Глава 5. Прижизненные образы отца Иоанна и их роль в прославлении святого

Letters to Fr. John from representatives of various social classes is just one of the manifestations of mass worship of the priest. They represent a private, direct form of his veneration. However, there was also a public side of veneration, and it was this that caused the Church the most concern. Popularization of. John and the creation of his public image were facilitated not only by people who were convinced of the priest’s mercy and his gift of healing from their own experience, but also by journalists who were interested in him as a social phenomenon, and by merchants who sold postcards and souvenirs with his images throughout Russia. The next layer of “image makers” were purely Orthodox authors, who saw their task as collecting material for their future life. They were directly joined by church hierarchs, who sought to control every step, every publication, in order to make sure that they were all acceptable from a canonical point of view. All these groups combined to transform the pastor into an object of both worship and industry. The clash of interests of these groups eloquently characterizes the difficult situation in Russian Orthodoxy at the end of the 19th century. – beginning of the 20th century When studying the process of constructing the image of Fr. John, it is necessary to distinguish between his lifetime images that developed posthumously and by 1918, during the Soviet period (including among emigrants) and after 1988. All of them played an important role in the spread of the cult of the shepherd, but in this chapter we will turn to the lifetime images of Fr. John, because their creators faced an unusual problem. No Orthodox Christian could be declared a saint during his lifetime. Thus, even those who believed in the holiness of the priest had to extremely carefully select expressions in his glorifications. In addition, being in good health, he could somehow react to those forms of representation of his image that were practiced by his contemporaries. After his death, everyone who wrote about him or portrayed him could feel much freer. Therefore, this particular formulation of the problem seems justified: what difficulties did the living saint create for his Orthodox surroundings? Glorify Fr. John was easiest for those laypeople who wanted, out of pious motives, to make public stories about their healing, about deliverance from the harmful craving for alcoholic beverages, and in general about any good deed that happened to them thanks to the priest. Most often this took the form of short notices in local newspapers. The first message of this kind was the publication of a letter to the editor of Novoye Vremya on December 20, 1883. Sixteen people who explained their healing through the prayers of Fr. John, described their illnesses, expressed gratitude to him and conveyed his “testament”, which was as follows: “we also convey to others the only highly worthy healing pastor-healer who taught us about the harmful craving for alcoholic beverages, the highly healing saving advice to live according to God’s truth and to receive Holy Communion as often as possible” 500. Another type of veneration was the transcription of prayerful reflections by Fr. John from “My Life in Christ” to music. Since these prayers had already been published and, therefore, had passed the inspection of the highest ecclesiastical authorities, this was quite acceptable 501. Problems began when so-called mystical “chain letters” began to circulate throughout the country. These letters, written according to the same template, included both magical spells and Orthodox figures of speech. Following the pattern of the widely circulated apocryphal prayer “The Dream of the Virgin Mary,” 502 the letter writers claimed to have one of the “secret, effective” prayers of Fr. John, adding that if the prayer is sent out and read by the addressee a certain number of times, then his dream will come true, and if not, then he will have misfortune. Considering that the clergy of that time, including Fr. John, did not recognize these letters, considering them a manifestation of superstition, 503 it is all the more funny that the content of such “magical prayers” came to us largely thanks to the indignant denials of the shepherd, which he published in newspapers, trying in vain to stop their spread. One of these prayers sounded like this: “O Jesus Christ, we pray to You, Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us and Your whole world from all destruction. You redeemed our souls from sins with Your blood. O Eternal God, Thy mercy is great for the sake of Thy most pure Blood, always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages. The condition of the prayer: whoever has this prayer must pass it on to nine people and at least once a day must read it with faith and then he will be delivered from all evil and disasters, and if he does not fulfill it, he will be subjected to evil and disasters” 504. Denying the authorship of the prayer, Fr. John wrote in the Kronstadt newspaper “Kotlin” in 1890: “Again, a prayer is circulating around under my name, allegedly composed by me with an obligation to transfer it to nine people and with a promise for this transfer of all sorts of benefits. This imaginary prayer, composed by an ignorant and not at all churchly head, is not mine, and its afterword obviously belongs to some scoundrel counting on the gullibility and superstition of the common people... In mid-March 1887 and in January 1889 I asked for Kronsht. The Herald and other newspapers make this religious counterfeit known through printing. Now I repeat again this most humble request of mine” 505. However, everything was useless. Such “secret prayers” were known a long time ago, long before they became associated with Fr. John. They were copied and transmitted everywhere for many years 506. Responding to a letter from Georgy Ramennikov, who inquired whether one of the most famous prayers he discovered from his mother and wife was Orthodox, Fr. John himself admitted that at the age of ten he rewrote “The Dream of the Virgin Mary” (“But,” he hastened to add, “when smart people enlightened me, I threw it into the fire”) 507. The publication in 1908 in Russian newspapers and in the Frankfurter Zeitung of one such “secret prayer of Father John,” calling for the death of Leo Tolstoy and the Minister of Finance Sergei Witte, could have serious political consequences 508 . As for politics, there were also a number of interesting legends in this area. According to one of them, Fr. John warned the king against venerating the icon brought to him by two students. He asked the soldier to shoot at her - a Tatar with two knives was hiding behind the icon, this was an attempt on the life of the Sovereign Emperor 509. Magical letters of happiness are just one of the ancient forms of non-canonical religiosity included in the veneration of Fr. John. An attempt to establish which of the extant forms of worship were considered acceptable and which were not will provide valuable information about the structure and practice of popular Orthodoxy. Some forms were by definition unacceptable. Thus, it was impossible to approve of the practice of decorating miraculous images of Fr. John with crosses, rings and other jewelry, as was done with miraculous icons, for example, the Joy of All Who Sorrow or the Kazan Mother of God 510. The reason here is more than obvious - it was impossible to paint icons of Fr. John, much less place them in the church during his lifetime. The shepherd himself was a living icon, receiving during his lifetime the worship and gifts that his images were awarded after canonization. Just as beloved icons were decorated with selected pearls and precious stones, so he was “decorated” with crosses with precious stones, expensive satin, velvet and brocade robes with gold embroidery and robes lined with sables 511. (At the same time, such healing signs as miniature organs and limbs cast from wax or carved from tin were not used, although they existed in both Western European and Russian traditions 512.) The commercial side of the cult of Fr. Joanna was in many ways similar to the situation around such Catholic pilgrimage centers of that time as Ars and Lourdes 513. By the 1880s O. John became a celebrity. Thousands of people came to Kronstadt (and on church holidays their number increased several times) in the hope of seeing him and receiving Holy Communion from his hands. They all needed food, drink and shelter. As a result, inns for pilgrims became a lucrative source of local income. Fierce competition for pilgrims began: from their stories and letters it is clear that hunters for clients lay in wait for them right on the ferry and persistently offered their services. The pilgrims themselves treated such obsession with indifference and mockingly - we find a satirical sketch on this topic in A. Serebrov’s book “Time and People: Memoirs” 514. Since everywhere they offered approximately the same thing - a bed or mattress, an appropriate pious atmosphere, religious literature, a red corner in front of which a lamp glows, and regular reading of akathists - the inns differed little from each other, except perhaps in the quality of the mattress and proximity to the Cathedral of St. Andrey 515. However, there was one service that everyone could promise, but no one could guarantee: a firm agreement that Fr. John will visit the pilgrim's home 516. Simply put, the demand for o. John exceeded the offer. And this gave rise to a paradoxical situation. Crowds of visitors, traditionally especially large during Lent, created an atmosphere of piety in Kronstadt and increased the level of prosperity. However, popularity came at a price. The more people there were, eager to see, hear, touch Fr. John, in turn, found it more difficult to achieve this and the more highly valued those who could somehow arrange a meeting with the shepherd were valued. Father John found himself in a hopeless situation. His main business was prayer and the administration of the sacraments; he did not want to be his own "impresario". In diaries of the 1880s and 1890s. reflected his regret and repentance due to the inability to devote a couple of minutes to himself, and by the beginning of the 20th century. he understands that he is not able to accept everyone and that sorting out the suffering himself is too burdensome for him. By the mid-1890s, as the pressure of pilgrims intensified, the shepherd began to resort to the help of people who performed the functions of part steward, part personal secretary: they filtered the crowds of petitioners, carefully studying each candidate. To pass the selection and get to the shepherd, pilgrims prepared for weeks, trying to secure all possible connections. For example, on November 30, 1903, one student persuaded the personal secretary of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to allow him to use one of his business cards to enter and thus passed 517. However, things were not always so simple. Despite the fact that Fr. John paid his intermediaries a decent salary; the temptation to accept “something” in exchange for a promise to organize a meeting with the shepherd was very great. As a result, his secretaries - Evgenia and the notorious Vera Pertsova - amassed a small capital for themselves and earned the wrath of those who turned to them for assistance 518. In the eyes of their admirers, the liberties that these assistants allowed themselves were terrible. For example, shocked pilgrims describe how Evgenia pocketed ten rubles from each person for arranging a meeting with Fr. John (and this is in addition to the cost of the meeting itself) 519; or how Pertsova, accompanying the shepherd on a trip to Astrakhan, walked around with a bag full of donations and barked: “If that’s the case, then sit without money. Let's see how you go" 520. Enterprising people quickly realized that they could pose as a representative of Fr. John and make good money from deception. Even women who lived in the House of Industriousness admitted to such fraud. And this is not surprising, because by the early 1900s. one half of the House was turned into an inn for pilgrims, where each room had three doors, all of which had to be open during the visits of Fr. John so that he would not waste time walking through the vestibule 521. Business in this area has reached such a scale that by the beginning of the 20th century. around o. John created an atmosphere of trade and profit. By the 1890s Essentially, only those who could afford it got to the priest. Thus, Alexandra Maksimovna Lebedeva, a wealthy factory owner, sold everything to be close to Fr. John; as a reward she received an apartment at the Cathedral of St. Andrey. But as soon as the priest’s intermediaries received everything they wanted from her, they stopped calling her; and only about. John continued to visit her from time to time. How his “secretaries” behaved towards less wealthy parishioners can be guessed from a letter from an illiterate woman written in the late 1890s: “You visited us on March 4 on the St. Petersburg side of Bolshaya Grebetskaya to see a mechanic. I had great sorrows that my husband drinks and I asked Katerina Semyonovna to bring you to us and she assigned me 100 rubles for a prayer service and I pawned my things that I had and only for 60 rubles, and that’s when Semyon arrived and directly grabbed the envelope and began to tell me why you don’t have 100 rubles, only 60 rubles are allotted and I said that I have nowhere else to get it and he said then we won’t bring it and I She said let God's will be done and then Semyon said I will report 40 of my own and I said report if you have it and now they come for me, they both harass me and Katerina, they demand 40 rubles and say that we will go to the world and I told them I have a world dear Father. Dear Father, if I had them, I would give them to them, but I have nowhere to take what my husband drinks, pray dear Father, that he will improve and forgive me, a sinner Ografen, that I am writing to you because they do not give me peace” 522. The idealistic pastor who visited the families of alcoholics in the city slums was now unattainable. Father John did not deny this. Under pressure from indignant acquaintances, he admitted that intermediaries were really selling the right to meet with him. However, all he could say in his defense was: “Okay, I will refuse those who surround me now. I'll drive them away, well, I'll do better, don't you think? Of course not - after all, “these” have already profited thanks to my name... and those who start trading will be poorer than these and they will have to extract even more from the people” 523. Indifference o. John, perhaps even bordering on cynicism, shows how tired he is. Of course, the bad reputation of his secretaries cast a shadow on his impeccable image. Even his ardent supporters felt that it was their sacred duty to protect Fr. John from those who traded in his name 524. The current unhealthy situation had a number of consequences: a favorable atmosphere was created for the flourishing of the Johannite sect; the ground appeared for satire, like Protopopov’s play “Black Crows”; It became easier for the radical press to attack Fr. John after the lifting of censorship restrictions in the period 1905–1907. However, although it was extremely difficult to get to a meeting with the priest, it was not impossible, and many still succeeded, which instilled hope in the souls of the suffering. Nevertheless, regardless of whether the pilgrims managed to achieve a personal audience, almost all of them bought souvenirs. Most often, large portraits of Fr. appear in their memories. John with the signature “Dear Father”, souvenir scarves with his image and views of Kronstadt in the corners, enamel mugs like those that were distributed during the coronation festivities on Khodynka that ended in tragedy in 1896; Rev. icons John of Rila (his heavenly patron) and crosses. At the same time, the objects consecrated by him were much more expensive. The best selling postcards were those featuring Fr. John 525. We find mention of these postcards in almost all the memoirs of pilgrims - apparently, they were sold everywhere, and they were one of the cheapest souvenirs. Having paid only a few kopecks, the layman received an image of Fr. John. However, with the mass production of these postcards, various difficulties arose. Since the glory of Fr. John came at the end of the 19th century, he became one of the first on whom the Russian Orthodox Church, to paraphrase Walter Benjamin, had to test approaches to worship and holiness associated with the advent of the technical era 526. Since the glory of Fr. John as a saint grew rapidly; his images, on the one hand, had to be made with respect and highlight the qualities for which he was especially famous, and on the other hand, not resemble icons, so as not to confuse the believers. Image analysis o. John on postcards demonstrates the limitations that the creators of his image had to take into account. Until the mid-1880s. glory o. John was not yet universally known, and photographers who photographed the priest in