would pray for Fr. John, or ended the letters with phrases such as “May the Queen of Heaven protect you.” Although “pleasing to God,” he still remained a mortal man, subject—perhaps to a greater extent than they were—to the temptations of the enemy. By telling the shepherd that they would pray for him, people asserted their active role on the path to salvation. They were active participants, and not an audience expecting a miracle from the magician with the wave of a magic wand 390. So, oh. John was perceived, on the one hand, as the brightest and living embodiment of Orthodoxy, but on the other, as its integral part, and therefore so many sought to help him in his own quest. In addition to promising to pray for him, people gave the shepherd, as if they were a family member or close friend, tangible pieces of grace. One woman sent him a consecrated prosphora and a particle of the relics of St. Bishop Mitrofan; another handed over the holy water of St. Theodosius of Chernigov and the oil of the Great Martyr Barbara 391. Finally, people begged him to offer prayers to other saints - the Tikhvin Icon of the Mother of God, and Nicholas the Wonderworker, and the healer Panteleimon, etc. 392 Relation to Father John and Divine Intervention: Who Heals? All of the above makes us wonder: how did people evaluate the role of Fr. John in prayer and healing? They demonstrated here amazing unanimity, and, moreover, in the spirit of Orthodoxy. If their own prayers did not bring results, it only proved the weakness of their prayer and their very faith. And the shepherd, believers believed, had a more direct connection with the Lord than mere mortals. For example, in 1898, Baroness Lieven, praying for the healing of her sister’s children from scarlet fever, expressed her wish this way: “I believe that God is omnipotent and that the pure, fervent prayer of people pleasing to Him works miracles” 393 . This idea of ​​hierarchy led to the fact that in the event of a successful outcome, prayers of thanks were offered first of all to God and only then to Fr. John. However, what about those cases when even the prayer of the shepherd seemed powerless? Here the joint responsibility of the saint and the one for whom he is praying emerges with particular force. If sin led to illness, then recovery is just as directly related to faith. Father John loved to repeat to his flock that everyone will be rewarded according to their faith, and that is why so many correspondents especially noted their pious behavior in their letters. However, one postal worker from Torzhok, who was not helped by the shepherd, wrote on November 17, 1890: “Father, when I approached you in the altar after the liturgy and began to ask for your prayers, you asked me in detail about my first trip to you and said that the reason I was not healed was that I had little faith. Father, but I am an incomparable sinner, a layman and living in the very den of sin at the post office, and in all my life I have not had such an incident that would confirm me in the faith. What I did not ask the Lord God for in my prayers, I never received what I wanted, the St. asked. Saints' saints Panteleimon for healing me and also did not receive it until now, I asked other holy saints for healing me and for help with the shortcomings and needs that completely consumed me, but alas, I am not destined to have this joy in life... Pray for me for healing and I also ask you to confirm me in faith in the cat. I think that I can be confirmed by healing me, this will be a fact for the rest of my life and cat. would destroy all my heretical thoughts. Father himself is a priest. Panteleimon was confirmed in faith in Christ when he raised the dead - how can we sinners achieve this grace if you, the most holy shepherd and a living intercessor for us sinners, do not reward us..." 394 Thus, recognizing their lack of faith, petitioners Fr. John quite logically believed that confirmation of their faith should be the fulfillment of their request. Of course, this can be interpreted as manipulation; however, it is rather a desire to achieve what is desired within the framework of the Orthodox worldview. Although it was believed that the prayers of Fr. John is also helped from a distance; most people still preferred a personal meeting. However, by the 1890s the number of applicants had increased so much that it became increasingly difficult to attend everyone. Moreover, the priest even hired a staff of assistants who took care of the schedule of his affairs and meetings. In practice, this meant that one could afford to meet directly with the shepherd only if one had the means. As a result, starting from the 1890s, the poor practically stopped persuading Fr. John to visit them personally, and titled nobles from the outskirts of St. Petersburg bombard him with similar requests. Moreover, letters from representatives of the nobility begin to arrive in large volumes only after 1894, when Fr. John was asked to perform divine services at the bedside of the dying Alexander III. This shows that most of the higher nobility were waiting for a sign of imperial favor before turning to the shepherd. However, once they turned to him, they became his devoted followers and formed an influential part of his flock. There is hardly at least one eminent aristocratic family that would not ask the shepherd for a visit: the Volkonskys, Gagarins, Sheremetevs, Apraksins, Kropotkins, Lanskys, Shakhovskys, Tatishchevs, Kutuzovs, Rimsky-Korsakovs, Svyatopolk-Mirskys, Obolenskys, Bagrations, Lobanov-Rostovskys, Trubetskoys, Muravyovs, Oldenburgskys, Tizenhausens, Kulomzins, Cherkasskys, Tolstoys, Ukhtomskys, Orlovs, Golitsyns, Taneyevs, etc. It is characteristic that representatives of the nobility attached great importance to their feelings. Unlike correspondents of lower origin, who, turning to Fr. Ioannou, obviously, experienced some timidity and were extremely laconic; titled nobles often mentioned their feelings even in short telegrams - for example, in 1895, Prince Baryatinsky ended his telegram with the following words: “For God’s sake, go, we are all in despair!” 395 Even being in an extremely difficult situation, they attached great importance to their feelings and believed that their feelings were no less significant for Fr. John. Members of the royal family also wrote to Fr. John. Nicholas II sent a telegram in which he expressed joy at the shepherd’s recovery. Alexandra Feodorovna asked him to bless three icons, and the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna thanked him for his prayers and blessing her to work with the deaf-mute. Father John was also invited to serve at the wedding and coronation of Nicholas II and at the christenings of several of his children 396. In this regard, it seems strange that the Emperor and Empress never seemed to consider inviting the priest to court to pray for the health of Tsarevich Alexei after their heir suffered his first attack of hemophiliac bleeding in 1904. They consulted with everyone from French charlatans to Rasputin; for some reason, while neglecting the true Orthodox healer, who was very close by 397. This misunderstanding is especially striking in light of the fact that in the West the version that Fr. John chose Rasputin as his own successor and even introduced him to the imperial family in 1903. 398 Replicating the common misconception that in fact the confessor of the royal family was Fr. John Sergiev (Kronstadt), and not Protopresbyter John Yanyshev, Western researchers of a later era paint an incredible picture. As if one day Fr. John, taking the chalice and saying, “Proceed with the fear of God and faith,” suddenly stopped the service, took the ragged Rasputin out of the crowd and asked him to come up. He allegedly not only blessed Rasputin, but also asked for his blessing in return 399. Then the shepherd “advised the empress to talk to the pious peasant” 400. The hypotheses that Fr. John warned Rasputin that his surname (“dissolute”) would predetermine his fate or that Fr. John also introduced the imperial family to the French "doctor" Nizier Anthelme Philip 401. Of course, these hypotheses are not based on serious scientific research. Nevertheless, many continue to perceive Fr. John through their prism. Several questions arise here: was the priest close to the imperial family? Did he communicate with Rasputin? If not, when and why did this myth arise? First of all, Fr. John was not particularly close to the imperial family. He treated her with respect, and the invitation to pray at the bedside of the dying Alexander III was one of the most important events in his life, but this was his only meeting with members of the imperial family. Given his attention to rank and honor and his tendency to note the smallest details of contacts with the reigning house, there is no doubt that he would have mentioned any such episode in his diaries or letters. The most striking personal meetings described by the shepherd are Emperor Nicholas’s gift of a grove of 300 acres to the Sursky Monastery and his call to the House of Diligence to inquire about the health of Fr. John 402. The shepherd knew his place too well. It would have been unthinkable for him to casually invite the Empress to talk to some peasant. Almost equally incredible is the story that he allegedly blessed Rasputin. Father John, who served the Liturgy in a state of exaltation, with the thought of unity with God, could not stop the sacrament for the sake of anyone (a striking example of this: once the priest did not stop communion even after one of the parishioners was crushed to death by an impatient crowd) 403. Moreover, the high role that he always assigned to his priestly rank contradicts the assumption that a shepherd could allegedly ask for a blessing from a non-church person 404. Even if we assume for a moment that he took such a strange step, this would certainly be reflected in his diaries; and there are no such references there. Finally - and this is the most significant argument - there is also no confirmation of this hypothesis in other sources for the simple reason that not a single contemporary would believe it. The most reliable evidence of Rasputin's rise to glory comes from his own secretary, Aron Simanovich, who, like Nicholas II himself, denies that Fr. John played some role in this. Simanovich claims that Rasputin was introduced to the queen by the Montenegrin princesses Milica and Anastasia, although other contemporaries name either Bishop Feofan or Countess Ignatieva 405. In this case, where did the conviction come from that Fr. Did John introduce Rasputin to the royal family? It was not clear to Western researchers how Rasputin could have achieved recognition from the court alone, without patronage or without the help of influential religious hierarchs. And since Fr. John was both an official and original figure, and was purely hypothetically suited for such a role, and since he was often confused with Fr. Ioann Yanyshev, later researchers could reasonably consider him a suitable candidate. Even more absurd is the hidden hint contained in this version that Fr. John, for one reason or another, transferred his mission as the “spiritual father of Russia” to Rasputin. However, let's pose the question differently. Why, faced first with the problem of the absence of an heir, and then with the hemophilia of their only son, Nikolai and Alexandra did not turn for help to an Orthodox priest, famous for his gift of healing - Fr. John of Kronstadt? Arguments explaining why this or that event did NOT happen are never well founded, but some assumptions can still be made. The first and most likely of them: on the only time when the royal family turned to Fr. for help. John in 1894, his prayers for healing did not help, and Alexander III died. The imperial family, in turn, could reason that if the priest failed once, it could happen again. Another explanation is the eclectic nature of Empress Alexandra's religiosity. For some reason, the empress apparently had a weakness not for the pillars of Orthodoxy, but for the blessed, holy fools, spiritualists and “psycho-physiologists” 406. Be that as it may, whether because Fr. John did not cure Alexander III, or because he was too traditional, neither Nicholas nor Alexandra resorted to his help. Only the Empress's sister, Grand Duchess Elizaveta Feodorovna, showed him something more than secular courtesy. It was she who recommended that Nicholas II seek advice from Fr. John, when the emperor wooed Alexandra, and on her behalf Nadezhda Arsenyeva wrote in October 1907: “Deeply revered, dear Father, led. Princess Elisaveta Feodorovna thanks you very much for the prosphora that you sent her. She loves you so much, honors you so much and values ​​your prayers so much that she was very pleased and happy to know that you are praying for her and for the repose of the soul of her husband Vel. Prince Sergius Alexandrovich" 407. Requests for financial assistance Following requests for healing come letters asking for financial assistance, forming another impressive category in the pastor’s correspondence. They asked him for anything: a dowry for his daughter, money for a return ticket, or just for food. The letters demonstrate that a severe or prolonged illness of one of the family members could result in complete ruin for that family. Therefore, those who asked for healing sometimes also asked for money, especially if we were talking about families with small children in which the breadwinner was sick. In such situations, Fr. John, apparently, was often their only hope. Almost every letter said: “You are the only one I can turn to” or “You are the only kind person in the whole world.” And these are not just polite phrases. One police official wrote: “Due