Глава 7. Православная политика, самодержавие и революционное движение

Allotment of Fr. John's qualities as a “intercessor” influenced him not only spiritually, but also politically, for his fame coincided with the rise of the revolutionary movement. Regicide of 1881 and revolutionary events of 1905–1907. led to the fact that Fr. John turned out to be one of the apologists of “Orthodox Russia” - starting from the 1880s, the prophetic aspect of his ministry came to the fore. The entire Russian Empire actually became his arrival. His pastoral duties turned into political ones. He began to actively defend the existing political and religious system and directed all his efforts to repel the threats emanating, in his opinion, from Leo Tolstoy and the radical intelligentsia. The significant fact of the pastor’s support for the ultra-right became his stigma for many decades, overshadowing other aspects of his biography until the end of the 20th century. Moreover, since Fr. John was considered a saint, and his behavior provoked many Russians to question whether adherence to Orthodoxy and Orthodox saints also implied commitment to the autocracy. Contradictions emerged between supporters of the separation of Church and state and those who still defended the Byzantine ideal of a symphony of spiritual and secular authorities. The gap between secular and religious, as well as between human and Divine law, began to be felt more acutely. Making decisions that have far-reaching consequences for Orthodoxy, Fr. In each alternative, John chose exclusively the second option. Worldview about. John's life was entirely determined by his ideas about what Russia should be like. His views included several characteristic features: the true life of a Christian is in heaven, not on earth, all people are equal before the Lord, and the world (at least Russia, the largest Orthodox country) should be governed by Orthodox principles. This concept of the Christian world order determined the social and political views of the pastor. The most important feature of the concept of. John had the idea that the true life of a believer takes place not on earth, but in heaven; earthly life is, at best, a shadow of the eternal life to come. Before the assassination of Alexander II, Fr. John was involved in practical matters and was far from politics. Reflecting on the social order, he hoped for the embodiment of Christian ideals of love for one's neighbor and spiritual equality. In the early period of his priesthood, he, in contrast to Slavophile ideas about Russia as the only homeland of Orthodoxy, “natural, simple and harmonious,” in principle rejected the concept of a “chosen” country; Father did not idealize any political system, be it contemporary Russia or Byzantium 793. In the 1850s and 1860s, there were practically no political comments in his diary entries. When did Fr. John mentioned the tsar, this was mostly involuntary: in church works (and in Russian life) the image of the tsar was so omnipresent that it seemed a natural example illustrating certain principles: “Just as in public places the name of the Tsar’s Majesty is constantly written and pronounced in decrees, so in the church, which is a place of persons, grace, the presence of God, the name of God in the Trinity is constantly invoked” 794. Fr.’s attitude towards power in general and towards the Tsar in particular. John, like many Russians, changed after the assassination of Alexander II on March 1, 1881. This event became a turning point in the pastor’s ideas about the role of the ruler and stability in Russian society. He first mentions the regicide in a short entry dated March 2, saying that he received “terrible news about the murder of the Sovereign Emperor by a torpedo, during the next. He’s in the sled...” At first he tried to comprehend the event from a Christian point of view. This prompted him to think about the power of repentance and write about terrorists: “after all, even the murderers of the Lord, if they had repented, would have been saved” - by the way, a similar position was expressed by Tolstoy and other authors of a letter to Alexander III asking him to forgive the murderers 795. However, a little later Fr. John resorted to the epic style and spoke of retribution from above: “evil and predatory kites flew at our gentle Sovereign and tore him to pieces; and with him other innocents, and streams of martyr’s blood flowed. May the Lord reward them - these kites in human skin, according to their deeds, and may He give crowns of incorruption to those killed" 796 . In the following days, Fr. John devoted himself entirely to thinking about the hidden meaning of this regicide for Russia and about the fate of the sovereign in the future life. He abandoned the curriculum and during classes read excerpts from newspaper articles about the death of the emperor to students. He interpreted this murder from a religious point of view - as a cross that must be borne, and, perhaps, as a way to atone for the mistakes the emperor had previously committed. For Fr. John, who was trying to somehow comprehend the regicide, Alexander II became a figure somewhat analogous to Christ, who died for human sins and salvation for the sake of: “We have a terrible crime; Our beloved Sovereign was killed by an evil hand. But where is the Lord? Why didn't you deliver Him? Has He forgotten us? No, He did not forget, and He did not turn away. Like thunder struck us, allowing such a misfortune to befall us, so that we would awaken from sinful sleep, wake up, look around us, realize the abyss of our sins, repent and correct ourselves” 797. Despite this conclusion, Fr. For John, with his strong faith in the power of liturgical prayer, it was not easy for him to come to terms with the fact that God could allow the murder of “the patron of the Church... for whom she daily brought diligent prayer to God for power, victory, peace, health,” especially considering that recently all of Russia “especially prayed for his deliverance from death through the villains...” (referring to previous attempts on the life of Alexander II). He wrote in confusion and torment, cutting himself off mid-sentence: “Didn’t the Lord hear the prayers of the Church... He heard and accepted...” 798. Of course, not only Fr. John declared Alexander II a martyr. Many people spoke in the same vein. For example, in the Moskovskiye Vedomosti the Tsar was called by religious epithets: “Tsar-Martyr” and “Tsar-Sufferer”. The historian Tatishchev compares Alexander with “a good shepherd who laid down his life for his sheep” 799. The embodiment of such religious and mythological ideas was the project to build a church on the site of the assassination of the emperor 800. Thus, the voice of Fr. John was drowned in the general conservative-monarchist chorus. For him, as for the readers of Moskovskie Vedomosti, there was only one step from recognizing the tsar as a martyr to declaring his death a moral tragedy for Russia and to identifying his killers with the moral enemies of Russia - all those who threatened Orthodox Rus'. Despite the fact that Fr. John, even before the death of the Tsar, did not consider Russia a very Christian country; the murder of Alexander II was for him a sign of the moral crisis of Russia: “What is this? An open, daring war of one's own against one's own, against the Tsar and all his subjects? For here everyone is amazed, if not physically, then morally, heartily... But, daring and blind, they fight against themselves... they destroy their criminal, evil seed - the seed of the Antichrist. Yes, the Antichrist: for they are his spirit. They fight against everything that is sacred to all Christian nations and kings; Having overthrown the kings, they want to introduce anarchy and gross tyranny, unbelief, immorality, lawlessness, fear and horror. But they won't succeed. God is with us, understand my understanding and submit, I am God with us.” 801 . However, even this surge of religious-patriotic zeal did not prevent Fr. John to see the flaws of the Russian Empire itself. Unlike the death of Christ, the death of the emperor was not atonement for human sins, but a warning, punishment and a sign that people need to improve: “Everyone woke up! Everyone is crying, oohing and ahhing! – But is this only necessary? What is needed is moral cleansing, deep national repentance, a change in morals - pagan to Christian. We will wash ourselves, we will cleanse ourselves, we will be reconciled with God - and He will be reconciled with us and will eat away like chaff and destroy all the enemies of the Tsar and the people” 802. He spoke about repentance not only as a Christian rite. Despite the threatening tone of the final phrase, Fr. John reminds his fellow citizens of secular ways to improve their lives, calling on the rich and powerful to take care of the poor and weak 803 . The assassination of Alexander II was a turning point in relation to Fr. John to autocracy, personified by the figure of the ruler. The martyrdom of the king in the eyes of the shepherd symbolically changed the status of the ruler. Before his death, the king was for Fr. John in abstraction. Now the autocrat gradually became for him the embodiment of the spiritual aspects of the old order, the personification of the positive properties of tradition and stability in the face of negative revolutionary changes. So, when in 1883 Fr. John noticed shortcomings in the policy of the new monarch, worthy of criticism, and immediately reproached himself (“Lord! It’s not for me, it’s for you to judge the Tsar: and you impose your judgment on him throughout the entire universe... how can we still dare to interfere with your judgments with our short-sighted, erroneous judgments?” 