his youth chose angles typical of that time: his head rests thoughtfully on his hand, and in front of him on a table with a knitted napkin lies a book; the shepherd sits on a bench, holding a black wide-brimmed hat in his hands: this headdress was held in high esteem by priests in Russia at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. Even when Fr. John was in his sixties and seventies, that is, at the very peak of his fame, and until his death, photographs of the young priest could be easily purchased in Kronstadt stores. Photographs of Fr. are a completely different matter. John in the mid-1880s. and later, when he became famous. Since most of the images on the postcards were studio photographs taken by professional photographers, on them he appears in full regalia: in his best robes, and later with state awards 527. Most often he was photographed sitting, less often standing. Both the choice of clothing and the pose speak volumes. Wearing full vestments outside of church was strictly unacceptable. In addition to the fact that, according to church canons, vestments were worn only during liturgy, they were, in the most literal sense of the word, an attribute of icons. After canonization, the bishop or priest had to be depicted on the icon in vestments corresponding to his sacred rank: this is as visual a detail as the cross in the hand of a martyr 528. For the same reason, it was impermissible to film Fr. John blessing (as in the famous and widely circulated, but at the same time completely unacceptable photograph of the unranked Rasputin, taken by Boulet) 529. The point is not only that the gesture itself was iconic - it turned out that Fr. John would have to pose like that in front of the camera and, as it were, bless it. The only exception concerned those cases when Fr. John blessed the crowds of people from the ship's deck: such photographs were taken by eyewitnesses, and in them one can see the flock being blessed 530. However, engravings or drawings on such topics were only welcomed, since they made it possible to avoid the problem of recording a “living” liturgical action. It was problematic even to depict him standing, since saints were depicted on icons full-face, standing or waist-deep. To avoid the slightest resemblance to icons, photographic portraits of Fr. John was usually done with a three-quarter face turn (according to the requirements of the then passport) and sitting, to add a touch of ease 531. Since there was no practice in Russia of drawing up systematic instructions, church authorities, as a rule, relied on precedent, preferring to declare this or that phenomenon undesirable rather than give precise orders in advance. Portraits of Fr. John, made in the iconographic style, in the tradition of the late 18th–19th centuries. on enamel and porcelain, were officially banned by a resolution of the Synod on July 1, 1895, after the commandant of Kronstadt, Vice Admiral Kaznakov, confiscated several similar copies 532. Equally unacceptable due to their obvious iconography were the oleographs of Fr. John, depicting him in the form of Christ surrounded by cherubim 533. Alas, fashion was not on the side of the hierarchs. At the turn of the century there was a surge of interest in experimenting with traditional icon forms. Current trend in the 1890s. – depict celebrities on icons. Thus, the authors of the icon of St. Peter and Paul used Pushkin and Vladimir Dahl as models; Vladimir Chertkov posed for I. E. Repin for one of his “icons”. However, these works were still done with some taste. In 1897, the St. Petersburg Spiritual Messenger complained about the proliferation of souvenirs such as a crucifix placed in a bottle, or icons pasted onto postcards in such a way that one could see St. Nicholas from one angle and St. Barbara from another. As Vestnik bitterly notes, Russian people are still extremely far from treating icons as shrines. Icons should be sold in “decent” places such as churches and monasteries, and not displayed on shelves next to simple necessities like soap 535 . Portraits of Fr. John of the most dubious quality were part of this trend of producing consumer goods “to please the basest tastes.” The circulation of his images has reached such proportions that the Synod has ceased to justify its resolutions in detail. So, when a certain Theodore Friedman in 1893 asked for permission to release a keychain with the image of Fr. John, adding that the shepherd had already given his consent, the Synod’s response to his request was brief: “Refuse” 536. Trying to ban images of Fr. John, which resembled icons, the Synod could not influence in any way how these images would be used; but they could still be used as icons. No matter how realistic the photograph of Fr. John, if someone put it next to the icons and began to pray in front of it, from the point of view of the Synod, this brought harm. When the Synod began to receive reports that people were putting up photographs of Fr. John to home chapels, the reaction was immediate and categorical: this cannot be done 537. The gradual blurring of the boundaries of what is “permissible” and the gradual identification of Fr. John and the saint, what was happening in the popular consciousness, created favorable conditions for the emergence of the “sect” of Johannites. Textual representations of Father John Verbal representations of Fr. John were varied in form and content. They included both articles by writers and journalists, whose creative imagination was excited by the figure of the shepherd, and the works of his Orthodox biographers, who wrote with the aim of speeding up his canonization. These groups of texts differed sharply from each other both in the tone of their statements and in how freely they commented on the holiness attributed to the shepherd. Analyzing articles by professional journalists about Fr. Joanna, it is necessary to remember that under the conditions of censorship in the 1880s and early 1890s. the religious and instructive genre provided relative freedom and safety 538. St. John was not only an interesting and commercially popular topic, but also a figure acceptable to censorship. Nevertheless, many famous journalists and writers, such as M. O. Menshikov from Novoye Vremya and V. V. Rozanov, wrote about him with greedy interest and without any practical considerations. (Even the artist Nicholas Roerich published the instruction given to him by Father John: “Don’t get sick! You’ll have to work hard for your Motherland.”539) These authors were not absolutely impartial. Detailing the holiness and popularity of Fr. John, they often did this in order to draw unflattering parallels between him and the church hierarchs. For example, Menshikov regularly wrote about Fr. John, and when in 1905 the question arose about restructuring the power structure of the Church, he proposed that he begin a new dynasty of patriarchs 540. Later, after the death of Fr. John, Menshikov wrote: “A significant part of the clergy, mainly the higher ones, treated him with insulted envy. The miter bearers with sparkling diamonds on their hoods, decorated with omophorions and panagias, could not help but feel that with all their academic liberalism, with all the Tübingen secularism of their views, with all the art of courtship, they were infinitely lower than the Kronstadt priest, lower in the eyes of God and in the eyes of the people. Without much debate, it was established among the people that he was real, but they seemed not real... They could not forgive the great priest of the Russian land for this, and they erased him for as long as they could. Only shortly before his death, when he became completely weak, he was awarded an appointment to the Synod - he, whom some of the enthusiastic fans proclaimed as the living Christ who came down from Heaven! 541 However, during his lifetime Fr. John Menshikov usually refrained from mentioning his holiness, relaxing his vigilance only in such emergency situations as the sailors' uprising in Kronstadt in 1905. But Vasily Rozanov publicly proclaimed Fr. John to the Saints. In 1905 he wrote: “Isn’t all of Russia today amazed and surprised by the appearance of a wonderful priest, who has access to many things that are not available to any mortal, and above all, a striking influence on the soul of those present... he does not shine with intelligence, like Filaret; mediocre scholarship; but the whisper: “this is a saint” rushes after him. However, maybe is this a hermit, a gloomy fasting person, unsociable? “I eat and drink with publicans,” you can repeat the words of Christ about yourself. Forever in public, among the people; yes, always in motion, in what motion! At his age, people are frail and bent, but he is definitely still a young woman. Despite being seventy years old, in my life I have never heard anyone call him an old man, an old man. It’s somehow even strange to imagine him sleeping, lying down and resting. It’s as if he is all cheerful, sleepless, tireless in flight... The Russian people are amazed; crowds run after him; kiss the edges of his clothes, kiss the ground he stepped on; the seat on which he sat; a scarf, a towel, a little thing that has been in his hands is torn into pieces and these “particles” are treasured like relics... “Heaven came down to earth”, “a wonderful, unprecedented man appeared”... “an angel in the flesh.” And the wave of movement around an ordinary priest, just an archpriest, is truly miraculous and miraculous. “The Living God” filled all the metropolitans with its meaning, meaning, and the people’s attachment to it, all the official spiritual authorities, the entire priestly “synclitate” 542. It was precisely this kind of independent articles that emphasized the specialness of Fr. John and his dissimilarity with the church hierarchs contributed to the development of his cult - and repelled the church authorities from him. Journalists and writers not associated with official church publications, as well as ordinary laymen who sent their letters to newspapers for pious reasons, could practically freely praise Fr. John, almost canonizing him. However, neither Rozanov nor his epigones claimed to speak on behalf of the Orthodox Church. Of course, the decision on canonization could only be made by church hierarchs; but even they could do this only after the death of Fr. John. So, the church authorities had to direct a truly nationwide phenomenon into the Orthodox channel. However, the problem was not limited to the attempts of the hierarchs to tame their overly ardent flock. U o. John had supporters both among the laity and among the lower clergy, who wanted to convince their hierarchs that he was truly a saint and should someday be canonized; and many bishops were in solidarity with them. They were faced with the task of presenting their argument in an Orthodox way. Both groups - the intercessors and those who made the decision - believed that they were on the same side of the barricade and treated each other with respect. Theoretically, after the death of Fr. John, the procedure for his canonization should have gone smoothly and calmly. However, while he was alive, both sides realized that their spiritual duty was to prevent him, as they say, “from getting into trouble.” In praising him, they had to know when to stop so that he would not become proud and at some desperate moment lose everything that he had achieved with such difficulty - a phenomenon that was all too well known from the lives of the saints 543 . In other words, the intercessors had to both strengthen and protect the holiness of Fr. John - for her loss would affect not only him, but the entire Church. As a result, the intercessors themselves tried to edit their descriptions in such a way that they were clearly instructive and soul-saving. Church hierarchs, for their part, had to monitor all manifestations of religiosity associated with Fr. John so that they perform the same function. This process of subtle adjustment of the pastor’s lifetime representations is especially noticeable in the texts of his admirers. Some of them simply sought to glorify or make more widely known a person “pleasing to God.” They generally follow the traditions and canons of the “edifying” genres. And indeed, stories about the life of Fr. John must be considered in the context of the religious literary genres that existed in Russia at that time. Peddlers throughout Russia continued to sell newspapers and brochures with religious content 544 . In addition to the Scriptures and the lives of saints, which the Church published in ever larger numbers, there was also a variety of “soul-saving” literature for popular reading, published by numerous organizations close to the Church. The range of texts was extensive, from small “Trinity Leaves” designed to “provide the simple Russian people with soul-saving reading and thus enlighten them in matters of faith and morality,” to entire series about “Ascetics of Piety” 545. Almost all of these stories told about long-dead men, women and children who showed the world the feat of self-denial and the strength of faith - virtues cultivated by the Church. They give us an idea of ​​what people read in those years when materials about Fr. John. However, these instructive parables rarely served as a model for texts about him - the shepherd was too unique. Other parallels and literary models for stories about him are the lives of saints, the children's series "The Lives of Remarkable People", brochures about pilgrimages to the Holy Land and Mount Athos and, since Fr. John, as a rule, was described in the context of his own travels around Russia, travel notes. Here is the difference between the lifetime texts about Fr. John and his subsequent representations, which appeared decades after his death, manifests itself with particular force. According to the tradition of writing lives, authors who begin the life of a saint years after his death must make every effort to bring the material into accordance with the hagiographic canon 546. So, just twenty-five years after the death of Fr. John, collecting the necessary information for his canonization, I.K. Sursky preceded the question “How can one pray to Father John if he has not yet been canonized?” with a sharp comment: “The Lord himself canonized him during his lifetime.” He believed that the visions of some laymen to whom Fr. John appeared on icons; there is mystical proof of his holiness 547. As soon as Fr. John was canonized, his “iconization” (this time in the literal sense of the word) was finally completed. For example, the editions of the Lives published in Russia in the 1990s reveal an epically detached intonation, and they are written in much the same language that was used to describe the first Russian saints of the 11th century: he is ranked among them as a national hero 548 . The emigrant edition of 1964, which places greater emphasis on the political views of Fr. Joanna, however, also followed the standard hagiographic canons 549. S. L. Firsov finds typical “ulcers of the end of the century” (fin-de-siècle malaise) both in the era of Fr. John, and at the turn of the 21st century: “The decline of morality and the increase in crime, the increase in anger and hatred around - all this suggests that the social organism, as at the beginning of the 20th century, is seriously ill” 550. However, contemporaries Fr. John was concerned about the current problems of the era, and they persistently sought to bring the priest’s appearance closer to “our days,” which with each subsequent decade inevitably receded into the past. The details they focused on contain vital information about how exactly Fr. John, in the minds of people, fit into the hagiographic tradition and, like the tradition itself, absorbed new elements. First of all, they emphasized his modernity - he is a typical priest, just like the rest. “He speaks our language,” “he knows us,” “he is one of us” is the leitmotif of these texts. One can sense almost the relief of the laity who wrote: “Despite his severity, Fr. John is not an ascetic - he drinks wine and communicates” 551. On the contrary, after his death, such a personal attitude towards the shepherd evaporated, giving way to a hagiographic intonation. (“Although Fr. John said that he did not lead an ascetic life, this, of course, was said only out of deep humility; in fact, by hiding his asceticism from people, Fr. John was the greatest ascetic” 552.) One of the reasons why Fr. What made John so attractive to his contemporaries was not simply his originality (after all, that was what attracted the authors in the first place), but the fact that this originality was contained in the most ordinary context. He was married. He lived in an ordinary house in a small town. He read magazines. He taught at school. He believed that we really need to take care of the poor. He had to deal with city and church authorities. He believed that the rich should do more charity work, which did not stop him from going to their parties with pleasure. In other words, he was completely earthly and did not at all resemble either an emaciated ascetic hermit or a powerful bishop - the most common examples of canonical holiness in Russia in the 19th century - and at the same