to the illness of my wife and mother, I am 7 thousand in debt. Everything is pawned, including clothes, underwear, overcoat, boots, so I can’t even go to work, but have to pretend to be sick. Relatives and friends stopped helping us a long time ago - they think that they will never get what they have back. If you don't help me, there won't be anyone else in the world. Ask one of your fans to cover at least half of the debt (3 thousand) - save me, I’m completely lost. I can’t even afford to buy bread” 408. Whatever kind of help one expects from Fr. John, it was assumed that he would fulfill the role of a generous and reasonable parent - and at the same time a classic patron saint, restoring justice and order both in the universe and in society. A special category of pastoral correspondents are educated ladies. They are distinguished by an irritated and authoritative intonation. In general, everyone who turned to the priest believed that God was actively involved in their lives, but educated women perceived him more personally, especially when they felt that their hopes were not justified. It looked as if they had fulfilled their part of the deal and were indignant that the Lord did not answer them in kind. This trend was also noted by the hierarchs of that time 409. In this respect, educated women differed both from educated men and from uneducated women, who, even in moments of extreme despair, were far from thinking that God owed them anything. Moreover, educated women did not hesitate to almost manipulate the saint. All their sophistication disappeared without a trace when they tried to play on the shepherd’s pride, hinting that there is no better proof of God’s (and his) power than the fulfillment of their desires. Noteworthy is the abundance of “if-then” constructions and the almost comical discrepancy between the mentions of shrines and the specific purpose in the letter dated January 1891: “If you are a good father, close to God and the Almighty is accessible to you, you must - your heart must feel compassion for me. How many tears, how much torment of the heart befell my unfortunate lot. Oh, Lord, enough already! Otherwise, the Lord is cruel and not Merciful. I prayed to him, prayed until I lost consciousness, but He does not listen to me. Holy Father! The Lord hears Your prayers and fulfills Them. I beg You, Queen of Heaven, All Saints, Lord Jesus Christ Our Savior, I conjure You by the Power and Authority of the Life-giving Cross, the Incomprehensible Holiness of the Body and Blood of the Lord, I conjure You with the Holy Creed and I beg you to pray for me, may the Lord hear and fulfill my small and modest desire, I have the only ticket - let if he wins, this will give me the opportunity to be further away from the squabbles and nasty things of people, I will give more than a tenth at the disposal of Your worthy Father. If the Lord and His incomprehensible Mysteries exist, if Your prayers are valid, my desire and request will be fulfilled, and thus faith will be strengthened in my soul, and I will glorify the Name of the Lord and Your spiritual Father... Once again I beg and from the depths of my heart I conjure the Holy Gifts of the Sacrament, pray sincerely for my request, so possible for the Lord, may He, the Merciful, show His Power and Miracle and Strength and The power of the prayer of the Righteous One, pleasing to Him” 410. This petitioner did not know that Fr. John had an aversion to gambling. But at least she tried to look pious. Others hinted that they had reached the limit of despair and were losing all connection with Orthodoxy. Perhaps they believed that by threatening the loss of their soul they could force Fr. John to consider his request more carefully. Thus, one correspondent deliberately writes the word “God” with a small letter, except in those cases when she recalls her former religiosity: “You were sent by God to us who are grieving, listen to me and my grief: ask God for me to help me. I have been through and am going through so much that patience is running out... People took away my entire fortune from me after a whole series of sufferings. All I have left is one winning noble ticket and 3000 debt of honor... You can ask God for me. He will do it for you... You yourself say: whatever you ask God, just believe, in prayer, it will be done for you... I prayed terribly to the point of frenzy, to the point of pain... While praying, I believed that God exists and hears me... then there were only thoughts. I have no joy... and you look around at people, they live and rejoice... Is it a sin to desire the joy and life of the circle from which a person came? I haven’t fasted for 3 years, it will be soon and I just can’t. If I’m happy then I’ll just go to church” 411. Frequent references to lottery tickets as a solution to financial difficulties indicate something more than the popularity of lotteries in the decline of the Russian Empire 412 . They are of interest from the point of view of studying religious consciousness, which combined despair and righteous impulses. If money was needed for something, oh. John did not approve (for example, to pay off a debt for losing a gambling game), then it seemed more appropriate for the person to ask him to pray for the winning number than to ask for money directly. It would turn out that he helped the person asking, without incurring financial costs 413. Those high-society ladies who had children achieved much greater success when they emphasized not only their humiliating position, but also their motherhood, calling for help on behalf of the entire family. It is characteristic that all mothers asked for their children, regardless of social status, but only representatives of the upper class considered motherhood as a special privilege. They did everything as they should - fulfilled the duties imposed on them by family and society, and behaved in a spirit of Christian submission, so that now they felt that they had a moral right to count on help. Thus, Princess Shakhovskaya wrote: “You served prayer services with us more than once, but then I was rich. And every time you served with us, God gave us happiness! But now everything has changed. My husband died, leaving me with 3 sons without a penny. You know my brother Prince Urusov well. You visited him in Moscow. Now I beg on my knees, like the mother of her children. Do you have any idea how children raised in luxury ask: Mom, give me bread! Now we have everything pawned, there is nowhere to take it; and this is the reason that I appeal and ask you, in the name of dear mother, do not refuse and help us. For you, some one and a half hundred rubles do not constitute a calculation; for me they are a matter of life or death. If for some reason this amount seems too large, then help as much as you find possible. P.S. I hope that your heart will respond to my hopeless situation. I bear a terrible cross, but as a good Christian I carry it, and I have no right to pass it on to my children. You are the first person I turn to. You will understand me and your sympathetic heart will tell you, good father, your word for me” 414. Such letters, the authors of which persistently emphasized that they lived in line with traditional ideas about Christian female virtue, flattered Fr. John in confidential tones, had a response. Whether because of his craving for nobility and beauty, or simply out of pity, the shepherd responded immediately. This is confirmed by another letter with a mourning border, which he received from Princess Obolenskaya almost immediately after Shakhovskaya’s letter: “You are our Shrine, your prayers reach the Almighty. I just buried my brother Boris (Prince Golitsyn), and this affected the health of my dear boy so much that he fell ill with a nervous disorder. He's all I have. He needs to be taken abroad urgently. I just recently buried my husband, and when will they give me a pension... What will a mother not do for her child, and so I ask you for the sake of my son, do not refuse me... I ask you for 225 rubles, but if this is difficult for you, then help as much as you can. You, dear Father, recently helped my cousin, Prince. Vera Shakhovskaya, and I ask you to treat my request as favorably as you treated hers... Your verdict will be the verdict of the Almighty” 415. Thus, even in cases where the petitioners’ interest was purely material, they did not consider the prayerful intercession of Fr. John as a kind of personal property. On the contrary, they willingly shared information with each other about the good deeds of the shepherd. Another group of petitioners who felt they had a right to seek help were those who were beginning to develop a class consciousness of workers. They don’t just complain about poverty and beg for help, but also describe the objective reasons for their condition. In a letter written by one worker in 1903, he addresses Fr. John not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone injured in the workplace. A characteristic parallel is drawn between the Gospel, on the one hand, and trade unionism and social justice, on the other. The author of the letter, like many others, connects Fr. John with the king: “Can Father Tsar, and all the laws and rulers, be able to forget these unfortunate persons!.. The insulted and maimed petition the court for compensation for their injuries, but what happens? The owners and the board use all possible methods - doctors, bribing witnesses - to prove that the wounded person is to blame. Or they drag out the matter for two, three years and then do not find a sufficient reason... The crippled sufferer will not be able to support his family and the children given to him according to the Law of God, so his whole family deteriorates... they forget the sacred. The Scriptures of Our Lord Jesus Christ, for the sake of whose work people came to listen to Him and He rewarded them... I have already resorted to His Excellency Mr. Procurator and appealed to the district court, cat. conducted the proceedings illegally, but no one paid attention. Vel also addressed. Book Sergei Alexandrovich, but everything remains as it was... All of the above shows that there is truth where Father the Tsar is personally, and where he is not, then the truth is enhanced by finance, which replaces the truth. Please convey this request to Father our Tsar, because there are no further measures. If you don’t pay attention, good Shepherd, then I will try to appeal to the Tsar personally” 416. For such people, both the king and Fr. John were the last strongholds of morality, not “tainted” by service in the bureaucracy, standing above the social hierarchy. In their opinion, both of them were capable of restoring justice in heaven and on earth. For those who sought help from Fr. John, with his ability to step over the generally accepted boundaries of power relations, he resembled a king. Association with the king arose on other levels, including in urban legends and political representations. Thus, monarchist-minded contemporaries believed that people placed a portrait of Fr. John is next to the imperial one, because “he, being an All-Russian shepherd, a man of prayer and a shield of the Orthodox faith, with such his activity came close to the exploits of the Anointed of God, the All-Russian Emperor” 417. Thus, the similarity between the emperor and the parish priest was reflected both in the charismatic gift and in real power. Intercession and intercession People's attitude towards Fr. John was especially powerful in the area of ​​intercession, a quality attributed to saints starting with the Virgin Mary. Phrases such as “The zealous Intercessor” and “You who intercede” run like a red thread through the prayers and hymns of the Orthodox Church. However, Fr. John had the advantage over canonized saints that he was alive, which means he could listen to requests directly. In accordance with his priestly rank, he received requests for intercession before representatives of both heavenly and earthly authorities. In this sense, the shepherd was associated with the king for practical reasons: people not only believed that the priest was like a king, but that he would be able to intercede for them before the king. People asked his advice in cases where they were sure that only the king could rise above the church hierarchy. For example, he was asked to petition Nicholas II to allow a mixed Orthodox-Catholic marriage that would otherwise be declared illegal. The people whose family icon was appropriated by the bishop wanted to secure the blessing of Fr. John in order to get an appointment with the emperor if they are refused again, and so on 418. However, most requests for intercession are related to money problems. Most often they asked for a job. Since Kronstadt was not far from St. Petersburg, many of those who came from the provinces in search of work and sought to get to the capital described how they knocked on the thresholds of various institutions in vain attempts to get work, and begged the shepherd to appeal to some high-ranking official, repeating: “just one word from you, and N. will give me a place” 419. In their eyes, Fr. John was a patron in every sense of the word. In addition to representatives of the clergy seeking a position or an increase in pension (and this is a significant group), the majority were workers, officials and sailors from the capital region. Their persistence is quite understandable, since the petition of Fr. John could bring the desired results. For example, on January 8, 1904, he received a letter from Nikolai Speransky, the chief military medical inspector, in which he wrote that his request had been granted and that the senior physician of the 2nd Kronstadt Infantry Regiment, Dr. Sobolevsky, had been promoted to