804). New attitude about. John's connection to the figure of the autocrat was also fueled by other events. The most significant of them, which changed both the social status of Fr. John, and the significance that the figure of a ruler acquired for him - the role assigned to him in the last days of Alexander III. Although Fr. John was in the early 1890s. almost at the height of his glory, he still faced suspicious and hostile attitudes towards himself from the church hierarchy 805. The priest’s invitation to the dying Alexander III, if it did not dispel all suspicions, at least created difficulties for their public expression. To this day, it remains unclear why the shepherd was invited to the bedside of the dying emperor. Without a doubt, Fr. John was called to administer unction to Alexander III. However, as was later stated, he was not particularly close to either the imperial family or the court and was not the confessor of any of the august persons 806. He was invited on the advice of Grand Duchess Alexandra Iosifovna, the wife of the emperor's cousin. Alexander III's own idea of ​​Fr. John was superficial at best - however, he recognized the all-Russian glory of the priest, which is obvious from his conversation with Countess Alexandra Andreevna Tolstoy (the writer’s cousin): Alexander III asked A.A. Tolstoy: “Tell me, who do you think are the most wonderful and popular people in Russia? Knowing your sincerity,” he added, “I am sure that you will tell me the truth. Of course, don’t even think about calling me. – Who exactly will you name? – this interests me very much. “First of all, Leo Tolstoy,” I said. “I expected this,” the sovereign remarked. “I’ll tell you one more person,” I answered, after thinking a little. - But who, who? – he began to rush me. - Father John of Kronstadt. The Emperor laughed and replied: – I didn’t remember that. But I agree with you" 807. In the views of many contemporaries, Fr. John was associated with Tolstoy. The New Way magazine described both as "religious phenomena of equal strength." Yuryevsk (Dorpat) University simultaneously awarded both the title of honorary members (which Father John eventually refused) 808 . In any case, despite the fact that Alexander III heard about Fr. John, it is quite clear that his knowledge was limited to general information known to almost any reader of Russian newspapers in the 1890s. Moreover, according to Nikolai Velyaminov, Alexander’s personal physician, the emperor, following Pobedonostsev, had a dislike for the “originality” of Fr. John 809. However, by the time it was discovered that Alexander was seriously ill, Fr. John became so famous for his miraculous healings that the Romanov family probably considered it best to call the priest to pray at the sick bed. He was invited in 1894 to the dying emperor in Livadia more out of despair than as a sign of trust. Nevertheless, the reaction of Fr. Joanna was very sensitive to this invitation. The people already considered him an intercessor for Russia before the Lord. What else could better symbolize this role of the priest, could a better use be found for it than prayers for the dying king? Despite the failure, Alexander died a few days after Fr.’s arrival. John the shepherd tried to turn the event to his benefit: a description of his visit was published in many newspapers and was widely quoted in Europe and the USA 810. That part of the description, which especially emphasizes his connection with both the crowned family and the Russian people, is dedicated to Alexander’s last words: “The Emperor wanted me to lay my hands on His head, and I held them for a long time; The Emperor was in full consciousness, asked me to rest, but I said that I did not feel tired, and asked Him: “Isn’t it hard for Your Majesty that I keep my hands on your head for a long time?”, but He told me: “On the contrary, it’s very easy for me when you hold them.” Then He was pleased to say: “Do the Russian people love you?” “Yes,” I answered, “your people love me.” “He loves,” answered the Emperor, “because he knows who you are and what you are”” 811. Alexander's recognition of the importance of Fr. John in front of the entire imperial family was the best advertisement for the shepherd. He did not blame himself for the fact that his prayers did not heal the king; instead, he reproached all of Russia and concluded with a warning to the Russian people: “Don’t cry and don’t complain, Russia! Although you did not beg God for healing for your King, you did beg for a quiet, Christian death, and a good end crowned his glorious life - and this is most precious. Now love also His Heir, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who received a covenant from His Sovereign Father to follow in His footsteps” 812. Father John did not see anything inappropriate in using his role as the intercessor and spiritual father of Russia to draw a moral lesson from the death of the tsar. However, what seemed obvious to Fr. John and what his correspondents picked up, combining two “priests” in the texts, was not welcomed in the palace. The self-confidence of a certain parish priest went against the traditional rhetoric that was adopted to describe everything connected with the reigning house. In his desire to learn an instructive lesson from the death of the Emperor, Fr. John forgot about etiquette. It is not surprising that with his “familiarity” the shepherd confused those who were involved in preserving and maintaining the reputation of the Romanov dynasty in the eyes of society, and especially the conservative press. Her assessment of the statements of Fr. John reflects conflicting views about what behavior was considered appropriate for a religious leader. Although the text about. Ioanna was almost immediately accepted for publication in Novoye Vremya, and a dispute ensued among the editorial board as to whether it was appropriate to publish it. A. M. Zhemchuzhnikov gave the following comment to the newspaper publisher A. S. Suvorin: “The deep interest of this article is that the Honorable Fr. John describes everything he saw and heard; everything that was an eyewitness... The author’s final appeal to grieving Russia with the words - Now love also His Heir, Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who received a covenant from His Sovereign Father - to follow in His footsteps - is full of feeling and impressiveness, but we think that about such a sensory-family matter as a covenant received, without outside witnesses, by our Sovereign from His deceased Sovereign Father, no one - not even with the most pious and best, as in the present case, intentions - cannot proclaim publicly, except for the Monarch himself, in those expressions, cat. he himself deems it appropriate, and under such circumstances, cat. he himself recognizes as acceptable... Moreover, persons of any social status and all classes without exception should, touching on this sacred subject for us, confine themselves to bringing those genuine E.I.V. words which, by His command, have hitherto been made public" 813. Zhemchuzhnikov was guided mainly by the principle of inviolability of the private life of the imperial family and his priority right to control public representations of the image of the emperor. Suvorin more directly expressed his doubts about the motives of Fr. John and accused him of excessive self-promotion: “Your comment is absolutely correct. When I received the article about. John, my first instinct was to send him back and say that he should not have written about himself, etc. But the Emperor himself, for whom I have always had sympathy, is in this conversation such a sweet and such a Russian person, so more sincere and simpler than Fr. John, now the most popular person in Russia, that I ordered it to be typed and sent to the Imperial Court, without which we cannot print such things... Father John asked why the article had not appeared for so long. He was obviously very tempted by his popularity, but I don’t think he’s winning here.”814 Suvorin's intolerance suggests that not only church hierarchs began to doubt the validity of Fr. John, and the priest’s visit to the Tsar only deepened these doubts. In fact, the immediate result of the visit was that in the eyes of church hierarchs, laity and the foreign press, Fr. John became associated with the court. Although he was famous before the visit of Alexander III, after their meeting his position in the eyes of the clergy became even more invulnerable. After the visit, the priest stops mentioning in his diaries the attempts of the church authorities to pacify him. The process that began after the assassination of Alexander II has now reached its climax: Fr. John began in his sermons to connect Orthodoxy with the “worldly” prosperity of Russia 815. A trip to Livadia strengthened his attitude towards the monarchy as a political ideal. This does not mean that the meeting is about. John with Alexander III marked a sharp change in the priest’s worldview. Rather, the first direct contact of Fr. John with the imperial family became one of the milestones on