On the centenary of the birth of the memory of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov

Contents Lenten letter to All-Russian Patriarch Pimen From the editor On the centenary of the birth of Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1971) Chronological outline of the life of Father Sergius Bulgakov Articles Prot. Alexander Shmeman. Three images 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Prot. Georgy Serikov. The doctrine of apokatastasis (of universal restoration) from the “Father of Fathers” (St. Gregory of Nyssa) and from Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov Archimandrite Euthymius. Relatio Religiae K. Ya. Andronikov. “Zeal for Your House” Testimonies of Prot. Knyazev. In memory of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov E. Ber-Sizhel. In Memoriam (translation from French) Prot. Georgy Serikov. Russian student Christian movement and father Sergius Bulgakov Materials for the biography First steps in life (M. O. Gershenzon. “Letters to my brother”) From the correspondence of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov with L.A. and V.A. Zander About the last days of Father Sergius (eyewitness account) From the unpublished Philosopher Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. The tragedy of philosophy From the author. Chapter one. On the nature of thought Theologian The central problem of sophiology Mariology in the fourth Gospel (Chapter 7 of “The Theology of John the Theologian”) Preacher 1. On the eve of Great Lent 2. Supper of the Lamb 3. At the Holy Sepulcher 4. About the feat of joy (On the eve of Holy Pascha) Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Priest Fr. Pavel Florensky Commentary Theology and questions of the Church Prot. John Meyendorff. On the way to the Ecumenical Council? Prot. Georgy Serikov. About the unity of Christians in Christ (About the Church) and about the Eucharist (the Sacrament of Body and Blood) as communion of this unity (continued) Bishop Alexander (Semyonov Tian-Shansky). The calling of the Movement (The word spoken at the holiday of the R.S.H.D. in December 1971) The fate of Russia Ignorance in the service of arbitrariness (On the state of modern psychiatry in the USSR) The first essay by Ya. P. Pozdeev. System of atheistic education in the USSR Atheist education in the USSR at the present time. Management of the “scientific atheist education of the working people” Atheist education in primary and secondary schools Atheist education in higher educational institutions Atheist education in pedagogical universities The problem of staffing teachers of scientific atheism in universities and universities Atheist education of the adult population Scientific development of methodological aids in the field of atheistic propaganda Content and level of atheistic propaganda Exzek. Operation Bathhouse Appeal of Prisoners Literature and Life A. Solzhenitsyn. On the death of Tvardovsky Anna Akhmatova. From the unpublished Andrei Platonov (1899–1951). Chevengur (A few pages from an unpublished novel) St. Pavel Florensky (1882–1943). Memories from childhood II. Nature (End) V. Veidle. After "Twelve". Offering to the cross at the grave of Alexander Blok 6. “Seven years of horror” 7. “Write poetry for the forgotten Blok” 8. The seventh and last year 9. For every minute of our days 10. Chasms of consciousness Bibliography B. Petrovsky. Andrey Bogolyubov. "Son of Man" Bp. Georgy Vagner. Prot. Nikolai Afanasyev, Church of the Holy Spirit S. Zhab. About a Russian family Chronicle of church life 25th anniversary of the priesthood of the dean of St. Vladimir's Theological Academy in New York, Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann II All-American Council of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church Obituaries of N. Struve. The writer is a righteous man. In memory of B.K. Zaitsev Bishop Alexander (Semyonov Tian-Shansky). In loving memory of B.K. Zaitsev Prot. S. Shchukin. V.F. Martsinkovsky. 1884–1971 Prot. B. Bobrinsky. CM. Zernova Prot. A. Schmeman. Saying goodbye to G.V. Adamovich Letters from readers V. Krylatov. About the emergence of the Movement (additions and clarifications) Russian Student Christian Movement Lenten letter to All-Russian Patriarch Pimen A coffin stone crushes the head and breaks the chest of Orthodox Russian people who have not yet died - that’s what this letter is about. Everyone knows, and it has already been shouted out loud, and again everyone is silent in doom. And you still need to put a pebble on the stone so that you can no longer remain silent. I was crushed like a stone when I heard your message on Christmas night. It struck a chord when you finally said about children - perhaps for the first time in half a century from such a height: that along with love for the Fatherland, parents would instill in their children a love for the Church (obviously, for the faith itself?) and strengthen that love with their own good example. I heard this - and my early childhood, spent in many church services, rose before me, and that initial impression, extraordinary in its freshness and purity, which then no millstones and no mental theories could erase. But - what is this? Why is this honest appeal addressed only to Russian emigrants? Why do you call only those children to be raised in the Christian faith, why do you warn only the distant flock to “recognize slander and lies” and strengthen themselves in righteousness and truth? Should we recognize it? Should we instill love for the Church in our children or not? Yes, Christ commanded to go looking for even the hundredth lost sheep, but still - when ninety-nine are in place. And when there are not even ninety-nine assistants, shouldn’t they be the first concern? Why, when I come to church to baptize my son, do I have to show my passport? For what canonical needs does the Moscow Patriarchate need to register baptized souls? One must also be surprised at the strength of the parents’ spirit, at the inherited unclear spiritual resistance from time immemorial, with which they undergo this informant registration, then being persecuted for work or publicly ridiculed by the ignorant. But this is where persistence ends; the baptism of infants usually ends the entire involvement of children in the Church; subsequent paths of education in the faith are blindly closed to them; access to participation in church services, sometimes even to communion, or even to presence, is closed. We rob our children, depriving them of a unique, purely angelic perception of worship, which in adulthood can no longer be made up for, and we will not even know what was lost. The right to continue the faith of their fathers, the right of parents to raise their children in their own worldview has been overthrown - and you, church hierarchs, have come to terms with this and are contributing to this, finding a reliable sign of FREEDOM OF RELIGION in that. The point is that we must hand over defenseless children not into neutral hands, but into the lot of atheistic propaganda, the most primitive and unscrupulous. The fact is that adolescence, torn out of Christianity, if only it would not become infected with it! – for moral education, a gap has been left between the agitator’s notebook and the criminal code. Half a century of past has already been lost, let alone rescue the present, but how can we save the FUTURE of our country? – the future that will be made up of today’s children? In the end, the true and deep destiny of our country depends on whether the RIGHTNESS OF MIGHT is finally strengthened in the popular understanding or whether the POWER OF RIGHTNESS is cleared of eclipse and the POWER OF RIGHTNESS shines again? Will we be able to restore at least some Christian traits in ourselves or will we lose them all to the end and surrender ourselves to calculations of self-preservation and benefit? The study of Russian history of recent centuries convinces that all of it would have flowed incomparably more humanely and more mutually harmoniously if the Church had not renounced its independence, and the people would have listened to its voice, comparable to, for example, in Poland. Alas, this has not been the case for a long time. We have lost and have lost the bright ethical Christian atmosphere in which our morals, way of life, worldview, folklore, even the very name of people - PEASANTS - were established for thousands of years. We are losing the last lines and signs of the Christian people - and can this really not be the MAIN concern of the Russian Patriarch? On any evil in far Asia or Africa, the Russian Church has its own excited opinion, only on internal troubles - never any. Why are the messages descending to us from the heights of the church so traditionally serene? Why are all church documents so complacent, as if they were published among the most Christian people? From one serene message to another, in one stormy year, doesn’t the need to write them disappear altogether: there will be no one to turn them to, there will be no flock left except the patriarchal office? This is the seventh year since two most honest priests, Yakunin and Eshliman, confirming by their sacrificial example that the pure flame of the Christian faith in our homeland has not been extinguished, wrote a famous letter to your predecessor. They abundantly and convincingly presented to him the voluntary internal enslavement - to the point of self-destruction, to which the Russian Church had been reduced: they asked him to show them if anything was untrue in their letter. But every word they said was TRUE, none of the hierarchs undertook to refute them. And how did they answer them? The simplest and rudest: they punished, for telling the truth - they rejected him from worship. And YOU have not corrected this to this day. And the terrible letter of the twelve Vyatichi remained unanswered, and they were only crushed. And to this day, the only fearless archbishop, Hermogenes of Kaluga, is still exiled to monastic imprisonment, who did not allow the belated, frenzied atheism that had achieved so much before 1964 in other dioceses to close their churches, burn icons and books. The seventh year, as it was said at full volume - and what has changed? For every functioning church - twenty demolished and irretrievably destroyed, and twenty in desolation and desecration - is there a sight more heartbreaking than these skeletons, the property of birds and storekeepers? How many populated places are there in the country where there is no church closer than one hundred or even two hundred kilometers? And our North, the ancient repository of the Russian spirit, and, foreseeably, the surest Russian future, was left completely without churches. Any concern for RESTORING even the smallest church, according to the one-sided laws of the so-called SEPARATION, is blocked for workers, for donors, for testators. We no longer dare ask about the ringing of bells - why is Russia deprived of its ancient decoration, its best voice? Are they churches? - We can’t even get the Gospel anywhere, even the Gospel is brought to us from abroad, as our preachers once brought to Indigirka. Seventh year - and has the Church defended anything? All church administration, the appointment of shepherds and bishops (and even rioters, in order to more conveniently ridicule and destroy the Church) is still conducted secretly from the COUNCIL OF AFFAIRS. A Church dictatorially led by atheists is a spectacle unseen in Two Millennia! The entire church economy and the use of church funds - those coppers dipped by pious fingers - are given to their control. And with magnificent gestures, 5 million rubles are donated to outside funds - but the beggars are driven out of the porch, and the leaky roof in the poor parish cannot be repaired. Priests have no rights in their parishes, only the process of worship is still entrusted to them, and then without leaving the church, but outside the threshold to the sick or at the cemetery, one must ask for the resolution of the City Council. What arguments can you convince yourself that the systematic DESTRUCTION of the spirit and body of the Church under the leadership of atheists is the best PRESERVATION of it? Conservation – for whom? After all, it is no longer for Christ. Conservation – by what? A LIE? But after the lie, with what hands should we celebrate the Eucharist? Holy Master! Do not neglect my unworthy exclamation at all. It may not be within seven years that even this will reach your ears. Don’t let us assume, don’t make us think that for the archpastors of the Russian Church, earthly power is higher than heavenly, earthly responsibility is worse than responsibility before God. We do not lie before people, much less in prayer, that external fetters are stronger than our spirit. It was no easier at the birth of Christianity, but it survived and flourished. And he showed us the way: SACRIFICE. Deprived of any material strength, he always wins in VICTIM. And the same martyrdom, worthy of the first centuries, was accepted by many of our priests and fellow believers in our living memory. But then they were thrown to the lions, but today you can only lose well-being. These days, kneeling before the Cross placed in the middle of the church, ask the Lord: what is the other purpose of your ministry in a people who have almost lost both the spirit of Christianity and the Christian appearance? On the centenary of the birth of Rev. Sergius Bulgakov (1871–1971) The issue celebrates the centenary of the birth of the great Russian thinker and theologian, Father Sergius Bulgakov. Calling him great is not an exaggeration. His personality was extraordinary, impetuous, daring, spiritual. His fate was indicative, perhaps foreshadowing the fate of the entire Russian people - from the church to godlessness, and from godlessness to the church. His theological feat is magnificent. Fr. Sergius Bulgakov not only built a harmonious system, he once and for all freed Russian, or rather Orthodox, theology from schoolism, routine, from timidity and the spirit of fear, returning to it that royal freedom that was inherent in the patristic centuries. Moreover, he rooted theology in the experience of church life, while maintaining freedom of theological opinion. It is no coincidence that Bulgakov’s work aroused such fierce opposition. Condemnations and reprimands, in the spirit of the Roman Inquisition, fell immediately before any broad, free, all-church discussion, before testing by the Holy Spirit. First of all, they were afraid: how can one be so daring, update theology, how can one assert that a number of questions have not yet been developed in essence. Attacks on Fr. Sergius Bulgakov also had non-theological reasons. After all, at one time no one thought to ban or anathematize the system of M. Tareev, which is much more controversial. By attacking Bulgakov, Moscow and the “Karlovites” had previously attacked the Russian Western European Exarchate, whose spirit of freedom, above nationalism, above politics, was completely alien to them. The enlightened Metropolitan Evlogy allowed Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to complete his theological feat, but the disunity of the emigration, its division into warring factions, was little conducive to a calm and free discussion of the system. This also required time. Having inspired many people to do theological work in various fields, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, after his death, was relatively quickly forgotten. The test of the theology of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov is renewed, or rather begins in our days, when his books gradually penetrate into their homeland and gradually enter the church consciousness. This test will be long (due to circumstances) and difficult (due to the richness of Bulgakov’s thought). It is difficult to prejudge to what extent the Church will recognize his theology as her own, what it will retain in it and what it will discard. But we can already say that, like the modern Origen (an expression by Fr. Louis Bouyer), Fr. Sergius Bulgakov will change something in the structure and composition of Orthodox theology. Integrity of vision, spirituality, rootedness in the Sacrament and Word of God, fiery and daring, at every step elevating the scientifically substantiated thought of Fr. Sergius to the contemplation of God will not pass without a trace. After Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, you will never return to Macarius. After Fr. Sergius, theology can no longer be an applied activity, use cloth language, be content with little. O. Sergius raised theology to its characteristic mountain heights. This alone is his great merit. Chronological outline of the life of Father Sergius Bulgakov 1 1871 June 16 birth. His father is Archpriest Nikolai Bulgakov; mother - Alexandra Kosminishna, born Azbukina. 1881 Admission to the 1st grade of the Livensky Theological School. 1884 Graduated from the Livensky Theological School and entered the Oryol Theological Seminary. 1888 Leaving the Oryol Theological Seminary and entering the 8th grade of the Yelets Gymnasium. 1889 Graduation from Yelets Gymnasium. 1890 Admission to the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. 1894 Graduated from Moscow University and stayed for two years in the department of political economy and statistics to prepare for the professorship. 1895 Beginning of teaching activity (teacher of political economy at the Moscow Technical School). 1896 “On markets under capitalist production” 2. 1897 Passing the master's exam. 1898 January 14, marriage to Elena Ivanovna Tokmakova. Departure on a scientific trip (to Berlin, Paris and London). November 17, birth of daughter Maria. 1900 Return to Moscow from a business trip abroad. 1901 Defense of master's thesis. “Capitalism and Agriculture” (2 volumes). Moving to Kyiv. Election as an ordinary professor of the Kyiv Polytechnic and private associate professor of the Kyiv University. March 12, birth of son Theodore. November 21 public lecture “Ivan Karamazov, as a philosophical type” 3. 1903 “From Marxism to Idealism.” 1905 December 25 birth of son Ivashechka. 1906 Move to Moscow. Elected professor of political economy at the Moscow Commercial Institute and private associate professor at Moscow University. Election to the 2nd State Duma (from the Oryol province). 1909 August 27, death of Ivashechka. 1910 Voluntary leaving the University in connection with the story associated with the Minister of Public Education L. A. Kasso. 1911 “Two Cities” (2 volumes). May 11th birth of son Sergei. 1912 Defense of doctoral dissertation. “Philosophy of Economics” Part I. 1917 “Non-Evening Light”. Election as an ordinary professor of political economy at Moscow University. 1918 Election as a member of the All-Russian Church Council (from the Higher Educational Institutions of Moscow). June 11 (Spirit Day) ordination (in the Danilov Monastery by Bishop Theodore of Volokolamsk). Election as a member of the Supreme Church Council. "Quiet Thoughts" 1919 Move to Crimea. Professorship (political economy and theology) at Simferopol University. Work on “The Tragedy of Philosophy” and “The Philosophy of the Name.” 1921 Loss of professorship at Simferopol University due to priesthood. 1923 January 1st. Expulsion from Russia. Constantinople. In April, moving to Prague. Elected professor of Church law (and theology) at the Russian Faculty of Law in Prague. In September, participation in the 1st Congress of the Russian Student Christian Movement in Psherov 4. 1924 In July, a trip to Paris for the 1st Congress of the RSHD in France in Argeron. 1925 Move to Paris. Appointment as professor of Theology and dean of the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. In August, a trip to Serbia for the III Congress of the RSHD in the Khopovsky Monastery. “Peter and John are the two Chief Apostles.” 1927 In August, participation in the First World Christian Congress on issues of “Faith and Church Order” in Lausanne. “Burning Bush”, “Friend of the Groom”. 1928 In January, participation in the 1st Anglo-Russian religious congress and the beginning of the Commonwealth named after the Holy Martyr of Albania and Rev. Sergius. "Chapters on Trinity". 1929 Participation in the congress of the committee for the continuation of the Lausanne Conference in Maloja (Switzerland). "Jacob's Ladder" 1930 Participation in the congress of the committee for the continuation of the Lausanne Conference in Murren (Switzerland). 1931 “Icon and icon veneration.” "Lamb of God." 1932 "Orthodoxie" 5. "On the miracles of the Gospel." 1936 In April, participation in the Anglo-Russian theological congress in Murfield (England). From 29 Sep. to November 6, a trip to the USA to attend a convention of the Episcopal Church and to give a series of lectures. "Comforter". 1937 July, participation in the II World Christian Congress on “Life and Work” in Oxford. August, participation in the II World Christian Congress on “Faith and Church Order” in Edinburgh. "The Wisdom of God". 6 1938 Participation in the pan-Orthodox congress of theologians in Athens. 1939 March 20 – first operation for throat cancer. April 4 (Holy Tuesday) – second surgery for throat cancer. Loss of voice. 1943 June 14 award of the degree of Doctor of Ecclesiastical Sciences honoris causa by the Orthodox Theological Institute. 