senior physician of the cavalry regiment of Her Imperial Majesty Maria Feodorovna in St. Petersburg 420 . When is the petition of Fr. John ended in failure, as, for example, in 1905, when he was notified that an assistant accountant in the Kronstadt port could not be transferred to the position in the Admiralty that he requested, since it had already been promised to another, a representative of the authorities (in this case the Chief of the Main Naval Staff) sent him a personal letter with explanations 421. Patronage did not boil down to the fact that the priest knocked on the doors of all the powers that be. The process was mutual, for each side realized that the other side might one day also return the favor. Since Fr. John regularly interceded for other people before the military, the Church and the government, who, in turn, also turned to him for help. For example, Vladimir Sabler, later chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, contacted the pastor in 1904 and asked him to give a position in the monastery to a woman who was an excellent accountant 422 . Thus, the shepherd, on the one hand, embodied the ideal of prayerful zeal, and on the other, was an element of the power structure of St. Petersburg. However, not all the authors of letters asking for intercession asked for something material or something that required the shepherd to do something other than prayer. This is important because it demonstrates that the people who wrote to him were not only interested in the specific help he could provide, but also valued his spiritual blessing. The combination of practicality and religiosity inherent in his correspondents shows that for many Fr. John was not only a generous patron or only a man with the gift of prayer; he embodied both for them. In the worldview of his correspondents there was no clear and absolute separation of the material and spiritual aspects. Analysis of letters from entrepreneurs to Fr. Ioannou shows that they were clearly aware of both the material and spiritual aspects of their activities. Pavel Barskov, who together with his wife Elizaveta owned a family fruit shop on Mokhovaya Street in St. Petersburg, wrote: “Dear Father, we dare to disturb you, great sinners Pavel and Elisabeth, pray before the throne of the Almighty Creator for us, cursed and nasty, because I have a shop and have trading rights to myself and my uncle buys the goods for me, and since I have no means at all for this. so that I can buy the goods myself, therefore we must overpay more ... ”However, the Barskovs do not develop this topic further; they don't even ask about. John, so that he would reproach the obstinate uncle. On the contrary, they continue like this: “Dear father, pray for us sinners, accursed, nasty and unworthy Paul and Elizabeth, may the Lord God help us and establish us with His omniscient St. providence, but not as we think, but as it pleases the Almighty Creator, our Lord Jesus Christ. And may He strengthen us with His grace and help us sinners to be firm and unshakable in all matters pleasing to Him, may our only Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, pour out His grace on our commercial affairs” 423. Of course, it is also possible that the Barskovs were counting on something more. Perhaps they believed that Fr. John will be so moved by their desire to accept God's will that he would rather pray for them than for someone who did not take it into account at all. However, the ending of the letter, in which they pray for Divine grace to descend on their activities, is not typical for most letters and indicates at least a certain sincerity. The spiritual meaning of the prayer of Fr. John is especially obvious in those cases where people turned to him after having already taken all the purely practical steps to achieve their goal. For example, in 1901, August Brilinsky, a forest supervisor, said that his wife was having an affair with the godfather of their youngest daughter. To help Brilinsky separate his wife from her lover, the Empress petitioned for his transfer to work in Kyiv, and the director, B. S. Kochubey, promised assistance. What was the role of Fr. in this case? John? Pray for the transfer to happen as soon as possible, because Brilinsky felt that for everyone, and especially for children, it was necessary to get out of this situation as soon as possible 424. Thus, even in those cases when from Fr. John was not expected to provide practical help to a person; they turned to him so that the spiritual sanctification of what was happening would occur. In other words, those who understood their lives through the Orthodox faith were drawn to the shepherd, and there were many of them in the Russian Empire. They sought to receive both material and spiritual help, which was especially evident when he was asked to intercede in court cases. In most cases, the petitioners argued that their friends were unfairly accused. Taking into account that, according to established tradition, the most important role of the saint is to restore justice, eradicate vices and be a kind of “protector of the disadvantaged,” such requests indicate that for those who turned to Fr. John, he became a saint during his lifetime 425. Thus, the family of Colonel Bezbryzhy from Warsaw told how he was hit in the face by a drunken officer returning from a picnic. The colonel fought back, for which he was sentenced to eight years of hard labor on Sakhalin. Bezryzhy had only one month left to serve, and he won the love of his colleagues and command; even many officers who knew about the incident were on his side. Although the court followed the letter of the law, Fr. John, as the petitioner believed, could convince the emperor to show mercy 426. The priest’s status as the patron saint of the “little people” was also relevant outside the Orthodox community. Catholics, Jews and Muslims living on the territory of the Russian Empire also turned to him for help. Thus, in February 1898, he received a petition from Mohammed Rakhim Abdraimov and Akhmet Amirov, who mentioned that they had heard from many how his prayers could save him from unfair accusations: “Hearing from the masses of people about the prayers of Your Reverence, which in moments of unjust accusation or during a misfortune that has befallen one, delivers from all sorts of troubles and misfortunes, therefore, with a tender heart and without hiding the fact of the incident before Your Reverence, as if before God himself, we are telling the real truth. On June 10, 1897, several Kirghiz attacked our herd and stole horses and sheep. They killed our comrade Usendbai Kharanbaev... We were accused of his murder... and sentenced to eight years. We wrote complaints to the Senate, but to no avail... Please pray for us before the Almighty Judge who sees our innocence. Your holy prayer will free us from undeserved punishment." 427 The naturalness of such a request is partly explained by the fact that Muslims venerate the Most Holy Theotokos or, for example, St. George the Victorious. However, the very fact of the above appeal to Fr. Ioannou shows that he has already become an “interfaith” intercessor and has crossed the boundaries between different faiths while remaining Orthodox. In fact, if we recall the later accusations of obscurantism against the pastor, it is worth bearing in mind that during his lifetime he was not such in the eyes of numerous representatives of other faiths; they considered him an impartial spiritual authority. From their letters it is clear that his unique charisma was valued much more than the rank of an Orthodox priest. Thus, Nikolai Shanshiev explained that he was born and baptized into the Armenian (Monophysite) faith, but did not know Armenian and went to the Russian (Orthodox) church from childhood. Now he asked advice from Fr. John, whether he will not commit apostasy if he renounces the faith of his ancestors: “I will tell you frankly, I would not so boldly make such a request to anyone else, but you are, first of all, a convinced, sincere follower of the Divine Christ, and then an Orthodox priest. I deeply and sincerely believe that it is more important for you to save and guide you. soul than to fulfill a missionary’s duty” 428. Gottfried von Dorn, an eighteen-year-old Lutheran student from the Naval Cadet Corps, expressed similar sentiments in a letter of 1900. Having learned that Orthodoxy has seven sacraments while Lutheranism has only two, he asked Fr. John to explain to him the difference between the two faiths. He warned that he did not see the need to convert to another faith, since he believed that all religions were the same, and added that he was writing to the pastor in order to get an objective point of view: “In our corps we cannot talk about such things, because it is understandable that everyone is biased towards one side or another” 429 . As can be seen from the correspondence, the issue of converting to another faith was especially difficult for the Jews. Thus, Lazarus Sats wrote to the shepherd several times, emphasizing his intention to become a true Jew - and at the same time wondering whether he should follow his brother into another faith. Particularly noteworthy is the fact that Sats, like Shanshiev, clearly understood that Fr. John is objective and trustworthy, and asked the shepherd to pray for him in any case 430. Such a high assessment of Fr. John was also met by non-Orthodox believers outside the Russian Empire. People from all over the world, from Austria to the USA, not only entered into correspondence with him, but also came to meet him personally. French admirals, priests of the Anglican Church, German tourists - everyone considered it their duty to visit the priest upon arrival in Russia. One of Thomas Edison's students even recorded his voice on tape, so that even today you can hear the verbal greeting of the shepherd Bishop Nicholas from Alaska. Recognition abroad only strengthened Fr.’s established reputation in Russia. John as a “worldwide phenomenon” 431. Prayers, advice, guidance and moral support While healing was the traditional prerogative of saints and financial assistance the preserve of patrons, there was another area in which the role of Fr. Joanna was no less important. This is a kind of element of the Orthodox elder tradition - advice and instructions. Letters asking for moral support form a category almost as large as requests for healing and financial assistance 432 . It is these letters of confidence that show how often the correspondents of Fr. John needed not just to be listened to, but to have someone endowed with Divine authority to give them the right advice, in other words, to guide them on the path of salvation. Women (twice as often as men) wrote him long letters asking for his spiritual advice and describing their lives in great detail. From these letters it becomes clear how much the priest’s advice meant to the women who turned to him and how dependent they felt on him: “My dear Father, please do not scold me and do not turn me away from your generous and merciful protection and correct my lot because I cannot direct myself... I entrust myself into your hands like raw clay and constantly beg you, make this clay a vessel of God to contain the word of God and keep it forever and ever. Please answer me directly, where and how I should live” 433. For some, it replaced both traditional family ties and religious hierarchical relationships: “I have only one joy in life, this is when I write to you about all my sins - and when you accept them, my dear, I firmly believe that the Lord will forgive me... Oh, how happy I would be if God sent me so that you would listen to my confession face to face if I die... remember me then, your prayers will save my soul from hell. I no longer have relatives and parents, and their prayers are still sinful; you are the only one who is pleasing to God" 434. However, more often women described their inner lives. They wrote about. John that they would like to live a more righteous life, but they are hampered by earthly problems, usually related to family. Unmarried women who wanted to stop working for the family and enter a monastic or semi-monastic women's community encountered resistance from parents, especially mothers 435 . At the same time, spouses complained about each other even more often than children complained about their parents. True to the spirit of tradition drawn from the lives of female saints, wives portrayed their husbands as obstacles to spiritual ascent, especially when it came to charity. Alexandra Zelenova describes the conflicts that arise between spouses if one of them lives a much more righteous life. It is especially noteworthy that, being Orthodox, she was well aware that she must obey her husband. But what could she do if he behaved inappropriately? In a letter replete with Church Slavonicisms, which is typical for this genre, she writes: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen. St. Fr. John, hear me cry out to you from the depths of my heart, help me with your word and instruction. And I will accept it as the word of God. I am perishing in a life of sin and I have no understanding of the will of God. I truly want to be saved and come into the mind of truth, but I don’t know the true path along which to go. I've been married for five years now. My husband leads a sinful life, ruining himself and me and raging over me, destroying my body and soul, both physically and mentally, and mental suffering sometimes exceeds my strength and other times I almost reach the despair of my salvation ... " From time to time, Zelenova came to the realization that it was better to strive for her own salvation and move in with relatives, leaving her husband, who drank and insisted on physical