the path from complete apoliticality to the conviction that even the imperfect Orthodox system was preferable to what the revolutionary movement foreshadowed. The assassination of Alexander II, the popularity of Leo Tolstoy, the sudden death of Alexander III and, to top it all, the revolutionary movement - all these are milestones in the evolution of Fr. John, who came to actively support the existing order. Not alone o. John went through a similar evolution. Many of his correspondents walked the same path and experienced similar feelings. Several Optina elders declared the fires, hurricanes and cholera epidemic that swept through Russia in 1848 as a natural reflection of the revolution in Europe. The renowned bishop-scientist Ignatius Brianchaninov bemoaned the addiction of Russian society to everything French: “What will happen to us, what will happen to Russia, which continues to see the Promised Land in France, and the New Jerusalem in Paris?” The Monk Seraphim of Sarov went even further in his apocalyptic prophecies. According to religious authors of an eschatological orientation in the early and mid-19th centuries, Russia and Orthodoxy have never been in such danger before. Finding themselves in the face of global changes, they declared everything evil (materialism, secularism, Western influence) and adopted Count Uvarov’s formula “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality” as the quintessence and guarantee of the stability of the previous system 816. Russia must resist the materialism that has afflicted Europe and go its own way. If she does not heed the call to a pious life and fidelity to Orthodoxy, a catastrophe on a global scale may follow. The eschatological worldview was quite widespread. Count D. A. Tolstoy (Chief Prosecutor of the Synod) in 1871 turned to Elder Ambrose of Optina with a request to interpret a dream in which Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, was reading a large book where it was written: “Rome. Troy. Egypt. Russia. Bible". The elder gave this interpretation: “[Russia], which at the present time, although it is considered an Orthodox state and independent, but elements of foreign heterodoxy and ungodliness have already penetrated and taken root among us, and threaten the same thing that the above-mentioned countries were subjected to... This may mean that if in Russia, for the sake of contempt for the commandments of God, and for the sake of weakening the rules and regulations of the Orthodox Church, and for other reasons, piety becomes impoverished, then it is inevitable there must follow the final fulfillment of what is said at the end of the Bible, that is, in the Apocalypse of John the Theologian: “The Antichrist will come in times of beginninglessness”” 817. The revolutionary movement only strengthened eschatological sentiments. If earlier Fr. John was not often written about political topics, but starting in the 1890s. political letters to the pastor form a separate group. In the religious sphere, he attracted people of almost any age, religion, nationality and social status; he received letters of a political nature only from convinced monarchists or those who had not yet decided on their views. He was ignored by everyone who professed liberal ideas. In political terms, these are the constitutional democrats and everyone who was to the left of them. In most cases it is almost impossible to determine what the root cause was: whether the views of Fr. John his potential audience, or did the limited range of views he encountered shape his own views? Or maybe both at the same time? Suffice it to say that his conservatism was at least reinforced, and in some cases provoked, by the letters he received. Ironically, once the overly “liberal” position of Fr. Joanna caused a storm of indignation against him from the “right”. Immediately after the Kishinev pogrom of 1903, Fr. John and Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky) unconditionally condemned the terrible events in their sermons and publications in the Missionary Review magazine. Their public condemnation of the pogrom had such a resonance that one publisher from Odessa asked permission to publish the sermons as a separate pamphlet. The publication was distributed by the Jewish community with such zeal that the Archbishop of Chisinau warned the chief prosecutor about the opposite effect 818. Even Tolstoy urged his friend not to publicly express his indignation at the pogroms, since he believed that “John of Kronstadt beautifully said what every non-brutalized person thinks and feels” 819. However, condemning the pogroms, Fr. John earned the hatred of anti-Semites. Here is a typical example of a letter to him after the Kishinev events: “O. John, Jude. Pop, respected to this day by the Russian people! And now the patron of the Jews and their servant and slander. You only know to drink the blood of Christians" 820. Father John immediately handed over this hateful letter to the police. However, such threats, as well as letters from Chisinau with statements that the pogrom was organized and that the first shot was fired by a Jewish doctor who shot an innocent peasant, forced him to soften his initial unconditional indignation and apologize to the Christians of Chisinau for “one-sidedness” 821. This dramatic change of heart demonstrates that although Fr. John did not share the organic anti-Semitism characteristic of the ultra-right; it cost him nothing to fall under the influence of the information he received (of course, members of the Jewish community did not send him letters about the pogrom). Here we cannot help but recall his initially soft, pastoral and evangelical reaction to the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, which was replaced by a more pronounced political position. No wonder the priest Georgy Gapon, who later became famous for leading a demonstration to the Winter Palace during “Bloody Sunday,” criticized Fr. John for instability of views 822. Other events also influenced the pastor's views. So, after adoption in 1903 and 1905. laws on freedom of conscience, Orthodox peasants from the western provinces, in which the Polish population predominated, began to complain to Fr. John that local Poles are forcing them to convert to Catholicism. Local Orthodox priests also wrote about Catholic propaganda, citing one of its most effective ploys as the claim that Fr. John converted to Catholicism and received a blessing from the pope 823. However, he did not receive letters from the Uniates, who were now glad of the opportunity opening up for them to convert to the Roman Catholic faith, which was incomparably closer to them than official Orthodoxy. Given such a disproportion in the information he received, as well as taking into account the priest’s own views, it is not surprising that he sided with the Orthodox population of the region. The most troubled "political" letters were written during the era of revolutionary unrest, which peaked with the revolution of 1905-1907. Many simply asked about. John to pray for peasants who set fire to (or robbed) their estates, or for their children who became involved in the revolutionary movement 824. Letters from the most educated correspondents were the pleas of shocked and frightened people, full of such phrases: “It’s scary to think what awaits our dear fatherland. All these strikes are terribly threatening, the Church and the Orthodox faith are in danger. And our dear Tsar-Father and his Heir" 825. For people traumatized by the events of 1905, Fr. John was a symbol of security and stability, a shepherd who would certainly lead the country on the right path. After 1900, conservative political organizations also began to come into contact with Fr. John, asking him if he would agree to become their honorary member. Thus, the Vilna Student Mutual Aid Society approached him with a request to officially support him in order to attract other philanthropists. In general, organizations that advocated the ideas of Orthodoxy and nationality dreamed that Fr. John became their symbol. The Kazan branch of the Russian Assembly invited him to become an honorary member, “as a prayer book for the Russian land, as a true servant of our Lord Jesus Christ and as a person who firmly defends the basic Russian foundations” 826. Representatives of the organizations addressed the priest in thoughtful and streamlined terms, asking that thanks to his prayers the organization could “serve worthily for the good of the fatherland.” The petitioners were not disappointed. Beginning in 1905, many right-wing political organizations, including the Russian Assembly (in both the St. Petersburg and Kazan branches), the Kharkov branch of the Union of the Russian People, the Russian People's Union named after Michael the Archangel and the Russian Patriotic Society, included his name in the list of their honorary members. About the extent to which far-right organizations recognized Fr. John to his own, can be judged by the publication of his sermons and works by radical right-wing and conservative publishers and publications. His reputation served them as an excellent advertisement for 827. Some correspondents about. John, especially those who were not very educated, described their confusion at the diversity of parties. One clerk from Moscow asked the pastor: “Please indicate which party I should subscribe to and which I should