1944 On the night of June 5-6 (Dukhov Day) - cerebral hemorrhage. July 12th death. July 15, funeral service in the church of the Theological Institute and burial in the Russian cemetery Ste-Geneviève-des-Bois. Prot. Alexander Shmeman. Three images “A stranger among one’s own, one’s own among strangers...” o. S. Bulgakov, “Autobiography. Notes" Starting with these fragmentary “anniversary” notes about Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, I must immediately stipulate that I was never a “Sophian” and did not belong, and due to my age, perhaps, I could not belong to the circle of his close students and followers. But my graduation from the Paris Theological Institute was the last one to listen to the full course of his lectures; for four years I saw him almost every day - in church, in the classroom, sometimes, very rarely - at his apartment, in the “professor’s” house of the Sergius Compound. And thus, I am one of the witnesses of those last, dying years, when, deprived of his voice, with his throat cut out, he read lectures in some almost inaudible squawk and so obviously for everyone burned in the bright flame of the end, detachment, and expectation of imminent death. I remember his funeral on a bright July day, when everyone gathered at his coffin - friends and admirers and theological opponents, and his last procession took place around the church and then, down the steps, from the hill of St. Sergius, where he lived the last twenty years of his life. And yet, I would hardly have gotten around to it, I would hardly have decided to write about him if it had not been for what struck me on these anniversary days that, without any exaggeration, can be called the tragedy of Fr. Sergius. After all, one hundred years have passed since the birth and more than twenty years since the death of someone whom, no matter how one views his work, one cannot help but recognize one of the most remarkable people of the last tragic half-century of Russian history, and his name is surrounded by almost complete silence. There, in Russia, it is under a self-evident ban. Here, abroad, during the quarter of a century that separates us from his death, not a single serious work about him, not a single real analysis of his teachings, appeared, with the exception of the book of his closest student L. A. Zander. Apparently for some he has already been written off by history, a condemned and exposed “heretic”, while others, busy with their own things, have simply forgotten about him and he is uninteresting and alien to them. Once, defending himself from accusations that seemed hasty and superficial to him, Fr. Sergius wrote with bitterness about “the work of his whole life” and consoled himself with faith in the future free and serious discussion of his theological work. And so, you ask yourself, is this faith of his destined to be in vain and the work of his whole life really does not deserve either attention or discussion? Let us even admit that his teaching is “heretical” and worthy of condemnation. But they also wrote and write about heretics, and not one of them was condemned without a thorough and conscientious analysis of his teaching. And, on the other hand, those who, busy with their own things, have forgotten about him and condescendingly ignore him, don’t they really realize that if there had not been people like Fr. Sergius, would they not exist, just as the air they breathe would not exist? Is it possible that even now, with more than half a century of experience of extinguishing spirits, obscurantism and fanaticism behind us, we still do not understand that at least one of the reasons for this terrible Russian tragedy was that we always had more condemnations than discussions, breaks and denials more than the desire to understand, “principled” narrowness more than spiritual generosity and trust? Let to others this intransigence, this hysterical maximalism in affirmations and denials, all these “if you cut from the shoulder” seem almost the main quality of the “Russian spirit”. As for me, I cannot help but see in this one of the sources of that “Bolshevism” that, after all, not entirely by accident, took over Russia and which can so easily turn from “red”, and often turns into “white”. 7 It is the duty of everyone to resist this, who understands that the true salvation of Russia is not in settling scores, not in simplification and fanaticism, but in the difficult and slow feat of collecting everything on our complex and tragic path, “whatever is honest, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is worthy of praise” (Phil. 4:8), in a return to that high quest, to that hunger and thirst for truth, one of the bearers of which were so obviously Fr. Sergius, there was a great “discussion” that began in Russia, which was cut short by the stupid persecution of the haters of the spirit. Hence, this is my small testimony about Fr. Sergius, I want to tell you the little that my memory has preserved about him. Recently, we have increasingly received information that interest in Fr. Sergius (as well as other representatives of the Russian spiritual renaissance) grows among those amazing and, apparently, indestructible “Russian boys” who there, in Russia, in the Soviet airlessness, took upon themselves the heroic feat of restoring the Russian spiritual tradition, returning to genuine Russia. These lines are addressed to them and dedicated to them. For I, too, was a “Russian boy,” only an emigrant. And this also means, although in a different way - strangers to the reality around me, also doomed to look for what is mine: - something on which one could truly live, to which one could truly give oneself, in which one could find oneself. And so I remember how, when I was sixteen or seventeen years old, I read, almost by accident, two books, although completely different, that equally “captivated” me - “The Burning Bush” by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and “The Way of Russian Theology” by Fr. Georgy Florovsky. I probably understood very little about them at the time, just as I didn’t know that they were written by “ideological enemies.” But I firmly know that it was thanks to these two books, precisely in that memorable spring, that I found myself and myself and took the path that, despite all the difficulties, temptations, trials and falls, constitutes the only meaning of my life. What did Fr. give me then? Sergius? Gave that fire from which only another fire can ignite. He made me feel that only here, in this contact with the Divine light, with its search and contemplation, is the only true purpose of man, that “honor of the highest calling” to which he is called and destined. Inspired by his burning and flight, his faith and joy. He introduced me to something best and purest in the spiritual essence of Russia. And I am sure that it gives the same thing to those who open it now, opens it where the very memory of the spirit is denied and persecuted. I am not going to write a theological analysis of this or that teaching of Fr. Sergius, because I don’t consider myself competent for this. But, besides the theologian and thinker, there was another person whom I remember and whom I remembered much better than his lectures. Almost nothing remained of them in my memory, and perhaps precisely because I looked at him much more than I listened to him. Even then it seemed to me that he himself, his personality, his spiritual appearance was more interesting and important than his teaching, the bringing of which into a harmonious and “scientific” system he devoted his whole life. Even then I vaguely felt that more than this system and this teaching, what would remain is what is around them, behind them, what shines through them and sometimes shines with heavenly light and burns with fire, but which the “system” somehow almost interferes with. It seems to me that Kant or Hegel said everything that they wanted to say and exactly as they wanted, and they will not add anything to this from the testimony of people who knew them or the details of their biography. And regarding Fr. Sergius, I am sure this is not so, although I, of course, could not prove the correctness of this feeling “scientifically”. They wrote about him and said that he was a “heretic.” But looking at him, following him, or, in V.V. Veidle’s words about him, “admiring” him, I felt with my whole being: no, this man is not a heretic, but, on the contrary, he shines with the most important, the most authentic that is contained in Orthodoxy. And, at the same time, reading him, trying to follow in his thick volumes the complex dialectic of “Divine Sophia” and “Created Sophia”, “hypostasis” and “hypostasis”, I just as strongly felt: - not this, not so, not about that, although, of course, I could not and would not dare to express this feeling with that “extraordinary ease” that is inherent in those who have proliferated in our time "Heresemaham." And I know that I was not the only one who felt and experienced this duality, that for many it constituted a kind of mystery about. Sergius. I believe that the time will come when this mystery, when Fr. Sergius in the history of Russian theology and, more broadly, Russian culture, will be devoted to full-fledged works. While waiting for this time, all that remains is to make efforts to ensure that what remains of Fr. Sergius not only his works, but at least a little from the experience of his personality, from an unforgettable meeting with him on his life’s path for everyone who experienced it. When I think about Fr. Sergius, I always remember, and above all, three of his images or appearances. I saw him, as I already said, often and for many years, but every time I remember him, it is these three faces that appear before my mind’s eye with extraordinary vividness. The first memory dates back to the time before I entered the Paris Theological Institute. Almost while still a boy, a student at the French Lyceum, I often went to the Sergievskoye Compound. This was a period of fascination with monastic services, strict chants, and all that “beautifully otherworldly” that so easily captivates the youthful imagination and that bloomed in those years in the Compound, thanks to the truly great “master”, the late M. M. Osorgin. And I remember how one autumn, rainy evening I was running to vespers from the metro station, along the noisy and very proletarian Krymskaya Street. Illuminated cafes, benches, poor people returning from work, noise, shouts of merchants, electric lights spreading across the wet sidewalks. And in this crowd and bustle, I suddenly see Fr. walking slowly. Sergius, immersed in deep thought, clearly not seeing anything around him. A black priestly hat, a modest cassock, a cross, long gray hair flowing over the shoulders... Why does this memory always come back? I did not approach Fr. Sergius, did not greet him, did not speak to him. Even much later, it always seemed to me impossible, almost obscene, to disturb him, to draw his attention to me, to bring him down from those heights at which, so obvious to me, he had always been. Then, that evening, I didn’t even know him and knew little about him. I knew that he was something very famous, wonderful, inaccessible. And I just saw a Russian priest, I would like to say a village priest. And I think what subconsciously struck me was precisely this contrast between what I vaguely knew about him: a great thinker, a former Marxist, the focus of some intense accusations and disputes - and what I saw. Because the fact of the matter is that the more I learned about. Sergius, the more clearly he understood that this appearance was not at all accidental, but, on the contrary, an organic expression of his deepest essence. ABOUT. It is impossible to imagine Sergius either in “synodal” splendor - say, in a miter or with some kind of “cross with decorations”, or in the plastic-sacral appearance of the Byzantine version, nor - and this is perhaps the most important thing - clothed in something of his own, special, individual, emphasizing and expressing his peculiarity, exclusivity, etc. It is impossible not because of some special humility o. Sergius, indifference to externals, to awards, etc. Fr. Sergius undoubtedly attached great importance, and just as undoubtedly knew his place. No, this was truly and organically his image, he himself, and this in the era of the collapse of style, when many in the Church, not finding, not having an organic style, began to fall into “stylization.” I say all this, and I probably remember it because most often in connection with the name of Fr. Sergius pronounced the word “modernist”. Meanwhile, I am absolutely convinced that the most basic, deepest spiritual and psychological trait of Fr. Sergius was precisely the ultimate “anti-modernism,” what he himself, with obvious pleasure, called his “soilism.” Enemies o. Sergius was always accused of being an “intellectual”, his return to the Church was put under suspicion, they contrasted him with another, supposedly inaccessible to him - an intellectual, a former Marxist and professor of political economy - “true churchliness” and “true Orthodoxy.” It is noteworthy, however, that this persecution of Fr. Sergius - in contrast to serious theological criticism - came primarily from those who themselves had recently found this notorious “soil” and who, therefore, felt a pathological need to both themselves and others to continually assure themselves of their “true churchliness” and “genuine Orthodoxy,” identifying them mainly with the denunciation of all kinds of “deviations” and “heresies.” All this, however, is not surprising and banal. A “repentant intellectual” easily becomes a Black Hundred member and an obscurantist. A person wounded by the revolution and torn out of his usual life seeks in the Church, first of all, “everyday life” and “soil”, which seem to him to be the only protection from chaos and decay. Meanwhile, there was nothing of the “repentant intellectual” in Fr. Sergius. Son, grandson, great-grandson, great-great-grandson of priests, who grew up and developed spiritually in church life, Fr. Sergius was the purest aristocrat of Levitical blood. He carried his soil within himself, even when he left for a while for a “distant country,” without, however, even then changing his mountainous aspiration and the primacy of the spiritual within himself. He didn't have to search and find her. Returning to the Church, he returned home, not in some figurative, but in a literal sense, and becoming a priest, he entered into his original, innate. Hence, of course, his “filial freedom” in the Church, which his theological opponent, Fr. Georgy Florovsky and about which the newly minted zealots of “true Orthodoxy” so often have no idea. The soil is o. Sergius was, of course, Russian Orthodoxy. It goes without saying that this phrase is not of a dogmatic order, for dogmatically, doctrinally, Russian Orthodoxy is no different from the Byzantine, universal Orthodoxy that gave birth to and nurtured it. It can hardly be denied, however, that the Russian people (as, indeed, other Orthodox peoples) had and have their own “experience” of this common Orthodoxy, their own special perception of it and their own “emphasis” on it. I by no means share the extremes to which A. V. Kartashev and G. P. Fedotov went in their definitions of “Russian Christianity,” although each in his own way. There is no doubt, however, that within universal Orthodoxy there is a special Russian type of it, historically established, although not easily defined. This is almost elusive, dimming and fading from words and definitions, a combination of everything that Fedotov called “kenotism” (“in a slave form, the King of Heaven...”) with a joyful, truly Easter “cosmism”, with some kind of almost tenderness for God’s creation. What every Russian intuitively feels and loves in the white, joyful image of the “poor old man Seraphim”, which is most perfectly embodied in Russian icon painting and church construction, in Russian church singing, in the Russian “reception” of Byzantine worship; that, finally, which, without any doubt, constitutes the final and mysterious depth of Russian literature... Here, I repeat, nothing should be exaggerated or emphasized, but neither should it be understated. O. Sergius was not, of course, a narrow nationalist. After the Revolution, as he himself wrote, “any irresponsible Slavophilism became intolerable to him.” And it is enough to read the enthusiastic, almost exalted pages dedicated to them to the “church of all churches” of Orthodoxy - St. Sophia of Constantinople to feel the truly universal inspiration of his faith. He was open to everything genuine, everything true in the West. And yet it is clear that of all the historical incarnations of Christianity, he loved the Russian incarnation dearly and organically. I dwell on this because here, it seems to me, one can and should look for at least one of the keys to his work, one of his secret “engines.” It grows in depth from the desire to present, explain, justify this Russian experience of the church and churchliness, the experience gained in the integral paradise of childhood and so tenderly described by him in his “Autobiographical Notes”. And thus, to overcome and fill up the abyss that separated the Church from Russian consciousness, separated the Russian intelligentsia from its own depth, from its natural roots. This is the excommunication of Fr. Sergius learned from his own experience. And this experience of leaving and returning to the lost paradise, but returning in the fullness of knowledge - where and to what he returned, is the fundamental basis of his creativity. In its origins it is apologetic. It is directed not only inwards - towards the church, but also outwards - towards the world, yearning for a holistic faith and therefore serving “alien gods”, but seeking that final unity, the final integrity that Fr. Sergius is precisely in Russian Orthodoxy, as - at the same time - its “givenness”, but also its “givenness”... This is where, it seems to me, the combination in his image of a certain “grounded” Russian priest with a non-stop flight of thought, with an unquenchable desire to tell about what - what depth, what beauty, what all-encompassing truth - is found by the prodigal son, who returned to his father’s house. The second memory, forever etched in my memory, and again, I think, is not accidental. All-night vigil at the Sergievsky Compound on Palm Sunday. A long, solemn bishop's service with many servants, with singing in two choirs, one better than the other, with the singing of stichera “with the canonarch,” so that every word of the amazing chants of this holiday really “gets through.” This vigil has been going on for many hours, it has already reached that moment, familiar to church people, when the line of fatigue has been crossed, the sense of time has disappeared and one can continue to stand like this for hours without noticing them. Here begins the singing of psalms of praise, this final, solemn chord in every festive matins. Now, after the “stichera on the praises,” the royal doors open and two faces, meeting in the middle of the church, begin, slowly and soulfully, the last one - “before the six days of Easter, Jesus came to Bethany and His disciples came to Him, saying to Him - Lord, where will we prepare for you to eat the Passover; He sent them, go to the hallway, all of you...” And forever, for the rest of my life, I remember the face, or better yet, the face of Fr. Sergius, whom, standing close to him, I must accidentally look at at this moment. I will never forget him, his eyes and tears glowing with some kind of quiet delight and all this striving forward and upward, as if, indeed, to that “all before” where Christ is preparing the last Easter with his disciples. Why did I remember this minute so well? Therefore, it seems that the memory of her involuntarily returned to me every time I read and listened to the accusations of Fr. Sergius in “pantheism” and “gnosticism”, in blurring the line between God and creation, in the deification of the world, etc. I don’t know how much all this can be objectively deduced from the texts of Fr. Sergius, because, I repeat, a real, serious analysis of his writings has not yet begun, and he himself indignantly rejected these accusations. But I know that this memory was returning, because these accusations so obviously contradicted what, in all likelihood, struck and always struck me most about Fr. Sergius: his “eschatologism”, his everlasting, joyful, bright focus on the end. Of all the people I have met, only Fr. Sergius was “eschatological” in the direct, simple, early Christian sense of the word, meaning not only the teaching of the end, but also the expectation of the end. Of course, in words we all profess faith in the second coming of the Lord, in the end of the world, we all repeat daily: “Thy kingdom come.” But how many Christians really wait on the Lord and live by this wait? How many Christians have not just, say, “reconciled” with death, but have transformed it into the bright sacrament of meeting the Lord, into the path of “more truly communing with Him in the eternal days of the Kingdom”? There are, of course, in every era, and especially in ours, all sorts of “apocalypticists” who herald the doomsday, obsessed with all sorts of fears, guessing “times and seasons” about which, according to Scripture, “neither the angels nor the Son” know. But we are not talking about them, because this apocalyptic and dark panic has nothing in common with the bright faith of early Christianity. We read about it in books about the early Church, but how little of it there is in our modern church life. In theological textbooks, eschatology has long been reduced to the doctrine of “retribution,” and in piety to speculation about the “afterlife fate of the dead.” And o. Sergius really lived in expectation of the Lord, he was not only consciously, but precisely brightly and joyfully turned towards death, and for him everything in this life was already shining with the light of the coming Kingdom. And he was so worried about Palm Sunday precisely because for him (as well as for the Church) it was an eschatological holiday, a flash in this world, “assurance” on earth of the eternal Kingdom of God... “This royal glory,” he writes, “quickly ceased, just as the Tabor radiance soon went out, and after it begins the week of Christ’s passion. The Lord's entry into Jerusalem was only a significant precursor to future accomplishments that lay beyond the suffering and resurrection. However, the fullness of the Epiphany, which was for us in Christ, would not have been accomplished if the rays of His glory had not sparkled on earth in the transfiguration, and the manifestation of His Kingdom had not been shown at His Royal Entrance. The latter was a prophecy of the future...” (Lamb of God, p. 444). I do not know whether such an eschatological aspiration is compatible with “pantheism.” But I feel with all my being that it is impossible without personal, all-encompassing love for Christ. For only love waits and lives by waiting. Only love conquers the fear of death. Only love fulfills faith, as “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen” (Heb. 11:1). And it was precisely this love for Christ that flowed from the image of Fr. Sergius and she, of course, amazed me at that Palm Vespers. It is no coincidence that each of the large books of his last trilogy ends with the first Christian call: “Come to her, Lord Jesus.” Without understanding this, without feeling this permeation of the entire work of Fr. with eschatological expectation. Sergius, it is impossible, I think, either to understand correctly or to correctly evaluate his theological thought. I will add to this that in the revival of eschatology, not as a separate “topic,” but as a dimension and inspiration inherent in Christian theology as a whole, in all its “topics,” I see one of the main merits of Russian religious thought. This inspiration, as I have already said, almost completely disappeared from Orthodox theology in the era of its Western, scholastic captivity. This does not mean that everything in Russian “eschatologism” is equally acceptable, that everything in it is free from exaggeration, one-sidedness, even double meaning. However, in the very return to something primordial in Christianity, without which it becomes insipid and shallow, it seems to me that one cannot help but see a phenomenon of enormous importance for the Church. Third memory of Fr. Sergius, his third image, no longer refers to just one moment, not to one memorable meeting. This is a memory of Fr. Sergius at the throne, serving the Liturgy. In those last