time, by all accounts, he almost achieved holiness. It is not surprising, therefore, that contemporaries emphasized with such tenderness those features of Fr. John, which, as it seemed to them, made him the same as everyone else. In reality, of course, the shepherd was not “the same” as the others. After all, it was his dissimilarity that attracted people’s attention to him. One of the inexhaustible sources of his appeal was that he combined not only a priest and a prophet, but also managed to bear the stamp of Divine grace and at the same time remain “the priest living next door,” “the country boy who came to the city to do good.” The contrast would have been striking in any case, but it was further enhanced by the methods by which it was achieved. In essence, in all lifetime descriptions and images, especially before 1905, Fr. John appears both in his mystical form and in his home environment. Characteristically, he was often photographed with his typically rustic-looking mother and sisters; in addition, the shack in which his family once lived was often described, as well as his current home - solid, but reminiscent of a barracks; and in general, a very significant number of texts and images are devoted to its rural past. All this cannot be called a mere coincidence 553. These subjects are especially important because here the traditional didactic genre was combined with the newest genre of travel writing 554. Interest in the figure of Fr. John was combined with an interest in local color and ethnography. Thus, on a postcard depicting his trip to Veliky Ustyug, next to the image of the priest heading to church, samples of Ustyug handicrafts are placed; in the illustrations of his trip to the Russian North there was an inset with a young woman in a local folk costume; the largest detail on the postcard dedicated to his travel to the region of Lake Onega was the Olonets peasant hut, etc. 555 In the literature about Fr. Joanna also notices the authors’ desire to expand the boundaries of the genre in order to attract a larger audience. This goal was achieved by merging the most successful literary forms existing at that time. For example, a pronounced romantic approach to describing the life path of Fr. Ioann manifested himself in sketches of northern nature and discussions about the key role of nature in the formation of personality 556. Of course, these features were not unique to religious texts. Lengthy descriptions of rivers, landscapes, the summer sky, which we find in N.V. Gogol, I.S. Turgenev, S.T. Aksakov and L.N. Tolstoy - these are just the most striking manifestations of admiration for the authors of the 19th century. in front of nature. However, for religious storytelling, literature about Fr. Joanne seemed unusually overloaded with descriptions of nature. Thus, Alexander Semenov-Tyan-Shansky wrote about the native village of the shepherd Sura, in the Arkhangelsk province: “The village is located at the confluence of the Sura and Pinega rivers, the right-bank tributaries of the Dvina, approximately 500 versts from the White Sea. Not far from the village, mountains and white alabaster cliffs with caves and meadows loom vaguely; there are many birds and animals in the forests" 557. Another biographer of the shepherd, S. V. Zhivotovsky, went for even more daring stylistic experiments, both anticipating film scripts and reminiscent of hagiographic descriptions of the pristine nature surrounding the saint: “It is difficult to create a good farm in a short time on loose sand. There is no garden, no vegetable gardens, no cultivated fields here yet. Everything will have to be created with hard work under the most difficult conditions, since the northern summer is short. Three months will pass, during which the sun almost never leaves the horizon, and a cold, stormy autumn will come. At the beginning of October, almost everything here is already covered with snow. The sun first appears for only a few hours, and then almost disappears completely. A long, harsh winter is coming. Mail arrives here only once a week. Communication with distant Russia is only by horse and reindeer. For almost nine months, all of nature is immersed in a deep sleep. A deep silence reigns, broken only by the ringing of the bell calling the sisters to the monastery church, and the howling of the wind and the groan of the blizzard, merging with the hungry howl of wild animals” 558. Many authors have drawn a parallel between nature and Fr. John. Thus, Boris Zaitsev wrote: “Russian folk nature was very strongly expressed in him, these blue, completely peasant eyes, full of wind and fields” 559. The emphasis on descriptions of nature was not simply a stylistic device. Fr.'s own love for nature. John clearly appears in virtually every one of his works. Take, for example, “My Life in Christ,” which is replete with similar descriptions. So, for example, Fr. John likens the spring melting of ice and the release of hidden rivers and lakes to the separation of the soul from the body after death 560. Reviewers of foreign publications of the shepherd also called love for nature a distinctive feature of his creations 561. They pointed out that young John felt the power of nature during school holidays, when he was returning home on foot from Arkhangelsk, and suggested that it was then, walking hundreds of miles through forests and mountains, often deserted, that he developed this love for nature and learned to see the presence of God in it. They also believed that these long journeys on foot, reminiscent of the journeys of pilgrims or holy wanderers, shaped his penchant for extemporaneous prayer 562. The love of prayer outside the home, in the open air, and of communicating with God through nature remained with the shepherd throughout his life. With all the commitment of Fr. John to the Eucharist and the liturgy, he preferred to pray in nature - every day of the Kronstadt priest began with a half-hour solitary walk in the garden at four o'clock in the morning. Open air prayers and lyrical celebrations of nature evoke images of Francis of Assisi and St. Sergius of Radonezh 563. Similar touches from the life of Fr. John, as well as references to nature in his sermons, may explain the popularity of the latter among his listeners. Most of them were also of rural origin and on Trinity Sunday they covered the floors of the church with grass, and decorated the icons with leaves, wildflowers and wreaths. Sometimes there were so many branches, and sometimes even trees, that the entire space of the church gave the impression of a magical forest transferred under the church vaults, and it was not without reason that they often said that on this holiday “the whole earth has a birthday” 564. It is likely that mentions of. John told his listeners more about nature than the learned sermons of the bishops 565. Biographers also paid attention to other characteristic features that originate from childhood. In their opinion, the impact on him of the harsh landscape and climate was aggravated and aggravated by the poverty of his native village. John. Thus, one author noted that “everything here, created by the hands of people, was poor and modest: unpretentious wooden houses, two old dilapidated churches ... with tin utensils, the house in which Father John was born was not even a peasant hut, but rather a dilapidated hut” 566. Finally, it was typical for the authors of biographies of the priest, who appeared at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, to emphasize what material benefits can be achieved if you follow him. According to these texts, after communicating with Fr. With John, needy people could become rich. Despite the fact that access to the priest was made difficult by secretaries, he appears in the descriptions as an ideal donor, kind, prudent and understanding, in contrast to the “ordinary” charitable institutions to which he was opposed. In this regard, the story of one woman about a poor high school student, dated 1900, is characteristic: “The mass ended... the priest began to undress himself at the altar. A young man of about sixteen in school clothes approaches him and timidly hands him some paper. “Tell me in words what you ask,” said the priest, continuing his work with his characteristic haste. “For the right to study... I don’t have it...” fragmentary words are heard, spoken in a whisper. The priest puts his hand into his pocket and takes out money. Having separated some of them, he prepares to hand them over to the petitioner, again doing this incidentally, without interrupting his previous work. Now, for the first time, he looked carefully at the young man standing in front of him, tears involuntarily flowing down his cheeks, and the muscles on his face were twitching with excitement. Who knows? Perhaps he had timidly and in vain submitted his request in more than one place and came here with his last hope, if not realized, all his dreams of a bright future were to be shattered! If he had been refused here, he would have left in complete despair. But his request is heeded without any insulting questions, without humiliation of his personality, they give him an anchor of salvation as simply as if he had asked for some trifle. Tears of gratitude flowed from the young man's eyes. Oh, how happy is he who can draw such tears from people! - Calm down, calm down, my dear! I'm very glad that I can help you. – The father strokes the head of the bent young man. His eyes are involuntarily caught by the short sleeves of the school coat, the unraveling seams - and his hand, ready to hand over the requested amount to the applicant, quickly falls back into his pocket and only after that satisfies the request. The young man left joyfully, but soon returned. The fear of making a mistake brought him back. Confused, he again approaches the priest, still holding the food served in his hand. - Father! You're wrong: there's much more to it! “No, I’m not mistaken,” the priest answers him quietly, “then for your coat... for books...” 567 A lot of variations on the theme of the shepherd’s generosity have been preserved: the merchant who gave Fr. Ioann received an envelope with three thousand rubles and protested when he immediately handed it over to the petitioner without counting it; the woman to whom he ordered to give his offering to the first person he met and who then worried that it turned out to be a well-dressed official (as it turned out later, he desperately needed exactly this amount at that moment). In all these cases, Fr. John saw which of the petitioners really needed what amount, and made sure that they received the money. Since stories of this kind were constantly on everyone's lips, it is not surprising that so many people turned to him for financial help 568 . Even more typical are stories about how someone (always a man), once rich, but who lost everything due to drunkenness, hit rock bottom and was then “resurrected” by Fr. John. Descriptions of the stories of alcoholics always follow the same pattern: a wealthy man (option: also a successful businessman) begins to lead a riotous life in restaurants and clubs in St. Petersburg, supports ballerinas, actresses or other chic mistresses. After a few years, he squanders everything, including his wife's money. He sinks so low that he begins to beat his wife and children and pledges their last belongings. Father John notices him in the House of Labor and orders him to come to the church (the sequence may be reversed). He makes him stop drinking, helps him with money and gets him a job. Despite the fact that the drunkard considers himself unworthy, Fr. John insists that he take communion. It’s as if a former alcoholic is reborn. He begins to treat his family well; At first he lives in honest poverty, but quickly achieves success. And he owes everything to Fr. John 569. The attractiveness of this kind of narrative was that, being a life that certainly followed the gospel canons, it was at the same time a fairy tale about Cinderella. Since in this narrative there is always a family with whom the hero first treated badly and which then helps him take the first steps on the path to Fr. John (as a result of which home life turns into an idyll), it can be assumed that the main circle of readers of the “biographies” of alcoholics were not so much the drunkards themselves as their desperate wives and children. A large volume of letters from the wives and daughters of alcoholics to Fr. Ioannou only confirms this assumption. The biographies of alcoholics, in which there was a clear conviction that the suffering of their loved ones would be crowned with a happy and unconditionally prosperous ending, were probably perceived by their relatives as a dream, almost unattainable, but at the same time infinitely desirable. The remorse experienced by a repentant alcoholic for the way he humiliated his loved ones must have been especially imprinted in their memory. If we remember these likely readers, then the details of the “biography” of an alcoholic become even more telling. Indeed, the very intonation with which the alcoholic tells his story gives the impression that the story is being told on behalf of his lamenting wife. Let's see, for example, what B-v writes: “I received a house and fifteen hundred thousand in capital from my father. In addition, they gave me three hundred thousand for my wife. [Subtext: his wife was richer than him, and he lost everything!] It seems that the fortune is large, and with such funds I could not only live my life comfortably, provide for my family, but also benefit the fatherland, as a citizen, entrepreneur, industrialist, manufacturer, capitalist... after all, I am an educated person, I was in the service. |He probably heard this every day!] [Restaurants] Donon, Contan, Pivato and “Bear” 570 witnesses that I paid 3 rubles. a piece of cigars and 2 1/4 rubles. for a glass of old wine. They are witnesses that I gave away, sometimes for several days in a row, 400–600 rubles. for lunch or dinner “for two”. What about my three trips abroad? It's better not to tell details! When the cash ran out and I had to pay bills, I mortgaged the house, but, of course, did not reduce expenses. It seemed to me that there was no other way to live. Well, how could I refuse Josephine a stroller or Margarita a necklace?.. All this is impossible, and I put it on a second mortgage, began pawning papers, diamonds... but the creditors came at once, sold the apartment, things, and we moved with my wife and children into a furnished room... I immediately switched to vodka, began to drink heavily and from step to step I reached the lodging house, – the wife began to go and do laundry every day. There is no name for my actions! Out of luxury and wealth, I reduced my wife and three young children to rags and poverty, beat them, tortured them, dragged the last pillow from under the child to the tavern, leaving the little one to sleep on the bare floor. My wife is beautiful. Look who she looks like now. The unfortunate woman, not washed for weeks, unkempt, seems to have reached the point of idiocy. But not so long ago she played a role in society, was the first at the ball, organized receptions, had a salon” 571. When it comes to Fr. John, the tone of the narrative becomes less secular and more reverent. Voice o. John was like a “healing balm” for the wounds of God. Suddenly, images of childhood - the image of the crucified Savior, the gentle face of the Mother of God, a host of angels singing songs of praise - washed over him again, and he fell to his knees. However, in the church, B-v did not dare to approach the cross at the end of the service, because he knew that Fr. John had the gift of “seeing through people.” Father John noticed how he pressed himself against the wall and motioned for him to come closer. The crowd of parishioners parted. When describing their conversation here, as in other similar stories, emphasis is placed on the shepherd’s call to joint prayer and on his omniscience: “You came to me. Well done; let's pray together. You are very unhappy, but the ways of the Lord are inscrutable... You go to Him, and this is great happiness for you... How long have you stopped drinking? – Have you stopped drinking? – he asked again. - But how do you, father, know that I drank and stopped drinking? “It’s not difficult, my son, to recognize the unfortunate drunkard in you.” You are not an evil person, the Christian in you has not died, but the enemy defeated you, took you into his hands and this is where he brought you. But it could have been worse. The enemy could destroy your soul... Thank the Lord for His mercy and ask for His help in the fight against the enemy! Father John took him aside to St. icons, and B-v knelt down. For the first time in 23 years, B-v raised his eyes to heaven, and his lips whispered the words of prayer. Oh, what a fortune he had! He was trembling with some kind of joyful excitement. My soul felt as light as it had never been before. Tears were rolling down my face. At that moment he made peace with everyone in the world, with all his enemies and enemies. He wanted to hug them all, so that they could all feel as good as he did at that moment.” Allusions to the Psalter are also obvious