intimacy in those days when the Church prescribed abstinence. However, then she experienced torment of a different kind. Of course, she felt freer in her parents’ home and could pray more intently, but she doubted whether she was going against God’s will by leaving her husband. She explained it this way: “When I am with my husband, I remember the words of the Gospel (that whoever loves his father or mother or whoever is more than me is not worthy of me) and I think that I am breaking the commandment of God by fulfilling the whims of my husband more than the will of God. When I leave, I again suffer and feel sorry for my husband and I think that without me he will completely perish, and I remember the Gospel paralytic... He (the Savior) healed him for the faith of others..." Zelenova sees the cause of all difficulties in her ignorance, which she often mentions. In her opinion, if she were righteous enough, she would understand what her duty was - that is, God's will. However, by her own admission, no matter how much she struggled, she could not comprehend it. She wanted Fr. John became her confessor and set her on the right path: “I pray to you, Holy Father John, do not leave me without notice and do not be disgusted by my sinfulness and ignorance, lest a thing consume me like the fire of despair... My husband drinks almost everything and wants money and says that I don’t know how to live and live everything and give it to my relatives and that he gets drunk because of me. But I suffer because I live and do nothing good and my labors are not for God and not for good deeds. I pray to you, Father John, do not leave me to perish from ignorance. Write how I should live and whether I can use my earned money as I please without my husband’s knowledge because he doesn’t allow me to do anything good. And what should I obey him and what should I resist? Help me as I was once wounded by robbers. I know that I am not worthy, but even the psychos eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table” 436. For those who strived for piety (such as Zelenova), Fr. John opened up perhaps the only legal path to liberation from the dictatorship of her husband or the overthrow of his power. Of course, non-believing women did not need such sanctions on his part: they could draw recipes for behavior from feminism, which was gaining strength in those years, which became popular in the 1850s due to the emergence of the “women’s question” in society. However, women who wanted to live in accordance with the Orthodox laws of virtue clearly saw the hidden contradiction between the commandments “Worship the Lord your God and serve Him alone” and “Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord” or “Honor your father and your mother.” In their eyes, only Fr. John was able to reconcile these discrepancies. Men also wrote about their spiritual quests and inner turmoil, but they almost never mentioned their parents. Unlike the male saints described in the lives, whose main conflict is usually the relationship with the mother, ordinary laymen often become devout in protest of their marital status and see the main obstacle in their wife and children. For example, a blind young man wrote to Fr. John: “I am blind and have been married for three years now... bless me to do what I can to be saved; my heart is restless and my mind is weak, and my sins keep weighing me down; where is it better for me to be saved or get away from my wife and children or not, my soul is looking for everything” 437. Mothers could also consider their children as something secondary to their spiritual life, and sometimes even saw them as the main obstacle to God. For people who felt pressure from family members, faith - and especially the blessing of Fr. Joanna - helped to find a way out that was not rejected by public morality. In a letter dated July 23, 1899 Vasily and Paraskeva Raspopov described the plight of their illiterate friend: “We are also writing to you about the sick Daria, when she scolded her child severely at night, she fell asleep and saw a dream of the Lord himself crucified on the cross and the Queen of Heaven, suddenly she jumped up! And she was very frightened, she said a prayer and then lay down again, fell asleep and had a second dream, she saw the saint of God in living creatures and he put a cross on her, and what! Now it happened to her that even though she was going to the church and scolding the Lord and the Mother of God and all the saints and bad words never descended from her thoughts, she was such a woman of God, and now it was very bad with her that she was crying so bitterly day and night and wanted to leave the children and leave, she didn’t know where to go, she asked Father Nova Blessings that he would bless or not, let the children go on their way neya 4 adin one less and she is very poor and sends money 1 rub. and upon receipt of this letter, notify in writing” 438. In other words, since children were the cause of the swearing, running away from the family could remove them. Even if such a dramatic step was not required, many of the pastor's correspondents reported to him their determination to devote their lives to spiritual ascent - a determination that usually matured with age. Many historians note such a pattern as the cyclical nature of women’s spirituality: during the periods of giving birth and raising a child, women simply cannot fully follow spiritual impulses. However, this pattern applies not only to women 439. If we talk about the peasant environment, then here a more pious lifestyle, strict observance of fasting, abstinence and reading religious literature (the latter, of course, applies to the literate) were respected and sometimes expected in old age 440. However, piety in the last years of life is a sign not only of the peasant way of life. Thus, a 46-year-old government official also expressed a desire to spend the rest of his days in repentance and read psalms in the Church of the Nativity in front of the icon “Recovery of the Lost” 441. A theme that runs like a red thread through the letters to Fr. John, - the spiritual loneliness of people and their desire to discuss their inner life with someone. The sheer volume of letters, especially from the provinces, demonstrates that existing social and religious forms of communication were not sufficient. People called out to Fr. John, because they wanted not only to share their spiritual experiences, but also to receive instruction from the shepherd. When they felt that something unusual had happened in their spiritual life, for example they had a vision, they turned to Fr. John without a shadow of embarrassment, characteristic of those who asked for money or prayers. As if thanks to this they entered the category of initiates and had the right to freely, on an equal basis, contact the priest. For example, the semi-literate Lucullian began his letter to Fr. John with the familiar “Dear!” and asked for his blessing: “I don’t need earthly goods. My darling, for me there would be no greater happiness on earth if you visited my wretched cell, here I need to tell you” 442. It was not only spiritual visions that gave people the courage to write to the shepherd: the very content of the visions made them think that they had a serious responsibility. Images of the Tsar and the fate of the entire Russian Empire occupy a significant place in all the visions that the correspondents told the shepherd about. For example, Elder Evdokia wanted to inform Their Imperial Majesties that they would be able to find a lot of gold and old weapons under the icon of the Kazan Mother of God: “But without your advice, Fr. John, I don’t dare do anything” 443. An illiterate woman wrote to him that “the great elder, Father Cornelius” instructed her to notify everyone about the prophecy received from the Lord himself: “It was revealed from the Lord himself that great sorrows will befall our Sovereign and all of Russia will cry, from old to small, everyone will suffer that such a disaster has never happened before” 444. However, it would be rash to say that visions and prophecies are the prerogative of the peasants, the illiterate or the poor. Even such an educated person as Prince V. Baryatinsky felt it was “his sacred duty” to inform Fr. John in a telegram from Tsarskoe Selo dated April 1905 about a sign from above received by an American woman, the widow of Meissner, a former official of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. While praying at her son’s grave in Tiflis for the Lord to help the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War, she heard a voice from above: “Until Russia turns to the Lord in prayer and fasts for one week, it will not be able to defeat the enemy!” Mrs. Meissner asked whether the troops also needed to fast like the rest of the country, and received the answer: “Of course not, because they need to save all their strength for the work that is entrusted to them!” When she asked how she should convey this news to the Russian people, she was ordered to tell everything to Prince Baryatinsky and his wife, who should notify Fr. John, and he, in turn, is the whole people. The voice did not cause the slightest doubt in Mrs. Meissner - it was the will of the Heavenly Father. He warned that if the Russians violate the requirement and do not turn to God with prayer and fasting within a week, then they will never recover from the consequences of this war 445. Such signs at all times were of an apocalyptic nature; what was new here was that they often foreshadowed the death of the Tsar and the Russian Empire. The assassination of Alexander II in 1881, the growth of interethnic contradictions, the rampant terror, the revolution of 1905 - all these events influenced the content and general mood of the signs, which in Russia, as in France at that time, reflected the socio-political reality 446. Figure o. John, a Russian priest of the late 19th – early 20th centuries, is most closely associated with gloomy predictions of an inevitable future for the country. Did these visions, which visited a wide variety of people, influence his own visions? Or did people simply want him to use his gift of clairvoyance to confirm their prophecies? In any case, the similarity of the prophetic visions of Fr. John and his correspondents is another reason for his popularity. His eschatological religiosity was most consonant with the mentality of his flock and was strikingly different from the “progressive tendencies” that dominated academic theology at that time 447 . Here the difference between the congregation and the clergy is clearly evident. The laity, if their visions were not bad, happily rushed to share with Fr. John with messages from another world. Monks and nuns, on the contrary, wanted to make sure that even clearly good visions were not from the evil one. Letters from the clergy deserve special mention for other reasons. Being a role model in the eyes of many lay people, Fr. John played an even more important role in the life of the clergy. Parish priests turned to him for both professional and spiritual advice, which reflected the social orientation of the post-reform parish clergy and testified to a high degree of collegiality. L. Manchester pointed out that the unity of the parish clergy was higher than glory, happiness and even holiness 448. If we take into account the mutual suspicion that often existed between the “black” (monastic) and “white” (family) clergy, it becomes even more surprising to what extent Fr. John was loved by monks and nuns. Indeed, despite certain contacts with the outside world, the monastic community was still a rather closed environment with strict discipline and subordination. The life of most monks and nuns was almost entirely limited to the monastery 449. However, the proximity of Fr. John's message to nuns and convents is more understandable than it seems at first glance. Their paths crossed several times. Both priests (including Father John) and nuns were engaged in charity and education; however, nuns were more deeply involved in serving nearby lay communities than monks. Both priests and nuns were far from the corridors of church power and the pursuit of prestigious positions (a dowager priest could become a bishop, as happened with Rev. Savva Tikhomirov, but in general this was rare). It was precisely because of the feeling of similarity of goals and destinies of Fr. George Shavelsky, protopresbyter of the army and navy, wrote with enthusiasm about the women's monasteries known to him and subjected the sharpest criticism to monks and monasteries 450. In addition, in direct service to the poor, the needy and orphans, nuns, rather than monks, showed much greater activity - also for this reason Fr. John helped women's monasteries much more than men's. He founded three convents, not to mention countless donations to other monasteries 451. Nuns and convents Some letters from nuns to Fr. John concerns practical problems - transfer to another monastery, intercession for alcoholics, etc. However, the overwhelming majority of letters are requests for spiritual advice from Fr. John, for example, about helping him succeed in the Jesus Prayer 452. This is not as surprising as you might think. As a rule, the professing priest attached to a convent was not a monastic, but a “white.” Pragmatic considerations played a role here: the hierarchs believed that the nuns would have fewer temptations regarding a married priest; in turn, a married priest could better focus on his spiritual duties. True, there is little evidence that this approach helped effectively combat romantic temptations; In addition, it is obvious that a married priest as a confessor for nuns is not the best choice from a spiritual point of view. The