years, due to illness and lack of voice, he served only early liturgies. He served, because of the apparatus that replaced the throat, in very light, white vestments. What do I remember here? I will say right away that it was not the “beauty” of his service, for if by beauty we mean rhythm and smoothness of movements, deliberate solemnity, “skill,” then Fr. Sergius is, perhaps, “ugly.” Somehow I never learned to cense. And in all his movements there was something angular and impetuous, something that was neither smooth nor rhythmic. But, speaking about his service, remembering him, it is impossible to do without the clumsy and ponderous Church Slavonic expression: serving, Fr. Sergius really did the liturgy. There was something in his service, in its very angularity and impetuosity, primitive and elemental, something from an ancient priest or an Old Testament high priest. He did not just perform a ritual that was traditional in all its little details. He completely, completely dissolved in it and the impression was that the Liturgy was being served for the first time, falling from the sky and ascending from the earth for the first time. The bread and the cup on the throne, the fire of the candles, the incense smoke, those hands raised to the sky: all this was not just a “service”. Here something was happening to the entire universe, something eternal, cosmic - “terrible and glorious” - in the Slavic meaning of these liturgical words. And, it seems to me, it is no coincidence that the writings of Fr. Sergius is so often equipped and, as it were, weighted down with liturgical Slavicisms, they themselves so often begin to sound like liturgical praise. This is not stylization. For the theology of Fr. Sergius, at its last depth, is precisely and above all “liturgical” - the revelation of the experience given in worship, the transmission of that mysterious “glory” that permeates it, that “sacrament” in which it is rooted and the “epiphany” of which it is. The appearance of God, but therefore also of the world in its Divine primordiality, the Divine roots of creation, destined for God to fill it and become “all in all.” I think, though, what can I “prove scientifically” here? – what exactly is the reality, the certainty of this liturgical experience, primary in the life of Fr. Sergius, as it were, “pushed” him to search for new words and definitions, and that here, and not in book or ideological influences, is the real source of “Sophianism.” No matter how you “build” this concept later. Sergius, neither defining it theologically nor elevating it to “Sophia,” is the primary and authentic experience here – purely Orthodox! - divine services, liturgy as “heaven on earth”, as a revelation of “sophia”: transformed “kindness”, the beauty of creation. And therefore, his best pages are not those where he tries to “define” his essentially indefinable, “hypostatic” Sophia, but those that reflect the light and joy of his liturgical experience and vision. From this experience and vision, which he truly, completely and completely lived, Fr. Sergius conceived the idea of ​​building a complete and comprehensive theological system. And so, let him forgive me if I, who owe him so much, and am truly unworthy to untie the strap of his shoes, still say in all honesty that in this desire of his for a “system” I see, as it were, some kind of his downfall. It seems to me that here Fr. Sergius succumbed to a kind of “temptation”. Reading his works, especially his later, most systematic ones, I often wanted to mentally say to him approximately what, in Chekhov’s “Duel,” the good-natured doctor Samoilenko says to the self-confident idealist-systematicist von Koren: “This is for you, dear Fr. Sergius, the Germans ruined it." The Russian intelligentsia believed in this “German”, Western “systematicism” as the main condition for “scientificness”, but in a completely Russian way - with unbridled, enthusiastic maximalism, making it almost some kind of idol. Meanwhile, the concept of “integrity” on the one hand, and systematicity on the other, are hardly synonymous. The theology of the Church Fathers, for example, is holistic, “catholic,” and this is its eternal and enduring value, but it is hardly possible to derive a smooth and final “system” from it. It seems to be the opposite: the more “holistic” the experience from which a thought is born, the deeper the vision, the less amenable to “systematization” they are, the more obvious the “reduction” occurs in it: simplification, coarsening and even distortion of experience. Perhaps this is why the Orthodox East did not give birth to any dogmatic “systems” similar to the “summa” of Thomas Aquinas and did not canonize, like Western religions, a special category of “symbolic books”. But in about. Sergius combined, and did not completely merge, as if two people: one is an “experienced” seer of the Divine glory and joy revealed in the Church, and the other is a “scientist”, a professor - who sought not only to tell this mystery, and not only to explain, but also so on. “without remainder” to be presented in a philosophical-theological system, translated from “doxological” language into discursive language. Hence the kind of “stylistic” failure of Fr. Sergius: these two languages ​​do not merge with him and are not transformed into a single language, into some kind of organic evidence. The experience that shines in his writings convinces and captivates, but how often they do not convince - but raise doubts and even objections, words and definitions. And here, it seems to me, lies the path to solving the “riddle” of Fr. Sergius, his life and creative tragedy. This tragedy, ultimately, lies in the fact that his system (namely the “system”, and not the endless wealth of everything that it “systematizes”) does not correspond to his experience. If, using his own words, his “Sophia” experience is not only deeply Orthodox, but, as I said at the beginning, reveals something most important, the most profound in the experience of the Church, then “Sophia”, as a philosophical and theological “formulation” of this experience, is not needed, and is not needed, first of all, by the theology itself of Fr. Sergius. It is perceived, strange as it may sound, as some kind of alien and precisely far-fetched element in his writings, as an explanation and “justification” of that (veneration of the Mother of God and John the Baptist, God-manhood and eschatology, etc.) that not only does not need such an explanation, but that Fr. Sergius has already revealed and explained. For everything that he writes about, which constitutes the theme and inspiration of his entire work: the bright and Paschal cosmism of Orthodoxy, the mystery of God-manhood, the faithfulness of Orthodoxy to the “good” of the creative act, the victorious expectation and anticipation of the Kingdom of Christ, all this does not “need” Sophia or the “soul of the world,” just as the Orthodox intuition of freedom does not need Berdyaev’s “primordial freedom.” For all this “enough” is the bright and joyful mystery of the Most Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Spirit. For everything that Fr. wants to protect, defend, proclaim and reveal. Sergius, in response to the question that “spreads like a serpentine whisper across the earth: whose world is the God-man or the man-god, Christ or Antichrist,” which is revealed in his works with such prophetic power, spiritual fervor and, often, theological genius, there is no need for “Sophia” for Christ, God’s Power and God’s Wisdom are “sufficient”, the Holy Spirit is “sufficient”, Comforter, the Church is “sufficient”, the Bride of the Lamb, and no one today convinces of this better and stronger than Fr. Sergius. Therefore, it seems to me that we cannot simply talk about accepting the system. Sergius, nor simply about her rejection. I am sure that when the time comes for a calm and deep church discussion of it, the Church will ultimately, as it were, “rewrite” his teaching completely. She will accept in him with love and gratitude everything that truly reveals the final depths of her experience and that with such power of faith, hope and love thundered in a world drowning in demonic boredom and the dead end of its “secularism”, its falling away from God. And, as she has done more than once in the past, she “eliminates” Fr. Sergius, everything that, in essence, obscures him makes him a system, and not another glorious and enduring testimony of the truth. He himself, I have no doubt about this, will remain in the memory of the Church for what he really was: - a prophet and seer of secrets, a leader to some mountainous and beautiful country, to which he called us all with all his appearance, burning, spiritual authenticity. I don’t know, and no one knows, what will happen to Russia. But, remembering Fr. Sergius and, together with him, the entire amazing galaxy that, not by chance, shone in Russia simultaneously with the growth of the Russian catastrophe; I have no doubt about one thing. The fact is that Russian culture, Russia as a spiritual destiny, has no other path than to the Church. Every nation, after all, has only one calling. He can, of course, refuse it and continue to exist. He can achieve prosperity and satiety, prosperity and power - “to the fear of his enemies”... But then the Gospel words also apply to him: “What good will it do him if he gains the whole world, but damages his soul?” The calling of the soul of Russia - Russian culture - was to answer one question: what is “culture”, what is its meaning and content, after Christ, after the Incarnation, after Pentecost? The Christian West at some fateful moment in its history abandoned this question, simply “removed it from the agenda” and, in essence, it was only in this refusal and renunciation that Russian thinkers and writers, starting with Chaadaev and Khomyakov, denounced it. Having proclaimed, in its earthly and calculating wisdom, the “autonomy” of culture, wisely and self-confidently delineating the spheres of “religion” and “culture,” the West did not know, and even now does not understand, that it was then that the internal decay of both religion and culture began, the ominous signs of which our time is filled with. Russian culture accepted this question and made it truly a question of the spiritual fate of Russia itself. And its current fall does not change anything about this, for this is precisely what reveals it as a fall, that it could not create any other culture, but created an “anti-culture” unprecedented in its size, mediocrity and vulgarity. In its fall, Russian culture could not become anything else. And therefore this fall itself, this “anti-culture” itself, serves as the best proof of what that other, genuine, Russian culture testified with all its inner fire and tension. You can no longer be deceived: the emptiness, lies and counterfeit of the Soviet “anti-culture” are not at all due to the lack of “civil liberties”, from brutal violence and terror. The same emptiness, counterfeit and lies are beginning to appear more and more clearly in places where “civil liberties” still reign and the complete “autonomy” of culture is ensured. For the real point, of course, is that this “autonomous” culture itself increasingly obviously has nothing and nothing to say, nothing to embody. The only difference is that in the country that used to be called Russia, this “nothing” is, in addition, ordered to be clothed in an unbearably unctuous, optimistic lie, while in the West no one prevents culture from bearing witness to its own decomposition with ever greater technical perfection. But wasn’t all this predicted and proclaimed in Russia through the mouths of Russian writers and thinkers? Wasn’t true Russian culture, at its last depths, precisely a prophecy and a warning? Are her ups, but also her failures and downfalls, not due to the hidden, permeating knowledge that in the world in which Christ was, it is impossible to live or create as if He did not exist? As if man were not deified in him and lifted up to God? As if the Comforter Spirit had not descended in that mysterious third hour and the rain of grace had not poured down on the earth? As if after the Incarnation and the Crucifixion, Easter and the Ascension, all “autonomy” had not become impossible, terrible, truly suicidal? And so, what latently, perhaps, inspired Russian culture from the very beginning, then - at the very end, when the catastrophe was already growing inexorably, became the theme and question of Russian thought itself, and in it, reviving, liberated from its Western, scholastic swaddling clothes, Orthodox theology. And, of course, the most important and profound thing in this revival is that Russian religious and theological thought responded to the main and most terrible temptation of our time - the temptation to disincarnate Christ, to take His peace from Him - with a creative, inspired confession of the Church. It would probably be necessary to clarify here that what is meant by the Church here is not what the de-churched Russian intelligentsia associated with this word and what, strange and regrettable as it may sound, the “church members” themselves too often convinced them of, with their indifference to culture, if not their open and simplified denial of it. I don't do this because, in essence, that's exactly what Fr. Sergius, this is exactly what his work is about, his call, his testimony. Because he himself returned not to “Christianity” in general, not to vague Christian idealism and humanism, but to the Throne, on which the sacrament of the Incarnation is eternally “fulfilled” and the fire for which Christ yearned when it was kindled descends. And he returned not for peace or escape, but in order to enlighten with this fire and return to Christ the world that is always falling away from Him and forgetting about Him. No, of course, the Church is not for culture and not about culture. But only from its fire was born that culture, unique in its depth and freedom, truth and humanity, the collapse of which, the renunciation of which is dehumanizing the world before our eyes. The Church is not for culture. But only the Church can make it a holistic response of man to God to His gift, fill it with truth, goodness and beauty, without which she cannot live... And therefore, if there is still a future, there is a path for Russian culture, where else can it go? Again, once again, to the West? But what was in the West from this fire has long become ours and blood. And after Dostoevsky and Tolstoy, there is no right to “discover” Kafka and the surrealists, Beckett and the “new novel”, “formalists”, “structuralists” and other magicians. In your ancient, pre-Petrine, pre-Pushkin originality, in your self-intoxication with the “Russian spirit”? But Russian culture cannot, without betraying itself, renounce its universality, its “all-humanity”, about which many empty and proud words have been said, but which nevertheless was and is... And here, at this crossroads, the last Russian “prophecy” shines as a guiding star - about the Church, as that new reality in which the mystery of the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom “not of this world”, can become and eternally becomes the source and power of life, creativity and salvation in “this world.” Even if there were many errors, ambiguities and ambiguities in this prophecy. Let something in him, in order to come to life and become a force, must “fall to the ground and die.” Let some things have to be eliminated, and some things have to become clearer. Basically it is true. Correct in questioning. Faithful in its ultimate aspiration and hope. You think about it, you rejoice about it and believe in it, remembering Fr. Sergius Bulgakov. Forefeast of the Nativity of Christ. Prot. Georgy Serikov. The doctrine of apokatastasis (of universal restoration) from the “Father of Fathers” (St. Gregory of Nyssa) and from Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov The initial thought of St. Gregory of Nyssa about universal restoration (apokatastasis), as is known, 8 was his teaching about evil. Following Origen, the Father of Fathers taught that evil has no essence, that it is “non-existent” (mi he), that it is only the absence of good. Only good has independent existence. Although the saint recognized the objective reality of evil, he nevertheless considered it to have occurred through the denial of good and not to have substantial existence. (The bishop of Nyssa saw a clear illustration of this situation in blindness, which does not occur in nature, but is only the absence of eyes). Evil is not from God, it is the deprivation of good, non-being, and the time will come when there will be only God (1 Cor. 15:28). Evil, which has no basis for itself in the Divine will, must be abolished and, like a bark or growth, must fall from the good nature. Upon the general restoration of everything in God, even the memory of evil will be destroyed. Evil must someday cease also because it is limited, and not unlimited like Good: following the path of its development, it will someday have to reach a point beyond which forward movement will no longer be possible and evil will be forced to go in the opposite direction, towards good. And thus, the “limit” of evil is followed by the succession of good. Then the divine purpose of creation will be achieved, which was done “very well” (Gen. 1:31). In the matter of universal apocatastasis and human deification, the incarnation, the redemptive universal sacrifice of the Savior and His resurrection were of exceptional importance. Commenting on the words of Ap. Paul that through the death of Christ “every tribe of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth will worship Him and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil. 2:10-11), - Gregory of Nyssa by “heavenly” means the angelic order, by “earthly” - living people, and by “hell” - all the dead, as well as demons and evil spirits. Saint Gregory considered it impossible for demons to eternally persist in evil and for sinners to become bitter in their iniquities. He believed that there was no reason to think that the free will of a creature in the next world would retain the freedom to remain only in evil. He considered this idea completely false. So the power of Christ’s atoning sacrifice will spread to evil spirits, and the devil will one day return to his original blissful state and realize his powerlessness. Commenting on the words of Ap. Paul to the Corinthians that once “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), Saint Gregory saw in them confirmation of his thoughts about universal restoration and the complete destruction of evil. “Because,” he said, “if there is God in all beings, then undoubtedly there will be no evil in them.” And since evil will certainly be destroyed, then there will be no sinners. Then there will be only saints. Then the restoration of all creation to its primitive state will finally be completed. General restoration must come due to the fullness of the creative plan of Divine Wisdom. This completeness will be damaged and the purpose of creation will not be achieved if the entire creation in all its fullness (plʹroma) does not truly participate in bliss. All creation needs to achieve participation in God's blessings, which, according to the Apostle Paul, “eye has not seen, nor ear has heard, and which are beyond the reach of thought” (1 Cor. 2:9). To the hellish torment of St. Gregory of Nyssa looked not only at the punishment of sinners, but also as a means of healing them from sins, at a kind of purgatory. But sooner or later, having been cleansed of sins, souls will reach their goal and come to God. Yes, and Saint Gregory looked at all human life as a path and that the journey beyond the grave continues along the path of increasing heavenly bliss. Like Origen, St. Gregory believed that the teaching of the Holy. Scriptures about the eternity of hellish torment were admitted for educational purposes. And perhaps, just like his teacher, he believed that the word eternity (eon) in the Holy. Scripture sometimes denotes only a long duration, and not the Divine, timeless infinity. Moving on to what Fr. said about apocatastasis. Sergius, the first thing that needs to be noted is that in this matter the greatest theologian of our time, generally speaking, was not original, although he clarified, developed and strengthened a lot. This is referring to St. Gregory of Nyssa Fr. Sergius taught that the thought of the infinity of hellish torment would affirm the eternity of evil and its co-eternity with good - which would lead to dualism. 