here (“I lift up my eyes to the mountains” – Psalm 120; “and my mouth will proclaim Your praise” – Psalm 50). After Fr. John was canonized by the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate in 1990, the prayer that he read to B-vu became the canonical “prayer of Father John”, said at the end of every service in which his name was heard, be it the actual ceremony of his canonization or prayer services ordered by the wives of drinking husbands 572. She made a strong impression on B-va: he fainted. When he came to his senses, Fr. John had already left, but left in his place one of the trustees of the House of Industriousness, ordering him to give B-v ten rubles and call him to come to confession and receive communion. And again the intonation of the hero’s wife returns to the narrative: “These ten rubles were very expensive for B-v, because both he and his family had already been starving for several days. From somewhere his wife got 50 kopecks for his journey to Kronstadt, but she herself was probably left penniless with the children. Happy, joyful B-v returned home. His family had not seen him like this for a long time. Now they moved into a bright room, bought food and boots for the children. At the housewarming party, everyone prayed together. Previously, it was not customary for them to read prayers; recently they did not even have an icon. The children did not know “Our Father.” Now we decided to pray together every morning and evening. This day passed quietly, peacefully and happily” 573. Here a third voice intrudes into the biography of an alcoholic: in its chanting of the advantages of honest physical labor and the most repulsive description of the consequences of “cultural” enlightenment and a frivolous lifestyle, it resembles the voice of L. N. Tolstoy in the late period of his life and work: “He had a permanent box at the theater, was acquainted with many “stars” of ballet and operetta, drank the best overseas wines like water, and as a result, he yawned, suffered from headaches, was bored and often regretted the time and effort spent... The new happiness that he found is not only constant, lasting, unchangeable, but it is also eternal... For three days B-v rolled firewood. Strong, healthy, cheerful, cheerful, he seemed to be completely satisfied with his fate... The family cheered up, were well-fed and also happy. A ruble and a ten-kopeck piece are enough for all modest needs without drunkenness... His wife and children were resurrected to a new life, they became younger and healthier. Schools were already planned for the children; no one knew any more need for anything.”574 The ending, right down to the fabulous formula “no one knew any more need for anything,” returns us to the image of the desperate wife of an alcoholic. Literally all the stories from N. N. Zhivotov’s series “Drunks at Fr. John of Kronstadt" are similar in intonation and construction, differing only in the extent of the initial wealth of the drunkard and his subsequent fall. St. John invariably appears as a kind helper, similar to St. Nicholas the Wonderworker (apparently, the stories about St. Nicholas are the closest prototype of the stories about St. John - we will consider the reasons for this below); the drunkard sank almost to the very bottom and decided to find Fr. John. However, despite the stereotyped nature of such stories, they contained such details as the origin, name and patronymic of the repentant drunkard, the number of children and their ages, etc. - and all this without any allowance for keeping the hero incognito. The lack of anonymity is absolutely understandable. While the saint and those he helped are alive, storytellers are usually so amazed by the miracles that occur that they try to fill the narrative with specific information as much as possible in order to convince the audience that “it really happened.” Later, canonization commissions also sought to obtain accurate information 575. The motivation here is different than that of those who prayed to Fr. John about healing and therefore described in detail all the symptoms of the illness in letters - it is in many ways similar to reviews of cases of successful healing. Both in the miracles of healing and in the destinies of repentant drunkards, the desired transformation has already occurred, and now it is necessary to convey its meaning to the reader and convince him of the authenticity of the event. This desire for precision and specificity, characteristic of the late 19th century, manifests itself in many other ways. For example, contemporaries wrote not just about what Fr. John is known everywhere, and that “the reflections of our venerable shepherd have now been translated into many languages ​​and read throughout the entire belt of the globe between 30 and 70 north. shire." 576. It is precisely thanks to the desire for authenticity that the most valuable random information penetrates into the narrative, which certainly had a strong impact on Fr.’s contemporaries. Joanna: “The transformation from a timid, humiliated, downtrodden ragamuffin into a man with a strong will, determination and almost enthusiasm took place so quickly that P.E. All that was missing was the costume to make him completely unrecognizable. He stood up straight, throwing his head back slightly, every movement was accompanied by such confidence, as if someone had just promoted him to advisor in commerce or awarded him a large order... Two years later, Pyotr Ermolaevich opened his own store, and recently bought a stone house "577." One last thing to say about biographies of alcoholics. In addition to visually depicting the transformation of a “rich as Croesus” man (this is the expression used) into the last poor man, and then into a God-fearing bourgeois, the authors of such biographies also seek to establish desirable norms of behavior. Even when a former alcoholic becomes a respectable citizen again, this is clearly not enough. He also practices what many Christian denominations call "ministry." Despite the fact that in no biography of Fr. John does not directly call on the alcoholic to donate money to the church - he insists only on confession and communion - the drunkard and his family each time become the embodiment of burgher virtue: “Every Sunday and holiday the family went to church, every evening was dedicated to reading Holy Scripture and prayer... Not a single poor person was refused help. The local parish church was the subject of his special care. He gilded vestments and church utensils, repaired chandeliers, bought icons, in a word, he did everything in his power to decorate and splendor the church.”578 “Now I-v owns houses, capital and makes large donations to good causes. Drunkenness never attracts him, and he doesn’t put anything intoxicating in his mouth.”579 So, expressing in a generalized form the dreams of desperate relatives, the lives of alcoholics also served as clear examples, simultaneously comforting and offering a model of behavior for fallen people and their loved ones. Despite the fact that the role of Fr. John is the key in the happy ending of the plot; he is not at the center of the story - his function as a whole comes down to a deus ex machina for the drinking layman. The works dedicated directly to Fr. are constructed differently. John. Those who described his life in order to promote his subsequent canonization directly followed the early hagiographic models: they noted that from childhood he was unlike others, described his constant contact with the Divine, etc. Thus, S. V. Zhivotovsky, who visited the native village of Fr. John, when he was at the zenith of his glory, wrote: “For a long time, his relatives were accustomed to looking at him as a special person, not of this world. Here I learned that even as a child, the son of psalm-reader Ilya Sergiev, little thoughtful Ivanushka, enjoyed special respect among his fellow villagers. If the man’s horse goes missing, they go to ask Ivanushka to pray, if some kind of grief happens, or if someone gets sick, they go to Ivanushka again. But the wondrous boy grew up, and his glory, like the sun, shone over Orthodox Russia” 580. Narratives of contemporaries about Fr. John also included other hagiographical elements. The poverty of his home caused some admirers and biographers to associate it with the cave in which Christ was born 581. Others drew a parallel with the childhood of M.V. Lomonosov 582. Both attempts to discern historical parallels or background to the events of the saint's life - not in the sense of strictly genealogical or even spiritual kinship - go back to Byzantine topoi in Orthodox liturgical texts. With the help of allegories and comparisons, they tried to fit the saint into the already existing pantheon, and sometimes into the earthly world. In this regard, the association with Lomonosov is especially significant. She implies that by writing biographies of Fr. John, his contemporaries sought to use his image as a link between the secular heroes of Russia and the religious history of the country. For them, both religion and “canonized” culture were integral components of a truly Russian person. This point of view was characteristic of Slavophilism and demonstrates how often people combined the spiritual and secular or even the Divine and the human in the history of Russia. Thus, the point of convergence of various principles was the figure of the king, whom the Orthodox Church considered God’s anointed and whose birthday, name day and coronation anniversary were celebrated by both the state and the church as important holidays, with solemn services, sermons and military parades. In the same way, the mention of Lomonosov as one of the spiritual predecessors of Fr. John strengthened the view that service to the Tsar, art and country was functionally equivalent to service to the Orthodox Church. (And some authors, for example, tried their best to show that Father John differed from the “superfluous people” of Russian literature - Pushkin’s Onegin, Lermontov’s Pechorin or Turgenev’s Rudin 583.) Later biographers drew even bolder parallels between religion and culture: for example, in the 1990s. N. Lisovoy noted that Fr. John was born on the very day when Pushkin wrote “Memoirs of Tsarskoe Selo” - October 19, 1829 - and suggested that such events in the spiritual life of the nation had a deep internal connection 584. Even more indicative is the emphasis made by the biographers of Fr. John - especially those of them who were themselves priests or monks - were of ecclesiastical origin as shepherds: his grandfather was a priest; the family has belonged to the clergy for at least 350 years. Life path of Fr. John is one of the first examples where the ecclesiastical origin of a saint was especially emphasized in his life (partly, of course, because he was one of the few married priests awarded canonization). As a rule, Russian hagiographers limited themselves to mentioning the influence of his immediate relatives, in particular his parents, on the future saint. The parents mentioned in the life fall into two categories: pious parents who set an example for the future saint, or parents who resist the child’s desire to take the path of asceticism and must either give in to it or prevail 585. Since throughout the 19th century. Attempts to make the clergy open to people of all social backgrounds did not stop; the obvious positive effect of Fr. John served as a weighty argument in the dispute with those who accused the then clergy of casteism 586. There was another, earlier example of a detailed description of church genealogy. From the earliest years of Christianity there was a tendency to include in the lives of saints all reliable information concerning their origin. The biographies of St. Augustine, Basil of Caesarea (the Great), and Gregory the Theologian demonstrate the powerful spiritual influence their mothers and sisters had on them 587 . In the case of Fr. John, as with St. Gregory of Tours, some biographers have used ecclesiastical origins to imply that more than three centuries of service to the church left their mark on the formation of the appearance of the "aristocrat" of piety 588. For example, Hieromonk Constantine wrote with delight that Fr. John is a descendant of an entire “dynasty” of priests and psalm-readers who served in one village church for more than three hundred years 589 . Hagiographers Fr. John invariably faced the problem of “two hypostases of the priest.” Being a saint, Fr. John sought his own salvation and was primarily responsible for his own soul. As a priest, he strove for the salvation of his flock and was primarily responsible for them. And when communicating with him and describing his life, it was necessary to understand in what “hypostasis” he currently appears. If Fr. John from time to time felt a conflict between these two hypostases - for example, in his relationship with his wife - is it any wonder that his biographers felt this too? The aspect of personal holiness, essential for future life, inevitably brought to the fore the “mystical” spiritual genealogy, revealing, along with biological ones, the spiritual ancestors and forerunners of the future saint. This was probably of particular significance in the case of Fr. John, since he did not have a spiritual father, and his biological father died when the shepherd was still young. However, attention to spiritual roots is generally characteristic of Christianity with its emphasis on the salvation of the individual. Man's original bond of love and obligation is not with his family, but with God (“Whoever loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me,” Matthew 10:37). Unusual family situation. Joanna created a problem that contemporary biographers delicately avoided. Although he felt an internal conflict between family and religious obligations, his biographers have consistently emphasized his obedience and devotion to his mother, which he maintained throughout his life, and his chaste, harmonious relationship with his wife. In fact, judging by the biographies of Fr. John, one of the many differences from traditional representations of the saint is his undoubted devotion to his family. His father died in 1851, just when the future shepherd had just entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Since John was the only son in the family and the only member of the family to receive an education, the responsibilities of the breadwinner fell on him. Some biographers indicate that he felt the burden of family responsibility and wanted to leave the academy to become a sexton, but his mother generously refused. All biographies mention that thanks to his excellent handwriting and good behavior, he was able to work part-time as a clerk at the academy. Most biographers also note that Fr. John earned nine (or ten) rubles a month and sent all of them home to his mother 591. The modest virtue of fulfilling filial duty, especially extolled in the peasant and merchant classes, was, as a rule, absent from the lives of monks and nuns. Of course, the lack of references to family ties in the lives of saints is partly due to the very nature of the genre. The biographies of the first warrior princes emphasize their military valor and faithful service to the fatherland; in the lives of hermit monks or bishops, the emphasis is usually placed on opposition to the family and the desire to escape to the monastery, for only in monasticism, as a rule, could true holiness be achieved 592. And even despite the fact that in moralizing literature a significant role was given to women’s service to the family, the lives of a few Russian female saints also gravitate towards this ascetic canon; life of St. Juliania Lazarevskaya, who devoted herself to her family, is an exception that only confirms the rule 593. Father John introduced changes to the existing canon - first with his devotion to his parents in childhood, then with his holiness after ordination. His status as a married priest came in handy for the intelligentsia of that time, who in those years sought to achieve a more favorable attitude of the Church towards family life 594 . This is the glorification of family life, which sounds in the lives of Fr. John, more than paradoxical - after all, his biographers knew that in fact she did not exist. His virginity in marriage played into the hands of such non-Orthodox thinkers as sectarians or, for example, Vladimir Solovyov 595. All biographers of Fr. John mentions that his wife was dissatisfied with his decision to preserve his virginity, which, apparently, was made without consulting her and which she learned about only after the wedding (this is a key point, since if both spouses had agreed on this matter in advance, they would only have repeated a precedent that already existed in hagiography, and no problems would have arisen) 596 . More kind-hearted hagiographers suggest that Fr. John easily convinced her to live with him like a sister, saying: “There are enough happy families, Lisa, without us. And you and I will devote ourselves to serving God” 597. (The parallel with the works and views of Leo Tolstoy is striking, be it “Family Happiness”, “The Kreutzer Sonata” or the beginning of “Anna Karenina”). Some believe