temptations, responsibilities and potential for spiritual growth of a nun striving for a chaste life and a married priest immersed in family concerns were radically different. Moreover, some priests were actually distrustful of monastic life and tried to minimize the ascetic aspirations of their charges 453. Abbesses, who had years of intense spiritual work and harsh discipline behind them, found it even more difficult to see spiritual companions and mentors in ordained priests. Some of them turned to such famous soul leaders as the Optina elders or Theophan the Recluse. However, from the point of view of how highly religious “professionals” assessed the spiritual achievements of the shepherd, it is noteworthy and significant that many abbess turned to Fr. John 454. Here again the communication between the shepherd and his correspondents was not one-way. He valued the opportunity for spiritual conversations with people whom he considered equal to himself, especially with Abbess Taisia ​​from the Leushinsky monastery. Publication and wide dissemination of their correspondence, as well as later memoirs of the abbots. Taisiya about meetings with Fr. John show that instructive epistolary conversation was a fairly popular genre. Correspondence of the abbot. Taisiya with one novice and letters from Theophan the Recluse to an unknown woman also fall into this category. The presence of Fr. John in this company was unusual not in terms of form or content, but because, being a married priest, it was he who instructed the monks and nuns, and not vice versa. The letters of the monks are in many ways reminiscent of the letters of nuns, which indicates the similarity of the temptations of monastic life for both sexes - internal disagreements in the monastery, carnal temptations, doubts about whether to move on to the next stage of monasticism, etc. 455 However, since the monks could also be ordained priests, they faced typically pastoral problems, about which they turned to Fr. John. Thus, one hieromonk asked whether he should remember a heretic torn to pieces by wolves. Another hieromonk from Albania wrote in 1903 that sick or suffering Muslims came to his monastery and asked him to pray for them. He was afraid of the contact of such consecrated objects as the Gospel, stole, etc. with them, and asked Fr. John, what is the best thing to do 456. These were purely pastoral problems, essentially no different from the issues that married priests had to resolve. However, the fact that they turned to a married priest testifies both to his spiritual authority among all believers without exception, be they laity, parish clergy, monastics, and to the extent to which believers of any category were confident that he would help bypass the usual chain of command without violating it. Judge what place about. John occupied the minds and hearts of people, perhaps due to the various gifts and requests that he received. In particular, poor and illiterate petitioners accompanied their request to pray for someone with a donation. The peasants, who spent all their money on the trip to Kronstadt, still tried to present something to Fr. To John, for example, “two pounds of oil and a little sugar, forgive me, but without your blessing I brought something to eat for good health, you are our good shepherd”; handkerchief, towel or flower 457 . This tradition was surprisingly not characteristic of representatives of the nobility, who rarely raised the issue of payment for services rendered. Either they considered the transfer of money (or direct mention of it) something indelicate, or they wanted to avoid it. Gifts about. John are generally divided into three categories: 1) posthumous gifts - execution of a will; 2) “please pray for so-and-so and, by the way, you will receive such-and-such” and 3) “please receive so-and-so (rubles) and use it as you see fit.” Regardless of whether the gifts were a token of gratitude, an advance, or payment for services rendered, they demonstrated the attitude of people towards the help of the priest, which they believed deserved a reward. The variety of gifts is amazing: it could be anything, from two hundred thousand rubles to six silver spoons and a bracelet 458. He was presented with suitcases of vodka from the Samsonovsky plant, canned fish from Tomsk and boxes of Oryol apples from Mtsensk. People expressed their love by giving homemade items, such as a box made by George, the hermit from Zadonsk, or endless embroidered belts, cuffs, gloves and “a pair of warm socks that I knitted myself” 459. Gifts of this kind could be delivered by Fr. John is in trouble. Representatives of Protestant groups and radical intelligentsia, hostile to the shepherd, criticized the priest for dressing in luxurious attire, and repeated in different ways: “Why not sell all this and give the proceeds to the poor” 460. However, the accusations had no effect. Even if we leave aside the approving attitude towards the beauty and splendor of worship, which is generally characteristic of both the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches, the majority understood the essence of giving gifts. So, Hermione, the abbess of the Klyuchegorsky Kazan-Bogoroditsky convent, told how she and her sisters sewed Fr. John's satin vestment decorated with gold. It would take a heart of stone to refuse the request of women who poured their whole soul into a beautiful gift in the hope that he would wear it “at least once.” Moreover, church vestments could be transferred to someone else. Thus, he gave many gifts to needy clergy, including a sick priest who wanted to die in one of Fr. John, and left detailed instructions in his will, according to which his robes, vestments and mitres passed to the priests 461. Giving gifts to Fr. John, in his person people gave gifts to the Church. In what gifts Fr. received. John, both his pragmatic approach to donors and the peculiarities of his charity are manifested. It is not surprising that Voronezh merchants sent six bags of buckwheat, wine shop owners sent bottles of wine, and fishmongers sent jars of caviar and smoked sterlet. Father John could not eat and drink everything himself, but he could feed several convents and the House of Industriousness. The old tradition of presenting food, fruit and wine to a monastery or nunnery on the anniversary of the death of a relative now took on new forms. For example, donors could now organize a memorial meal for deceased loved ones in the dining rooms of the House of Diligence and in other shelters 462. If Fr. John still continued to do charity work privately, alone; it would have been difficult for him to use or manage all the natural products donated. Given the number of poor people who were in the House of Labor every day, there was a place to identify the pickles, cabbage and pickled mushrooms sent and make sure that such commemoration was considered as “spirit-saving” as before, when donating to the monastery. Knowing that the priest was besieged by the poor clergy and churches, a resident of Nizhny Novgorod sent a set of liturgical vessels with instructions to send them to those most in need 463. Thus Fr. John created a kind of chain of material assistance, in the center of which he was. Those who received a gift from him knew that it was a gift not only from the priest and the Lord, but also from a specific person, just as the donors were aware that the “ultimate recipients” would be connected with them and with Fr. John, love and God - this is a new interpretation of traditional charity 464. The personal approach in itself was traditional; innovation manifested itself rather in form. Gifts Fr. John reflect the gradual transformation of the traditions of giving that have developed in Rus', associated with the commemoration of the dead. While some simply bequeathed their money to him with a request to pray for “N,” others asked him for genuine spiritual guidance. Remembering the old truth that the most soul-saving gifts are anonymous, donors invariably asked that “this deed remain between us” - for example, when Alexey Maitov wanted to perpetuate the memory of his relatives by building a parish church in Siberia “or in some other place of our Mother Russia” 465. Donors often wrote that they felt they had no right to distribute money: Fr. John knew better which churches needed the most 466. As for other aspects of Russian religiosity, the attention of Fr. John's devotion to charity not only changed the traditional order of remembering the dead, but also strengthened the ever-present desire to show mercy to one's neighbor in forms approved by the Church. Moreover, the image of the priest as a patron began to be combined with the image of the king. Father John began to be perceived as a mediator not only between God and the donor, but also between the king and the donor. The gifts demonstrated the people's love for the monarchy. Just as Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of England received a cheese ball weighing one hundred pounds as a wedding gift from Cheddar farmers, gifts were given to the Russian sovereign through Fr. John. This is clearly expressed in a letter from an illiterate resident of the Tver province, Evdokim Makarovich Meshkov: “I have the honor to present you with a small gift from my bees and I ask for your blessing for this production of mine, then I would like to receive your portrait as a keepsake as a blessing. 2nd, I would like to present my bee gift to our young Sovereign. I wish to give this gift for the year 1893 for the beekeeping exhibition, the exhibition enlightened me, showed me all the beekeeping business, and I want to thank you for the path shown to me, but I am a peasant and illiterate, home-schooled, I have never been to schools, I was at the caronation of Alexander 3 in Moscow. And also from Nicholas 2... I received award certificates from the monarchs and also the beekeeping exhibition awarded me a certificate of beekeeping; I want to thank you for all this, but I’m a peasant and I don’t know what I can do, then show me the way for this matter” 467. “Lifetime canonization” and Father John’s attitude towards it Although the answers about. John’s letters to the letters sent to him have not survived; his reaction to the attentions he received was reflected in his diaries. He believed that people only honored him because of the grace of God. For the priest, who considered it so important for himself to be a vessel and prayer book of God, universal recognition was proof, a sign that both the voice of the people and the voice of God appreciated his efforts. Ten years of efforts finally bore fruit: an ideal union emerged between the people, the priest and the Lord, which the shepherd had dreamed of all these years. He could hardly contain his joy at the knowledge that this union was being accomplished through him. In 1894 he notes in his diary: “The greatest, unspeakable miracle of God’s mercy. It appeared to me that all Orthodox, pious Christians throughout the entire expanse of the Russian land were disposed towards me. and they nurture trust and love, and - that the grace of God for such their disposition and trust visits them and delivers them from ailments and illnesses, sorrows and misfortunes, when the Orthodox turn to me personally, by letters and by telegraph” 468. The way Fr. John was aware of his role, which speaks volumes. The shepherd believed that by honoring him, people transferred their love for the Lord to him. Moreover, he was a messenger of God in the sense that honoring and respecting the shepherd was pleasing to the Lord. From such identification of oneself with the Lord, of course, there is one step to spiritual self-delusion, in Orthodox terminology - prelest 469. Father John understood this. He sought to overcome this danger by constantly reminding himself of the sources of his spiritual strength: God, the liturgy, and especially the Eucharist. On December 26, 1893 he wrote: “The grace of God dwelling in me... for the sake of my sincere faith and prayer... for the sake of frequent, reverent communion of the Holy Mysteries, has made me dear, venerable, glorified and beloved by all in Russia and even outside it. So, with all my being, I appreciate the grace of God, the truth and holiness within me at all times, and may I abide in truth and holiness for the glory of God and for the good of myself and others” 470. At first glance, we have before us an extraordinary concept of grace. A more traditional interpretation of this miracle is that grace is freely given by the Lord and can disappear as suddenly as it appeared, even if the one on whom it descended believes that he has made a lot of spiritual efforts to acquire it. However, Fr. John, in his pursuit of grace, carried out more intense spiritual work than many, and did not belittle his own role in the process of acquiring it. Now he dared not only to offer prayers to God for others, but also to ask the Almighty to continue to choose the shepherd as a vessel through which grace would be transmitted 471. By the 1890s, Fr. John seemed to have everything that a righteous person seeking holiness could dream of. The Lord favored him, he received worldwide recognition, and daily mass healings confirmed his rare gift. But just at the moment when it seemed that he was sure to become a saint, the very sources of his spiritual power seemed to begin to take away his time and energy. The Eucharist, about which he could still speak enthusiastically: “...What a renewal! What a heavenly world!.. – what is earthly life after this?” – was now becoming an obstacle to seeing as many people as possible 472 . He had to meet with many people to pray for them and provide them with the help they needed - and thus earn money for the many social