10 But evil does not have in itself the creative power of eternity, and therefore cannot extend into infinity. Clarifying the thoughts of St. Gregory, Fr. Sergius said that “eternal fire”, “eternal torment”, “eternal destruction” have nothing to do with time 11, but are qualitative definitions. There are two concepts of eternity: on the one hand, the religious concept of the eternity of God, the eternity of the Divine attributes (love, life, trinity, beauty, truth, immutability, freedom, omniscience, omnipresence...) the eternity of the Kingdom of Heaven. This eternity is as transcendental to the flow of time as the Creator is to creation. This eternity is not at all commensurate with chronology. This eternity of quality category. But in the Bible and in theology they sometimes talk about “eternity” in the sense of a chronological flow that has a longer or shorter duration (Hegel called such a theoretical eternity, continuing without end, “bad infinity.”) This difference in the understanding of “eternity” must be kept in mind so as not to make a mistake: in some cases we must reject in advance the interpretation of eternity as infinity in time, as a temporary definition, but must understand it as a special quality. Eternal life in God, the Kingdom of Heaven and the eternity of hellish torment cannot be “eternal” by the same eternity. If the Kingdom of God is the basis and goal of the creation of the world, its supreme foundation in God, then can it be said that at the creation of the world, the existence of hell and its eternity were included in its fullness? Did God create hell, if not in immediate reality, then at least only in potentiality? Or is hell the creation of Satan and his angels, as well as the free creatures who fell under his influence? And if Matthew 25:34 speaks equally about eternal torment along with eternal life, then this only definitely indicates the significant difference between both types of eternity. Between time and eternity there is by no means the relationship that is usually perceived, because eternity is not a temporary, but precisely a qualitative definition. Definitions such as “eternal bliss”, “eternal torment”, “eternal fire” and their synonyms do not at all mean endless time. They simply don’t talk about time at all, just as John 17:3 doesn’t talk about it: “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.” The eschatological texts of the Gospel speak of eternity and eternal life in God as a turn to God that permeates all existence. This is seeing the face of God, life with God, in God and before God. Regarding chronological time, the Apocalypse of John directly states that in the next world “there will be no more time” (Rev. 10:6). Like St. Gregory of Nyssa, Fr. Sergius dwells on the universal meaning of the atoning sacrifice of Christ. “Was it not for the sins of all mankind that the Son of God tasted the sorrow of Gethsemane and the death of Calvary?! Was not the divine eternity of these torments concentrated and lived out here on earth in time?” (Here it is clear that “redemption in eternity” does not mean time of infinite duration, but means its infinite divine intensity). How can one forget the words of Christ: “It is not the will of the Heavenly Father that one of these little ones should perish” (Matthew 18:14) and that those rejected by Christ still remain in His love and are embraced by His universal atoning sacrifice, which for the rejected “forever and ever” is an atoning sacrifice as long as the power of rejecting the rejected remains?! Like Saint Nyssa (and like Origen) Fr. Sergius asks the question: does the atonement accomplished by Christ apply to demons? If the answer is no, would this not be a limitation of Divine love and the power of redemption, which have no limits? On the other hand, bearing in mind the freedom given by God to the creature - and not so wavering and perverse as that of people, but already determined in evil like that of demons - by answering the question posed positively, we thereby limit the freedom of the creature or simply even eliminate it! (and then we transfer the blame for evil in the world and the Fall to God). Here about. Sergius, following Gregory of Nyssa, considers the question of the determinism of human destinies (and in general the destinies of all free creatures) after the Second Coming and Judgment, and in particular the question of the determinism (“eternity”) of hell, and, like St. Gregory, Father Sergius believes that in the afterlife the process continues in eternity, the path of cleansing from sins continues and, therefore, together with the Father of Fathers, he thinks that The mysterious fire of hell is a cleansing, healing fire. 12 The theological point of view of people who insist on the determinism of hell and the eternity of hellish torment Fr. Sergius calls it a criminal penitentiary. From this point of view, God’s relationship with the world is determined by the beginning of retribution alone, contrary to the direct word of the Lord: “God did not send His Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17), “I came not to judge the world, but to save the world” (John 12:47). “This penitentiary-criminal point of view is the most vulnerable from the theodicy: It accepts that from eternity God introduced hell and eternal torment into the creation of the world and gave them the power of being on a par with the Kingdom of God prepared from the creation of the world. Thus, the last accomplishment includes an ontological failure, precisely in its dualistic character: along with the eternity of the Kingdom of God, the same eternity of hell is affirmed! The Calvary sacrifice turns out to be powerless to overcome hell - about which, it turns out, the Old Testament prophet Hosea and the apostle of Christ rejoiced in vain, exclaiming: “Where is your victory, hell?! (Hos.13:14, 1 Cor.15:55)" With the criminal-penitentiary point of view on the eternity of hellish torment, the sophistry of the world finds its limit in the antisophia of hell, in which pitch darkness reigns in the absence of the light of God - dark anti-sophia. Here the omnipotence and Wisdom of God are exhausted, but another principle of existence raises its head, which God cannot weaken, or, what is even less clear, he himself establishes it. Proponents of the penal worldview defend their view of the eternity of hell as “a pedagogical benefit to avoid human licentiousness, libertinism, irresponsibility and false sentimentalism. But it must be said that such pedagogy does not achieve the goal: theological intimidation with endless suffering in hellish immutability is powerless to break human reason and conscience, which do not accept “eternal” retribution for temporary, although perhaps very strong, sins. Father Sergius does not say, like N. A. Berdyaev, that in our time no one anymore believes in the eternity of hellish torment, however, taking into account modern psychology, he doubts the moral benefit of intimidation: “What is real for human psychology is not abstract-infinite, but immediately impending, concrete suffering. And the predominance of the pedagogy of fear in eschatology, which was, perhaps, appropriate and effective in the psychology of past centuries, is ineffective and rather shocking in our days. A thought intended to terrorize souls does not achieve its goal. Stunning sensitive hearts with horror, paralyzing their filial love and childish trust in the Heavenly Father, he likens Christianity to Islam, replacing love with fear. Theological intimidation is impotent and inappropriate as inconsistent with the dignity of a person called to the free love of God. Undoubtedly, the axiom must be fully recognized here that every evil of which every person is guilty must be overcome by himself, to the depths and exhaustively, even in his forgiveness. It cannot be forgiven freely, without suffering, for that would not be goodness, but a contradiction of the truth. The truth of God is irreconcilable with sin. He cannot simply be dismissed and forgotten, but must be revealed in front of her. Therefore, the very idea that one can avoid the consequences of sin with impunity is insane, cowardly and false. We may not be talking at all about deviating from the Truth of God, but about its Christian understanding. And it must be said frankly that reason and conscience do not accept the doctrine of the eternity of torment, understood in the sense of endless time, in its motionless immutability, as is usually stated. By proclaiming the infinity of torment, we would thereby affirm the eternity of evil and the co-eternity of its good, together with the invincible bitterness of sinners in enmity towards God. Saint Nyssa also pointed out the teleological basis for the doctrine of universal apocatastasis, saying that the Divine goal of the creation of people can only be achieved when humanity, in its entirety, truly takes part in bliss, for this is the goal of the Wisdom of God. Developing this thought of the saint, Fr. Sergius also derives, so to speak, an ecclesiological argument in favor of apocatastasis and says that although the Judgment of God is a personal Judgment and is performed on every person, at the same time, it is also a universal, church Judgment, for the humanity of Christ is one, and the fate of everyone is connected with everyone, and is responsible for everyone. “Therefore, the ugly and strange idea that the righteous, having received their “reward” and plunged into it, immediately forget about their brothers suffering in hell, of course, cannot be tolerated!” Is it really because of the appearance of God-Love that their hearts become frozen in self-love and lose even the degree of love that they had for each other before the general resurrection? On the contrary, the rejection of the rejected, in a certain sense, affects all of humanity. And the righteous suffer from the hell of sinners in their heavenly abodes. Salvation is not only the destiny of each individual, but also a matter of love, prayer, and the efforts of all mankind. Therefore, hell is a common sorrow. Here we touch upon the mystery of the future century, which enters our consciousness only as an antinomian postulate of universal participation in the life of heaven and hell in their compatibility. The existence of hell is surrounded not by the coldness of selfish indifference, but by the bright cloud of protective love of saved humanity, that is, the Church, which remains forever as one, holy, catholic and universal. In it, one humanity is not divided into two, as it were, and does not reconcile itself with the cutting off of one of its parts - hell, but is pained by it. And although, again, this pain of some about others cannot be interpreted in the sense of earthly deceit, some kind of spiritual gift - for sin must be suffered and overcome, and the debtor will not be released from prison until he pays back “to the last coin”, but - it must be said frankly - and paradise in its entirety does not exist, as long as and since there is hell, which is, as it were, an internal border for him. Forgetting the “righteous” who are in heaven about sinners tormenting in hell would be the greatest sin, capable of destroying those guilty of it again, even after their acquittal at the Last Judgment: this sin would consist precisely in what sinners are alienated for - the lack of love for suffering humanity and in it for the suffering Christ. Here are the very significant, dear and instructive words of St. Isaac the Syrian for Christians, to which Fr. Sergius, - there will be words about the merciful heart: Saint Isaac prayed for the ignition of the human heart “for all creation, for people, for birds, for animals, for demons and every creature: From great and strong pity, from great patience, the human heart is touched and cannot bear, hear or see any harm, or small sorrow endured by a creature. And therefore, for the dumb and for the enemies of the truth, and for those who do harm to him, every hour he offers prayer with tears, so that they will be preserved and have mercy...” The doctrine of the eternal and unchanging torment of sinners - supposedly based on the impossibility of repentance beyond the grave - is in clear contradiction with the effectiveness of church prayer for the departed, for the acceptance of prayer assistance already presupposes the oncoming movement of the souls of the deceased in accordance with the general fact of the effectiveness of the spirit, which is characterized by the continuous continuation of life and new self-determinations. And the Last Judgment does not end the variability of created existence and its temporality is not replaced by the “fixed eternity” of the divine, but it begins new times, no longer chronological, new “centuries of centuries”, with a new formation. This is what supporters of criminal eschatology do not want to understand, for which “eternal torment” is the application of the corresponding article of the code on punishments through a unilateral decision of the court, which preemptively eliminates the possibility of recovery, forgiveness and restoration. Here, in a short article, we cannot touch on the demonology of Fr. Sergius in connection with the question of general restoration, this would require a large and detailed consideration of the wonderful pages he wrote about the metaphysical emptiness and selfhood of Dennitsa, ending with his repentance; Let's just say that, according to Fr. Sergius, this can happen due to the creatureliness of Satan, who cannot cease to be the creation of God. The power of reality remains inherent in him, which cannot be replaced or destroyed by the arbitrariness of an independent devilish self. In the infinite number of circles of eternal self-repetition in the void, of which Satan’s life consists after expulsion from the world, there is included an equally infinite number of times repeated consciousness of one’s creation, as participation in being, the power of which is the Divine being. Victory over the devil requires and presupposes the abolition of death and hell in creation, but thereby its eventual liberation and salvation from them. We can only talk about the times and timing for this final victory over hell and Satan. Our faith cannot accept as the final truth about God the Creator that He created a world destined in its part (no matter how small or great it may be) to eternal destruction or rejection, given over to the lot of absolute evil, from which He who created it himself will turn away! Evil is associated with creaturely freedom as one of its modes. The freedom of the creature is God's greatest gift and his royal privilege. But at the same time, the freedom of the creature does not stand in ontological contradiction with the Divine plan of creation, which, obviously, cannot include eternal destruction intended for at least part of creation. This, if allowed, would mean its actual failure, and not even in one part only, but also as a whole, which does not put up with this damage as easily as the partisans of the eternity of hell put up with it. It remains to accept that the final destinies of the world in the ways of God remain independent of created freedom, despite all its inevitability in the ways of their fulfillment. There is a certain free necessity here: the ontological immutability of the foundation and the modal diversity of freedom in its vital manifestation. Concluding these brief notes about the thoughts of our teacher, I would like to recall the words of the Apostle Paul regarding the boundaries of human freedom: “I bow my knees,” the Apostle writes to the Ephesians, “before God, from whom all fatherhood in heaven and on earth receives its name, that He may grant according to the riches of His glory to be mightily strengthened by His Spirit in the inner man, so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, and you may be rooted and grounded in love, that you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God. And to Him who, according to the power that works in us, has the power (freedom) to do more, immeasurably more than all that we ask or think, to Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus throughout all generations, forever and ever. Amen." (Eph.3:14–21) Archimandrite Euthymius. Relatio Religiae One person through the prism of another's consciousness. But this is what always happens: what is recorded in thoughts, in words, is always an attitude. Father Sergius is a great man, with a long life path, as well as great reflections that have already taken place about him. But, according to the very memory of him, in this case, not regardless of the size, according to the movement of the heart, I want to preserve a personal touch about him. A war refugee in 1920, in 1923 an uninvited scholarship recipient of the Czechoslovak State, I, along with many others, turned out to be the fish that fell into the net of R.S.H. Movements. For the first time at the Sasau Congress, and at the next one after it, I was captured by the movement-flight of very knowledgeable people, people of high calling, scattered, as if even confused by the Russian storm that had occurred. And in these congresses there was a surprise of the Meeting, an innovation taking place, a new creation. And here there is no need to talk about any lecture or organizational techniques on the part of seniors and big ones. No, - there was their - appeal to us - questioning. The soil of hearts was sought for the suggestions of the living. These congresses were in themselves - wonderful, unintentional, new educational. This attire and charge of the Meeting, this miracle of uplifting communication lasted a few days, in order to continue vigilantly in the everyday life of circle communication - study, which in itself was so rounded, good for finding oneself. And if the congresses unintentionally managed to imprint their day with the church’s confessional and sacramental seal, then the circle (Brno) had itself at the heart of the priest (Father Alexey Vanek, Czech). I met many chosen ones, I will not name them, on the thresholds of the Christian Movement, but I would not be mistaken in calling Father Sergius Bulgakov the first. The movement was my first University, which was then successfully built on, layered on top of my technical education, which was then mainly due to the early choice of the soul. Ten Czech years later, in 1933, I was an unemployed engineer, I was at the Sergiev Compound, under the supervision and knowledge of Fr. Sergius. This second University of mine, having taken me entirely, with the sign of “One for Need,” did not prevent me from making a mutation in my three-year academic year (the course was then three years old): after the first year I was ordained as a deacon, in the second year I became a hieromonk, in the third - abbot of the nun Maria, which then became my third University: non-parish, daily service in a self-made church, with nuns, lifelong, constituted my priestly good fortune. The three-year anniversary of 1933–1936, with all its formative tension, was quite fleeting for me, and did not put me in the line of choosing any of the subjects of study for scientific specialization, but the scientific interest in me, forty years old, exercised by theoretical and technical knowledge, as characteristic of me and my own, put me on guard in relation to all academic knowledge. It turned out that the specialties of A.V. Kartashev and G.P. Fedotov were easily placed within the limits of humanitarian knowledge for me, which was no longer related to their historiosophical constructions. To place the exegesis of the Holy Scriptures and the theological subjects related to them within the framework of humanitarian knowledge, as it later turned out and seemed to be in my constructions, is completely pointless. But, if the Holy Scripture is a Construction, or rather, if it is sacred in a God-created Construction, full of Measure and Price; if Sacred Tradition is a Construction, and the Divine Service in it operates Constructively; if in the Teaching of the Fathers there are Constructive constructions, and, in the main line: Constantine's Creation of Churches, the vision of the Cross, the Hierarchy of the Areopagitik, and in their wake - Isaac, Isaac the Syrian, the Angel, and then, the transfer to Russian succession, the Sophia Churches and the maturing, then, Russian Holy Fathers; – then, for all these “ifs”, Russian Sophiology is this “THAT”: – what is needed for understanding, what is honest before the Face of God. So, covering a dozen studies of the late Father Sergius, what will I tell him. You headed a humanitarian theological school and you taught its main subject, dogmatics, in the layer of humanitarian knowledge. – Isn’t this the Procrustean bed, cutting off the very head of Dogma? You, among the three: Father Pavel, you and A.F. Losev, just before the storm, in anticipation of victory over it, gave the Teaching of the Truth - You and them are Teachers of the Church, representatives of Russian Patrism. They say that Father Sergius was not only aware, but also tormented by his inability to formal knowledge. For the enormous, all-exhaustive content of his research, he found only volume and literary form. But this lack had the side of beneficial sufficiency: it made Father Sergius a preacher: the unformalized content of living thought, with the movement of his heart rich in God, reached the minds and hearts: Father Sergius was glorious. It is interesting and important to say that Father Pavel, in his famous work, in its substantive integrity, also remained with its literary and humanitarian execution and aroused the admiration of even “patrologists”; he used mathematical equipment only to solve two particular problems. It is obvious that his physics was only knowledge approximating theology. Only one A.F. Losev gave the Deduction, a tabular display of the Action of the Three in Sophia the Fourth, with the meonal beginning and in the clothing of the Language. Loving Father Sergius, in this last decade of his life, borrowing from him in content, I go back to this early page, there in Russia, when the three pillars of sophiological thought had their own complementary voice. When the Philosophy of the Name of Losev was published, this voice ceased there in Russia. It was published, put into print, with great bills, without mentioning the word God and the word Angel, heaven. And so, this moment of Losev’s last cry in Sophiology, alive and in suffocation, is for me the pinnacle of the Teaching Action. Three actors, three pillars of domestic patrolology, teaching holiness. Alive, eighty-year-old Losev (two years older than me) is hiding in his main Magisterium, having an alibi for teaching within the framework of ancient philosophy, which is permitted. Does the teacher of basic theology have the same alibi? I would like to see this manual for students “on the priest”, and, most importantly, that Losev himself thought about it! Isn’t it a caked-on patrol biscuit, programmed “according to the subject” of study, tested in the sweep of the old patrol yard. And - the leading academy, in professorships and docentures, perpetuates the one whose fabricated corpse, supposedly for a world parade, is placed near the Kremlin wall. Consciously, I exist in the function of the seven books of Father Sergius: the Great Trilogy, the Little Trilogy and Peter and John - the Chief Apostles. For me, they are always a fullness of content that is available and capable, self-lawfully creative, original. But it is necessary, at the same time, to say that this available and skillful content does not have a numerical and linguistic form. Here the engineer in me speaks, all the power of whose scientific aspiration is aimed at the constructive side of sophiological scope, at co-creation. First, the House of Wisdom, and then Wisdom Herself, who dwells in it. The moment of seeing is before the moment of knowing. And when over the years this or that book by Father Sergius came out, after reading it, I put it aside and said: here everything is said about what is not given in the form of Everything. My cognitive primitive said: when you see, tell, when you say, show. All my work is a demonstration of everything that Father Sergius had - a tale. And this tale is taken entirely from him. It seems there is no other person who would be more grateful to Father Sergius than I am. His mental, semantic presence in the theological content made me thorough in his testimony. Of course, my grateful soul also has reproaches for him, mainly they relate, as already said, to the area of ​​\u200b\u200bideation, and not thinking. The main point of the kinesis of the Sophia construction is the combination of two representations: the representation of the Triad, as such, and the representation of the Tetrad of Creation. Losev’s construction in the sequence of his seven energies is a Tetrad sequence, in the definition of which, of course, both the Trinity-Personal and Trinity-Sophia principle are involved. In the Philosophy of the Name, not Losev’s, but the Philosophy of the Name of Father Sergius himself, it was discovered that Father Sergius was not given the idea of ​​the Tetrad nature of being. He was entirely under the sign of the Triad, and he massaged the Triadic content where there was a tetrad arrangement. Two main failures: in the Philosophy of Name - a dispute with Kant, in the large Trilogy - its bias in relation to the Actions of Persons in the Tetrad. If for me “F. AND." Losev was a symbolic book, then before it and in first place came the Critique of Pure Reason. Kant's tetrad is a tetrad of triads of 12 categories. Having established with certainty (taking from school logic) the trinity of judgments in each of the sides of the tetrad, he immediately stipulates that it will never be known why the trinity is determined. And the more he did not see the Trinity, the more clearly the Tetrad appeared: Kant’s blindness was beneficial for science: it gave: a thing in general, a thing in itself, a quartet of terms, defining-defined by God and corresponding - for Nothing: - the truest vision in blindness in its justification, in the absence of the slightest ray of Revelation. All in the radiance of Revelation, Father Sergius did not see this Demonstrator of Kant’s science, the mediastinum of knowledge, and of the remaining two differences of Kant: antinomies and ideas (also paralogism), and he and Father Pavel and Losev multiplied only antinomies (losing the rigor of Kant’s conclusion). In the middle of the book Philosophy of the Name, Father Sergius makes a direct attack on Kant’s “schemes” (also his, Kant’s, difference), i.e., the applicability, exemplability, reconciliation of the representations of space and time to conceptual predicates (categories-12). As a weapon of attack, he took care of the triad that characterizes the sentence - subject, predicate, connective, straining it to the meaning of the Triad of the First Dogma, i.e. in the Roles of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, and now doubles it, saying: a judgment-sentence, which already has a tetrad in the Tetrad. This is a case of an amazing dual position of the subject, once in connection with an object, the other time with a predicate. Once the created earth is determined by the Acts of Heaven in the Father “who is in heaven”; at another time, the accomplishment of the perfections of heaven is accomplished by the creating Earth in the Spirit and the Virgin. Thus, the attack of Father Sergius turns out to be pointless, and the manifestation of his ignorance of the Tetrad, piling up triadic interpretations, crushes the structures. And the exceptional servant of Wisdom, who created One hundred percent of Its content, does not end up in the House of Wisdom. Along the paths of great worldviews, great misunderstandings also arise. A complete representation necessarily includes both the Triad and the Tetrad, and, in the end, it is the Tetrad that bears many, but quite countable, marks of the Triad, and in the final Substitute there are three points of the Sophia Consolidation: one, the third, in the third Heaven - the Mother of God Herself (about whose Greatness, in addition to church glorifications, you need to ask only Fathers Sergius and Paul), as Sophia of the Third Heaven, Sophia The Plowed Earth, in Her, the Mother of God, already illuminated by the New Creation and the New Name. In the Middle Heaven, the heaven of the Mediator, Christ, Sophia the Cross Heaven, the Substitute of the Sacrifice of Giving and the Nourishing Taking of the Body and Blood. And, finally, in the First Heaven and firstly, the Fiery Angel, Sophia of Heaven, Isaac's Angel, about whom he says: “The heavenly ranks in being - extend from rank to rank until they reach the unity of the most great and powerful Head and foundation of creation. I do not call the Creator the head, but the One who stands at the head of the miracles of God’s works. (word 17)." And again: “The lower ones learn from those who penetrate them and have more light; and thus they learn one from another, gradually ascending to that unit which has the Holy Trinity as its teacher. And again the very first order affirmatively says that it does not learn by itself, but has as a teacher the mediator Jesus, from Whom it receives and passes it on to those below (18). One hundred percent, allegedly, in Father Sergius the expression of theological content has to be reduced: he does not have this Isaac (Novgorod) Angel. Moreover, the anti-Sophian patrolologists who objected to Father Sergius do not have it either. This raises the question of the displacement of Fr. Sergius of the trilogy is large in relation to the location of the Actions of the Three Persons in the Tetrad. Small trilogy - without offset: Father, First Heaven, Jacob's Ladder, Son, Second Heaven, Friend of the Groom, Holy Spirit. Third Heaven, - Burning Bush. Son, Second Heaven, Lamb of God, The Holy Spirit is the Third Heaven, the Comforter, the appendix of the Father. – Third Heaven, Bride of the Lamb. 1 Heaven - there is no volume dedicated to the Institution of the Father in Creation, much less His Sophia Substitution by the Fatherfather Angel. 2 Heaven is that about the Lamb of God, Who, by His very Incarnation and Sacrifice, is given not only in the Institute of the Son, but also as the Substitute Sophia, the Satiable One. 3 Heaven is the Comforter, in the Institute of the Spirit, but also with the Constitution of the Church, in the Descent on the Apostles, one must also think about the Virgin, no matter how blessed She was in the Annunciation. - there is that - the Bride of the Lamb, the Virgin in the Substitute of the Spirit, who became Sophia (according to terminological advantage in the series: – Holy Power, ΗΑΔ, Holy Peace, ΗΑΕ, Holy Wisdom, ΗΑΣ), after His Dormition, after His Resurrection, who became the Son in His Body at Pascha, the Author of the Body of the Son, preeminently over the Son, who took away His Body in the Ascension, who became the Pascha of the Perfect Earth in His own way, substantively, vicariously. She is more Easter than Son. And She is more Sophia than Angel and Participation. And this is both Her Personal Angel and Her Personal Son. But the Constitution of the Church is not only in the Heaven of the Spirit and the Virgin. Let us supplement the list in the Eucharistic categories: – “Create” is an appeal to the Father in His Heaven, that is, not without a substitute by an Angel (“like the Cherubim”), and in the Constitution of the service of the Apostle Peter. “There is a Body, there is a Blood...” are the definitively substituting words of the Instituting Son in the Constitution of the office of the Apostle Paul. “Having offered” - in the Institute of the Spirit, in the Substitute of the Virgin, in the Constitution of the Apostle John. /“A lot about the Most Holy One”/“Behold Your son/.” For the sake of completeness of the Constitution of the Church, the seventh book after two trilogies by Father Sergius should be called: Peter, John and Paul - the Chief Apostles. Two of them had the image of the Transfigured Lord “on the mountain” on themselves and on themselves, the third received it “on the way.” And they Sacredly and Sacredly formed the Three Sources of the Trinity, the Con-Sub-Institute of Revelation of the Church in the Body and Blood of the Sacrifice, which revealed the Divine Sophia, ΗΘΣ. Father Sergius was so rich in content, so substantially abundant in his Theology, that seeing the Tetrad, guided by the presentation of the Tetrad, you can construct from his own lines this missing volume of his Great Trilogy. The department of the Tetrad of the Fathers is in the rays-paths of the actions of the Trinity - a development that builds the deployment of angelic hierarchies, overthrowing the created Sixth Day of Moses. And so, Jacob’s Ladder and Father Sergius’s interpretation of the Six Days are beautiful, uniquely significant. Yes, you can object to Father Sergius, you need to object ardently, from the heart. But, as far as I know, these objections were not presented in the form of a dissertation. School science, as such, always has something that is determined by the assessment - very good. The scientific dissertation is very good, the representative of Ordo himself is very good, the scientific journal is very good. Father Sergius was both Ordo and SuperOrdo, and the assistant professor does not dare to build his career on his criticism. Father Sergius defended himself with his creative significance, with his, as I vehemently assert, in the ardor of modern times, his Holy Fatherhood. The teacher of the Church is above the teacher of the school. My own constructions are school-like, purely school-like, but new-school (for humanitarian minds, of course, disgustingly scholastic). And this is in close proximity to the constructions of Father Sergius, Father Pavel, A.F. Losev. We are still alive, witnesses of the last decade of Father Sergius’s life. He was a guest of our monastic group. And he had some kind of surprised, increased attention to our small affairs and circumstances. Some nuns knew him back in Crimea during the initial period of his priestly ministry. “This will be too much for you,” one of them, then a young novice, heard in Koreiz, asking him for the book Philokalia. And now behind her are four decades of philanthropic deeds, recognized by the heart as good. Both the second and the third knew him back in the Crimea, and there and in Paris they were surrounded by him, and in his good influence, unforgettable for them. He died in the arms of three nuns, a difficult, long death, not without a moment of bright radiance (as happens with others). And in our priestly line a petition was pronounced, apparently composed by him, to speed up the hour of death. The Great Human Magnifies God: “And greater things than these shall you do.” In the days of Epiphany 1972 K. Ya. Andronikov. "Zeal for Your House" You already know more dead people than living people; the two sides of the “diptych” are not equal: the black memorial is significantly longer. But several names also glow in red letters in it. The most brilliant among them: Father Sergius. Still, the Vestnik’s request takes us by surprise: “If you knew personally about. Sergius, what role did the meeting with him play in your life, and in the development of your thought did acquaintance with his works; and how do you evaluate his work now?” I can probably answer the first two questions without deliberate reflection, since we are talking about personal perception, in my being, and it is deep. What about the third question? (And it is also asked two weeks before the release of the issue). Here I am childishly confused and in order not to remain voiceless in response to the call, I can only hint, in the confusion of haste, to what seems to me irresistibly clear and bright in the work of Bulgakov, as he will be called not only by historians (of the past), but also by all theologians (who deal with the eternal, the present and the new in the Church). And what lingers brightest, like a flame, in memory is, firstly, the personality of Father Sergius. From his face, and then from his works, verbally confirming and developing this everyday fire, it became clear that the true path of a person’s life is feat and prophecy in action; that for a writer, poet, philosopher, this means feat and prophecy of thought and speech in freedom, that is, service to the truth, that is, life in the Church. Without God the Word, the world is truly “rancid” (just the opposite of what Rozanov sometimes grieved about) and I, in this bitter world, am just a bubble or a ghost wandering on the surface of a faceless, meaningless and far from quiet ocean. With all due modesty, should one, in the name of passive “objectivity,” tear away from one’s “subjective” perceptions and one’s own biography the thought of a great man and his work of paramount importance in our history? Precisely because Fr. Sergius Bulgakov is an extraordinary subject, that is, a figure of our time, thinking about him requires first of all a definition, at least an outline, of a personal attitude towards him, a reaction to him, to what he gave and asked, on what exactly one’s own belonging to life and the task of the time and, if possible, one’s participation in them, deeply depends, not as an inanimate object, a quantitative element of social statistics, but as a conscious, responsible and effective, at least and an unimportant person. Speaking about history, I, of course, mean the true history that I was thinking about. Sergius, where the destinies of the world are fulfilled, that is, the promise and will of God about His Kingdom; in other words, the history of Christianity; exactly - the Church, the implementation of which is metahistorical, eschatological. And this is the first lesson about. Sergius (however, you immediately ask yourself: where is the first, where is the second, where is the last? Such an ordinal scale makes sense only for the gradualness of the mind and its “syntax”, and not for the spirit and “living life.” This explains the fundamental impossibility of reducing, “reducing” a living person and a living thought to any abbreviated scheme that would fully express the truth about a person and his activities on earth, in space and time. To truly comprehend them, one must not extract a system from them, but get used to them). But since you give yourself the task of philosophizing, that is, describing the truth, which Bulgakov devoted himself to, then you have to obey the laws of discussion, rational presentation as you research and according to the degree of thinking; and o. Sergius, inevitably consistently, built the system. But all its a priori provisions, i.e. the truths of faith, on which he founded and from which he derived the system, are obvious, all on the first, on the only “plane” of the mystery of consubstantiality, homoousios, following in this the brilliantly developed central intuition of his best friend and associate, Fr. Pavel Florensky: Truth and, therefore, the source of all speculation is the Holy Trinity. “The dogma of the Trinity is... the inevitable foundation of any philosophical thought... The truth about the Holy Trinity, taken in its entirety, is the only possible foundation of a harmonious philosophical system. In this way, a connection is established between philosophy, as a natural problem of the human mind, and dogma, as a divinely revealed answer to it" (The Tragedy of Philosophy). So, let’s say conventionally that Bulgakov’s first lesson is that “the history of the world takes place in heaven and on earth and under the earth” (Apocalypse). The entire universe, spatial and beyond, temporal and eternal, the entire totality of humans and incorporeal, living and dead, all beings here and beyond create and develop, or slow down and distort the history of creation, which flows between the beginning, i.e. expulsion from the Kingdom, and the inevitable end, i.e. the final assessment and restoration in the Kingdom, “of which there will be no end.” The real point is that “the world was created by God as the Church in its foundation and its completion.” Consequently, “the fate of the world is the history of the Church” (Essay on the doctrine of the Church, Path, 1/7). From this initial position of religious truth, Bulgakov so clearly and logically shows that “in Christianity a new sense of life arises, that a person should not run away from the world, but that Christ comes into the world at the wedding supper of the Lamb, the feast of God-manhood” (Lamb of God). In this field, Bulgakov's life path is even more important and, perhaps, fruitful than his philosophical and theological legacy. The latter will be debated (although it will not be so easy to dispute) - so far no one has taken up this issue. The only attempt made was aimed at condemnation on the part of a hostile faction of the hierarchical government, but it turned out to be a gross misunderstanding, not only untenable, but literally illiterate: most of the arguments carried within themselves proof that their authors had not read or thought through Bulgakov; undoubtedly, the most “scrupulous” passages are not so easy to master if you do not read Bulgakov’s entire theology, in particular the pages in which he explains in detail why and how he theologizes (Non-Evening Light, Dogma and Dogmatics, Tragedy of Philosophy, etc.). And his life’s feat should be reflected with reverence. On this path he was a prophet and a witness. He stands and will remain at these levels of biblical calling and church work. And his works are an illustration, an expression outside of internal mental activity. “You were an apostle in your life, we dare to say it... You were a Christian sage, you are a church teacher in the pure and sublime sense of the word. You were enlightened by the Holy Spirit... to whom you dedicated your scientific work. He has transformed Saul into Paul in your soul.” (Metropolitan Eulogius: Homily before the funeral service for Father Sergius). It is appropriate, for it is most accurate, to resort precisely to the images of Scripture (which for some reason are always embarrassed to apply to people other than saints who have long passed into the past, whereas it is precisely to us that they are addressed and should serve as a measure) in order to remember us about the biographical path of Fr. Sergius: he came out of a priestly environment that was continuously producing priests (since the time of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich), he really came out into the world like a prodigal son; however, without selling the entire share of his inheritance, he only hid his talent. But he was given more than one: he buried his faith like a slave, but retained his love for the truth and the jealous hope of its discovery like a sorcerer. And as “a true Israelite, in whom there is no guile,” he devoted his zeal to the seeking. And he showed himself to be righteous. Honestly and devotedly seeking the truth here, now, he preaches from the pulpit and in his office tries to successfully prove the godless and Marxist kingdom of economics. But the very process of its “objective” justification requires verification not only by facts, but also by the test of merciless logic, that is, verification of the philosophy of Marx and materialism by philosophy. With suffering, Bulgakov must bow to the obvious: not only do the facts “do not stick,” but the very dialectics of the mind proves that the edifice of economic materialism, in addition to its respectful moral pathos (i.e., spiritual, not material), remains only ruins and that Marx is not a living ruler of minds and history, whom he must serve, but a corpse around which dubious “eagles” are gathering. It is no less known how, with newfound faith, but this decisive time, not in partial truth, but in the Absolute Truth, Bulgakov returns to his Father’s house to become a “faithful servant” of the Lord, i.e., a free and creative heir of the eternal Kingdom. Bulgakov becomes not only a minister, but also a brilliant teacher of the Church. This path of the human soul - from the darkness of the spontaneous utopia of the self-sufficient material structure of the earth to the Christian worldview and creation, from the world of the Antichrist subject to death to life in the Church in active anticipation of the Second Coming - is the prophetic path outlined for the Russian intelligentsia by one of the most advanced and spiritual personalities among such an amazing group of its representatives who called out and were heard "from the depths" However, at this moment in history, it has become quite clear that this mountainous path must be traversed not only by the Russian intelligentsia, and in general not only by intellectuals, without losing hope even of continuing and developing our culture and our world, or even simply preserving them and bringing them to the allotted, unknown time to us, that is, saving them. Personally, in my molecular segment of world time, what role did contact and then living intercourse with religion play? “Religion is a thirst for the divine, unquenched but quenchable, a call from earth to heaven and an answering voice from heaven. Not everyone is given the opportunity to know equally in their personal experience both poles of religious experience: call and response. Many know the torment of religious thirst much stronger than the joy of quenching it” (Quiet Thoughts). Paris, 1941. War. Occupation. The glow of external history and the terrible cold, the confused torment of personal life. Exempted from official military service, the underground struggle is not to his liking, doomed to the lies of empty ideologies and camouflage simply not commensurate with the results. And that’s not the point, “just this, not that.” The incessant question of all spiritual teenagers: who are you, where and who to follow, for what? Literature is aesthetic, but also empty without philosophy; the latter is sterile when it does not provide the content of life; science is dry to the point of emptiness, there is no answer in it to a single “why” and there is no “who” in it. Being, in all likelihood, a not very spiritually gifted young man, I only attended services, was almost not worried about theological “problems”, and knew little about it, and was even less aware of the paths of the church. And yet, nevertheless, despite the babble of the reader, the amazing rarity of consistency in the sermons, the treacle of sweet choral singing that dissolves the already unclear words, the absence of any interpretation of mental or mystical content, all this appearance of the ritual and the clergy, evoking “emotions” and “mood” rather than inspiration - from this harmonious totality, in the presence visionary icons, something marvelous, necessary, irreplaceable oozed somewhere into the personal depths, hinting at the most important thing, at the “one thing needed”, now sought for, but still incomprehensible. It was quite logical to go ask for the “verbs of life” and the way to this light-foggy Kitezh, where specialists in this field naturally had to explain these verbs and hand over the key: in a theological school, with the trembling hope of finding initiation, almost holiness. The Paris Theological Institute was so famous that it caused fear among orthodox church people and a bewildered smile among secular people (however, in their own way, no less pious than those). Admission to the theological academy was considered by the former almost as a monastic tonsure, an irrevocable departure from the world, and by the latter as either a noble whim or intellectual tyranny. So, looking for the arcana and Gnostic eons, I shyly climbed the spread-out steps of the hill of the St. Sergius Compound, which seemed formidable like a monastery and wise like a forest; and sideways crossed the threshold of the secretarial presence. I ended up in a dusty library. It turned out that the point was to “gnaw the granite of science,” in the stern words of Professor Kartashev, that is, to cram subjects that were not at all a mystical course program. Please join the line of cramming and cramming students, most of them already gray, hungry, under the threat of exile to work in Germany, and sitting in bare, except for the Palamas icon, and, like at home, cold rooms. And here is a course on the Revelation of John, the significant last academic work of Fr. Sergius (which they couldn’t know then). In a room with greasy windows and books, on