that in this way Fr. John became one of the "one hundred and forty-four thousand virgins redeemed from the earth" mentioned in the Revelation of St. John the Evangelist 598. Other authors attribute to Fr.'s wife. John's resistance is quite aggressive. Some claim that she addressed a petition to Metropolitan Isidore of St. Petersburg in order to remind her husband of his family responsibilities; others - that she demanded a divorce; still others are completely convinced that her father is the rector of the cathedral, whose position is Fr. John inherited after marrying his daughter - he interceded for her before the authorities 599. One version of the clash between the shepherd and the hierarchs was probably borrowed from early Christian hagiography. According to this version, Metropolitan Isidore called Fr. John and threatened him with dismissal, divorce, etc. Father John allegedly answered him something like this: “It is God’s will [for me to live like this], and you will soon understand this,” and left. At that very moment the Metropolitan became blind, and his sight returned to him only when he returned Fr. John and asked him to forgive and pray for him 600. The story, of course, is absolutely unreal, and Fr. John never mentioned her in his diary, despite the fact that he described in great detail every meeting with the metropolitan for thirty years 601. Moreover, during the early years of his ministry, when the alleged episode allegedly took place, Fr. John believed that the miracles described in the apostolic period of Christianity and in the Lives were hardly possible today. Nevertheless, the implausibility of such classic plots of “retribution”, when the Almighty punishes others in the name of Fr. John, did not prevent many of his biographers from willingly including them in the narrative. One story described how three students decided to play a joke on Fr. John: one of them pretended to be terminally ill, and the other pretended to be his inconsolable brother. Having warned the students that they were joking with the Lord himself, the shepherd prayed that each of them would receive according to their faith - and the pretender was instantly paralyzed. He was healed only after two other jokers found Fr. John and repented 602. Captain Stepan Burachek also claimed that he observed someone making fun of Fr. John, immediately burned his face with a cigarette, adding that the victim himself realized that he was being punished for his “freethinking” 603. One woman asked the priest for money, lying that her hut had burned down, received it (thinking to herself: “What a seer you are - you didn’t know anything!”), and when she returned home, she saw that her hut had really burned down - the only one in the entire village 604. In religious magazines of that time, for example, in “The Wanderer,” similar stories about Divine punishment were regularly published: “God’s terrible punishment of a disobedient daughter,” “Execution of God for disrespect for the feast of the prophet Elijah,” “Admonishment of a schismatic for blasphemy against a shrine” 605. The desire of such early hagiographers of the priest as N. Ya. Bolshakov and I. K. Sursky to include such unreliable material in the lives is a desire recognized as doubtful by their more restrained, although no less devoted, Fr. John by colleagues, speaks both of the significance that his image had acquired by that time, and of the lack of strict control in the Orthodox Church over descriptions of the earthly paths of its saints. In any case, the shepherd’s wife is mentioned in the biographies of that time only in connection with the fact that for quite a long time she could not come to terms with his decision to preserve virginity and with his ascetic overcoming of the flesh, as well as (this was implied) with his “right” to daily communion. And not a word more is said about her. She performs only two functions in the narrative: an obstacle that Fr. John must overcome, and the way in which he receives the parish. Most biographers considered everything else either unimportant for the subsequent spiritual growth of Fr. John, or, on the contrary, a painful problem that is best kept silent. (It is no coincidence that among the family photographs there are not many portraits of her, and in them she looks either dejected or gloomy 606.) Only in her own panegyrics and in the life of 1990 is she glorified as an “ideal mother” 607. The most significant are three spiritual predecessors, whom the biographers of Fr. John was likened to their hero: St. John of Rylsky, after whom it was named; Saint Nicholas - in the church named after him, Fr. John received primary religious education; and Rev. Seraphim of Sarov. Here the question arises, to what extent Fr. John was in solidarity with his flock in strengthening his own cult 608. On the one hand, he had to protect himself from pride, so as not to lose grace; on the other hand, he could not deny that he was given special grace, and believed that through glorifying his people glorify the Lord 609. The spiritual lineage was clearly delineated. It can be traced, firstly, by the important role of Fr. John took the Rev. John of Rila, the Bulgarian hermit, after whom it was named. After the priest became a celebrity and people began to celebrate his name day, he tried to divert the flow of attention poured out on him that day in order to simultaneously show how people should treat him. So, one day on October 19, he thanked the crowds who had gathered to congratulate him with the following words: “You have gathered here... to honor in my person the servant of Christ and your prayer book... and also to bow before the great saint of God, John” 610. In addition, Fr. John named the convent he founded in St. Petersburg after his patron, so they began to call it simply “Ioannovsky,” which gave people the opportunity to remember both the founder of the church and his predecessor at the same time. (Of course, this proved especially convenient after his canonization.) His biographers have drawn more direct parallels. When in one sermon Fr. John spoke about the feast of St. Nicholas of Myra, biographers instantly “saw” that when he glorified St. Nicholas and paraphrased the hymn in his honor, he actually meant himself, and in the person of Arius he condemned Tolstoy. Father John said that Nicholas the Wonderworker was a true believer and a strict denouncer of the then heresy of Arius, who reduced the Son of God to an ordinary creature. He was meek, simple-hearted, accessible to everyone, compassionate, merciful, a sincere helper of widows and orphans, a defender of those unjustly persecuted and sentenced, the most blameless 611. The parallel ended with a statement from Fr. John about miraculous healings, in particular regarding the prevailing opinion at that time about the natural explanation of all “so-called” miracles. He modestly noted that he himself had encountered “many” cases of rapid and even instantaneous healing of the paralyzed, blind and deaf (of course, without directly mentioning the role of his prayers in these healings). Of course, the mention of Arius was also not an accident. The sermon was preached in 1898, and by that time Fr. John had already come into confrontation with Tolstoy several times. He remembered the confrontation between St. Nicholas and Aria, in order to expose the essence of his own conflict with Tolstoy and his followers, who denied the divinity of Christ and considered the Gospel solely as a source of moral instruction 612. Thus, for biographers of St. Nikolai and Rev. John of Rylsky were the true ancestors, patrons and forerunners of Fr. John - as, apparently, for the shepherd himself. However, in whom, if not in the saints, could he ultimately see role models? If the same Tolstoy recognized Pushkin as a predecessor who had a serious influence on modern literature, couldn’t a righteous man who sought holiness just as naturally name his holy forerunners without seeming vain or self-confident? He could not, because there is an obvious difference between creative and spiritual achievements: the calling of Fr. John had the salvation of his own soul, and he could not separate himself from this, while the writer could separate himself from his creation. Fearing falling into sin, Fr. John had to avoid obvious parallels with other saints, unlike his biographers. (Only in letters to Abbess Taisia ​​- who was herself a great ascetic - could he write about the divinely inspired liturgy: “It seems that everything was burning spiritually and trembling during the liturgy and the preaching of the word of God... I myself was inspired and spoke like a prophet or an apostle” 613.) Of his spiritual “forerunners,” biographers most clearly made the connection with Fr. John with St. Seraphim of Sarov, especially after the canonization of St. Seraphim in 1903 614 Archbishop Nikanor of Kazan in the bulletin of his diocese directly calls Fr. John's successor to St. Seraphim in regard to the glory of the righteous, with all the differences in their biographies. Nicanor was one of the first to announce that the change in religious fashion, when the ascetic monk was replaced by a married priest, was a sign of the times. Father John traveled on ships and trains, and did not remain alone, as Seraphim had done for many years, because people needed him everywhere. “People are different now,” Nikanor argued, “and they need to be influenced in new, close and understandable ways” 615. Some contemporaries of Fr. John tried to establish a direct connection between him and St. Seraphim through the “elder” Paraskeva Ivanovna Kovrigina. According to their point of view, the beloved disciple of St. Seraphim, Hilarion, especially ordered Paraskeva to leave the Reshmin Hermitage and serve Fr. John, “the new lamp of the Church of Christ, who shines in Kronstadt” 616. This spiritual blessing and the relationship between the two righteous people was spoken of in order to emphasize that Fr. John was “anointed” by Seraphim to perform miracles, but such a connection is actually problematic. Fr. himself John never mentioned this, publicly calling Kovrigina simply a pious woman who asked him to pray for someone’s healing (and in private conversations he spoke disapprovingly of her) 617. It is safe to say that this parallel was based on purely practical considerations. Drawing an analogy with St. The figure of Fr. becomes a Seraphim. John is much less unique and, therefore, less exceptional in the eyes of the church hierarchy. In addition, St. Seraphim was canonized largely on the initiative of Nicholas II, and it is quite possible that the biographers of Fr. They hoped for John that the same fate awaited him, given that the disciples of the saints were the best candidates for canonization 618. Ironically, the authors who sought to debunk the priest followed the same path as the hagiographers - they drew a parallel between Fr. John and other saints. For example, N. A. Rubakin compared the exorcism of demons performed by Fr. John over "hysterical" women, with the earlier practices of St. Bernard 619. In addition to creating a spiritual genealogy for Fr. John, his contemporaries also followed such a hagiographic tradition as the desire to discover in the saint’s childhood omens of events that would later occur in his life (which is also typical for the books in the “Life of Remarkable People” series, in which the future achievements of a “remarkable person” are predetermined by the first twelve years of his life). The most frequently repeated example of a “promise given in childhood,” described by Fr. John, possibly borrowed from the classical life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. Ioann Sergiev did not do well at school. As he writes: “My father received, of course, the most insignificant allowance; life was terribly difficult. I already understood the difficult situation of my parents, and therefore my darkness in my teaching was a particularly heavy burden for me. I thought little about the significance of the teaching for my future and grieved only that my father paid his last crumbs in vain” 620. However, then the first miracle in his life happened: “Everyone was smarter; I was the last student... But at night I loved to get up to pray. Everyone is sleeping - quietly... I prayed most often that God would give the light of reason to comfort my parents 621... One day it was already evening... I still could not understand anything from what had been said, I still read poorly, did not understand and did not remember anything from what was said. Such melancholy attacked me; I fell to my knees and began to pray fervently. I don’t know how long I stayed in this position, but suddenly it shook me all over... It was as if a veil had fallen from my eyes, as if the mind had opened up in my head, and the teacher of that day and his lesson clearly appeared to me; I even remembered what he was talking about. And it became easy and joyful in my soul. I have never slept so peacefully as I did that night. It got a little light, I jumped out of bed, grabbed my books and - oh happiness! – I read much easier, I understand everything, and what I read, I not only understood everything, but even now I can tell it. I felt differently in class than before: I understood everything, everything remained in my memory. The teacher gave me an arithmetic problem, I solved it, and they even praised me. In a word, in a short time I advanced so much that I was no longer the last student. The further I went, the better and better I did in the sciences, and by the end of the course I was one of the first to be transferred to the seminary” 622. The similarity of this incident with an episode from the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh and other saints who acquired the ability to teach thanks to Divine intervention is quite typical. However, there were some differences. Testimony about. John are autobiographical. Moreover, in the context of Russian culture, which especially valued modesty not only in church but also in secular life, it is not surprising that Fr. John minimizes the signs of his chosenness: he mentions an event that emphasizes his own insignificance before the greatness of God 623. Story about. John is above all realistic. There is no miraculous appearance of the elder, as in the life of St. Sergius of Radonezh. What bothers him is not so much that he is doing poorly, but rather remorse - he does not want to be a burden to his poor parents. Children from poor families were especially sensitive and sensitive to being a source of expense, and struggled to justify their existence and compensate their parents for monetary damages 624 . Another story from childhood, which has a pronounced mystical character, needs a more detailed comment. Abbess Taisiya from the Leushinsky monastery describes this incident in the following way from the words of Fr. John: “One night, 6-year-old Vanya saw an extraordinary light in the room... Looking up, he saw an Angel in his heavenly glory among the light. Baby John, of course, was embarrassed by such a vision. The angel reassured him, calling himself his Guardian Angel, always standing around him for protection, protection and salvation from all danger” 625. Taking into account that in the Orthodox lives of saints after the 18th century. rarely mentioned about visions that do not relate to icons (a striking contrast with Catholic visions of the Virgin Mary in the 19th and early 20th centuries), this incident is unusual 626. There may also be less obvious parallels here. One of them is from the field of fine arts. Even before the changes in iconographic style in the mid-19th century. (which Soviet art historians attributed mainly to the socio-economic changes caused by the abolition of serfdom in 1861 627) under the influence of German romanticism, French Catholic and Victorian art, a new genre appeared in Russian iconography - religious pictures based on illustrations to the Bible by Gustave Doré. One of the most popular depicted two children walking arm in arm along the edge of a cliff above a waterfall; the hillside was sometimes crowned with a cross (all these are hackneyed romantic images), and a guardian angel 628 hovered behind them. The genre of instructive children's stories with sentimental religious and mystical themes 629 also gained momentum. Since this imagery undoubtedly leaked from aristocratic circles, it could hardly have reached Ivan Sergiev, but it could have influenced Abbess Taisiya, the narrator of this story - she came from a cultured family, was one of Pushkin’s granddaughters and herself experienced several visions. In any case, both the visions of the angel and the immediate, often mystical answer to prayers strengthen the idea that the childhood of John Sergiev was unusually imbued with a feeling of closeness to the Lord and His readiness to respond to fervent prayers 630. Another factor that, according to biographers, influenced the formation of the personality of Fr. John - his passion for spiritual reading. Even more than to the Psalter, the writings of the Desert Fathers and the texts of his favorite services, Fr. John was tied to the New Testament. Abbess Taisiya recalls his words: “Do you know