not, although I just subscribed to the commercial and industrial party,” or maybe. you shouldn’t sign at all…” 828 Some tried to reconcile their Orthodoxy with radical views, asking him to stand up for “the unfortunate sailors and soldiers who lost their minds” during the Kronstadt riot, “so that they would not die at the hands of the executioners - their own brothers” 829. The peasants experienced the greatest confusion. So, a collective letter arrived from Saratov peasants, who wrote that local newspapers “our villages have seduced everyone into listening to them. And we, dear Father, will ask you how to respond to these fairy tales; please write down how to defeat your enemies, dear Father, please write us an answer about these newspapers, they write very poorly about you” 830. Others, more literate, asked him to pray: “At this time of unrest and turmoil, we ask for your prayers, so that the Lord will enlighten our minds and put good deeds into our hearts and not stray from the true path” 831. Poorly educated correspondents about. John, trusting him to be their mentor, doubted their own ability to adhere to the “true path.” Their letters increasingly convinced the shepherd that the peasants were people of good souls, filled with the best intentions, but in the absence of sensitive leadership they were prone to political errors. The contradiction between a fundamentally religious consciousness and a new political alternative was most clearly expressed in a letter from the peasant Alexander. He wrote: “I dare to ask your prayers to the Lord for blessings and guidance on the right path, since I have lost my way through my pride, arrogance, conceit and fell into a strong temptation, which you will forgive me to describe to you: I was always afraid and wary of books with non-spiritual content and read spiritual ones, but on November 30, 1905 (today) they elected me as a representative from the volost for state elections. Duma. At the first steps, the thought flashed through my mind that I was better than everyone else, and the other representative realized that the Sovereign 17 Oct. The manifesto of freedom of speech is that the word is a spiritual thing and he [the Sovereign] is like an instrument through which he came from God and will return to God. We decided among ourselves that at a private meeting we should ask the Emperor to forgive everyone who was guilty, that he did not give them life and has no right to take it away. Here in Vologda we went to 3 churches to pray” 832. Alexander then describes how, overwhelmed by a sense of political and religious duty, he began to pray for all the living and the dead “with inhuman cries,” feeling a cold in his soul and a chill in his body. Then he wandered the streets, calling everyone to repent in the church, and finally, during the liturgy on December 17, 1905, he first rushed in circles in front of the icon of the Savior, wailing that he was unworthy, and then, right before the moment of reading the Gospel, he had a vision of the Savior coming to him with angels. He must have lost consciousness because he reports that the church deacon later told him that he was being taken to the police station. From that time on, Alexander confessed and received communion two or three times, but could not come to his senses, the confusion of thoughts about truth and mystery never gave him peace. He begged Fr. John to pray to the Lord for him, so that God would forgive him and guide him on the right path (he added that he would like to visit the priest in person, but after what happened, his wife would not let him leave her). At the same time, there is not a single letter from other Duma deputies from the peasant class who did not experience a spiritual crisis. Their point of view was not presented in the correspondence of Fr. John, and as a result, the main impression was formed by letters from people like Alexander, convincing the priest of the idea that political activity was beyond the understanding of “ordinary people” and only confused them. However, to the greatest extent the ideological position of Fr. John was influenced by letters whose authors directly accused him of being apolitical and called him to action. Sometimes the calls came from the far right: “Residents of the northwestern region cannot understand the calm silence, or say the silence of Fr. John. His silence is so mysterious at this time, when his voice is needed by the fatherland, which is in need of moral and material help. This is not an insignificant and deserved pogrom against Jews, no, this is a pogrom for the whole of St. Rus. There was a time when Fr. John responded to all sorts of private needs, now the voice of Fr. is not heard to the needs of the Fatherland. Joanna – strange, even more than strange! In such difficult times there were the unforgettable Abraham Palitsyn and other shepherds - has Rus' really become depleted of such sons of the fatherland? No, this cannot be... respond to Russian grief, encourage it! 833 But not all the letters that encouraged the priest to actively engage in politics were written by people who viewed the 1905 revolution as a pogrom directed against Russia and Russians. He also received letters from supporters of changes in the country. At the same time, both the right and the left placed moral responsibility on him and demanded that he express his position: “There is nothing left to do but seek help from the clergy. The current situation is almost hopeless for the lower classes who did not belong to the “bureaucracy”... O. John, pay attention to the needs of the people in Russia who do not need the Cossack whips that are practiced by the damned “bureaucracy”, but those rights that are promised by the State. Imp. and for which students and some congresses stand and everyone who understands... here you are. John m.b. read my letter and say that this is none of my business, no, oh. John, no one cares more than you, because Russia and the people trust you most of all, and you have close access to the Sovereign, and who better to speak for protection than you, the spiritual shepherds, because you will give God an answer for this, because the shepherd is responsible for the flock” 834. Father John responded immediately. The letters he received were not only in tune with his disgust for revolutionary terror, but also directly called him to action. The sermons he preached beginning in 1900 must be interpreted in light of these circumstances. His correspondents could impose on him the role of “Russia’s conscience” even against his own wishes. Indeed, his followers made it clear to him that it was his moral duty and responsibility to express his position. However, Fr. John had long been convinced that a priest had a duty to “convict,” and the letters simply served as a catalyst and gave him resolve. If he spoke out, he did not at all strive to smooth out the rough edges. His last sermons are full of anxiety due to revolutionary turmoil and fear that something much more terrible will come to replace the imperfect Orthodox system. They practically equated piety and patriotism, which turns Fr. John from a religious figure into an exponent of a characteristic formula identifying Orthodoxy with the power and identity of Russia. And the hard times of 1905 really forced the priest to speak out more and more decisively and definitely: “Look what is happening in it [the kingdom] at the present time: everywhere there is a strike of students and working people, the noise of parties whose goal is to overthrow the real monarchical system established by God, the widespread dissemination of daring, insane proclamations, disrespect for the authority of the authorities established by God, for “there is no authority unless it is from God, but the existing authorities are created by God,” according to the Apostle ( Rom. 13:1): children and youth imagined themselves to be the leaders and arbiters of their destiny; marriages have lost all meaning for many, and divorces on a whim have multiplied indefinitely; many children are abandoned to their fate by unfaithful spouses; Some kind of nonsense and arbitrariness reign... Finally, an unpunished transition from Orthodoxy to any faith is allowed; Meanwhile, the same Lord, Whom we confess, in the Old Testament determined the death penalty for those who obey the law of Moses (Heb. 10:28) 835. If things go like this in Russia, and the atheists and anarchist madmen will not be subject to the righteous punishment of the law, and if Russia is not cleansed of many tares, then it will be desolate, like the ancient kingdoms and cities wiped off the face of the earth by the justice of God for their atheism and for their iniquities: Babylonian, Assyrian, Egyptian, Greek-Macedonian. Russia, hold fast to your faith, and the Church, and the Orthodox Tsar, if you want to be unshaken by people of unbelief and anarchy and do not want to lose the Kingdom and the Orthodox Tsar. And if you fall away from your faith, as many intellectuals have already fallen away from it, then you will no longer be Russia or Holy Russia, but a rabble of all sorts of infidels trying to destroy each other” 836. The wave of political murders and terror that swept across the country in 1905 also shocked Fr. John 837. To support the existing regime, he began to resort to allegories. In his interpretation, Moses turned into an “autocratic leader,” “like a King” of the Israeli people on Mount Sinai, a king forced to decisively pacify the troublemakers who had started an “ungodly revolution.” Father John explained to the flock that the words of Moses “lay every man his sword on his thigh, go through the camp from gate to gate and back, and kill every man his brother, every man his friend, every man his neighbor” mean that it is necessary to destroy every revolutionary. At the end of his sermon he said: “This is how the saints suppressed the revolution among the people and thereby saved their people from moral rotten decay, and this pleased God. After 40 days everything returned to normal. What is this if not an instructive example in the history of mankind for our wicked time and the unbridled Russian revolution? 