creaking chairs, around a lame table, at which sits the small Moses Michel Angelo. Not with a voice, but with some kind of frenzied wheezing (he is generally forbidden to speak by doctors), with a pinched breath through a tube stuck in his throat, where it twitches and he fiddles with it, Bulgakov, with stunning simplicity and with the penetrating heat of jubilation, treats of mystery, of the Church, of the Trinity; but also scientifically and critically analyzes the text. Immediately the mind and heart of the listener lights up: “one can say that the capacity for joy is one of the important measures of spiritual state” (Quiet Thoughts). What role “did acquaintance with his personality and direct penetration into his work play in my life and thought then, and how do I evaluate them now?” The result can only be outlined on his deathbed, and most likely even after, only when all the data is available, as for every person, including himself. In the meantime, I’ll just sketch out in dotted lines, as if in the impressionist style, the most striking, inspiring features of this great, exemplary and integral person, inevitably randomly, without priorities, and mainly in his own words. “God exists - the sky, the earth and the abysses of the world sing. God exists—the abysses of human consciousness and creativity respond” (Non-Evening Light). All theology consists of thinking about this “is”, studying and describing these “abyss”, and their relationships. “God and the world”: this is how Bulgakov’s determination was accurately summed up by his attentive and insightfully loving companion, L. A. Zander, who gave this title to his two-volume, complete and clear explanatory anthology of the works of Fr. Sergius. If God is the Creator of all existence, and man is a microcosm (i.e., he heads and “recapitulates” the universe, and not back, it is not she who absorbs him), the ontological connection between them, the existential root of the world and the knowable being in heaven, as well as on earth - He, “In Him all things were,” Who from the Trinity was incarnated and revealed: the God-man. This dogma, in essence, is thus the basis and condition of the sin qua non of all theology. O. Sergius expounds this with amazing consistency and extends it to all dogmas. They precisely have a divine-human character, just like the Logos from which they come. “Dogma is not so much a formula of consciousness and knowledge, for it testifies to what is incomprehensible to us, but an indication of the path, truth and goal of religious life. One gets used to it, and life in the Church is nothing more than this getting used to dogmas, communion with the secrets of divine life... But dogma also has a philosophical meaning” (Tragedy of Philos). Hence, “the altar”—liturgical, prayerful activity in contemplation of the mystery—“and the working cell of the theologian, whose inspiration, in its deepest primary sources, must come from the altar” (Dogma and Dogmatics) must be connected with each other. If it is worth emphasizing here the most life-giving lessons of Fr. Sergius, again in the integrity of life and thought, then this is “asceticism of labor and scientific duty,” in which he was impeccable (to the point that hasty readers or translators, like me, even reproached him for this). And was it not he himself who received the titles of his works before the throne of the Eucharist? But, like the God-man, dogmas “do not bind creativity in its free inspiration, but define it as a given, albeit hidden, truth” (Dogma and Dogmatics). And this is his unforgettable lesson about the meaning of creativity in the Church, according to the commandment of Christ: “Do, for I do!” Which of the students of Fr. Doesn’t Sergius remember him being both enthusiastic and humble before Tradition? word: “Go for it!” And his favorite quotes, which he invited to get used to: “Stand in the freedom that Christ gave us!” (Gal.5:1); and regarding asceticism and the duty of witness: “Be always ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that is in you” (1 Pet. 3:15). And with life and writings, Fr. Sergius really “gave an account” of the reality of his dedication to the Truth. The continuation of dogmatic, church creativity, “after the seven ecumenical councils, should be a living connection between them and modernity” (On the paths of dogma). There is not a single “topic”, not a single everyday phenomenon that is not subject to Christian understanding and illumination, and, if possible, sanctification, since they belong to the true, church history of mankind. In his personal and public life, he is a professor, a shepherd, a performer of the sacred sacraments, a confessor, a friend. In the depths of his “ego” he endures victoriously “cruel” trials, for him probably the most difficult that such a person could suffer and not die. “Do not shun the fiery temptation,” the Apostle Peter told him, and Paul (no less scary) consoles him: “God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond your strength.” After the intellectual test (the collapse of an idol under the pressure of his own mercilessly honest thoughts), a heart test: expulsion from the most intimate thing for his flesh, blood and culture, from his homeland, and observing the desecration of its shrine; then, physical and psychological: he, a man of words and a preacher, a teacher and performer of liturgical exclamations, loses his voice, subtly - he watches in the mirror as his vocal cords are carefully cut out. Finally (or maybe there was something else?), mystical: he experiences, akin to Motovilov, but not analogous to him, carnal and mental dying and abandonment on the cross by God. In expressing his creativity, Bulgakov also suffered a difficult ordeal. “All of Christianity faces great and new tasks... all of Christianity is aware in a new way of the need for church unity and is seeking it... We are free in our theology, and our freedom is ecclesiastical freedom, of faithful and loving sons of the Church, and not of rebellious slaves. We want free devotion to the Church, fidelity to its tradition, but creative fidelity,” he confessed at the assembly speech of the Paris Theological Institute (Near the River Chebar). And who, with him and mostly thanks to him, is not convinced that “the time has come for the Orthodox understanding of the history of dogmas, as a dogmatic dialectic in which church truth is revealed for theological thought”? (Lamb of God). On this feat, Fr. Sergius is also subjected to dogmatic-spiritual seduction and temptation: he is suspected of heresy. There will be no Ecumenical Council on this matter, because there is no heresy: the author himself has sufficiently explained that his theology is a personal reflection on dogmas, based on them, but not redefining them. By the way, let us recall that, in Bulgakov’s philosophical language, God-manhood expresses the dogmatic community of God and man, and that Wisdom, the notorious “Sophia,” like God-manhood, corresponds to the intuition of Russian religious thought (see Solovyov and Florensky, based on the Old Testament), which Fr. Sergius uses and develops it to give an account of the necessary community and at the same time of the incomprehensible and impenetrable difference between the Creator and the creation. Sophia, Divine and created, is a mystical-philosophical concept or category that allows us to connect apophatic theology and the absolute mystery of the Holy Trinity with philosophy and the relative mystery of man and the cosmos. Sophiology, therefore, must be considered, in the sense of philosophy of the world, as ecclesiology. After Bulgakov, I simply do not see how it would be possible, sooner or later, to bypass this category of theology when interpreting the manifestation and revelation of the “Divine Pleroma”, which Fr. Sergius calls it “Sophia” (already in Trag. Philos.). Let's leave this for the time being to simply note the exceptional, abiding value of Bulgakov in the fact that it was from a dogmatic point of view, that is, the Orthodox Church, that he analyzed all the topics included in his worldview: from human earthly cultivation (Philos. Economy) to On the Miracles of the Gospels and angelology (Jacob's Ladder), from Picasso (Corpse of Beauty, Quiet Thoughts) and Mozart and Salieri (ibid.) to the Icon and icon veneration and bright holidays (The Joy of the Church), from the Religion of Man-God (Two Cities) to the mystery of the Father (Comforter) and the Wisdom of God-Humanity (the great trilogy), from the Tragedy of Philosophy to the Apocalypse. Etc. In addition to the content of these works, sometimes brilliant, the greatness of the author is life-giving in the visual proof of the meaning of creativity, already mentioned, not as a slave who “does not know what his master is doing,” but as a “friend” freed by the Truth, according to the word of the Son of God. And this is an amazing “demonstration” of Fr. Sergius, existential and philosophical, liturgical and experiential. “The Church is life, creativity, impulse” (Two Cities). Here he also quotes the famous Speech at a dinner in memory of Mickiewicz Vl. Solovyov: “The Church, like the fatherland, like the biblical “wife of youth,” should be for us an internal force of tireless movement towards an eternal goal, and not a pillow of comfort.” This is the courageous call of Fr. Sergius: “Be bold!”, not to pride and arbitrariness, but to the theological service of Orthodoxy. In our age of the universal crisis of Christianity, it has now become quite clear to everyone that Orthodoxy and, more specifically, its Russian perception, experience and interpretation, following the Fathers of the Church, and after centuries of external hibernation, has preserved the immaculate teaching of Christ and is capable of developing it dogmatically and creatively testifying to it. “New problems must be solved, not eliminated... Religion, which considers “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” (Quiet Dumas), must not be served by ignorance and obscurantism. And Bulgakov, together with his companions of the Logos, proves that in our time, Orthodoxy is spiritually and mentally free to seek and reveal this “new”, organically, without interruption or confusion in running after the world, connecting it with the “past” in order to find and reveal the “eternal” in it. “Christianity exists only in living, concrete church tradition, and outside of it only the science of Christianity and the remnants of the old remain” (Quiet Dumas). Bulgakov bequeaths this to us with particular force, on the basis of comprehensive church experience, pointing out to us its completeness, where absolutely everything is religion, the relationship between God and the world. Here, in all likelihood, is the fundamental feature and deep property of Fr. Sergius. It comes to mind that, for example, he spoke and wrote about iconography, where “the world stands before God” in the Deesis series; or that there is no essential difference between a thinker and a man of prayer, and there should not be between prayer and action in the world. Of course, all this is essentially not new, this is the well-known teaching of the Fathers, Evagrius already said: whoever prays is a theologian, and vice versa; etc. But the point is precisely that we are talking about the eternal and that the whole work of the thinker on earth is to find and reveal this eternal for himself and for the church brothers with the influx of the Holy Spirit, for the creation of the Body of Christ, in the fulfillment of the perfect God-man. Just in continuation of such a living and developing sequence is the main characteristic of Fr. Sergius, precisely as a dogmatist, with experience and thought emanating from Tradition and striving for the royal accomplishment of Parusin (which is the essence of the Gospel). “Those creative tasks that confront modern humanity must be comprehended in the light of the coming transformation of the world, as tasks of religious creativity, as the fulfillment of the covenants of Christ” (Bride). If, finally, we dare to evaluate Bulgakov’s work “now,” one of his most “relevant” merits, it seems to me, is a revelation about the essence, meaning and work of the Church. It is not just a “sacramental-hierarchical organization... but the fulfillment of God’s eternal plan in relation to creation, its salvation, sanctification, glorification, deification, osophification. The Church in this sense is the very basis of creation, its internal purpose” (Bride). Since the world saved by Christ is the Church, the process of its transformation coincides with the history of the Incarnation and entry into the Kingdom: “the goal of history leads beyond history, to the life of the next century, and the goal of the world leads beyond the world, to a new earth and to a new heaven” (Non-Evening Light). This mystical and theological contemplation of the most ancient Fathers, starting from the Revelation of John and remaining an amazing property of Orthodoxy (despite the fact that the Apocalypse fell out of liturgical use, as if in the ritual the Church was embarrassed to proclaim the secret about itself), in our time, thanks to Bulgakov, it has become an urgent part of our testimony and, as it were, a condition of our historical reality, since we are able to comprehend and “to bear” that the Church is “the sacrament of all sacraments, the total sacrament... the Church itself, as God-manhood, the real Incarnation and Pentecost of the Spirit in their indwelling power. And this all-sacrament, as having no boundaries for itself, takes place in the world and humanity, over the whole world and over all humanity, and moreover, always, now and ever, and forever and ever” (Bride). Prot. Knyazev. In memory of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov I express my deep gratitude to the “Vestnik RSHD” for the fact that on its pages I have the opportunity to honor the memory of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and testify to a wide circle of readers about what I owe to him. I met Fr. Sergius in 1926 in Nice, where I lived then and where he then came to serve in the cathedral and give a public lecture. But I really became close to him in 1938, after I entered the Theological Institute. I entered the Institute after graduating from a Western secular school. The pathos of this school, as is known, is to question all generally accepted positions, in particular, and especially religious ones, for the sake of a feasible search for solving all problems exclusively with one’s own mind in order to create a scientific and philosophical worldview. Fr. Sergius Bulgakov amazed us, his students, with the courage of his problematics in all areas of theology. His talent as a thinker, his extraordinary philosophical culture, his theological and scientific experience were combined with deep churchliness and the undoubted charisma of serving at the altar. He showed that knowledge about God can, under certain conditions, become knowledge of God. By his own example, he showed that thinking about God can become one of the incidental moments of religious life. He awakened a theological calling in me and directed me along a scientific-theological and pastoral path. Love for the word of God, as well as the love for theological issues I received from him, forced me to become an Old Testament scholar. In those years when I began my own teaching at the Theological Institute, the Old Testament was subject to historical-rationalist criticism. In broad Orthodox circles, then, all understanding of the religious significance of the Old Testament and its value for Christian preaching was lost. According to the behests of Fr. Sergius, I decided to deal with this issue, as it was the most topical and pressing at that time. At his insistence, I began to research the Orthodox teaching about the Mother of God, for his cherished dream was to show the Protestant world the religious necessity of church veneration of the Most Holy Theotokos. Studying the Holy Scriptures showed me in a new way the true literal meaning of a number of biblical passages. They made me question some of the biblical justifications for Fr.'s overall theological system. Sergius. However, no one taught, as he did, to pose theological questions so correctly, to take into account theological difficulties, to truly delve into theological problems and to love theological thought. After Fr. Sergius, the scholastic methods and techniques that were established at one time in Orthodox school theology became completely impossible. All Orthodox theologians of our day, even those who disagree with the teachings of Fr. Sergius, but those who want to theologize from the fullness of church life, proceeding from Tradition, as a living experience of knowledge of God, carried out by the Holy Spirit in the Church, are, in essence, his followers. The Lord has eternal memory of him and constant gratitude to him from all who seek to love God with all their strength and all their mind. Archpriest Alexey Knyazev. E. Ber-Sizhel. In Memoriam (translated from French) Before meeting personally, I was familiar with Father Sergius Bulgakov through his works and his participation in the Ecumenical Movement. It was not through him that I became acquainted with the teaching and prayer life of the Orthodox Church, but his book “Orthodoxy,” 14 published in 1932, in an excellent French translation, was a faithful guide for me in the spring years of my encounter with the Church. Even if Fr. Sergius wrote nothing else other than this book; with this book alone he would have deserved great appreciation and gratitude from the Orthodox people of my generation and French culture. Together with Nikolai Aleksandrovich Berdyaev, and more than the latter - who somehow distinguished himself a little from the church environment - Father Sergius Bulgakov seemed to us the most outstanding representative of the confession of a living and free faith, in unity and continuity with the Fathers of the Universal Church. Deeply rooted in the tradition of Russian religious thought, Father Sergius nevertheless possessed a universal-catholic insight into Orthodoxy, in the very true sense of the Greek word kat'holon. This explains his deep personal involvement in the ecumenical dialogue, despite the fact that the mindset and spirit of the Protestant pioneers of the Ecumenical Movement was quite alien to him. At ecumenical meetings, being an extremely skillful dialectician, Fr. Sergius defended with extraordinary force the traditional positions of the Orthodox faith, in particular in the field of Mariology, positions in most cases unacceptable to his Protestant interlocutors. 15 Yet he seemed to them both a conscientious opponent and, at the same time, a friend - a knight of Truth, animated by the prophetic spirit. As for the personal, original side of Father Sergius’s thoughts, that is, his sophiology (under the influence of Vladimir Solovyov), although it attracted me to itself, at the same time it caused some anxiety and doubts, which I once spoke about in an article in the Religious and Philosophical Review. 16 Testifying to creative, free thought within Church Tradition, sophiology seemed to me worthy of attention and respect. Moreover, in its deep motivation it corresponded to the real spiritual experience witnessed by the Church: - intuition about the divine (Sophian) powers hidden in creation, the vision of the Tabor light, already graciously and mysteriously transforming human nature and the natural world. In contrast to the one-sided affirmation of divine transcendence (which at that time triumphed in the Protestant theology of Karl Barth), a statement that underestimates the natural world and man, although created by God, but making them absolutely alien to Him, did not the doctrine of Wisdom as the eternally beloved object of Trinity love signify a significant thought about the divine calling of the creature? Although, on the other hand, by objectifying and rationalizing the mystery felt by spiritual experience, and as if thereby disturbing the balance of church chaste silence and evangelical simplicity through speculative constructions, does not sophiology introduce - I asked myself - the Gnostic temptation of speculation? Or, as Fr. asked about this in the same era. Lev Gillet: “A radiant and joyful sophiological concept does not in some sense diminish the idea of ​​​​Divine inaccessibility and the idea of ​​(absolute) irreconcilability with the Prince of this world, and the tragedy of the life of the sweetest man Jesus, which ended in suffering on the cross and death”? But despite these questions and bewilderments that we had then, to condemn the thoughts of Father Sergius, without him being able to explain himself and defend himself, seemed to me both fruitless and deeply unfair. Vladimir Lossky, who condemned Bulgakov’s sophiology in his youth, came to this conclusion at the end of his life. He said that the sophiological problem could and should be reconsidered and introduced as an integral part into Orthodox theology. War came, disorderly flight, difficult years of German occupation. This tragic time was for me also a time of purification and turning to Father Sergius in the most important thing, that I recognized him as someone else - less intellectual and infinitely more personal. Returning to Paris after the “Exodus” of 1940, one evening (it was September), I, alone and confused, climbed Sergievskaya Hill in the hope of finding a living soul there. I knocked on Fr. Sergius. He opened the door and received me kindly. He advised me - before I went to my husband in the “forbidden zone” - to confess and take communion. Thus began our personal connection and correspondence, which lasted throughout the war. Imprisoned with my family in the “forbidden zone,” I could only rarely visit Paris, but regularly received from Fr. Sergius' words of friendship and spiritual strengthening, as well as rare information that reached him, through Switzerland, about our mutual friends who were abroad and with whom we were separated by the Iron Curtain of the German occupation. This was the “moisture” which, according to M. Maeterlinck, is enough to green a hawthorn, irrigate a blade of grass and revive a bird. And to fill the corolla where the bee collects honey, you need very little water!” So, during the days of the arrest of mother Maria Skobtsova, “in grief and pity,” as well as in hope, were we not communing with what stands on the other side of the suffering of real life. The last time I saw Father Sergius was in the early summer of 1944, a few months before the end of the war. This coincided with the birth of my son. Already quite ill, seriously damaged by throat surgery for cancer - which led to his death - Fr. Sergius could speak words that were difficult to understand. But when I parted with him, I kept in my heart his radiant, gentle smile and the blessing he gave with a broad gesture of his hand to me and my child, whom I then carried within me. As I had a presentiment, we were not supposed to meet with him again. 