and religious causes and for the poor people he supported. Becoming a national saint, Fr. John was forced to fight to preserve what nourished his holiness from within. His notebooks reflect this struggle. In the 1880s, Fr. John first mentioned that he was irritated by people - and especially children - who often took communion; but this is exactly what he wanted so passionately. In 1882, he wrote: “I feel such anger when I see them [the children] being brought in, and brought in so often, that I complain - I, the cat. I take communion every day, I buy it for these beloved by God” 473. Long lines in front of the chalice meant that there was less and less time for prayer services. But why did the priest single out children? Perhaps due to the fact that he did not have his own, he explained his antipathy towards children receiving communion by the fact that they were still at an unconscious age. “They are also worthy of Them, although they do not realize their importance and saving power. Often, I think, they offer them - for what? - And I, damned one, why do I often, more often than they, take communion - and still remain a sinner? We should be glad that we are immortal. spirit. Even children share the meal with me; if there are no adults, they are communicants, and don’t be indignant at them. Remember what the Lord told the disciples when they wanted to forbid the children from approaching him.”474 The difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox practice is instructive here. Disputes within the early Christian Church over whether a child could be baptized and given communion ended with the Orthodox accepting the view that the child also has a soul and therefore should be baptized and given communion as soon as possible. In Roman Catholic practice, the infant was also baptized immediately, but the sacrament was delayed until the age of seven. Orthodox children also made their first confession at the “conscious” age of seven, but could receive communion immediately after baptism; in fact, theoretically, they, like Fr. John, could receive communion every day 475. More and more mothers began to respond to the pastor’s call to receive communion more often, which took away from Fr. John is a colossal time. Beginning in the 1880s, adults began to receive communion more often. By the beginning of the 1880s, Fr. John was so busy that his diary began to closely resemble a business diary, and he often caught himself after the liturgy, his thoughts switching from the service to business meetings scheduled for that time. Already in 1883, he lamented that he was not in soul with his spiritual children during confession: “During the confession of my spiritual children, my heart was not with them, but with myself and not with God - oh damnation! and again with yourself and with money, so that having started, you can finish sooner, reaping a richer harvest” 476. At that time, he had to schedule his time minute by minute, and he understood that any deviation from plans at the beginning of the day would inevitably lead to the collapse of the hopes of all those who agreed with the shepherd for a later hour. Despite all his efforts, this happened often. Letters addressed to the pastor in the 1880s contained the following reproaches: “Dear Father, would you please again set the time for the baby’s baptism... they were waiting at the Lavra for Thursday from five to 9 o’clock” 477 . On about. John was constantly pressed by the need to fulfill the persistent demands of parishioners insisting on a meeting. He handled it almost too well. The sins he most frequently repents of since the early 1880s include “carelessness in prayer, extreme haste, and occasionally want of reverence...” 478 . All this, of course, is associated with the peculiarities of any profession, when something that at first seems new and joyful becomes familiar. Perhaps his selfless passion for serving the liturgy faded, and not because of the public recognition of his holiness and the huge demand that followed for holding extra-liturgical services. At the end of the 1890s, he wrote in his notebook that he held prayer services very quickly, because he was in a hurry to get to St. Petersburg, for which “he was punished with embarrassment and sadness,” and he was able to find peace and courage (before God) only with great effort 479 . Every day o. John received plaintive requests for financial assistance by mail. Putting into practice his principle of providing charitable assistance to everyone, he could not leave any of the letters unanswered - and as a result, he had to endlessly think about how to get money. On the other hand, it is unlikely that he could have downplayed the meaning of the sacrament only under the pretext that he became busier. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the more people invited Fr. John to his home, the more people appeared who wanted to confess and receive communion with him. These mutually exclusive demands could drive him over the edge. In 1894 he wrote about a liturgy with many communicants: “This happens to me even in large numbers. quantity communicants. At first I willingly and diligently give communion to people of every rank and status, but in the end I begin to indulge in impatience and grief, as if forgetting what a great work I am doing... where am I rushing and hurrying away from this work? To the vanity of the world, to the satisfaction of self-interest, to gluttony, to the love of this world, cat. is hostile to God! Then I repent” 480. So, ironically, the embodiment of one of the ideals of Orthodox life - more frequent communion and more active participation in the sacraments, which Fr. John, led to a reduction in the time that the pastor could devote to parishioners outside the church. The shepherd's fame had other destructive consequences for his spiritual life. Originating in the 1880s. the self-perception that he was the protector of the entire Russian land, which flourished in full bloom by the 1890s, came into conflict with his constant duties as a parish priest. Despite the fact that the shepherd traveled to the capital almost every day, he was still forced to take into account the requests of his Kronstadt parishioners - especially the poor, who were his first spiritual children - and conduct the required church services. He felt this contradiction acutely: “Soon after the liturgy and communion of St. Tyne became irritated and angry with his parishioners who invited me to the sick with St. Gifts - because I wanted, for the love of money, to visit the newcomers, and then go to St. Petersburg for prayers and to make money, even for charity and almsgiving" 481 . As letters to the pastor demonstrate, he became a kind of center of charity: those who wanted to help the poor sent him gifts in the firm belief that this would help the “deserving” poor. The growth of donations created a situation that the shepherd could not foresee: it seemed that there were more and more people in need. The petitioners began to follow the shepherd on the heels, standing guard both at the house and at St. Andrew's Cathedral. He began to perceive the persistence of the poor as a heavy burden and began to be afraid to go outside at all. Realizing the full spiritual significance of charity, he felt a contradiction between his two hypostases: a prayerful intercessor for people, a priest, and a donor who provides them with financial support. His diary entries reflect moments of painful sadness from the realization of his inability to combine prayer with material help. On February 20, 1882 he wrote: “Extremely upset about the beggars, especially about the girls, cat. I gave alms (2 1/2 kopecks each), cat. and after that they watched me, although I deliberately left them, wanting to pray secretly in private; then 40 people. the poor adults came to me asking for alms, and I, already annoyed with the girls, became annoyed with the adults, sending them to the rich townsfolk. “In the end, I was all morally broken and came home... I was forgiven by prayer before B. M. Tikhvinskaya.” 482. From both spiritual and material points of view, it was necessary to somehow reconcile this oppressive contradiction. Father John tried to accustom his spiritual children to a certain order of donations. He called on them to form lists of twenty people and gave each “captain” a certain amount to distribute among the members of the “regiment,” but the efforts were in vain 483 . The poor besieged him to such an extent that he was literally forced to flee. “Forgive me also the sin that I ran away from the beggar who was running after me,” he confessed in his diary for 1882, “saying to himself: I will give to everyone in due time - at 3 o’clock, but I don’t want to give in every place and at every time, because there are too many of them” 484 . The creation of the House of Industry did not lighten his burden or dissuade him from the idea that he should give to the poor from hand to hand and not through institutions, even if they were created and financed by him personally. The more fame his holiness and charity gained, the more worshipers began to believe that he belonged to them and not to himself. The words proclaimed by Fr. John at the beginning of his journey - “the priest belongs to everyone, and not to himself” - came true to such an extent that he could not even imagine. The feeling that the poor inexorably surround him with a tight ring and that he, like a saint, belongs to the world is clearly visible in the diaries of Fr. John since the 1880s. Although contemporaries wrote with delight about the peace of mind of the shepherd, in fact his nerves were strained to the limit. At first, after gaining popularity and fame, he fell from one extreme to another. In his diary for 1883 he wrote: “Today I didn’t go out into the street from bti until 11 1/2, by the way, so as not to meet beggars waiting for me to go out and my handout, but when I went out, I just met 5 people. (before there was giving to the beggars, but not this), and I gave them 2 kopecks each, and the annoying boy began to persistently ask for another increase, and in annoyance at him, I pulled his hair, and went for a walk along Posadskaya street (my head hurt); The beggars are after me again, esp. crooked and dull; I became angry with him for his insistence and persecution of me and pulled his hair tightly with both hands; others were frightened and quickly went forward; I walked forward; the crooked beggar at the end of the street came up to me again and I took pity on him - I gave him 20 kopecks, called two more and gave him 10 kopecks each; they let's ask for more, I got angry again and wanted to hit the big young guy hard, but he ran away; then the boys began to pester me again, and I told the policeman to take him to the police station for begging; he started crying and I told him to let him go. I sinned and I blame myself. I repent before the Lord, the Mother of God, all the saints and all people” 485. Despite the fact that Fr. John found no justification for his behavior; his flock, apparently, did not consider this act excessively cruel, since, on the one hand, they felt their subordinate position in relation to the shepherd, and on the other, corporal punishment was widespread and was not considered something unacceptable. Be that as it may, this episode was not mentioned anywhere. Although Fr. Although John accused himself of “this gross manifestation of impatience, self-interest, hardness of heart, malice,” one does not get the impression that his beating of beggars and pulling their hair was anything more than “rudeness” or anything out of the ordinary 486 . Due to the fact that the poor became increasingly demanding and intrusive, in the early 1880s. attitude o. John's attitude towards them as a social group changed. Their persistence was very different from the restraint that the shepherd noted in 1868 when he wrote: “Poor boys should be given alms with pleasure: they ask out of extreme need and, having received a sufficient amount, do not come for a long time. Oh, poor things! They don’t have a place to lay their heads, they don’t have anything to eat or drink or something to wear... how can you not feel sorry for them! How not to deny yourself the extra to give them alms!” 487 However, it is important to consider the difference between the status of a saint and a private citizen. When to o. John was treated simply as a priest of extraordinary kindness, and not as a saint, the poor, as a rule, timidly asked for help, and he, usually, being touched by their terrible situation, fiercely defended them against accusations of vagrancy. Despite the fact that even in the first years of his service he tried to ensure that the alms he gave went as intended, he was not then inclined to reproach those who, as he suspected, had abused his trust, and always tried to maintain internal composure. In 1869, he wrote: “If you know for sure that the poor use the money you give them for evil, do not be angry with them, but maintain meekness and kindness, laughing at them, like simple Paul. Is it really worth being upset about money (ashes)? - remember your sins..." 488 On the contrary, by the mid-1880s. his reaction became much harsher (“I condemn myself for my extreme anger at the beggars, who persecute me every day in a party, always idle, idle, and asking me for generous alms with insolent persistence”) 489. As the poor stopped seeing Fr. John a person and a mere mortal and began to perceive him only as the fulfiller of their requests, the priest also began to see in them a certain mass to whom he must provide impersonal charitable assistance. This process of depersonalization on the part of both the laity and the saint is clearly visible in the dynamics of