838 Finally, the Russo-Japanese War became an occasion for him to reaffirm his political creed and express apocalyptic horror: “Our real bloody war with the pagans is also God’s righteous judgment for our sins. The approach of the final, worldwide terrible judgment of God is accelerated by the terrible spread of evil on earth. At present, all kinds of untruths cover the earth like the sea; There is no end to human self-will, the doors are wide open to all errors and vices. The laws of God have been trampled upon; creatures have forgotten their Creator; sinful people, in their pride, imagined themselves innocent; defiled by all kinds of uncleanness, they forgot their uncleanness. The ox knows its owner, and the donkey knows its master’s manger (Isa. 1:3), and Christians have rejected Christ their Savior... Our young intellectuals have perverted all social and educational order: they took upon themselves the work of politics and the courts without being called to this by anyone; they took to judge their bosses, teachers, the government and almost the kings themselves; they tried and condemned with their head Leo Tolstoy the most universal and terrible Judge - Christ God... Truly, the day of the coming of the terrible Judge to judge all people is near, therefore the predicted apostasy from God has already arrived and the forerunner of the Antichrist, the son of destruction, has already been revealed... the mystery of lawlessness is already in action, only it will not be accomplished until the one who is now holding back is taken from the environment...” 839. Mentions of Tolstoy are not accidental. Since the early 1890s, Fr. John criticized the famous writer more and more sharply. The irony was that, as the staff of the University of Dorpat noted, these two figures have a lot in common: difficult relationships with devoted spouses, a desire for asceticism and the glory of spiritual pillars. However, that's where the similarities ended. As many researchers note, from a social point of view, they embodied the old conflict between the aristocratic elite and educated intelligentsia (society), on the one hand, and ordinary people (people) on the other 840. From a political point of view, they were also on opposite sides of the barricades. Tolstoy’s rejection of power in any form, his pacifism, his open desire to free himself from autocracy, to destroy the army and the Church coincided in time with the moment when Fr. John recognized the threat to the old world order. However, the most significant difference, of course, lay in the religious sphere. Tolstoy rejected the most important dogmas of Orthodoxy: according to his teaching, Christ was not the son of God, but a simple man of a righteous life; Mary was not a virgin, but an unmarried mother; no sacraments are needed. His irreverent description of the Eucharist in Resurrection is especially offensive to Orthodox Christians. Finally, he allowed himself to directly attack the Orthodox Church, calling it pagan, authoritarian and idolatrous 841. Thus, lines of confrontation emerged. Father John predicted the destructive consequences of Tolstoy's teachings for society. Dostoevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamazov: “If there is no God, then everything is permitted”; Tolstoy's “inverted” concept of the Divine, according to Fr. John, led to the same nihilism 842. A collection of his anti-Tolstoy accusatory speeches was published in 1902. Having inflicted complete defeat on the writer on all counts, Fr. John concludes that Tolstoy, “according to the scriptures,” should have a stone tied around his neck and drowned in the sea, that he has no place on earth 843. Such statements offended many radicals, including Bonch-Bruevich, who wrote him a derogatory and furious response 844. In 1908, a newspaper clipping from the Frankfurter Zeitung containing a “prayer” from Fr. John about the speedy death of Tolstoy and Witte, who were “destroying Russia.” The minister replied that this case needs to be investigated, and if it turns out to be fake, then it is necessary to sue the German publication. He added sarcastically: “It seems to me that Russia’s representatives abroad should not be indifferent to how public opinion in Western Europe is systematically being restored against it” 845. Although Fr. John denied the authorship of the text; it turned out that he approved the publication of the book in which this text was printed 846. These prayers, to put it mildly, amazed the intelligentsia and, together with the sermons, they approved Fr. John's reputation as one of the leaders of the ultra-right 847. His rhetoric is characterized by an affirmation of the divine nature of autocracy, an insistent call to declare any power established from above, and persistent definitions of ongoing political changes as “senseless.” It is not surprising, therefore, that the intelligentsia began to associate with the figure of Fr. John, everything that is most inert in the Orthodox Church. When he limited his activities to helping the poor and criticizing corrupt and ineffective government institutions, he was cited as a positive example of “the healthy, life-giving forces that can still be found in our Orthodox Church.” When he encroached on the foundations and the very fact of the existence of those whose ideas about Russia were based on other premises, in response they declared ideological war on him. After censorship restrictions prohibiting negative comments about the clergy in the press were lifted in 1905, 848 Fr. John became the main target of anti-church attacks in the radical press and a symbol of clerical reaction. Some attacks were completely baseless. So, for example, when one priest was arrested for seducing a minor, “New Thought” asked: “And what will the Kronstadt wonderworker say to Father John today?” 849. Many other comments were equally trivial. The priest’s connection with representatives of the lower classes, glorified in his posthumous lives, was now emphasized as a negative factor: “The scum of Kronstadt, who received from Fr. John of Kronstadt nickels and blessings, alarmed by the departure of the “father”. They believe that the intelligentsia survived him, and are going to take revenge on them” 850. Equally unfounded was the assumption that Fr. John became obsolete that the latest fashion statement (le dernier cri) was now the monk Iliodorus. A dialogue between two society ladies was quoted: “Countess Lolo: This is a phenomenon and a terrible phenomenon. Think: 23 years old, handsome and a monk... Prince Anatole: Le père Jean en beau et en jeune. Princess Tata: Oh, what a père Jean, it’s something very special, and scary, they say, and charming” 851. However, the main criticism leveled at Fr. John was caused by the obvious contradiction between the glory of the saint and his connection with the “Union of the Russian People.” Left-leaning newspapers and tabloid publications implied that other churchmen could only be expected to support some right-wing organization, but such behavior from a man popularly recognized as a saint was strange and compromising. The Russkoe Slovo newspaper reported that the Student Mutual Aid Society in Arkhangelsk voted to expel Fr. John of Kronstadt from his ranks because of his political views and returned his donation in the amount of one hundred rubles 852. And the editorial of New Thought simply said: “I am not at all surprised that foreigners living in Russia completely refuse to understand modern Russian newspapers... their healthy heads simply do not comprehend those unnatural combinations with which modern Russian life is so full. For example: The God-loving shepherd John of Kronstadt blessed the banners of the “true Russian” people and gave them “true Russian” lectures. How can the righteous John of Kronstadt compromise himself by connections with the Union of the Russian People?” 853 The most serious accusation was that, by supporting the “Union of the Russian People,” Fr. John indirectly justified political murders and pogroms (the impression was strengthened by the shepherd’s earlier wishes for death to Tolstoy and his references to how Moses pacified the rebellion through violence). In the newspaper “Perelom” in the issue dated December 7, 1906, the following accusation was made: “Why are you silent and do not subject the “famous” Kronstadt Archpriest John Sergiev to church punishment, who recently blessed pogrom banners and murders in front of all of Russia?” 