1. I have never met anyone in my life who made a greater impression on me, whom I would value more highly, and whose memory would be dearer to me than the memory of Fr. Sergius. I didn’t meet anyone who I could compare with him. 2. His works, for me, are inseparable from his personality, but his personality is separable from his works, and it gave me more, imprinted more deeply on me than his works. 3. I think, however, that Russian theological thought - and thought in general - when its torpor ends, will not pass by these works; and if it passes, it will impoverish itself and cripple its future. I cannot help but respond, at least briefly, to the celebration of the memory of Father Sergius Bulgakov. He had great spiritual fire and great power of faith, and with this spiritual flame he often ignited the souls of others. With great gratitude I remember the great impression that I received from frequent meetings with him when I was still a young student at Moscow University, and he was a leading associate professor at Moscow University and a professor at the Petrovsky Academy near Moscow. He was a zealous and active participant in the wonderful Circle of seekers of Christian enlightenment, in which, besides him, the leading persons were also V. A. Kozhevnikov, Prince. E. N. Trubetskoy, F. D. Samarin, bishop. Theodore and others and which I often visited in 1907–1912. I remember the fervor of his Christian faith and the power of his words. I did not share his sophiological theology, considering it somewhat too emotional and at the same time rationally scholastic in color, and also arbitrary. But I, of course, highly value and highly honor his burning interest in the great promise and also in the transformation of creation through the feat of Christ, although not in this – unconvincing for me – Bulgakov’s “sophiological” expression. He showed many the way to Christ. He opened the eyes of many to the action of the Word of God in the world and history. His name will take an honorable place in the history of Russian spiritual life and spiritual culture as a zealous and ardent servant and preacher of the Incarnate Word. I can already consider myself an unusually happy person that, by the grace of God, I had the opportunity to be in the closest communication with such luminaries of the Russian Renaissance as Archpriest Professor Sergius Bulgakov, S. L. Frank, N. A. Berdyaev, N. O. Lossky and others. Each of them is a giant in its own way, a giant, and deserves the closest attention, and his work - the most detailed analysis. But among them, the author of “The Never-Evening Light”, “Two Cities”, “Mozart and Salieri” shines with special brilliance as a star of the first magnitude - not to mention the most brilliant trilogy - “Lamb of God”, “Comforter”, “Bride of the Lamb” - and other creations, such as the small book “On the Miracles of the Gospels”, which is small in size but brilliant in content. I also consider myself extraordinarily lucky that the Lord brought me to be a colleague of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov at the Orthodox Institute of St. Sergius in Paris, where I had the honor and joy of teaching for many years under his leadership. And now, when in my declining years I indulge in sweet memories of these best years of my life - my heart beats fuller and sweeter than ever - and I don’t believe myself that there was such happiness and such joy - according to the poet’s words You won’t say with sadness - they don’t exist, But with gratitude - they were! And at the same time you can’t forget that through Fr. Sergius Bulgakov I had the opportunity to communicate with Fr. Pavel Florensky - teacher and inspirer of Fr. Sergius. With the creativity of Fr. I met Sergius for the first time when I was still a young fifth-grader at the Kyiv First Gymnasium, because then (in 1905–1906) Fr. Sergius was a young privat-docent at the Kyiv Polytechnic Institute: at the same time Fr. Sergius thundered throughout Russia with a series of excellent lectures on Chekhov and a number of articles, which were later included in the magnificent collection “Quiet Thoughts”. The halls in which Fr. read in Kyiv. Sergius, they were overcrowded. The content and style of these lectures, as well as their success, show that something of a sharp turn away from the pathetic and poor ideas of the 60s and 70s was indeed taking place, even a complete break with them for the luxurious and promising dawn of new days. And this despite the fact that officially Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (then privatdozent of political economy) and many of his listeners were in the camp of the populists and Marxists. But it was precisely all the more important to be a witness to the ongoing and inevitable revolution “from Marxism to idealism.” And at the same time, “Vekhi” was bought like hot cakes (one of the best articles in it was the article by Father Sergius), and the works of Lenin (pseudonym - Vladimir Ilyin) caused Homeric laughter with their backwardness, lack of culture and stupidity. The most powerful and deeply - de profundis acting in the entire spiritual appearance of Fr. Sergius at the time of my first meeting and first acquaintance with him (in Berlin in 1924) was his general, benevolent style of an Orthodox priest-archpriest. In him, as once in Vladimir Solovyov (in whom there was a lot of the priest - the “Levite”) - and it was precisely this style of the priest-Levite that attracted hearts to him with an unknown force. Of course, from the very first words, no matter what he uttered at the pulpit, from the very first steps of communication with him, one felt, first of all, the Levitical priest, to whom was given the power to knit and decide, to perform the liturgy, one felt a man who, once having passed through the fiery barrier separating the church from the world, has truly become different for the world and can, by the grace of the priesthood given to him by God, lead him behind him into the enclosure of fire. Such priests, due to the direct feeling of the grace of the priesthood resting on them, are very rare. They are precious. And these include a few colleagues of Fr. Sergius are very rare units. Such was the power of his preaching and spiritual gift. And precisely - we are firmly convinced of this - his theological, metaphysical and philosophical genius was so amazing that the Lord gave him the broadest and deepest experience of priestly service. Anyone who had the joy of being present at his services or being his spiritual son will never forget this and will take this happiness “on the other side” of the fiery barrier. And how much thunder there was in his priestly grace, a thunderstorm that drove away all kinds of dark forces. Father Sergius did not allow anyone to treat the shrine frivolously and carelessly. And this is the most important thing. In the shrine is everything, and the shrine is everything. Hence his theological genius. In theology, reverence, piety is everything. And oh. Sergius possessed all this, having not accepted the grace of the priesthood in vain. And in our time, no one (with the exception of Elder Alexy Mechev), no one carried “the ark and the cross - a holy symbol” over his head as high and so reverently as Father Sergius Bulgakov. Perhaps it was for this reason that he comprehended in such depth two of the greatest church values, without which the Church does not stand in our hearts - prayer and miracles. Prot. Georgy Serikov. Russian student Christian movement and Father Sergius Bulgakov If I, as one of the oldest (and, alas, already elderly) members of the Movement were asked about what, from my point of view, was and is the most precious and unforgettable in Father Sergius for the Movement, then paradoxically, but truthfully, I would have to answer: - his youth, his freshness, his spring spirit of every revival, his modernism (innovation), his inspiration, his creative dynamism, his evangelical Protestantism, its spirituality, which does not accept any inertia, routine and one-sided “Old Testament”... and all this was surprisingly combined with a loving, filial devotion to the “soil”, to the roots, to the fathers, to the “tradition of antiquity”, to everyday life, to the primordial and native Orthodoxy. If for the movement the permanent chairman, organizer and “dad” was dear “Vas-Vas” (future protopresbyter Father Vasily Zenkovsky), if their priest, “father” and prayer book, with his unforgettable, deep black eyes, was the humble and quiet Father Sergius Chetverikov, then the inspirer and inspirer of the Movement is always with Psherov, Khopov and Argeron until his death was his father Sergius Bulgakov. Through him, in his person, as the main inspirer and leader of two movements - the Russian Student Christian Movement in exile and the pre-revolutionary Religious Revival in Russia - both movements became related, not to say merged. Through Father Sergius Bulgakov, our R.S.H. The movement also became akin to the worldwide Ecumenical Movement, and was (until the recent entry into it of its native, sub-Soviet Church) the only voice of Russian Orthodoxy that sounded publicly among heterodox Christians. The movements, thousands of their delegates participating in the ecumenical congresses of the world, always had the joy of knowing that with them and at their head was such a luminary of religious thought as Bulgakov. Through Father Sergius, who was both the spiritual leader of the Movement and the head of the St. Sergius Theological Academy in Paris, these two religious sisters, almost the same age, loved each other and felt like members of the same family - even if we do not keep in mind that many members of the student Movement were also students of the Sergius Academy, and many professors of the latter were teachers and responsible leaders of circles and congresses of the Movement. This is a combination in one person of Father Sergius and the leader of the Religious Revival of the beginning of the century in Russia, and then in emigration (in the Student Youth Movement), a combination in one person of a participant in the significant Council of 17 in the history of the Russian Church, which restored the patriarchate in Russia and at the same time a participant and leader of all our religious youth congresses abroad, this is the union in his person of the authoritative voice of Orthodoxy before the Christian world at world ecumenical congresses and his leading role in the movement towards the Orthodox Church of Russian students abroad, this is a combination in one person of the greatest Russian theologian, who was a professor of the world’s only Orthodox Russian Academy in Paris (during the days of revolutionary hard times in his homeland), with the leadership of the secular organization of “Christian boys and girls”, all these connections in one person of Father Sergius are significant and symbolic for characterizing his religious pathos, his main deep idea of “GOD AND THE WORLD”. The significance of Father Sergius is that, in the image of the Chalcedonian union, in his theology he connected the spiritual with the physical, the religious with the secular, the transcendental with the immanent, the apophatic with the cataphatic, the metaphysical with the historical, the eternal with the temporal, the absolute with the relative, the ontological with the existential. “GOD AND THE WORLD” was for Father Sergius not only a grammatical sentence, but a symbol of the relationship of the religious essence of things - and what is remarkable is that in this sentence “GOD AND THE WORLD” Father Sergius paid attention not only to both subjects, but also to the conjunction “I”. In this he was a sophiologist. 17 Although the Movement was not involved in politics and was always “apolitical,” nevertheless, the social issue, as partly included in religious issues, was of course of interest and could not help but interest the members of the religious Movement. And such people as Berdyaev, Frank and Bulgakov, who went through the temptation of Marxism, could say a lot of instructive things to young movements about this. June 13, 1944 The movement was orphaned. His unforgettable sacred inspirer and prophet passed away from temporary life. A new shift of movements has appeared and with it new interests have come and new practical tasks have arisen, but the spirit of the Movement, the spirit of religious freshness, spring energy and fiery Orthodox faith will not become scarce in the Movement as long as the personality and spiritual charm of its leader are alive in memory. And if the Movement is destined to have some significance for the Orthodox Church in the future (history will show this), then it will not be without connection with the ever-memorable Father Sergius Bulgakov. First steps in life (M. O. Gershenzon. “Letters to my brother”) ...but Bulgakov, who arrived at 9 1/2 o'clock, interfered. He arrived in agitation specifically to seek advice on what price to put on his book. This winter he wrote, unusually quickly, a book of 16 1/2 pages (though small) about markets under the capitalist form of production, and began printing it on January 10. and today I signed the last sheet. It is published by Vodovozova, and they are having a struggle of generosity: she wants to pay him 800, and then, so that she does not have losses, she must charge 1 ruble for the book. 25 kopecks, which is prohibitively high. We counted for an hour and came to the conclusion that he would only take 600 rubles. and sold the book for 1 rub. 25 kopecks Another question is whether censorship will let it through. ...Bulgakov has just left, and it’s high time for me to sleep. One of these days, he will probably be approved as a political teacher. econ. in technical Institute. Tuesday 7 o'clock Now I have received a letter from Bulgakov, a letter that I will be proud of and which I am rewriting to you as the best description of this wonderful mind and rare heart. “Dear M.O.! Kalmykova and Semenov were here, and together we tried to attract the names of many “glorious Russian faces” to the magazine, but almost everywhere we got our noses. With the latter’s permission, the name of one of the famous Jewish figures, Gershenzon, was given for printing and on the cover as a collaborator (reviewer and author of articles). If, more than expected, you kick, drop a line. – Now I’m leaving for Livny until Friday. One brother is hopeless here, the other seems to have the same disease there. Here's what: test the waters with Vinogradov, will he agree to put his name on the cover of the magazine? I leave everything to your tact; in case of his favor, I will address him officially on behalf of Nov. Words. It is expected to make an attempt to attract a number of names, for example, M. Kovalevsky and others. Of course, these names will not express the direction, but for the large public of a famous brand they are important. You will need to talk to Petrushevsky and K. Although they are almost hopeless as reviewers or authors of articles on economics. history. – On the results of negotiations with Vinogr. My husband and I met with Fr. Sergius shortly after his expulsion from Russia and arrival abroad. At the beginning of 1923 he lived for some time in Constantinople before moving to Prague. How I regretted later that I was not able to talk with him at that time about his visit to the Hagia Sophia! He wrote a note about his impressions in his notebook, which was published in a posthumous edition in 1946. 19 Like Fr. Sergius, I felt something “mine” in Hagia Sophia and went there to pray more than once when I lived with my parents in Istanbul. But oh. I saw Sergius for the first time, not yet knowing him, in another church, St. Nicholas the Wonderworker (in Kharbiye), destroyed by the Turks after Kemal entered the city 20. In the fall of 1925, Fr. Sergius and his family and my husband and I settled in Paris, where, by that time, the Theological Institute had been created. Father Sergius was invited to occupy the chair of theology there, and therefore, in subsequent years, he had to endure many unfair attacks “due to disagreement with his “theologumens” from dissenters, who often did not even read his works, but judged them only by hearsay. Soon L.A. Zander began teaching at the Institute and Fr. Sergius gathered professors of the Institute and people interested in theology to conduct seminars on theological issues. Since these meetings and conversations with Fr. Sergius began to strengthen our friendly and spiritual connection with him more and more. Both my husband and I, my parents and sister Natasha chose Father Sergius as our spiritual father, and he, in turn, called my father his “abba” and regularly went to him to confess During our three-year stay in the Baltic states (where L.A. Zander conducted missionary work among young people) and summer holidays, we often corresponded with Fr. Sergius, and this correspondence lasted almost twenty years, until the death of Fr. Sergius in 1944. After his death, I was given many letters from us, touchingly preserved by him, except for those of a spiritual nature, which we asked him to destroy. We also kept his letters, and now, in my declining years, I imagine it is possible to share part of this correspondence with those who value the image of Fr. Sergius, who hid, under a sometimes harsh appearance, a gentle, sensitive and responsive soul. For this correspondence he sacrificed his precious time and called his correspondence with spiritual children “epistolary theology.” I was very touched by your sweet and kind letter and thank you for it. Thank you for describing your experience. You probably know that L.A. and I were praying at that time in the Assumption Chapel. What should I say in response to your loving thoughts about me? Knowing that the sun is reflected in a dirty puddle, I will listen to the reflection that you see. And I will say that, firstly, you are probably right about how little fatherhood, of all kinds, and spiritual, is in me, but, secondly, you still amazed me with the knowledge of the Father’s Hypostasis that was given to you in an instant. This is actually the first time I have come across a religious experience of this type, and, of course, I try to be edified by it. Of course, the Father's Hypostasis is not only Fatherhood, but also the Beginning, which does not reveal itself in itself (but only in the Son and Spirit), remaining transcendent; however, it is the Father, first of all of the Only Begotten Son, and then of every prodigal son who comes to him. For me there is always a certain triumph at the proclamation (before the Lord’s Prayer) of “heavenly God the Father” and the first words of the Lord’s Prayer. ...I can only accept those considerations regarding women’s ministry in relation to the angelic in that conditional and limited sense in which you yourself express it - a wife as a helper, for it is not good for a person to be alone. For the one who remains alone in the human sense, the angel is the one who leads out of unity... However, I talk about this enough in the book. I’ve done my job and now I’m moving on to other thoughts and tasks. I still don’t feel that the book was particularly noticed, but I didn’t expect it and didn’t claim it. But I have several letters that are absolutely remarkable in their fervor, which testify how the angelic world touches their hearts, but these people themselves, in their own way, are also wonderful. I consider your letter to be one of these angelological documents. Thank you. We completed a sophiological seminar this year. I don't know if it will repeat and continue. Hardly. But I have no reason to be dissatisfied with him. There were sharp questions, sometimes sparks were struck, and in general the flame of dogmatic life was felt. In these times we must thank God for this. As usual, I am very excited about my trip to England for the conference. Every time wings grow from it, which then, of course, disappear somewhere... Today, on a walk, through the green network of branches, the presence of angels was so transparent, watching and creating this beauty... ...In our academic life everything is relatively prosperous, but everything has become more complicated and difficult, although it may be more graceful, because the Lord brings with him the beginning not of law, but of grace, before which we feel shriveled by the law... that this beginning of “grace” is not able to shake. But, of course, it is impossible to take into account how positive the presence of a person brings, whose kindness borders, on the one hand, with holiness, and on the other, with irresponsibility. I personally always feel ashamed by the first and often tempted by the second. I didn’t have to talk about Sophia-related topics for a long time, but Vladyka sometimes comes to my name-glorifying seminar (Vladyka is, after all, a name-glorifier, although for him this is combined with sophie-glorification). The seminar consists of me reading most of my book about the Name of God, and it turned out to be better and more demonstrable than I thought... Dear Valya, I have not yet thanked you for your greeting lines for Venerable Day. Sergia... ...I have a feeling that he is ours, our spirit. Maybe this is spiritual conceit, maybe it’s not right to measure great saints by our yardstick, but we do this constantly. But I can’t help but want, in the name of Christian freedom and culture... to believe that everything we dream, think, and do has his blessing. For our Pleasant was a man of a free, creative spirit... and his obedience was self-denying love and care, and his contemplation was the Holy Trinity and Sophia the Wisdom of God. You need to hear this through the centuries and feel the source of inspiration from which the entire Sergius era lived from him. From your letter, as always, pure and gentle music of love and inspiration sounds. Your vision of the Last Judgment is remarkable for its childishness, without which one cannot enter the Kingdom of God: “... she crossed the girl and went...” I do not have such bright naivety (I once had an apocalyptic dream about the end of the world, when the luminaries sank over our heads like... lamps, but I remember the very feeling). Of course, I have, although weak, a feeling of fear of the Last Judgment, shame before the Lord and all people, and most of all from the lack of love, sins of doing and - especially for some reason - failure to do: everyone will stand before the eyes of whom we should have loved and did not love... This is like a “preliminary judgment” after death and even the very hour of death. But the eschatological Last Judgment - it goes further and deeper - into the realm of spiritual symbols... I live here among green tents, meadows and fields, enjoying and recovering. I’m ashamed that I seem to be growing dumb and outside of life, in the depths of the river, but together I gather my thoughts and, if I may put it this way, I conceive spiritually, although it comes more and more difficult and meagerly “in this other summer of the