the relationship between Fr. John with the Kronstadt beggars - perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of a shift in emphasis in the perception of the “holy man”, when the emphasis is transferred from “man” to “saint”. Changes were not only seen in relation to the poor. Yes, oh. John rejoiced that he was “beloved by everyone, dear, glorious, desired, strong in faith, hope, love of Christ” 490, but the streams of people eager to meet him exhausted him physically. On May 16, 1883, he wrote: “Two women came to me out of spiritual love - to receive the blessing of the Lord through me and to express their spiritual disposition to me, at 7 o’clock in the morning... and I was indignant and embittered at everyone because at all times, early and late, in every place they poke their noses at me, catching me” 491. It did not occur to Father John that he had the right to be indignant at the loss of his private life or that he needed to preserve some part of his personal life in order not to stray from his spiritual path. Newspapers published stunning facts about the consequences of the shepherd’s trips around the country - during his stay in Kharkov, all the gardens and greenhouses in the house where he stayed were trampled by the shepherd’s admirers, who spent the night there in order to catch a glimpse of him; the local police were unable to stop them 492. Fr. himself John was regularly knocked down by his admirers, dragged in different directions and even bitten, wanting to get his “living” relics 493. An indicator of what it was worth. John’s constant presence in public became the laconicism of his diary entries from that period: “I haven’t written in my book for a long time - more than 4 months” 494. The diaries, which once served as a receptacle for his aspirations, experiences and struggles, have almost lost their former function. Now about. John gave all his energy to the parishioners; they, and not the diaries, became the main sphere of his religious life and his spiritual support. The transfer of religious fervor outside, to his flock, entailed one of the most serious negative consequences of the popularity of Fr. Joanna: deterioration of relationship with wife. Early in their life together, from the 1850s to the mid-1870s, she seemed resigned to his all-consuming desire for holiness and to her fate as a humble helper along the way. Father John did not belong to her, but at least he did not belong to anyone else, and Elizaveta Konstantinovna could try to create a family home. She began to find spiritual solace in communication with her sister Anna and her nieces Rufina and Elizabeth, whom she raised herself. When Fr. John was a private person; he and his wife had their own spheres of activity - his in the church, hers - at home, which they mutually respected. In addition, at the beginning of his career, Fr. John felt the nagging of his superiors and the persecution of the Kronstadt authorities; Elizaveta Konstantinovna probably felt sorry for her persecuted husband. He visited people more out of duty than out of pleasure, and only in his home environment was he saved from the vicissitudes of his hard work. Although their marriage bore little resemblance to a union of two hearts, it was at least a family agreement that guaranteed both parties a certain amount of independence and stability. When Fr. John was recognized as a saint, and the family's lifestyle changed for the worse. As soon as he had not only followers, but also ardent admirers, his relationship with his wife deteriorated. Elizaveta Konstantinovna came to terms with the fact that he spent his days with beggars; however, the crowds of enthusiastic women casting languid glances at the shepherd and giving him expensive gifts did not evoke such understanding in her. Father John seemed to be making her understand that he was entering into a secret, sublime spiritual connection with these women, which was impossible with her, and this could not help but offend Elizaveta Konstantinovna. In the absence of physical intimacy with his wife, the shepherd, as it seemed to Elizaveta Konstantinovna, seemed to find in this increased female attention to his own person a kind of replacement for normal marital relations. This is not only her impression: the shepherd's notebooks contain references to how the women around him, be it his own cleaning lady or the “beautiful countess in a white dress,” gave rise to tempting thoughts in him, although he resisted the temptation 495. Elizaveta Konstantinovna literally entered into a furious battle with her husband. Either because after many years of living together with Fr. John, she began to treat religious obedience with prejudice, either because she was busy, or to annoy her husband, but for some time she practically stopped going to church. Any incident became a reason for a quarrel. O. John describes one similar episode in 1882: “This evening I got into big trouble with my wife because I accused her of forging the key to my desk and inner drawers and taking some things and money. Like an angry lioness she [flew] at me and was ready to tear me to pieces; she roared with anger, howled like mad; threatened to hit her on the cheek in front of the children; I reproached the women, that is, pious women who had spiritual communication with me in prayers, sacraments, spiritual conversations and readings, she reviled me in the most dishonest way, but exalted herself. God! Let her go, she doesn’t know what she’s saying or doing. Enlighten her, all darkened by the vanities and pleasures of life, make her thicker and broader, and forget God” 496. Father John began to suspect his wife of a wide variety of deceitful tricks, for example, the theft of rose fragrant oil intended for the shroud and used in Holy Week services, and the substitution of diamond buttons on the collar of his cassock. “I led her into temptation by allowing zealous people to sew diamond buttons to the collar of my cassock, and did not tell my wife about this” 497. An explosion of dissatisfaction with family life occurred in 1883: “Woe to me and my family, with their disrespect for church decrees, with their constant delicacy, disgrace. in everyday life... fun, laughter with children Ruf. and Elisabeth, with cats and a dog, with their laziness for domestic and public prayer (they go to church 5-6 times a year - God is their judge!). What answer will they give for themselves and their children: they want to reign and they really reign, fulfilling all their whims and desires... And how they raise their children! Oh horror! There is no respect for the statutes of the Church! They themselves do not observe fasts and children are also taught: in the 1st week of Lent they eat cheese and eggs, not to mention caviar and fish. – Who will bring them to their senses? “They don’t listen to me” 498. However, there are descriptions that soften the picture painted by the priest. Thus, one of the nieces, on the contrary, paints in her memoirs a pious family idyll, remembering with what care Elizaveta Konstantinovna guarded the rare hours of rest of the shepherd and how Fr. John refused to eat at home without his mother, calling her his “angel” 499. Be that as it may, the shepherd’s point of view in some important respects quite correctly reflects the state of affairs. Now, accustomed to the respect and worship of the people, he was less ready than ever to tolerate being treated as a mere mortal in his own home. It is not surprising that after gaining national fame, mentions of the family in the notebooks of Fr. John's works were replaced by a fixation of the sorrows and joys of public life. His handwriting became larger and illegible; The diary has in many ways become a business diary. Thus, after identifying himself with society, the transformation of the parish priest and ascetic into a national saint was completed. Golubinsky E. History of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. M., 1903. pp. 11–15. Conversation with Sarapul shepherds // Church Gazette. 1904. No. 39; reprinted in the book: Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt in the memoirs of self-witnesses / Ed. and comp. A. N. Strizhev. M., 1997. P. 18. V. M. [Archbishop Evdokim 1 Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg (hereinafter Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg). F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 9. See: Brown P. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago, 1982, pp. 113–120. Compare: Lopez-Ginisty C. A Dictionary of Orthodox Intercessions. Liberty, Tenn.: St. John of Kronstadt Press, 1997, pp. 3–5. For similar Muslim traditions, see Memissi F. Women, Saints, and Sanctuaries // Signs, 3 (1977). P. 101–112. Klyuchevsky B. O. Old Russian lives of saints as a historical source. M., 1871. S. 361, 417–423, 438. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 9th century L. 335; D. 9, L. 4, 12, 21. See: Hutchinson J. Politics and Public Health in Revolutionary Russia 1890–1918. Baltimore, 1990. Saints and Their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore, and History / Ed. by Wilson St. Cambridge, 1987, pp. 18–21. This figure includes not only cases 9a-e (TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1), directly labeled as “Letters about healing,” but also all those letters that contained requests for healing (for example, in a letter included in the category of “letters from nuns,” they could ask for healing; in a letter asking for money, they could also retroactively pray for temporary relief from chronic asthma). Letter dated April 3, 1901 to the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 19a. L. 127 vol. On the attitude towards “women’s diseases” see: Zhuk V. Mother and Child. Hygiene in a public presentation. 9th ed. St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 16–18, 63–68. Wed. with the teachings of the Manichaeans and other dualistic sects in: Obolensky D. The Bogomils: A Study in Balkan Neo-Manichaeism. Cambridge, 1948, pp. 1–27. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 9g. L. 210. Right there. D. 9a. L. 130; italics mine. Right there. D. 9g. L. 23, 244, 178. For church recognition of the power of the curse, see: Mother's curse. Pavlograd, 1866, in the book: Stories of rural priests about wondrous manifestations of God’s mercy and His terrible destinies. M.; Riga: Blagovest, 1996. pp. 74–75. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 15. L. 87, 231. Compare: Stewart Ch. Demons and the Devil: Moral Imagination in Modem Greek Culture. Princeton, 1991. P, 38–39; Maksimov S. Unclean, unknown, and the power of the cross. St. Petersburg, 1903. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 9d. L. 38. Letter dated April 20, 1901. Ibid. D. 9b. L. 70–70 vol. The only woman who did this wrote a confession rather than a letter. Dixon S. The Church's Social Role in St. Petersburg, 1880–1914 // Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine / Ed. by Hosking G.A. N.Y., 1991, pp. 178–184. U o. John has several pamphlets against drunkenness: “You who have ears, listen!” A word against drunkenness. St. Petersburg, 1902; repr. 1996; Wake up, drunkards! and weep, all you who drink wine! St. Petersburg, 1910; About soul-destroying drunkenness, swearing and smoking. St. Petersburg, 1915; repr. 1995. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 15. L. 48, italics mine. Ripa Y. Women and Madness: The Incarceration of Women in Nineteenth-Century France. Minneapolis: Univ. of Minnesota Press, 1990. P. 73. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 15. L. 271, 273. Right there. D. 15. L. 259. D. 11. L. 229. See discussion of this phenomenon in the book: Ripa. Women and Madness, especially with. 31–79. However, in Germany in the 1840s, Griesinger argues, women were more likely to be imprisoned not because they deviated from cultural norms, but because anyone who was low on the social ladder, who was uneducated and poor, was more likely to lose their minds and be more likely to end up behind bars (Madmen and the Bourgeoisie: A Social History of Insanity and Psychiatry / Ed. by Dorner K. Oxford, 1981. P. 26, 284). Wed. Laura Engelstein’s argumentation in defense of the purely Russian specificity of other types of female “deviations” (Engelstein L. Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siecle Russia. Ithaca, 1994. P. 96–127). Rozhnov V. E. Prophets and miracle workers: studies on mysticism. M.: Politizdat, 1977. pp. 83–85; Gannushkin P.V. Voluptuousness, cruelty and religion // Selected works. M.: Politizdat, 1964. pp. 80–94. Priests were instructed to classify those who did not confess or receive communion as members of a sect. See: Belliustin I. S. Description of the Clergy in Rural Russia. The Memoir of a Nineteenth-Century Parish Priest. Ithaca, 1985. P. 176; Freeze G. L. Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton, 1983. P. 7. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 126. Part II. L. 123. Letter dated January 29, 1902. Ibid. D. 96. L. 135. Right there. D. 96. L. 237. Barbara Engel explores some of the reasons why the father-in-law was protected in this situation in her book: Engel V. A. Between the Fields and the City: Warnen, Work, and Family in Russia, 1861–1914. Cambridge, 1994, pp. 20–21. For an Orthodox view on the role of doctors in the healing process and on righteous doctors, see: Skrobucha N. The Patrons of the Doctors. Recklinghausen, 1967, pp. 5–18. For a letter from doctor Sheveleva on behalf of Maria Baranova, see: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 96. L. 63. See, for example, ibid. D. 9 L. 44, 46, 48, 87, 146, 192, 212, 219, 227, 246, 333–334. Right there. D. 26. L. 130–131. Letter dated January 14, 1897. Ibid. 9a. L. 107 vol. Right there. D. 19 a. L. 246, italics mine. Right there. D. 60. L. 1–3. See: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt: In 2 vols. Belgrade, 1938–1941; reprt. Forestville: St. Elias Publications, 1979–1980. T. 1. pp. 245–246. The statement that Fr. John raised the dead, was recalled in connection with the illness of Alexander III (Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 107). On the “resurrection” of people considered dead, see: Mitrofan (monk). How our dead live and how we will live after death. 