854 Of course, oh. John did not bless the killings, but his connection with the Union was an eyesore - and it is worth asking why. A clergyman who supports far-right politics is a phenomenon in which there was nothing unusual 855 . However, the fact that the radicals called Fr. John “Black Hundred” (a definition so persistently replicated by Soviet historiographers that one might think that Father John and “Black Hundred” are synonymous), is very remarkable, considering how insignificant the political activity of Fr. John 856. He had nothing to do with the Duma; he also did not take part in the development of strategy and in the demonstrations of the “Union of the Russian People”, unlike Fr. John Vostorgov and monk Iliodor 857. Among other things, in 1905 Fr. John was seventy-seven years old. He constantly complained of physical ailments, and although he was officially a member of the Holy Synod, he did not attend a single meeting - due to illness - despite the fact that he had previously only dreamed of it. He was too weak to participate in meetings and demonstrations 858. How limited was the readiness of Fr. John's ability to take any active part in the turbulent political life of the first Russian revolution was revealed with painful acuteness during the mutiny of the Kronstadt sailors in October 1905. After this event, it became clear that he would be condemned in any case - whether he took any political steps or remained silent. Instead of trying to calm the crowd, Fr. John chose to leave Kronstadt until the uprising was suppressed. The radical press mercilessly ridiculed his act; Several leading satirical magazines published cartoons depicting his "shameful flight." Thus, on November 5, 1905, Strela published a pencil drawing depicting Fr. John, fleeing from rebellious Kronstadt, with the caption “turn away from evil and do... good” (an ironic paraphrase of the words of Psalm 33:15); “Machine Gun” published a mocking article with the subtitle “Exodus from Kronstadt” 859. Political lampoons also appeared on the island. John: this is, for example, the “Ministerial Complaint” by A. A. Weinberg: The sailors turned to a gang, Who was a sapper became a hooligan, Rebellious Schmidt takes command, Blessed John is running 860. Poet Sasha Cherny in his 1906 poem “Who Lives Fun?” called Fr. John is on a par with representatives of the police, the state and all other government institutions of Tsarist Russia: To the Hermit of Kronstadt, Even the St. Petersburg Gazette noted that the clergy of the Cathedral of St. Andrei - with the exception of Fr. John, who left in the morning, organized a religious procession, trying to convince the rebels, but to no avail 862. Despite the fact that almost everyone reproached Fr. John for disappearing from Kronstadt at the most critical moment for the city, other radical journalists, oddly enough, accused “Father John and his hooligans” of organizing unrest, which “politically conscious among the soldiers” tried to pacify 863. Even Trotsky repeated this accusation, writing that a large role in the events was played by “the gangs of the well-known miracle worker John of Kronstadt,” who carried away the most ignorant sailors 864. But the charge of incitement to riot was undoubtedly absurd. In fact, as many radical newspapers claimed, the refusal of Fr. John’s decisive actions spoiled his reputation: “Oh. They no longer send donations to John Sergiev from the depths of the province. After his flight from Kronstadt, his fame faded. The tramps... became depressed. The distribution of money to them stopped” 865. Even supporters of Fr. John was upset by his actions during the rebellion. Thus, journalist M. O. Menshikov, who previously wrote with such fervor about the holiness of Fr. John, took his departure from Kronstadt during the rebellion even more seriously than his colleagues from the radical camp. On October 30, 1906, he wrote bitterly in Novoye Vremya: “The first thought that comes to me in these painful days is Fr. John of Kronstadt. This is who must endure the bitter moments! To serve for half a century in Kronstadt, to enjoy the fame of an all-Russian miracle worker for a quarter of a century, to gain worldwide fame, to create a huge pilgrimage to himself... and to be forced to make sure that his closest flock - 15,000 mutinous sailors - are deprived of all religion, all spiritual discipline, all respect for him, the saint of God - no matter how you want it, it’s hard. They say oh. John tried to appeal to the raging crowd, but was so unsuccessful that, together with the mass of residents fleeing the city, he left Kronstadt. I don’t know the details, I don’t dare to say - but if it’s true that the shepherd of souls abandoned his flock in these terrible, satanic days - what is it like for him, a deep believer, to come before the throne of God and raise his eyes to heaven? They will say: oh. John is the parish priest, and the sailors have their own clergy, their own protopresbyter. Yes, but oh. John knows, cannot help but know, that all these protopresbyters and metropolitans, his contemporaries, are nothing in comparison with him. They do not have this highest apostolic grace - the gift of healing, they do not perform miracles... Of all the living, only he can be sure that lamps will burn in front of his image after death and fervent prayers will be offered to him. Knowing all this and seeing how far he actually stood from the souls closest to him... it’s hard!” 866 Here Menshikov indirectly outlined the reason why Fr. Journalists chose John as a target for anti-clerical attacks. Despite the fact that other representatives of the Church took a much more active political position than Fr. John, only he was considered a saint and the corresponding demands were made on him. In the memoirs of Bolshevik agitators it is often mentioned that they were disturbed by the statements of the workers: “But among them (the clergy - N.K.) there are righteous people - that is, Fr. John of Kronshadt" 867. Therefore, although other clerics also earned the title of “Black Hundreds,” their authority was not nearly as great as that of Fr. John, which made him a target for harsh criticism. An interesting detail: having once been very sensitive to criticism, he was now surprisingly resilient in the face of obvious humiliation. Father wrote to Abbess Taisiya after she lamented the bullying of “evil people” and said that he was still a “servant of God.” “In my Lord Jesus Christ, I easily endure all the mockery of evil people against me...” the shepherd confessed to her, “The Lord will take revenge on them for me, for if you touch me maliciously, it touches the apple of God’s eye.” While acknowledging that his high society followers had fallen away from him, he noticed that the common people and children still flocked to him 868 . Views about. John's influence on the political, intellectual and cultural development of Russia influenced his reputation not only among liberals, intellectuals and the radical press, but also among the more conservative part of the population. When he began to insist that his point of view was the only acceptable one, he confused those Orthodox Christians who felt that by their faith they could well support the coming changes 869. His fame as a saint only complicated matters: what should you do if a man of God professes political views that you find dubious or even repulsive? Despite the fact that admirers of Fr. John reacted differently to his behavior; they can be divided into several categories. Some sought to accept his views, considering them divinely inspired, while others began to treat him worse - either condescendingly admitting that he, like every righteous man, may have his weaknesses, which do not detract from his holiness, or questioning his holiness, or trying to rethink the very concept of holiness. These views were reflected in the letters that Fr. John received in response to his anti-Tolstoy sermons and statements in defense of autocracy. Since the end of the 19th century. sermons by Fr. John began to not only be heard from the pulpit of the Cathedral of St. Andrey, but also regularly appeared in such newspapers as “Vedomosti of the St. Petersburg Mayor” and “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, which only strengthened in the eyes of the public his connection with the most conservative bodies and institutions of Russia. The reaction that followed shows that some people were horrified by both his views and his association with the official right-wing movement. The letters constantly convey the amazement that Fr.’s position evoked. John. With his charitable activities and criticism of social inequality, he earned a reputation as a representative of positive forces in religion, and therefore - automatically - a supporter of reforms in the broadest sense of the word. This is why many were bitterly disappointed when they realized that his calls for social reform and his sincere desire to improve the lot of the poor did not imply political change. Many letters convey confusion and disappointment. Thus, one layman wrote: “Reading the words of your sermon against Count L.N. Tolstoy, published in the police newspaper (a good place for such sermons), you come to a complete misunderstanding. Is all this really possible: John of Kronstadt and - such a sermon. What appears before the reader is not an enlightened and humane shepherd, but a fanatic with the narrowest outlook, not only of religious thinking, but also of simply logical thinking.” The author of the letter further contrasts the progressive and cultural forces, apparently embodied in Tolstoy, with those who, in his opinion, expressed the worst features of Orthodoxy - such as Fr. John: “Around Tolstoy and around other secular writers huddles everything new, smart, ideological, cultural, and around John of Kronstadt huddles hypocrisy, hypocrisy, hysteria, a swarm of hysterics and psychopaths glorifying unprecedented miracles and miraculous phenomena” 870. This is far from the only example of identifying Fr. John with her admirers and one of the first cases when the author, emphasizing that there are more women among the admirers, hints at the inferiority of the object of worship. Other correspondents of the shepherd were disturbed by the harshness of his tone: “I happened to get acquainted with your accusatory words, spoken in the Church of God and often reproduced on the pages of the Gazette of the St. Petersburg City Administration, directed against Count L.T., and in addition, I happened to read a copy of your letter to Mr. Rector of Yuryev University, in which you thunder against this latter, offended by the simultaneous election of you and the Count as honorary members of the University. And so I do not find peace of mind: how can I reconcile your accusatory speeches, so alien to the spirit of Christian kindness, tolerance and forgiveness, and your punitive letter, with the beautiful words that I am enclosing?” 