what first of all marked the beginning of my turning to God and, even in childhood, warmed my heart with love for Him? This is the holy Gospel. My parent had the Gospel in Slavic-Russian; I loved reading this wonderful book when I came home on vacation, and its style and simplicity of speech were accessible to my childish understanding; I read and enjoyed it and found in this reading high and irreplaceable consolation... I can say that the Gospel was the companion of my childhood, my mentor, guide and comforter, with whom I became close from an early age” 631. It was thanks to reading Scripture, patristic literature and liturgical texts, according to biographers, that “God, faith, and the Church became the entire content of his life, and this content merged with his pure, healthy, harmoniously developed spiritual and physical being full of vital energy” 632. Finally, most biographers mention that he initially wanted to become a missionary in Alaska, Africa or China 633. During his studies Fr. John in the academy, this path became increasingly popular. The Orthodox Church was just at that time expanding its missionary activities, and seminarians could think about converting to Christianity the peoples inhabiting the outskirts of the Russian Empire 634. Despite the fact that missionaries were usually monks, in the 19th century. Married priests also became them, such as, for example, Ioann Popov, known for his missionary work in Alaska, who was later canonized under his monastic name Innocent 635. Biographers explain the decision of Ivan Sergiev to prefer pastoral service to missionary activity by the fact that, having become acquainted with the riotous life of the capital, he was amazed and came to the conclusion that in Russia “there are enough pagans of our own” 636. However, this is rather retrospective speculation. Fr. himself John never mentioned his intention to become a missionary, emphasizing, on the contrary, his long-standing love for the priestly lot 637. A more plausible explanation for the fact that he did not choose the missionary path was given by Hieromonk Constantine. He suggests that John was so deeply imbued with the patriarchal spirit of his family and was so dependent on it that he could not even think of anything other than the priesthood, rejecting the paths of monasticism or missionary activity as too atypical and preferring to follow the well-trodden path and marry the daughter of a priest, which would provide a secure “position” 638. So, in all lifetime Orthodox descriptions of Fr. John combines modern touches and details with typical hagiographic structure and motifs; in later editions these details will gradually disappear. The representations of Fr. considered so far in this chapter. John has one thing in common: they are all positive. However, there were other lifetime descriptions of the shepherd, less flattering. He caused the main fire of hostility by supporting the autocracy during the revolution of 1905, but negative representations are due not only to political, but also to religious reasons. The writer N. S. Leskov subjected him to the strongest attacks of this kind. In the late 1870s - early 1880s, when Fr. John gradually gained more and more popularity in society, Leskov underwent an evolution from traditional Orthodox views to anti-church and anti-mystical views in the Tolstoyan spirit. His statements about Orthodox “types,” which gradually became more and more poisonous, reached their climax in the story “Polunoshniki.” First published in the liberal Vestnik Evropy at the end of 1891, this story combines an attack on the official church and a response to the anti-Tolstoy position of Fr. John 639. Leskov hated Fr. John as a symbol of everything that he despised in the Orthodox Church, from holy sacraments, icons and miracles to the cult of saints. For Leskov, Tolstoy embodied all that was best in the religious life of Russia, and Fr. John - all the worst. In a letter to Lydia Veselitskaya, he reduced the problem to the simplest formulation: “You cannot love Leo Tolstoy and John of Kronstadt” 640. “Polunoshniki” is a cruel satire not only on those around Fr. John, but also on himself: Claudius’s sweatshirt inflicts a crushing defeat on him in a religious dispute 641. Leskov’s hostility did not stop there. In his opinion, Fr. John not only embodied Russian Orthodoxy, but also had repulsive individual qualities and, in addition, chose only curable patients for healing. Leskov fully expressed his irritation in private correspondence. Thus, in a letter to another Tolstoyan, Prince D. A. Khilkov, Leskov sardonically notes (demonstrating a brilliant command of Church Slavonic) that the true manifestation of the insight of Fr. John was his decision to accept the invitation of Marx, the famous publisher of the Niva magazine, and Suvorin, the publisher of Novoye Vremya, and not the “poor righteous widow” Tifyaeva, who was painfully searching for funds to publish her children’s magazine “Igrushka” 642. Leskov didn’t even want to name Fr. John's full name, referring to him as "Ivanov", "Ivan Ilyich" or "Perjean" (from the French Rege Jean - Father John). Leskov despised the followers and fanatics of the cult of Fr. John, especially those who, in his opinion, could better understand what was what. After Khilkov’s children were forcibly baptized with the participation of Fr. John, even against the will of their father, Leskov indignantly wrote to Tolstoy on December 14, 1893: “The worst thing about this is how people in today’s society, which have completely lost meaning and conscience, feel about it. They talk about this very little and always - sluggishly and stupidly and with such a formulation of the question: “how to look at this - from what point of view”... And the main thing here is that Khilkov’s mother started this “with Perzhan’s blessing,” and no matter what Perzhan does, it’s all “sacred.” And even those from whom I would not expect this - they all became one and the same” 643. From Leskov’s point of view, the artists who painted portraits of Fr. deserved no less contempt. John, and periodicals that published their reproductions. He awarded caustic irony to the artist Vereshchagin’s painting “Father John’s Visit to a Sick Woman” 644. Leskov wrote mockingly about how one artist completed a canvas called “The Temptation of Father John”: “Night, an office, the moon, a church in the window, he is dozing over a book, behind him is a devil with a straw - he is moving behind his right ear, and here a young woman in a white hood has the right to “neckline right down to the very top,” but he is tired and still dozing” 645. In conclusion he wrote: “They choked on Ivan, but, unfortunately, did not choke. His “faces” are sold in figurative shops next to the Savior, Kazan and all the saints. Editorial offices are vying with each other to get it and now everyone is “sprayed” with it. And his fame and stupidity keep growing, like a certain kind of pillar under the latrine of a two-story tavern in a provincial town.” Leo Tolstoy experienced similar feelings when he wrote on August 3, 1890: “Your story about John is wonderful, I laughed all the time while I read it out loud. It’s terrible what they did to the Russian people during 900 years of Christianity. He, especially the women, are completely wild idolaters” 646. Despite the fact that the most devastating criticism of everything connected with Fr. John, would fall upon him later, in connection with the scandal over the Johannites, already at this stage negative representations arose, contrasting with the glorifications of the shepherd. Reaction of the official clergy Leskov and Tolstoy's rejection of Fr. John is completely consistent with their neo-Protestant sentiments. However, those whose duties included preserving the Orthodox faith may have been even more alarmed by both the appearance of an unusual priest and the spontaneous, mass nature of his worship. The personal charisma of the shepherd and spontaneous outbursts of admiration for him seemed to undermine the very foundations on which the grace of the priest had rested from time immemorial. He reawakened the same fear of charisma, only slightly muted by church tradition and discipline, which for centuries characterized the uneasy relationship between charismatic or mystical personalities and the church hierarchy and which manifested itself more recently, in the hostility towards the Optina elders 647. Rozanov's insightful observation that the charisma of Fr. Joanna eclipsed the charisma of generally accepted spiritual authorities and hit the mark. Official rejection of Fr. John was explained by considerations of both a practical and principled nature. The practical considerations were simple: Kronstadt is a bustling port city near the capital. Father John gathered more people around him than any monastic elder, and was more visible than the monks, due to purely geographical reasons. In this regard, he occupied a strategic position: it was convenient for people to come to him, and it was easier for him to attract attention. The fundamental reasons for the shepherd's rejection were more complex and changed over time. During the first twenty-five years of his priesthood, Fr. John largely remained a local figure, relatively controlled. Any violations of the established order or custom on his part, be it relationships with his wife or some unusual interference in the life of the flock, were considered not as public, but as private phenomena and were regulated accordingly. During this period, the church hierarchy treated him as a local attraction - perhaps overzealous, but ultimately obedient. Despite the fact that their then written reviews about Fr. John's monuments have not survived; we can try to reconstruct them based on his diaries. For example, in 1869 he spoke of his dean this way: “At home he is good, but in society he slows down greatly, unreasonably” 648 . Even if you make allowance for the hurt feelings of Fr. John, indirect evidence of that time confirms that relations with the hierarchs were indeed tense. And although it is unlikely that St. Petersburg Metropolitan Isidore was blinded for trying to scold Fr. John, from the priest’s diaries it follows that Isidore treated him coldly and harshly for many years. In 1867, he mentions his tears and resentment after a rude reception from the Metropolitan; in 1890, at the peak of his fame, he writes: “Not once in thirty years did he greet me in a fatherly way, with a kind word or look, but always humiliatingly, with severity and severity” 649. A turning point in the relationship. John not only with the flock, but also with the church hierarchs came in 1883, after an open letter published in Novoye Vremya. The day after the letter was published, the Chief Prosecutor brought it to the attention of the Holy Synod. All members of the Synod were confused; Isidore was unhappy that “such a note” was published in a secular publication without the sanction of a religious censor 650. The Metropolitan's protest was rooted in the suspicion that Fr. John undermined the foundations of the church hierarchy from within. The hierarchs have always sought to control as completely as possible the observance of religious dogmas and all religious phenomena and to draw as clearly as possible the distinction between appropriate and inappropriate religious behavior. The main difficulties in this regard were created by monastics and wanderers; now his personal charisma came from a completely unexpected source. Revision o. John's practices of the priesthood of the Synodal era and his support for the social forms of the early Christian church seemed to call into question the attempts of the hierarchs to establish clear Orthodox norms. Why, if he did not intend to consummate the marriage, did he not go to the monastery, but get married? Why did not sixteen grateful lay people express their feelings for the pastor in a religious newspaper so that their reviews could be sanctioned by the proper authorities? This gradually undermined those few areas of spiritual life that were clearly defined, including the “proper” paths to a chaste and ascetic life. It turned out that Fr. John took upon himself everything, including a chaste life and the writing of Christian works, that is, what was the lot of monks and bishops, and thus did not fit into the framework established for a parish priest. Another reason for dissatisfaction with the shepherd's overstepping his bounds was the desire to maintain control. Starting from the time of Peter I, the clergy was viewed as a separate class, which had not only its own judicial system, but also its own publications and, accordingly, censorship. Along with providing the lower strata of the clergy with certain guarantees that equated them with other Russian classes, such a policy simultaneously strengthened their isolation from society and subordination to the highest ranks of the Church. Having encouraged the laity to glorify the clergyman in the secular press, Fr. John proposed different criteria for evaluating Christian deeds than were accepted in the Orthodox Church. And this could remove the priest from direct subordination to church authorities and allow him to appeal to independent public opinion. In this sense, Fr. John became one of the harbingers of the emergence of a priesthood that was not so easy to control 651. Because of his independence and charismatic appeal to the masses, he lost the trust of the official church for many years. Despite the courageous attempts of his official biographer Archimandrite Michael to list all the pastor's awards as evidence that he reached the heights of secular and spiritual glory, there is no documentary evidence that Fr. John was ever invited to serve in the largest cathedrals. For example, he never served either in the Assumption Cathedral, or in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, or in the most famous Russian monastery - the Trinity-Sergius Lavra 652. Despite the fact that he was among those invited to the wedding and coronation of Nicholas II, he did not participate in the celebrations on the occasion of the canonization of St. Theodosius of Chernigov and St. Seraphim of Sarov 653. Even after Fr. John became a celebrity and gained some independence; the hierarchs continued to assert their prerogatives at every opportunity. Thus, in 1887, when (recreating early Christian practice) the priest petitioned in support of the candidacy for the position of priest of a peasant who was popular among the people, but did not have a formal seminary education, the local bishop completely unequivocally rejected his petition 654. The censorship committees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in both Moscow and St. Petersburg prohibited the publication of collections of spiritual poems dedicated to Fr. John, stories about his travels and stories about the healing of alcoholics 655. The hierarchs were especially concerned about such issues of church policy as exemption from preparation for Holy Communion, which Fr. John gave away with such ease. One day Bishop Savva (Tikhomirov) reproached him for an incident that happened during his visit to the Vyshnevolotsk Kazan Convent. Apparently, Fr. John allowed several nuns to receive Communion without first confessing to the monastery confessor, and Savva learned about this violation of monastic discipline and decreed that no more such concessions be given 656. Here the problem was the same as in the case of eldership: the authority of a self-elected confessor seemed to replace and undermine hierarchical discipline. Many bishops were convinced that only they had the right to bless at Communion without appropriate preparation. In other cases, Fr. John had to defend himself from accusations of a precarious theological position put forward by the famous bishop. Theophan the Recluse 657. Equal o. According to John's rank, the clergy also treated him without enthusiasm. Many admired him, but there were also those who were depressed that he gained all the glory for himself, so that other priests lost in comparison with him. They considered his manner "affected"; some even kicked him out when he entered their church 658. Still, other priests invited him to serve in their parishes, but they did so reluctantly because of the pandemonium that happened at his services. Welcome to Fr. John of Kronstadt always had problems. The church turned out to be overcrowded, everyone was shouting and making noise, dragging dirt into the church, and “after his departure it was impossible to come to one’s senses for a long time” 659. The problem, however, was not only Fr.’s lack of control. John. Bishop Theophan (Recluse), who, unlike Metropolitan Isidore, was in no way “responsible” for Fr. John, wrote him a letter in which he warned about the spiritual danger of his actions both for himself and for those around him. Theophanes argued that the desire to be an ascetic in the world is a temptation for everyone except monks. He was worried about the possibility of both a “terrible fall” of Fr. John, as well as scandals and insinuations about this among the clergy and laity 660. The healings, the news of which were spreading more and more widely, gave rise