6th ed. St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 97–99. Saltykov K. M. “Intimate Shchedrin.” M.; Pg.: Gosizdat, 1923. pp. 20–23. Rozhnov V. E. Prophets and miracle workers. pp. 105–106. Brown. Cult of the Saints. P. 113–120. Letter dated May 10, 1898, Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 13a. L. 72 rev. – 73. Right there. D. 9a. L. 90 rev.–91 rev. Letter dated 1892. Ibid. D. 19a. L. 23–24. See letter from Maria. Right there. D. 9 d. L. 28–28 vol. Undated letter and letters dated September 22, 1906 and August 8, 1908. Ibid. D. 11. L. 190, 117, 133. Right there. D. 11. L. 117, 127, 288. Letter from Pavel Gozovchenko. Right there. D. 9e. L. 32–33. Right there. D. 26. L. 1, 32, 42, 82; Maylunas A. and Mironenko S. A Lifelong Passion: Nicholas and Alexandra, Their Own Story. L., 1996. P. 109. Wrath R. D. Before Rasputin: Piety and the Occult at the Court of Nicholas II // The Historian. 1985. Vol. 47, No. 3. P. 323–337. See discussion on this topic in the book: Amalrik A. Raspoutine. Paris, 1982. P. 57. This version is played out differently in the book: Massie R. Nicholas and Alexandra. L., 1968. P. 219; Wilson S. Rasputin and the Fall of the Romanovs. L., 1964. P. 51–54; Wrath R. Before Rasputin. P. 324; Amalrik A. Raspoutine. Massie R. Nicholas and Alexandra. P. 221. Amalrik A. Raspoutine. P. 57, 78. For similar incidents, see: Sergiev I.I., prot. Letters from Fr. prot. John to the abbess of the St. John the Baptist Leushinsky first-class Monastery, Abbess Taisia. St. Petersburg, 1909. S. 14, 30, 37, 54, 72, 73. This incident, which took place in 1900, is described in the book: V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 73–74. Only one such case is known for certain - the officer in question, Pavel Ivanovich Plikhankov, later became the holy Optina elder Barsanuphius. See: Lives of the Venerable Elders of Optina Pustyn. Jordanville, N.Y.: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1992. pp. 268–300. Simanovich A. Rasputin and the Jews: memoirs of Grigory Rasputin’s personal secretary. M.; Riga, 1991, especially p. 8–16; Maylunas A. and Mironenko S. Lifelong Passion, entry dated November 1, 1905. P. 284. However, see: Rodzianko M. V. Le Regne de Raspoutine. Paris, 1927. P. 20–23; Bienstock J. W. Raspoutine: La Fin d'un Regime. Paris, 1917. P. 96–105. Wrath. Before Rasputin.P. 324–330. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 100; letter dated October 20, 1893 in the book: Maylunas and Mironenko. Lifelong Passion. P.31. The Grand Duke was assassinated in 1905. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 13th century. L. 101. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Confession: A Series of Lectures on the Mystery of Repentance. Jordanville, N.Y., 1983, pp. 31–32. We find a hostile assessment by contemporaries of “excessive, pathological” religiosity characteristic of educated women in the book: Amphiteatrov A. Woman in social movements in Russia. Geneva, 1905. P. 13. Letter dated January 27, 1891 to the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 24. L. 30. Regarding the lottery debate in the 1890s. see: Brockhaus F.A. and Efron I.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary. T. XVIII. St. Petersburg, 1896. pp. 27–29. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 24. L. 17, 35. Right there. D. 26. L. 120, italics mine. Letter dated February 1903. Ibid. D. 1. L. 20. A study of how the potentially revolutionary content of the Bible was rethought can be found in the work: Zelnik R. E. “That the Unaccustomed Eye”: Religion and Irreligion in the Experience of Saint Petersburg Workers in the 1870s // Christianity and the Eastern Slavs. Vol. 2. Russian Culture in Modem Times / Ed. by Hughes R. P. and Papemo I. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1994. P. 49–82; For an analysis of the religious identity of workers, see: Herrlinger P. The Religious Identity of Workers and Peasant Migrants in St. Petersburg, 1880–1917 (Ph.D. diss., University of California at Berkeley, 1996). On “naive monarchism” in peasant revolts, see: Field D. Rebels in the Name of the Tsar. Boston, 1976. Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of Living Water. Description of the life and work of Father John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1910; repr. ed. 1995. P. 214. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 28. L. 1–2; D. 126, part II. L. 132. See, for example: Ibid. D. 28. L. 5, 12; See also letter from Alexandra Fidelina. L. 45–46, italics mine. Letter dated November 15, 1905. Ibid. D. 28. L. 32. Right there. D. 24. L. 22, italics mine. Letter dated April 25, 1901. Ibid. D. 26. L. 42. The Byzantine Saint/Ed. by Hackel S. L., 1981. P. 127. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 28. L. 53. About the difficult living conditions on Sakhalin, see: Chekhov A.P. Sakhalin Island: (From travel notes) // Complete works and letters. T. 14–15. M., 1978; Kennan G. Siberia and the Exile System. Vol. 2. N.Y., 1891. P. 548–551. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 48. L. 17. Right there. D. 48. L. 100–102, italics mine. Letter dated April 14, 1903. Ibid. D. 52. L. 2–2 vol. Augustine (Nikitin), archimandrite. Orthodox St. Petersburg notes from foreigners. St. Petersburg, 1995, pp. 184–189. They are collected in: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 12a–12d. Right there. D. 31. L. 193 vol. The letter paraphrases Psalm 37, read at the beginning of Matins. Right there. D. 31. L. 250, italics mine. See, for example, the daughter’s complaint there. D. 19b. L. 142. Right there. D. 15. L. 110, italics mine. The last sentence quotes Matthew 15:27. Right there. D. 19b. L. 162. For incidents describing the saving benefits of leaving the family, see: Servant of God John // Soulful Reading. 1904, July - August, in the collection: Flowers of Paradise from the Russian Land / Comp. P. Novgorodsky. Sergiev Posad, 1912. pp. 78–92. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 19a. L. 98 rev.–99. See: Meehan V. Holy Women of Russia: The Lives of Five Orthodox Women Offer Spiritual Guidance for Today. Crestwood, N.Y., 1997. P. 38. Minenko N. A. Old people in the Russian peasant community. Quote Based on: Gromyko M. The World of Russian Village. M., 1991. P. 149. This point of view is also proven in the book: Shmelev I. Summer of the Lord: Holidays, Joys, Sorrows. New York, b.g. P. 210. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 126. Part II. L. 161. Right there. L. 439. For an analysis of the factors that contributed to the idealization of kings, and how this idealization was created and manifested, see: Wortman R. S. Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Princeton, 1998. Vol. 2. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 7r. L. 277. See: Kselman T. Miracles and Prophecies in Nineteenth-Century France. New Brunswick, N.J., 1983, pp. 60–83. "Progressive movement" in academic theology. Protopresbyter John Yanyshev // John (Snychev), Metropolitan. Essays on the history of the St. Petersburg diocese. St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 191–197. Manchester L. The Secularization of the Search for Salvation: The Self-Fashioning of Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons in Late Imperial Russia // Slavic Review. 1998. Vol. 57, No. 1. P. 50–76. Letters to the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 76. L. 217; D. 7, L. 270. Taisiya (nun). Russian Orthodox female monasticism of the 19th–20th centuries. Jordanville, N.Y., 1985. P. 5. Shavelsky G.V., [protopresbyter]. Memoirs of the last presbyter of the Russian army and navy. New York, 1954; repr. M., 1996, T. 2. P. 156–175. Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. pp. 614–673. Father John was looking for additional sources of funding for his monasteries, as well as for the House of Industry. See his appeal to V.K. Sabler in the book: Letters from Fr. prot. John. pp. 38–39. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 7, L. 94, 98, 148. For a detailed discussion of these problems, see the book: Abbess Thaisia. Abbess Thaisia: The Autobiography of a Spiritual Daughter of St. John of Kronstadt. Platina, Calif.: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood Press, 1989, pp. 155–158. See: Shustin V. Record about Fr. John of Kronstadt and about the Optina elders from personal memories. Vladimirovo, 1929; Nikon (Belyaev). Diary of the last elder of the Optina Hermitage, Hieromonk Nikon (Belyaev). St. Petersburg, 1994. S. 99, 134. Compare, for example, the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 7th century. L. 57–58 and D. 7th century. L. 206. Letter dated March 29, 1905. Ibid. D. 7th century L.241; D. 7th century L. 275; D. 7a. L. 265. Letter dated August 13, 1897. Ibid. D. 21. L. 5. Right there. D. 41. L. 58; D. 21. L. 12, 7. Right there. D. 21. L. 17, 18, 25, 31, 39. See, for example, the caustic commentary in the book: The Last Autocrat. Essay on the life and reign of Emperor Nicholas II of Russia. Berlin, 1911. P. 39. About photographs of Fr. John in luxurious clothes, see: Shelaeva E., Protsai L. Orthodox Rus'. St. Petersburg; M., 1993. S. 202, 205. Letter dated May 16, 1897 from Nikolai Garsky to the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 76. L. 234. About the will of Father John, see: RGIA. F. 799. Op. 6. D. 30 (Economic Administration under the Holy Synod, department I, table I, No. 177a). L. 2–3. See an example of allocating funds for a memorial meal in the book: Lindenmeyr A. Poverty Is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia. Princeton, 1996. P. 220. Letter dated August 30, 1901 to: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 21. L. 19. Klyuchevsky V. O. Church and Russia: three lectures. Paris, 1969, pp. 64–65. Letter dated February 18, 1904 to: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 41. L. 19–20. Letter dated February 27, 1905. Ibid. D. 41. L. 21. Right there. D. 21. L. 110. Nicholas II received so many gifts that he finally decided to prohibit people from giving him anything expensive. See: On the termination of valuable offerings to Their Imperial Majesties and their replacement with donations to charities and all other public institutions // St. Petersburg Spiritual Bulletin. May 23, 1897. No. 21. P. 73. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 10. The possible awkwardness of such passages was not hidden from those around him. Commenting on a similar passage, Leskov wrote that it was impossible to imagine something more vulgar. See: Russian State Archive of Literature and Art (hereinafter RGALI). F. 275. Op. 1. D. 830. L. 15. The spiritual meaning of the word prelest (delusion, self-deception) should not be confused with its more traditional use (charm, attractiveness). See: Complete Church Slavonic Dictionary / Comp. G. Dyachenko. In 2 vols. M., 1899. T. 1.S. 486. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 50. This point of view has been repeatedly proven by Orthodox priests and nuns. See: The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology / Igumen of Valamo Chariton, comp. L., 1973. P. 111–112, 116, 132–137, 261–263. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 132 vol. Right there. D. 24. L. 109 vol. See: Ware T. The Orthodox Church. N.Y., 1986. P. 283–286. On accelerating the tempo of the participle, see: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 24. L. 93 rev.–94; D. 26. L.18. The letter is dated August 28, 1900 in the Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 126, part II. L. 66. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 7 vol., 52 vol. Right there. L. 26. Father John shared the Orthodox conviction that to sin soon after communion with the Divine mysteries means to subject the sacrament to profanation. See: Prayer book. Kiev, 1881. pp. 174–175. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 144 vol. See the description of a similar meeting in the book: V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 195–197. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 146 vol. Right there. D. 26. L. 9. On the attitude towards corporal punishment, see: Zhbankov D.N. Corporal punishment in Russia at the present time. M., 1899. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 68 vol. Right there. D. 26. L. 9 (1892). Quote from the book: V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 209–210. The previous trip to Kyiv went much more smoothly. See: S-kiy I.A. Father John Ilyich Sergiev of Kronstadt and his stay in Kyiv. Kiev, 1893. pp. 24–26. Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. P. 67. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 19. See, for example: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 16 rev., 19 rev. Right there. D. 23. L. 126 vol. Reference: Jeremiah 5:27–28. Right there. D. 24. L. 54; D. 26. L. 9. Right there. L. 92 rev. Priests' wives tended to attend church less often than their husbands and children. As for Elizaveta Konstantinovna, the rarity of her visits to the church was noticeable even against the background of other mothers. Shemyakina R. G. In loving memory of the deceased wife, Fr. John of Kronstadt Elizaveta Konstantinovna Sergieva. Kronstadt, 1909. pp. 3–12.