871 Colleague Fr. John, priest Alexander Lyubimov, questioned the words of the shepherd: “God is patient with Tolstoy, as with every unrepentant sinner, in order to punish him the more severely and, according to his guilt, increase the eternal punishment” 872. Categorical condemnation of Tolstoy. John deeply alarmed the priest: “I have read a lot and am constantly reading, but I have never seen such a thought in any of the famous and holy writers, that God would support people’s lives with its blessings in order to punish them more severely later... such a thought, in my opinion, blasphemes the infinite goodness of God. On the contrary, God reluctantly punishes people, prolongs the life of great sinners and even gives them great temporary benefits, so that they will come to repentance and correct themselves... Are you really, dear Fr. John, you clearly foresee the death of the gr. T, when you say that “God is patient with him, so that he can be punished all the more severely in the future life?” If yes, then isn’t it useless, or maybe. Isn’t it even ungodly to pray for him? I will not hide from you the fact that, having read the above, I was greatly embarrassed; for I fervently prayed and am praying to God for the conversion of the perishing L.N.T. to the consciousness of his grave errors and repentance, so that the great and wonderful works of God may appear in him..." 873 They were “principled opponents.” However, they were with Fr. John and enthusiastic supporters. Even their style resembled his own. It was obvious that the views of Fr. John was discouraged by some, but encouraged and supported by others, who clearly saw him as an exponent of their views. Despite the fact that other representatives of the clergy may have expressed similar views, supporters of Fr. John was aware that he was one of the few who fought radical writers on their own field: in pamphlets, newspapers, a published book, and not just in a sermon or grumbling behind closed doors. People saw the situation through the prism of the opposition, first outlined by N. S. Leskov: Tolstoy and Fr. John was associated in their minds with the antipodes fighting for the future of Russia. Their sense of a life-or-death struggle was accompanied by indignation that their voices did not have a wide public resonance and that the rhetoric characteristic of public discussions of that time was alien and hostile to them. For such correspondents, Fr. John seemed to be the only person who dared to voice their own views. Like the far-right American Catholic priest Fr. Charles Coughlin in the 1930s, Fr. John became the “mouthpiece of the dissatisfied” 874. They adored the priest because he gave their vague aspirations a full voice and forced them to be taken into account. As a result, he brought them onto the public stage. As several women from Kyiv wrote, “You, our dear Father, loudly and fearlessly raised your authoritative voice against the Russian Antichrist. Oh, continue, we beg you for the happiness of our dear Russia, continue the great and completely worthy work of fighting the dangerous false prophet that you have begun! You alone are able to measure yourself against the monstrous titan that has filled the minds and hearts of our dying youth; You alone can safely reckon with newspaper lackeys - liberals and with those in power, the notorious accomplices of the fierce enemy of Russia... We believe that you, Holy Father, will protect Russia from the terrible disaster that threatens it, you, and only you alone, fully armed with your spiritual power, can worthily fight the Russian adversary..." 875 The central tenet of the Slavophiles was the uniqueness of Russia. One of the most laconic and succinct formulations is found in the work of Ivan Kireyevsky “On the nature of the enlightenment of Europe and its relation to the enlightenment of Russia.” See: Russian Intellectual History: An Anthology / Ed. by Raeff M. N.Y., 1966. P. 175–207. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 9. Tatishchev S.S. Emperor Alexander II, his life and reign. St. Petersburg, 1903. T. 1.S. 662. See: Flier M. S. The Church of the Savior on the Blood: Projection, Rejection, Resurrection // Christianity and the Eastern Slavs / Ed. by Hughes R. P., Paperno I. Vol. 2. Russian Culture in Modem Times. Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1994, pp. 25–28. Link to passages from the book of the prophet Isaiah (chapters 8–9) that are sung at Great Compline. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 28. Right there. Father John repeated these notes almost word for word in his published sermon. See: Sergiev I.I. A word about the second week of Lent, regarding the brazen and daring murder of the most pious State by villains. Imp. Alexander Nikolaevich. [Kronstadt], 1881. pp. 6–7. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 24. L. 92 vol. From the diaries it is clear how angry the Holy Synod was with him (see, in particular, ibid. D. 23. L. 31–31 vol.). Georgy Fedotov, for example, wrote: “His [Fr. John] was known and loved at the court of the last two emperors... Only a friend of the king could be allowed to introduce such an innovation (that is, general confessions).” Fedotov G. P. A Treasury of Russian Spirituality. Belmont, 1975. P. 346, 349. Rene Fülöp-Miller argued that “Father John of Kronstadt was considered a saint not only by ordinary people, but also by the old emperor himself... In difficult situations, when it was necessary to make important decisions or a member of the crowned family fell ill, Emperor Alexander used to call this righteous man to the palace and ask for his advice and help” (Fülöp-Miller R. Rasputin: The Holy Devil N.Y., 1962. P. 113). The opinion that Fr. John was the confessor of the imperial family and enjoyed its exclusive support, which formed the basis of all Soviet work on this topic. See, for example: Nikolsky N.M. History of the Russian Church. M.; L., 1931. P. 462; Radzinsky E. The Last Tsar. N.Y., 1992. P. 9, 172. The explanation for this interpretation may lie in the later assignment of Fr. John the honorary title “Confessor of the Royal Family” - see: 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. 466. However, this title was purely symbolic. In fact, the confessors of the royal family were Protopresbyter John Yanyshev and Archimandrite Feofan (Bistrov) (1909–1910), Archpriest Nikolai Kedrinsky (1911–1914) and Archpriest Alexander Vasiliev (1914–1917; killed in 1918). See: Batts R., Marchenko V. Spiritual father of the royal family, St. Theophan of Poltava. 1874–1940. Platina, Calif.; M., 1994. P. 22; RGIA. F. 805. Preface. to op. 1. C. XIII. Zakharin-Yakunin I. Countess A. Tolstaya. Personal impressions and memories // Bulletin of Europe. 1905. No. 4. P. 617. Konstantin (Zaitsev), abbot. Spiritual appearance of Archpriest. O. John of Kronstadt. Jordanville, N.Y., 1952. R. 3–4; Sergeenko P. Tolstoy and his contemporaries // Fiftieth Anniversary. pp. 168–169; Two anniversaries (Leo Tolstoy and John of Kronstadt) // Chetverikov S., prot. God is in the Russian soul. M., 1998. pp. 84–87. Velyaminov N. A. Memoirs of N. A. Velyaminov about Emperor Alexander III // Russian Archive. T. 5. M., 1994. P. 301, 309–310. Opinions in such newspapers as Le Monde Illustré, Deluvio Barcelona, ​​The Christian Herald, Le Temps, etc., see: RGIA. F. 834. Op. 4. D. 250 (clippings from foreign newspapers about Father John of Kronstadt). Sergiev I., prot. The last hours of the life of Sovereign Emperor Alexander III // Church Gazette. 1894. P. 1656; reprinted in the book: Pobedinsky Ya. The last minutes of the life of Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich: Letter from Fr. John of Kronstadt. M., 1912. P. 17. Sergiev I. Last hours. pp. 14–17. Russian National Library. Manuscripts Department. F. 178 (Alexey Sergeevich Suvorin). Op. 4818. D. 92. L. 2–3 vol. Letter from Suvorin to Zhemchuzhnikov, November 21, 1894. Ibid. L. 1 See: Sergiev I. (Kronstadt). A word about the beneficence of the Tsarist autocracy. St. Petersburg, 1897. Russia before the second coming: materials for an essay on Russian eschatology / Comp. S. Fomin. M., 1993. S. 37, 39–47, 54–57, 66–67. Ambrose, hieroschemamonk. Collection of letters of the Optina elder Hieroschemamonk Ambrose of blessed memory to lay persons. Sergiev Posad, 1908. P. 1, 21–22. Quote in the book: Russia before the second coming. P. 69. Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Metropolitan. Bishop's word Anthony (Khrapovitsky) and Fr. John of Kronstadt regarding the violence of Christians against Jews in Chisinau. Odessa, 1903. Letter from the archbishop dated June 9, 1903, in: GARF. F. 102. D. 873, t. 4. L. 90. Letter dated May 22, 1903 from Tolstoy to Anatoly Stepanovich Butkevich, in the book: Tolstoy L.N. Complete works: In 90 volumes. M., 1954. T. 74. P. 129. GARF. F. 102 (Police Department). D. 873. T. 4 (1903). L. 20 rev. See, in particular, letter dated May 16, 1903. Ibid. L. 51–54 vol. For the defense of Father John, see: Missionary Review. May 1903. No. 3. P. 1396. Gapon G. A. Notes of Georgy Gapon (Essay on the labor movement in Russia in the 1900s). M., 1918. pp. 45–56. Letters dated July 3, 1905 and undated, in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 51 (letters from various people concerning the suppression of Orthodox Christians by Catholics. L. 3–7). See, for example, letters from M. Tarasova, December 18, 1902; Elizabeth, January 24, 1907; priest Matthew Tarentuta, March 3, 1905. Ibid. D. 55. L. 2–3 vol., 48–49, 75–76. Undated letter from Natalia Ivanitskaya, to: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1.D. 55. L. 72. Letter dated December 22, 1906. Ibid. D. 18. L. 37. Cards of honorary members are preserved in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 18 (correspondence with various “Black Hundred” and monarchist societies and unions regarding the registration of I. I. Sergiev as an honorary or active member, October 16, 1885 - September 26, 1908). L. 37, 41, 49–52. What kind of relationship actually connected Fr. John with the Union of the Russian People remains unclear. Letter dated January 13, 1906 from Grigory Lipatov. Right there. D. 34. L. 17. Letter dated November 1, 1905 from “a citizen of the Russian land.” Right there. D. 55. L. 14. Letter from Kosma Utkin, January 8, 1906. Ibid. D. 55. L. 36. Undated letter from Daria and Nikolai. Right there. D. 55. L. 61. Letter from P. Petrov. Right there. D. 52. L. 56. Abraham Palitsyn was a cellarer at the Trinity-Sergius Monastery at the turn of the 16th–17th centuries, and described the Polish attack on the monastery. Letter dated March 6, 1906. Ibid. D. 52. L. 42. Father John refers to the Epistle to the Hebrews: “Whoever rejects the law of Moses, in the presence of two or three witnesses, without mercy, is punished with death” (Hebrews 10:28) - and to the Epistle to the Romans, 13:1. Sermon on the day of the solemn anointing and coronation of the most pious, autocratic and great monarch, Emperor Nicholas Alexandrovich. Rebake in the book: Sergiev I. Accusatory sermons of Father John of Kronstadt. St. Petersburg, 1914. pp. 5–7. See: Geifman A. Thou Shalt Kill: Revolutionary Terrorism in Russia, 1894–1917. Princeton, 1993. Sermon by the famous pastor Fr. John of Kronstadt about the Japanese war and the edifications arising from it // Sergiev I. Accusatory sermons. pp. 14–16. The contrast between the elite and the common people was constantly carried out. See: Menshikov M. In memory of the holy shepherd // John of Kronstadt. M., 1992. S. 361–362; Chetverikov S. Two anniversaries (Leo Tolstoy and John of Kronstadt) // Chetverikov S. God in the Russian soul. M., 1998. S. 84–87; Lukashevsky E. Kronstadt preacher // Science and religion. 1990. No. 5. P. 10–14. Tolstoy L. Criticism of dogmatic theology // Complete. collection works prohibited in Russia. Christchurch, 1903. For Orthodox criticism, see: Varzhansky N. What is the faith of L. N. Tolstoy. Popular sketch. St. Petersburg, 1911 // Vostorgov I. et al. Ever-memorable Fr. John of Kronstadt and Leo Tolstoy. Jordanville, N.Y., 1960, pp. 3–23. The essence of the false teachings of Count L. Tolstoy. Homily for the twenty-fifth week after Pentecost. 1896 // Sergiev I. [Kronstadt]. Against Count L.N. Tolstoy, other heretics and sectarians of our time and schismatics. St. Petersburg, 1902. pp. 17–18. See his review of “A Church Pastor’s Response to Leo Tolstoy’s “Address to the Clergy”” by Fr. John, in: RSL, department of manuscripts. Op. 369. Part 71 (Bonch-Bruevich). D. 12. L. 1–3. Letter dated July 17, 1908, in: GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (I). L. 22. Nikolai Bolshakov, who published this text in issue No. 18 of “The Kronstadt Lighthouse” dated May 4, 1908 (p. 3), claimed that he took this text from the book “Contemplative Asceticism, Extracts from the Diaries of 1906–1907 Prot. Ioann Ilyich Sergiev." See: GARF. F. 102, 4 delopr. D. 154 (I). L. 48. For the reaction of the writer Vladimir Korolenko, see: Korolenko V. G. Complete. collection op. St. Petersburg, 1914. T. 1. P. 318. The rather left-wing publication “New Voice” even argued that due to the restrictions of the old censorship, most social phenomena cannot be assessed objectively, while, frankly, about Fr. I only have good things to say about Joanna. And the newspapers “knocked off their feet,” rushing to report on the miracles performed by Fr. John (“New Voice”, December 13, 1908. P. 65). On the coverage of religion in the press in 1881–1895. see: Baluev B.P. Political reaction of the 80s of the 19th century and Russian journalism. M., 1971. P. 172. Beast in a cassock // New thought. 1907. No. 22. P. 3. Thought. No. 8. June 28 – July 11, 1906. P. 3. Five hours with Iliodor // Citizen. No. 20. March 15, 1907 P. 2. Comrade. No. 42. August 23 – September 5, 1906. P. 2. New thought. No. 10. January 13, 1907. P. 4. Fracture. No. 110. December 7, 1906. P. 2. See instructions in the book: Debolsky G.S., prot. About love for the fatherland and work according to the word of God. Rep. M., 1996; See also the medals of the Union of the Russian People in the book: Orthodoxy, the Army and Navy of Russia [exhibition catalogue]. St. Petersburg, 1996. No. 111. For examples of labeling in Soviet times, see: Rostov N. Clergy and Russian counter-revolution. M., 1930. P. 29; Orthodoxy: an atheist's dictionary / Comp. N. S. Gordienko. M., 1988. pp. 94–95. See descriptions of their activities in the Citizen. 1907. No. 31–32 (May). P. 6; No. 41–41 (June). P. 22. About health o. John, see: RGIA. F. 796. Op. 189. D. 515. L. 10 (letter from Father John dated September 24, 1908 to the Holy Synod, where he refers to his ill health); Op. 188. D. 619. Table 2a, 1 compartment. (similar letter from Father John, January 8, 1908); Sergiev I.I. Letters from Archpriest. John to the abbess of the St. John the Baptist Leushinsky First-Class Monastery, Abbess Taisia. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 96 (On January 22, 1908, Father John wrote that he had not been to a single meeting of the Holy Synod due to illness and did not see what benefit he could bring there). On avoiding public events, see: E.K. Memories of Father John. St. Petersburg, 1909. P. 34. Arrows. No. 2. November 5, 1905, cover; Exodus from Kronstadt // Machine gun. 1905. No. 1. P. 11. Poetic satire of the first Russian revolution (1905–1907). L., 1985. P. 217. Right there. pp. 396–397; italics mine. St. Petersburg Gazette. No. 251. October 29 – November 11, 1905. P. 6. Statement of November 1, 1905, cited in the collection: Revolution 1905–1907. in Russia. Documents and materials. M., 1955. T. 1. P. 202. Trotsky L. 1905. N.Y., 1971. R. 119. New way. No. 14. January 19, 1906 P. 4. Due to incomplete records, it is impossible to determine whether Fr.’s donations have decreased. John after 1905. See: Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 58. Menshikov M. O. Letters to neighbors. Kronstadt riot. Good Shepherd // New Time. No. 10646. October 30, 1905. P. 4. See, for example, the memoirs of the worker K. Mironov in the book: Bulletin of the Russian Revolution. No. 3. March 1903, pp. 25–56; Kanatchikov S. A. Radical Worker in Tsarist Russia: The Autobiography of Semen Ivanovich Kanatchikov / Ed. by Zelnik R. Stanford, 1986. P. 29. Letters dated October 31 and November 26, 1906 in the book: Sergiev I. Letters from Fr. prot. John to the abbess. pp. 87–88. For more liberal political views within Orthodoxy, see: A Revolution of the Spirit: Crisis of Value in Russia, 1890–1924 / Ed. by Rosenthal B. G., Bohachevsky-Chomiak M. N.Y., 1990. TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 32 (letters from various people in response to the sermon of John Sergiev, denouncing Leo Tolstoy). L. 1–2 vol. Letter dated March 12, 1903, in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 32. L. 15. The words of Fr. John about the need to root out hostility towards your neighbor from your heart with the help of faith (L. 16). Quote in a letter from Lyubimov dated March 28, 1906, in: TsGIA St. Petersburg. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 32. L. 27–28 vol. Right there. D. 32. L. 28–28 vol. Carpenter R. H. Father Charles E. Coughlin: Surrogate Spokesman for the Disaffected. Westport, Conn., 1998. This letter, also anonymous and undated, is signed “Women of Kyiv, truly devoted to you.” TsGIA SPb. F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 32. L. 44–44 vol.