to another difficulty. The fact of performing miracles in itself did not cause problems for the church authorities: in the 19th century. There was a gradual retreat from the rationalism of church regulations to the recognition of the supernatural. The main catch lay elsewhere. When healings were attributed to Divine intervention, they were believed to occur through the veneration of icons or holy relics, or through the intercession of glorified and canonized individuals. Many elders and holy fools were endowed with the gift of foresight, but the ability to heal from illnesses was a completely atypical phenomenon. Father John took the Church by surprise. The Orthodox Church had the lives of healers from the era of early Christianity, as well as St. Nicholas or Cosma and Damian, but she did not know how to relate to the living miracle worker. According to some sources, the chief prosecutor of the Synod, K.P. Pobedonostsev, called Fr. John to discuss his famous miracles. “They say about you that you... “work miracles,” Pobedonostsev allegedly said to Fr. John, - be careful that you don’t come to a bad end” 661. Pobedonostsev’s words demonstrate the difficulties that church hierarchs constantly faced in their efforts to control and channel unusual forms of religious behavior. While there was an established system of prohibitions regarding inappropriate behavior (which included false evidence of healing), there was no corresponding “positive” mechanism regulating spontaneous manifestations of religiosity. Until someone pointed out any violations of the rules, the Church could only watch and wait. The Roman Catholic Church faced a similar case in Padre Pio, a Capuchin friar who died in 1968 at the age of 81, and took precautions: he was not allowed to speak to people anywhere except in the confessional, he was forbidden to write letters or give sermons. His biographer, a fellow priest, remarks approvingly: “Without such clear restrictions, we certainly would not have avoided something like his lifetime mass canonization” 662 - that is, exactly what happened to Fr. John. True, posthumously Pio became both a real celebrity (more people come to his cancer than to the relics of St. Francis of Assisi) and an industry: air fresheners appeared under the name “Padre Pio”, etc. 663 The Orthodox hierarchs, on the contrary, did not interfere with the development of the charismatic activity of Fr. John, controlling her only in cases of obvious violations. This behavior has a number of explanations. First, sensing the rise of anti-religious sentiment in the second half of the 19th century, the Church probably sought to be tolerant of those who promoted and encouraged pious behavior 664 . However, an equally important factor is the conviction of the Orthodox Church that holiness can develop “from below”, and therefore it is simply necessary to be vigilant. In this context, the priesthood of Fr. John and his desire to clothe his every act in purely Orthodox forms acquire special significance. Being a representative of the clergy not in the first generation, Fr. John was considered by the hierarchs as one of their own and therefore more trustworthy than some wanderer or even a monk. Thanks to this position of the Church, the glory of Fr. John, which began with an independent group of laymen and a secular newspaper, became stronger among the people. And although the initiative here was more secular than spiritual, the priests also willingly testified to the good deeds of Fr. John 665. This is an indicator, firstly, of the absence of an official mechanism for investigating such precedents in the structure of the Orthodox Church, and secondly, of the extent to which the beliefs of the laity continued to determine ideas about holiness: descriptions of the “miracles” of Fr. John was collected and confirmed by the laity and parish clergy. Outside Russia, judging by posthumous biographies, his cult was also supported mainly by the laity, and not by the clergy 666. Criticism about. John by the church hierarchs boiled down to the following. The shepherd in his person simultaneously embodied two religious types that had previously been separated: the clergyman - and the prophet or righteous man, in other words, a person with legal status as opposed to an independent charismatic. The priest, through the very rite of worship, carries out the sacrament of salvation. And despite the fact that in some cases there may be personal charisma, it is the celebration of the liturgy that “endows the priest with legitimate authority as a participant in the common cause of salvation” 667. Considering the significance that Fr. John attached importance to the priest’s performance of the sacraments; it is obvious that this is how he felt his service. However, he managed to combine these qualities with such attributes of a prophet as lively, emotional sermons, interest in the social sphere, the gift of foresight and healing, which was previously considered impossible. The origins of his nationwide popularity lie precisely in this synthesis: the ability to directly influence through personal charisma is combined in him with belonging to the official church and full-fledged service to it. Father John became the first figure in Russia to combine the priesthood and personal charisma, a phenomenon that has become entrenched in modern history. Now priests, no less often than monks or righteous laymen, demonstrate the ability to live faith and at the same time the ability to speak as an empowered clergyman. (Although the book is dedicated to Father John and Russian Orthodoxy, we note a similar phenomenon in the Roman Catholic Church, beginning with Jean-Marie Vianney in 19th century France. The most recent extreme example of a politically and socially “ideological” priesthood is “liberation theology” 668.) New Time. 1883. December 20. No. 2807. P. 3. Orlov V. Three spiritual choirs. M., 1896. See: V. M. [Evdokim (Meshchersky), archbishop]. Two days in Kronstadt, from a student’s diary. Sergiev Posad, 1902. P. 163. “The Dream of the Virgin Mary” and “The Walking of the Virgin Mary” are discussed in the book: G. Fedotov. Spiritual Poems. Russian folk faith based on spiritual verses. M., 1991. S. 21–23, 49–57. On the fight against superstitions, see: Petrushevsky N. G. On religious and edifying reading for the common people // Guide for rural shepherds. 1883. No. 30. pp. 326–334. Letter from 1890. Quoted. by: V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 451. See: Levin E. Supplicatory Prayers as a Source for Popular Religious Culture in Muscovite Russia // Religion and Culture in Early Modern Russia and Ukraine / Ed. by Baron S. H. and Kollmann N. S. De Kalb, 1997, pp. 96–114. The requirement to pass on the prayer to others is reminiscent of the cult of St. Jude in the modern Roman Catholic tradition. See: Orsi R. A. Thank You, Saint Jude: Women’s Devotion to the Patron Saint of Hopeless Causes. New Haven, 1996. P. 103. B.M. Two days in Kronstadt. C. 450. See Chapter 7, about the police record in GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (I). L. 18–50. V. G. Korolenko in the memoirs of his contemporaries. M., 1962. S. 458–459. See, for example: Mukhin V. The Church Culture of Saint Petersburg. St. Petersburg, 1994. pp. 134, 149. On the decoration of icons, see: Sterligova I. A. On the liturgical meaning of the precious decoration of an ancient Russian icon // Eastern Christian Church: Liturgy and Art / Ed. A. M. Lidov. St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 220–229. Description of what existed at Fr. John's collection of vestments and other donated garments and decorations, see: V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 160–163. For votive gifts see: Wilson St. Cults of Saints in the Churches of Central Paris // Wilson St. Saints and Their Cults: Studies in Religious Sociology, Folklore, and History. Cambridge, 1987, pp. 239–257; see also in the book: Panchenko A. A. Research in the field of folk Orthodoxy. Village shrines of north-west Russia. St. Petersburg, 1998. pp. 94–95, 155. On Ars and La Salette, see: Boutry Ph., Cinquin M. Deux Pélérinages au XIXe Siècle, Ars et Paray-le-Monial. Bibliothèque Beauchesne, 8. Paris, 1980; about Lourdes - Pope B. C. Immaculate and Powerful: The Marian Revival in the Nineteenth Century // Immaculate and Powerful: The Female Sacred Image and Social Reality / Ed. by Atkinson C. W. et al. Boston, 1985, pp. 55–79. See the letter from the owner of the inn with a complaint that one woman, Evdokia Leontyevna, bribed coachmen with wine so that they would take pilgrims to her establishment, regardless of what address they were given (TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 15). For additional details, see the memoirs of priest V. Ilyinsky in the collection: St. John of Kronstadt in the memoirs of his contemporaries / Ed. S. L. Firsov. M., 1994. P. 104; Serebrov A. Time and people: memories, 1898–1905. M., 1960. S. 37–38; E.K. Memories of Father John. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 4. We find a satire on these “aspirations” in the book: Leskov N. S. Midnight Office // Leskov N. S. Collected works: In 11 volumes. M., 1958. T. 9. pp. 117–128. On conflicts between hotel owners and pilgrims, see: E.K. Memories. pp. 11, 17. Plotitsa A. M. O. John of Kronstadt: His opinion about infidels and foreigners (from the doctor’s diary). M., 1915. S. 7, 11–14, 22–23. For letters to Pertsova and about her, see: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 11, 13, 78, etc.; as well as comments: Saltykov K. M. M. E. Saltykov (Shchedrin) and Fr. John of Kronstadt // Saint John of Kronstadt in the memoirs of his contemporaries. P. 151. Pertsova was also accused of forging the will of Fr. John. See: RGIA. F. 799. Op. 6. D. 30. L. 2–5; and also: Vitovich A. Ya. Notes of the bailiff on the protective inventory of the property of Fr. John of Kronstadt // Voice of the Past. 1915. No. 5. P. 159–183. Letter from Margarita Yannovmaeva to: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 12. Memoirs of Maria Makeeva in: RGIA. F. 834. Op. 4. Unit hr. 1668. L. 9, 12. Perhaps there was also jealousy here: Bishop Arseny stands up for Pertsova in “Memoirs”. pp. 164–165. See undated letter from Evdokia, who compares herself to Judas because she committed the sin of wasting donations intended for Fr. Joanna, despite the fact that, according to her, she did so because she would not have survived without money. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 21. About the layout of the House, see: Rozhalin G. Memories of a trip to Kronstadt on May 26, 1906 // St. John of Kronstadt in the memoirs of his contemporaries. pp. 76–79. Letter without date to: Central State Historical Archive St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 40. L. 20. Plotitsa A. M. O. John of Kronstadt. P. 24. See Leskov's reasoning: RGALI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 830. L. 15, and also: E.K. Memories. P. 33. For descriptions and reproductions of postcards, see: V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 75–81; Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. Description of the life and work of Father John of Kronstadt. P. 173; John of Kronstadt / Comp. V. A. Desyatnikov. M., 1992, central tab. The problem was considered from a variety of points of view. See: Nichols R.L. The Icon and the Machine in Russia’s Religious Renaissance, 1900–1909 // Christianity and the Arts in Russia / Ed. by Brumfield W. C., Velimirovich M. M. N.Y., 1991. P. 131–144; Mal'tseva A.A. The Russian Icon of Late XVIII–XIX cc. St. Petersburg, 1994. pp. 7–8. Father John passionately longed for such signs of recognition, although he reproached himself for this desire. See: RGIA. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 94; D. 8. L. 63 vol. For comparison with the West, see: van Duren R.V. Orders of Knighthood and of Merit: The Pontifical, Religious, and Secularized Catholic-founded Orders and their relationship to the Apostolic See. N.Y., 1995. For examples of postcards from this period, see the book: V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. S. 108, 142, 370, and also: John of Kronstadt. M., 1992 (unnumbered section of photographic reproductions). See: Didron M. Manuel d’Iconographie Chrétienne Grecque et Latine. Paris, 1845. P. 455–456; Icon / Comp. A. S. Kravchenko. M., 1993. pp. 73–78. Photo from the cover of the book: Amalrik A. Raspoutine. Paris, 1982. See photos of Fr. John on the ships “Lyubezny” and “Brave” in the book: V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 207, 213. For the decision of the Synod, see: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 176. Units hr. 3498. L. 1. About enamels, see: Mukhin V. Church Culture. pp. 106, 108–109. Noticed by Porfiria Kiseleva by Alexander Serebrov in the book: Serebrov A. Time and People. P. 39. See Leskov’s derogatory comments about this practice in the book: Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers. M., 1962. P. 245. On streamlining the production and sale of icons and other sacred images // St. Petersburg Spiritual Bulletin. October 24, 1897 No. 43. P. 844. On this matter, see: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 176. Units hr. 3107. L. 1–3. One of the first such incidents happened in 1895. See: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 175. Units hr. 2017, 2nd class, 3rd department. L. 1–4. For information on how the press interpreted religion in 1881–1895, see: Baluev B.P. Political reaction of the 80s of the 19th century and Russian journalism. M., 1971. P. 172. Roerich N. “Don’t be sick!” Diary sheets // John of Kronstadt. M., 1992. P. 363. Lisova N. The will to salvation // John of Kronstadt. M., 1992. pp. 378–379, my italics. Menshikov M. O. In memory of the holy shepherd // John of Kronstadt. M., 1992. pp. 360–361. Menshikov himself was recently “rehabilitated” in Russia. See the preface by M. B. Pospelov in the book: Menshikov M. O. From letters to neighbors. M., 1991. P. 3–14. Rozanov V. Russian sectarianism as three flavors of Russian churchliness // New Times. 1905. No. 10594 (August 30 – September 12). S. 4. The fall of the once great ascetic is a phenomenon often described in the lives of saints, but especially noteworthy in this sense is the life of “Stephen, who fell into dirty debauchery” in the book: The Paradise or Garden of the Holy Fathers. L., 1907; repr. Seattle, 1984, pp. 260–262. The moral is simple: “So what happened to Stephen happened because he broke away from his brotherhood, and also because he became [overly] proud of spirit, and because he imagined himself to be perfect.” Rossabi M. J. Peasants, Peddlers, and Popular Prints in Nineteenth-Century Russia // Bulletin of Research in the Humanities. 1986–1987. Vol. 87, No. 4. P. 418–430. See: Brooks J. When Russia Learned to Read: Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861–1917. Princeton, 1985, pp. 306–311. Scientists of that time saw problems of typology and borrowing here. See in the book: Kadlubovsky A. Essays on the history of ancient Russian literature. Lives of the Saints. Warsaw, 1902. pp. VII–IX, 327–373. Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt: In 2 vols. Belgrade, 1938–1941; reprt. Forestville, 1979–1980. T. 1. pp. 249–251. This argument echoes Golubinsky’s thesis in his “History of the Canonization of Saints in the Russian Church” (M., 1903). The Life of Saint Righteous John, the Wonderworker of Kronstadt // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1990. No. 10. P. 58–71; Biographies of memorable people of the Russian land in the 10th–20th centuries. M., 1992. pp. 285–295. [Averky, architect, comp. ]. The life of our holy righteous father John the Wonderworker of Kronstadt, for the day of glorification on October 19, 1964. Jordanville, N.Y., 1964. Saint John of Kronstadt in the memoirs of his contemporaries. S. 8. Menshikov M. O. // John of Kronstadt. P. 359; Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 83 et seq. Averky, Archbishop. Life. P. 7. About these images, see: Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. pp. 45, 47, 48; V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 77–80, 250. About the heyday of the travel writing genre in the middle of the 19th century. see: Durkin A. A Guide to Guides: Writing About Birds in 19th century Russia; Ely C. D. The Origins of Russian Scenery: Volga River Tourism and Russian Landscape Aesthetics - unpublished papers presented at the American Association of Slavic Studies (AAASS) conference November 16, 1996. Mikhail (Semyonov), priest. Father John of Kronstadt: Complete biography with illustrations. St. Petersburg, 1903. P. 227, 255, 257. For an analysis of the themes of the postcards, see the book: Geidor T.N. et al. Russian city on a postcard of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. M., 1997. pp. 6–30. See the argumentation of Otto Boele in the book: Boele O. The North in Russian Romantic Literature. Amsterdam-Atlanta, 1996. However, earlier lives of North Russian and Siberian saints also often contain descriptions of nature. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky A. Father John of Kronstadt. New York. pp. 4–5. Zhivotovsky S.V. To the north with Father John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1903; 2nd ed., with a new preface by Metropolitan Anthony [Khrapovitsky]. New York, 1956. P. 71. Zaitsev B. John of Kronstadt // John of Kronstadt. P. 353. Sergiev I. I. My life in Christ, or Minutes of spiritual sobriety and contemplation, reverent feeling, spiritual correction and peace in God. Extracts from the diary: In 2 volumes. M., 1894. T. 2. P. 43. Daniel-Pops H. Ces Chretiens, Nos Frères. Paris, 1965. P. 486–487; Stark D. A. Le Père Jean de Cronstadt, archipretre de I’Eglise russe, son ascetisme, sa morale. "Ma vie en Jesus-Christ." Paris, 1902–1903. Michael. Father John of Kronstadt. pp. 4–16; Alexander, bishop. Father John of Kronstadt: A Life. Crestwood, N.Y., 1979, pp. 4–5. See discussion of the topic in G.P. Fedotov, in the book: Fedotov G. The Tragedy of Old Russian Holiness. The Path // Empire and Freedom. New York, 1989. P. 113. See also images of Sergius’s close spiritual contact with birds, bears, etc. in the lithographs of Mikhail Gadalov in the book: St. Sergius of Radonezh in Russian art of the 15th–19th centuries. Catalog. Exhibition from the collection of the repository of the State Museum of History and Art in Sergiev Posad. M., 1992. Ill. No. 68, 69–70, 77. See: Shmelev I. Summer of the Lord: Holidays, Joys, Sorrows. New York, b.g. pp. 100–110; Gromyko M. The World of Russian Village. M., 1991. pp. 345–360. Sermon manuals contain almost exclusively examples from bishops' sermons. See: Samples of Russian Church Sermon of the 19th century / Comp. M. A. Potorzhinsky. Kiev, 1912. Semenov-Tyan-Shansky A. Father John of Kronstadt. S. 3. Knyagnitsky Ya. Trip to Kronstadt // Historical Bulletin. 1900. Book. 80, No. 5. pp. 642–643, emphasis added. Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 39. Examples of this model are found in the book: Zhivotov N. N. Drunkards near the island. John of Kronstadt. M., 1895. P. 8 ff. In the then Baedeker tourist guide, Donon and Pivato were rated as first class restaurants: “very good, but quite expensive.” See: Baedeker K. La Russie, manuel du voyageur. Leipzig, 1893. P. 86. B.M. Two days in Kronstadt. C. 10, italics mine. Wed: Parmenov A. Glorification of Righteous John // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1990. No. 10. P. 9. V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 111. See in particular: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 2. P. 30–359; Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. pp. 350–416. V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 292. Biography of Fr. John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1895. pp. 63–65. V.M. Two days in Kronstadt. P. 123. Zhivotov N. N. Drunkards. P. 29. Zhivotovsky S.V. To the north. P. 70. Alexander, bishop. Father John. C. 3. Zhivotovsky S. B. To the north. P. 71. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 12–15, 19, 441. Lisova N. The will to salvation // John of Kronstadt. P. 367. See, for example, the lives of Theodosius and Sergius in the book: Zenkovsky S. Medieval Russian Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. N.Y., 1974. P. 116–134, 262–290. This is especially clearly manifested in the book: Konstantin [Zaitsev], abbot. Spiritual appearance of Archpriest. O. John of Kronstadt. Jordanville, N.Y., 1952, pp. 42–43. Consideration of various models of membership in the clergy in the 19th century. see: Manchester A. Secular Ascetics: Russian Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons in Secular Society, 1861–1917 (Ph. D. diss., Columbia University, 1995). P. 422–428; Freeze G. L. The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton, 1983, pp. 144–145. Momigliano A. The Life of Saint Macrina by Gregory of Nyssa // On Pagans, Jews, and Christians. Hanover, 1987, pp. 206–211. Michael. Father John of Kronstadt. pp. 4–10. Konstantin. Spiritual appearance. P. 43. See for example: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 23. Right there. P. 22; Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. P. 34; Alexander, bishop. Father John. P. 7–8. For a more complete discussion of Russian hagiography, see the book: Kadlubovsky A. Essays on the history of ancient Russian literature, lives of saints. pp. I–IX, 327–373. Zenkovsky S. Medieval Russian Epics. P. 391–399. Vasily Rozanov made a great contribution to the study of this topic. See the passionate debate between the intelligentsia and church ministers in the book: Notes of the St. Petersburg Religious and Philosophical Meetings (1902–1903). St. Petersburg, 1906. pp. 50–56, 295–362. On the sectarians’ denial of physical relationships, see Chapter 6; about Solovyov’s views, see: Solovyov V. S. The meaning of love // ​​The meaning of love: Selected works. M., 1991. pp. 125–182. See: Elliott D. Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. Princeton, 1993, pp. 3–93. See also: Vauchez A. The Laity in the Middle Ages: Religious Beliefs and Devotional Practices. Notre Dame, L., 1993. P. 185–190, 191–203. See, for example: Suratov P. Holy Righteous Father John, the Wonderworker of Kronstadt. Petit Clamait (Seine), 1965. P. 3; Panteleimon, archimandrite. The life, exploits, miracles and prophecies of our holy righteous father John, the Wonderworker of Kronstadt. Jordanville, N.Y., 1976. P. 5; as well as the official life compiled for canonization in 1964: The Life of our holy righteous father John, the Wonderworker of Kronstadt. Jordanville, N.Y., 1964. P. 7. We find a reference to the Apocalypse (Revelation of John the Theologian) 14:3–4 in the book: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. pp. 23–24. Semenov-Tian-Syansky A. Father John of Kronstadt. P. 13; Sollogub A. A. Father John of Kronstadt. Life, activities, selected miracles. Jordanville, N.Y., 1951. P. 5. Sollogub A. A. Father John of Kronstadt. S. 5. See: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 68, 70 rev.; D. 14. L. 62 vol., 67; D. 23. L. 15 rev. Various assessments of this incident are presented in the book: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T.I.S. 87–88; Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. pp. 400–403. Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 2. P. 356. Information Bulletin of the Foundation named after. O. John of Kronstadt. 1963. No. 10. P. 43. Reference to Acts 13:9–11 in the book: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 88; articles from “The Wanderer” for 1866 were reprinted in the book: Stories of rural priests about wondrous manifestations of God’s mercy and His terrible destinies. M.; Riga, 1996. pp. 56–64, 92–96. A rare example is photographs (one of them group) in the book: Shelaeva E., Protsai L. Orthodox Rus'. St. Petersburg; M., 1993. S. 203, 205. Word from Archpriest O. Alexandra Popov in memory of E.K. Sergieva // Fiftieth Anniversary. pp. 59–60. Regarding the life of 1990, see: Parmenov A. Glorification of Righteous John. P. 64. See: Kleinberg A. M. Prophets in Their Own Country: Living Saints and the Making of Sainthood in the Later Middle Ages. Chicago, 1992. P. 20, 40–70. On the protection of icons at the Council of Nicaea, see: Ware T. The Orthodox Church. N.Y., 1986. P. 40–43. Quote in the book: Konstantin. Spiritual appearance. P. 60; italics mine. See: Tolstoy L. The Gospel According to Tolstoy / Ed. and transl. by Patterson D. Tuscaloosa and London, 1992. Letter dated December 27, 1901 in the book: Sergiev I. Letters from Fr. prot. John. P. 48. Father John referred to St. Seraphim in several early diaries. See, for example: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1.D.5.L. 11. On the popularity of Seraphim, see: Nichols R. The Friends of God: Nicholas II and Alexandra at the Canonization of Seraphim of Sarov July 1903 // Religious and Secular Forces in Late Tsarist Russia: Essays in Honor of Donald W. Treadgold / Ed. by Timberlake Ch. E. Seattle, L., 1992. P. 206–229; Sapunov B.V. Some subjects of Russian icon painting and their interpretation in post-reform times // Culture and art of Russia in the 19th century: new materials and research: Collection. articles. L., 1985. P. 147; Freeze G. L. Subversive Piety: Religion and the Political Crisis in Late Imperial Russia // Journal of Modem History. 1996. Vol. 68 (June). P. 314–329. Nikanor. A word about Fr. John of Kronstadt // News of the Kazan Diocese. March 8, 1909 No. 10. P. 294. Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. pp.148–155; Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 26–27; Konstantin. Spiritual appearance. P. 26; Alexander, bishop. Father John. P. 170. See, for example: GARF: F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 9. L. 20 rev. Freeze G. L. Subversive Piety. P. 312–329. Rubakin N. A. Among secrets and miracles. M., 1965. P. 203. Quote by: Alexander, bishop. Father John. C. 6. In Russia, schoolchildren began daily classes with a “Prayer before learning,” which expressed the hope that the student would study well “for the consolation of our parents, for the benefit of the Church and the Fatherland” (Slavic or Church Primer, 28th ed. [Kyiv, 1908], p. 44). Using o. John of both clichés shows the extent to which he absorbed many of the stable expressions used by the Orthodox Church, such as “the light of reason” from the Christmas troparion. Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. pp. 21–22. Meehan V. Holy Women of Russia: The Lives of Five Orthodox Women Offer Spiritual Guidance for Today. Crestwood, N.Y., 1997. P. 4. See Leskov’s attitude to this type of thinking: Leskov N. S. Odnodum // Leskov N. S. Collection. op. T. 6. P. 213. About Sergius’s view, see: Zenkovsky S. Medieval Russia’s Epics. P. 264–265. Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt T. 1. P. 20; Thaisia, abbess. Abbess Thaisia ​​of Leushino: The Autobiography of a Spiritual Daughter of St. John of Kronstadt. Platina, Calif., 1989, pp. 38–42. The earlier Lives do contain similar visions. Of the most significant works, see: The Venerable Sergius of Radonezh in Works of Russian Art 15th–19th Centuries. M., 1992, cat. No. 82. Sapunov B.V. Some subjects. pp. 148–149. See: Deutsche Romantiker: Bildthemen der Zeit van 1800 bis 1850 / Christoph Heilmann, ed. Catalogue, exhibition at Kunsthalle der Hypo-Kulturstiftung, June 14 – September 1, 1985. Munich, 1985. P. 141, 165, 207. For similar stories, especially versions related to Christmas, see: Baran N. Religious Holiday Literature and Russian Modernism // Christianity and the Eastern Slavs / Ed. by Hughes R. P., Papemo I. Vol. 2. Russian Culture in Modem Times. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1994, pp. 201–244. For the first time Fr. John had a vision of the Mother of God in a dream on August 15, 1898, on the Feast of the Assumption. See: Panteleimon, Archimandrite. Life, exploits, miracles and prophecies... P. 57. Alexander, bishop. Father John. P. 7; Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. pp. 21–22. Pomazansky M., prot. Essay on the Orthodox worldview of Fr. John of Kronstadt // Fiftieth anniversary. pp. 68–70. Michael. Father John of Kronstadt. P. 26; Bolshakov N. Ya. Source of living water. pp. 38–40; Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt T. 1. P. 22; Alexander. Father John. P. 8. See: Smirnov N. A. Missionary activity of the church (second half of the 19th century - 1917) // Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history. M., 1989. pp. 438–462. See: Garrett P. D. St. Innocent: Apostle to America. Crestwood, N.Y., 1979. See: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt T. 1. P. 22. Wed. his autobiography in the book: V. M. Two days in Kronstadt. pp. 384–385. Konstantin. Spiritual appearance. P. 44. The story was first published by: Leskov N. S. Polunoshniki; landscape and genre // Bulletin of Europe. 1891. No. 11–12. pp. 92–137, 537–576. RGALI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 830. L. 3. Detailed analysis of Leskov’s attitude towards Fr. Ioann, see in the book: McLean N. Leskov and Ioann of Kronstadt: On the Origins of Polunoshchniki // American Slavic and East European Review. 1953. Vol. 12, No. 1 (February). P. 93–108. Leskov N. S. Polunoshniki. pp. 189–197. Letter to Khilkov, see: RGALI. F. 275. Op. 1. D. 830. L. 1, 11. Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence. pp. 296–297. Letter dated December 6, 1890. Ibid. P. 225. Letter dated August 1, 1890 Tolstoy L.N. Poli. collection op. M., 1953. T. 65. P. 135. On this phenomenon, see: Brown P. The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity // Journal of Roman Studies. 1971. No. 61. P. 80–101. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 14. L. 40 rev. Right there. D. 12. L. 68; D. 26. L. 29. Konstantin. Spiritual appearance. P. 25. See Gregory Freese's comments in his preface to the book: Belliustin I. S. Description of the Clergy: The Memoir of a Nineteenth-Century Parish Priest. Ithaca, N.Y., 1985, pp. 13–62. Archpriest Avvakum is another charismatic but destructive model. Nikon. Spiritual appearance. P. 51. RGIA. F. 1082. Op. 1. Unit hr. 37. L. 144; Saint and Wonderworker Archbishop of Chernigov Theodosius of Uglitsky. St. Petersburg, 1897, pp. 197–256. Theological Bulletin. 1908. No. 2. P. 22. RGIA. F. 777 (Censorship Committee of the Ministry of Internal Affairs). Op. 5. Units hr. 7. L. 3, 23; Op. 4. Unit hr. 36. L. 13. This should not be taken too seriously: some publications were banned only because of typographical errors. Even portraits of the emperor were removed from circulation if the slightest defect was discovered. See Savva’s response dated June 29, 1891 to the abbess of the Annunciation Monastery in Betetsk, who asked for his blessing to travel to Fr. John. RSL, Department of Manuscripts. F. 262. Op. 14. D. 2. L. 104–105. Father John took this comment to heart: during a trip to Vindava in 1900, he told the local priest that he would gladly give communion to all his parishioners, but could not confess to everyone because they “belonged” to that priest. Memoirs of Lieutenant General D. A. Ozerov // St. John of Kronstadt. P. 52. Father John argued that the question related to the hypostasis of the Holy Trinity is the result of an ordinary typo. See: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 41 vol. See, for example: About Father Arch. John Ilyich Sergiev of Kronstadt according to personal memories // Kursk Diocesan Gazette. 1910 No. 50. P. 549. Batts R., Marchenko V. Confessor of the royal family, St. Theophan of Poltava (1874–1940). Platina, Calif., M., 1994. R. 19. Nikon. Spiritual appearance. P. 52. Quote in the book: Konstantin. Spiritual appearance. P. 26. Despite the fact that the original of this letter has not survived, Fr. John refers in his diaries to the constant criticism from Theophan and his reciprocal rejection of the bishop. See: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 26. L. 53, where he speaks of Bishop Theophan as an unkind and envious person. Various versions of their conversation are given in the book: Levitin-Krasnov A. People's saints in Russia, Father John of Kronstadt // Cahiers du Monde russe et sovietique. 1988. T. 29, no. 3–4. P. 455–470; Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 1. P. 114; Michael, priest. Father John of Kronstadt. However, in essence, the roots of Pobedonostsev’s objections lie in the publication of a famous letter in Novoye Vremya, and he soon realized that his suspicions about Fr. John are unfounded. See his letters: O. John of Kronstadt and K. P. Pobedonostsev (1883) / Publication by A. Yu. Polunova // River of Time. 1996. No. 2. P. 88, 91. Carty Ch. M. Padre Pio the Stigmatist, 15th ed. St. Paul, Minn., 1955. P. 14. Stanley A. Saint or No, an Old-Time Monk Mesmerizes Italy // New York Times. 1998. 24.09. A4. On church ideas about urban and rural piety, see the book: Freeze G. L. “Going to the Intelligentsia”: The Church and Its Urban Mission in Post-Reform Russia // Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, 1991, pp. 215–232. A similar argument was put forward in the book: Emelyakh L.I. Anti-clerical movement of peasants during the first Russian revolution. L., 1965. Such phenomena were used both by Slavophiles and subsequently by neo-Slavophiles as evidence that the Orthodox laity more preserved the organic role that Orthodoxy played in early Christianity and patristics. Alexey Khomyakov, for example, joyfully welcomed the Encyclical Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848, in which it was proclaimed that the inviolability of dogma and the purity of the liturgy are in the hands of not only the hierarchs, but also the entire churched people, who together made up the Body of Christ. See: Every E. Khomiakoff and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs in 1848 // Sobornost. Series 3. 1948. No. 3. pp. 102–104. Testimonies of the laity about intercession for them by Fr. John were published in large quantities in the book: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt. T. 2; Fiftieth anniversary of the repose of the ever-memorable Father John of Kronstadt. New York, 1958. Weber M. The Sociology of Religion. Boston, 1964. P. 47. See: Gutierrez G. A Theology of Liberation: History, Politics, and Salvation. Mary Knoll, N.Y., 1973.