belly.” I indulge in contemplation of the Holy Spirit in the midst of nature, which is His kingdom. ...In two weeks I return to Paris and it seems that I have spent a long, long time in isolation from life under a green tabernacle... Of course, such solitude provides a place for prayerful concentration. But what actually argues with him is theological tension, which also belongs to the thought of God. So I flounder, as always, between two centers, which, of course, are one, but it is in such depth that you cannot feel it... The Fellowship 21 conference was difficult... But suddenly a miracle happened and I felt clearly what the dynamics were in the intercommunion proposal and how everything, even in the fight against it, had moved. In the end, it was recognized that we were already one, and although practical steps were immediately rejected, we were already in a state of spiritual intercommunion. I pulled out the true meaning of this idea, which was carelessly put forward in polemics, and at the next conference I proposed a theological clarification of this unity, partly I already did this in my speech. In addition, the desire was expressed that at the next conference there would be a special prayer with an expression of repentance about the existing division and set an example of a specially composed prayer that I read at Vespers... So, in principle, the gates are open. For me it’s like “now you let go.” Dear Lev Alexandrovich, I just read the essay you sent. It is new and interesting for me. Of course, I should not have read these pages first (in defense of the theology of Father Sergius in English. V. 3.), as they concern me and my affairs, and, so to speak, test those words of love for me, to which one can only respond with grateful love, but not by sending them for publication. But, at the same time, I understand the enormous sense of responsibility of your presentation. I thank God for your loyalty not to me, but to what is connected with me - that’s what I can say. I find your work excellent in relation to the task it sets - to open the eyes of foreigners to the meaning of what is now happening in Russian thought. And you do this with such skill, with such a gift for simplicity in presentation (it is not for nothing that I have always considered you a teacher par excellence) and (of course, I must here abstract from what concerns me personally, this is beyond my competence) with such tact that I consider your essay a useful contribution to our common cause. Maybe he will help promote English sophiology in publication. ...You are approaching from the side of the “Non-Evening Light”, and now I am coming from the side of triadology, but you are talking about the same thing. The polemical passages are worthy and powerful. By the way, our actual Orthodox cosmology is illiterate Thomism. This summer, due to the progress of my teaching, I am actually studying Thomism. This is very Saure Arbeit, but also very instructive both from the point of view of negative, so to speak, sophiology and problematics, and in itself. And, as far as it is possible to give any theological expression to the average Orthodox worldview, it is a mixture of... Thomism with Barthianism. However, Thomism has the right to exist for itself, if only because of the colossal work of thought that was invested in it and the supernatural universality of its creator, and with us... In essence, vulgarized Thomism dominates in Anglicanism and is generally a kind of middle line of pious thought... Dear L.A., I am sending back your article. 22 I really liked it and in general nothing like this has been written about the ecumenical movement; in fact, either Protestant interconfessionalism or... cynicism is practiced (I'm afraid it is more common among the Orthodox). You posed the question sincerely, boldly and directly. Dedication (although it is tactically contraindicated) is accepted with love, because I really see my own here: Sergius per Leonem, not in the sense of borrowing (because I never conceived such an article), but general inspiration, in connection with your personal, exceptional experience. Of course there will be howling. But dare, dare, people of God. A few verbal corrections, if I may, mostly for stylistic reasons... Most of all, I object to the expression “Christ-bearer”, “Christ-bearing” (p. 10, 11:12). Your will, but it sounds clumsy and resembles not only an order bearer or a crusader, but also other “bearers” (remember the epigram on Pobedonostsev?)... Therefore, you can replace: life in Christ, putting on Christ, the appearance of the face of Christ. Choose for yourself, but I assure you that bearing Christ or Christophory, which is dear to you in thought, is difficult for the eye and ear. Loving and grateful Fr. Sergius An insert should be made on page 23 about the orthodoxy of the ecumenical movement, something like what I wrote; or write it yourself. 17-IV-1939, L.A. Zander was in the clinic with Fr. Sergius, who wrote in pencil on a piece of paper: “Can you dare? It’s impossible if God doesn’t give.” And then he describes his experiences: “In 1925, I was dying, I saw the light and mystery of death, but here there was no death, but only the darkness of non-life - Christ’s dying with Him: placing Me in the pit of the underworld, in the darkness and shadow of death. He left Vskaya, that’s what happened. Physically, I was, of course, on the verge of death, but not dying, but only overcoming semi-human suffering, without revelation, and this was the most terrible and mortal thing. Of course, death would have brought its joy and its judgment, but this did not happen. A Strange Rearrangement of Revelations: 1939–1925. You weren't here in 1925. Such were the abysses of God-forsakenness—this is how these sides of Christ’s passion were revealed. I didn’t have Easter... I say all this not to frighten, but to show triumph. I don’t accept “pink Christianity.” This is what I wanted to tell you and everyone I love, as a revelation. But how I loved everyone there, even to the point of surprise. No one could help me (he left me alone). And then, of course, this terrible test - muteness. And your image is with me. I think: What inhuman torment would I experience if I were so separated from everything a year ago, and now I have peace and joy, as if I myself didn’t need anything... How’s Natasha, boy? I bless everyone. I don’t know what will happen, but I put myself in God’s hands. In 4-5 months, probably, some part of the voice will return, but it won’t be worse than it was... The Lord sent His light and joy such that more is not needed and so much love, I see so much love, I live in some kind of atmosphere of love... from L.A. Zander (1939) ... “reassuring news is coming that everything is proceeding normally. Everywhere you hear prayer for you, everywhere you see the feeling of love that surrounds you. You will be pleased to know that the Metropolitan has finally agreed to head the committee for the publication of the Bride of the Lamb. Fr. gave his consent. Sergiy Chetverikov - without hesitation or doubt - right away. At the same time, he told me: “...we are being connected to Fr. Sergius has ties that are deeper than any theological differences that may exist.” And he added that if disagreements have theological interest and significance, your works do not lose because of this; that he reads them with the greatest interest... ...The committee has been formed. It included: Metropolitan Evlogy, Fr. S. Chetverikov, Fr. Cassian, Fr. Curtis, M. Maria, Berdyaev, Veidle, Vysheslavtsev, Dobbie-Bateman, Vas. You. [Zenkovsky], Kartashev, N. Zernov, Lauri, Lagovsky, Mochulsky, Pyanov, Rudnev, Fedorov, Anderson, Fr. Tsankov. A leaflet signed by these names was compiled. Anderson promised to print this leaflet. The book could be out by the end of the year... ...What a joy it will be for you to return to the hill, Rev. Sergius from a place of torment and melancholy. Letter from Father Sergius from the V. and L. Zander Hospital I thank my Lord, who has mercy on us and saves us. It is good for me, for you have humbled me. My dear, beloved friends and children, what a light in the deep darkness the thoughts of you were when they penetrated the darkened consciousness. What a blessed joy your letters were to me, Leva, like light from heaven, the Lord gave me such lights. What a support for me in my difficult situation is your loyalty and help. What kindness are yours, Valya, love and prayer. I put myself in the hands of God and trust in Him. Glory to the Almighty, glory! ...Forced separation, as I knew in advance, and now I am learning from experience, is one of the difficult features of our situation in the presence of legal obstacles to moving and the slowness of postal communications. But now there is no need to complain about anything, everyone has been sent a test... I live in nature and this, of course, makes my sitting here a lot easier, along with the good prayerful atmosphere and the devotion of my close friends. I suffer from lack of books, or rather I am beginning to suffer. To kill time and, out of incorrigible habit, I write 23 and, of course, I think, I think drillingly about what is happening - sit venia verbo - about the Sophia problematic of the war, because in the field of sophiology “we cannot retreat.” I am writing, of course, without any thought about practical use. I’m just thinking with a pen in my hands, I even feel the need to somehow answer myself. I think that I still remain myself in this. You just have to not think about your tomorrow. Such a time. In this context, I also perceive your friendly concern for settling me in England. I don’t know what will happen in a while in terms of a three-year war, but for now I absolutely cannot accept this plan. In fact, only one, albeit serious, argument speaks for it: namely, the library one. But for this you need Mirfield with its terrible climate and harsh regime (I know it). Meanwhile, separation from family will make this stay unbearable and leave the library unused. But, first of all, I need medical care for my throat tube and, for a while, I simply cannot physically exist without it. Further, I need various kinds of care, because I remain semi-sick, in the appropriate care (given the now catastrophic and so far irreparable toothlessness). I cannot, with my vocal silver apparatus, speak English in general and with any hope of understanding in particular, and this creates a very depressing psychology. Finally, I cannot live without church, and now I am already beginning to serve, even the liturgy, which gives - of course not to others, but to myself - absolutely exceptional support and joy. Weighing all this, I remain here at the will of God. I am very concerned and worried about all sorts of institute affairs and especially the fate of the staff... And nevertheless, I experienced great satisfaction from the fact that the Theological Institute was not liquidated, let it be exhaustion, but not suicide... ...My spiritual gourmand was again composed of your latest sketch, which I re-read with great recognition and even excitement... You expressed my own feeling when you said that Dostoevsky is rather a reason for thinking about Omu (and Omi-) Usianism, his own spiritual maturity does not correspond to his genius... ...I read Nesmelov with respect and edification, but was not intimately connected with him. A bright victim of clerical slavery, he had to remain silent about what was dear and essential to himself, about apocatastasis, he was a follower of St. Gregory of Nyssa, the very thing that I reached “with my own mind” and has now spread in the Bride of the Lamb without any scrupules. “A Bird Walks Joyfully”... I had completely forgotten Dostoevsky, but I have no time to re-read it and, to tell the truth, I would not have found the inspiration to read as completely as I need to in order to be au courant. It will be interesting for you to read the volume by K.V. Mochulsky, but it is delayed in printing. I am touched by the nightly thoughts of Valina’s tender soul. She (the soul) conducts her own conversation with the world, and he with her. But I only know how to suffer, if not for everyone and for everything, of course, then for many and many things. Thank God!... I rejoice and admire your, Lev, rise of creative powers, I have never seen it in you to such an extent. God help you. On October 23, L. A. Zander began a book about Fr. Sergius "God and the World". Dear Valya, today I received your letter... ...First of all, about the life of St. Seraphim, which I read twice with great attention and tenderness, so that both night and day I was in a certain sense delirious with this reading, such was the impression. It is felt that you got used to this image, and also how you worked. This refers to how it is done and what is shown. This is how such things can and should be written. My ad hoc comments, as I already told Loewe, are from tradition: outside the hagiographic frame it comes out somewhat folklore, ... but this, I repeat, does not abolish the literary and spiritual merits of your work. And besides, this is necessary experience on a very difficult and important path... The beginning of the semester is approaching... I still retain some of the lectures and have a desire to expand my share of participation in teaching as much as I can. This internal inaction is very difficult, and it creates a false position for me. I couldn’t be happier with this gift of God to me, Alyosha Knyazev. Tell Leva that today, for the very first time, I was again consoled by his lectures that he brings. I suddenly felt with new clarity that this gift of God was twofold: Alyosha and Leva, and not only as an ascetic in the study and presentation of my theology, but also as my collaborator in the creation of my theological, although not a school, but a nursery. I saw with complete clarity in all this clear understanding of the subtlest theological problems and teachings not only his better sensitivity to them, but also the work of Levin’s seminar on me, so persistent and long-lasting, and I was imbued with gratitude to the one who led this seminar. With love, spiritual father Fr. Sergius Dear Valya, thank you for the memory and for the letter. I understand the “creepiness” of transparency as the catastrophic unexpectedness and violence of the approach of death, through its threat in the bombing, after which spiritual trauma remains. 24 Unfortunately, I do not have an exact memory of the past and therefore I am not able to tie and string it on one thread. I myself remained biographically alien to this due to the lack of bombing experience. But I don’t feel creepiness simply due to the experience and proximity of death in the past and present. But I keep this personal feeling locked up; I somehow have no time for it. And what is important, necessary and difficult for me is to find and reveal within myself “her coming,” which I silently speak about in the Easter sermon. Creativity is the most difficult thing to find... I bless them both. Your o. Sergius. There is, of course, no silence or peace here now. The war, after the resignation of Mussolini and the success of Russian weapons, seems to be entering a more decisive stage, and we have to think about the near end of the war with all its tragedy and problems. You know my political mood, but yesterday I heard Soviet “comradely” radio, which excited me; How long, Lord? Of course, this is official jargon, but it exists. And recently I saw the book “Religion in Russia” Ed. Moscow Patriarchy 1942; this is a variant on the theme “Orthodoxy and autocracy, patriotically choking expressions of church-patriotic feelings of hierarchs, clergy and laity, and the preface states that religion under the Soviet regime is free, and persecution was only for political reasons. And at the same time, there are idyllic illustrations of popular piety, bishop’s mitres (which even Bolshevism did not knock down), so that you involuntarily ask yourself: what awaits us in Russian church life? I went to the village for 3-4 days, to breathe, and most importantly, to be silent. In the mornings, to the point of exhaustion, but for a shorter time than you, I write the Apocalypse, with the greatest dissatisfaction with myself; got to the middle. I'll take the rest of the time... Today we ordain Melia as deacon. 25 Alyosha K. 26 with the greatest and touching regularity brings me his notes for future lectures, in which he sets out my theology with impeccable accuracy. The Lord sent me lips... ...(your article) I read, I read everything with great enthusiasm and, as it were, a revelation. Firstly, purely artistic: in the cloth presentation of the chronicle (about St. Seraphim. V. 3.) 27 and the hagiographic style, the spiritual images of living personalities, with their appearance, voice, character, fate, are depersonalized and extinguished, but in you they all come to life. - The main thing here is your special gift - empathy, and therefore the transfer of these images in their own personal attractiveness and distinctiveness, so I just want to say one thing: what a pity that so little can be learned about them, but there is, of course, a Higher Will for this silence. The second is the ever-growing impression of a religious fairy tale or myth, in the highest sense, of course, into which your life develops, again due to your same gift of empathy. I am not sure that it will spread to your French readers... and even less sure that it will not be drowned in Russian pious unctuousness... A real revelation, fueled by that spiritual connection with St. Seraphim, which was given to you and given as the basic fact of your own life path, and not writing, which is most difficult for me to bear. And thirdly, ...you will be surprised at what I say - this is, on my part, some somewhat perplexed listening and peering into the prophecy that we have in St. Seraphim. I am waiting for the end, when this will be clarified and revealed, as it is open to you, but I still ask, with reverent awe, but also as if from the outside: what does all this mean? On the one hand, this grandeur of holiness and prayerful feat, closeness to God, and along with this all this everyday, and if you want, together the supra-historical, mythical frame of this entire phenomenon, namely a spiritual phenomenon, some kind of personal apocalypse in it, and together somehow outside the Apocalypse... I hope that in the future you will give, if not an answer, then data to answer this question, not intentionally, but by deed itself. But from this you can conclude what is the significance of the image that you, with your pen, capture for the world. I bless your work, may the mysterious silent man himself help you tell about himself. On Saturday, June 10, I felt a call from Fr. Sergia tried to find a way to go to Paris, but daily bombing destroyed the railway tracks and communication with Paris was interrupted. On Sunday I set off on foot from St. Genevieve and, walking along bomb-torn roads to the Juvisy station, had the opportunity to get on a random train. Arriving at the Podvorye and going up to Fr. Sergius, I went to the door of his room. At this time the door half opened and Fr. Sergius, who had been lying unconscious before, suddenly opened his eyes, saw me and beckoned with his finger. When I approached, he blessed me, wanted to write something on paper, but lowered his hand in powerlessness and closed his eyes again. About the last days of Father Sergius (eyewitness account) It was on Saturday, June 10, 1944. Five days before, on the night of Tuesday, Father Sergius had a stroke. The first two days, Tuesday and Wednesday, Fr. Sergius still showed some signs of consciousness and recognized some of those around him. On Thursday, consciousness began to fade, and during the last thirty hours, from Friday morning to Saturday afternoon, Fr. Sergius was in a state of deep oblivion, did not open his eyes, did not swallow, and only quiet breathing indicated that life had not yet left him. In these days following the impact of Fr. Sergius, all of us 28 who surrounded him listened with trepidation to the mystery that was revealed there, in this new existence of his. We were transported to another plane, hitherto unknown to us. The motionless body o. Sergius, lying in front of us, was like a bridge connecting two worlds - “this” and “that”. And “that one” was revealed to us in such a reality that “this one” began to seem illusory. Earthly life about. Sergius, so harmoniously completed by the last liturgy of the Spiritual Day, was moving into another phase, and we needed to see the light that the Lord had prepared for those who love Him. It's already thirty o'clock. Sergius did not come to his senses and did not show any signs of consciousness. The spiritual tension of these last hours was so great that the four of us caring for Fr. Sergius, we all did not leave his side, feeling that we were present at a great spiritual celebration and did not have the strength to tear ourselves away, for fear of missing something. It was about one o'clock in the afternoon. Fr.'s face Sergius gradually began to brighten and was illuminated with such an unearthly light that we froze, afraid to believe what we were given to see. It was clear that the soul of Fr. Sergia, who was passing through some mysterious paths, at that moment approached the throne of the Lord and was illuminated by the light of his Glory. This wondrous phenomenon lasted for almost two hours, but it could have been a moment or a century - time stood still for us. We were present with such an undeniable illumination of the Holy Spirit, with such a “real experience of holiness” that it was difficult to contain. Eighteen days have passed since this luminous phenomenon, Fr. Sergius is still alive and his soul is going through some divine paths assigned to it, and his body is languishing in its earthly constraint, but just as the Lord’s disciples were given the opportunity to see the glory of the transfiguration, in order to understand and accept His further path of the cross and resurrection, so we were given the opportunity to see the “glorification” of Fr. Sergius in order to wait with him, in humility and submission, for the hour of his complete liberation and merging with Christ. And it is true that, having gone to the Lord, Fr. Sergius will not leave us, but will beg God to open our hearts to receive the Comforter Spirit, whose gifts were poured out so abundantly on him before our eyes. 2 1/2 o'clock in the morning, at the bedside of Fr. Sergius. Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. The tragedy of philosophy 29 The work brought to the reader’s attention was written about five years ago (1920–1921) in the south of Russia. Although in terms of content it is for me a kind of summing up of the results in the field of philosophy, its execution bears the stamp of external conditions (about which a lot could be said if it were appropriate here), and especially reflected the insufficiency of literature. Nevertheless, I leave it in its original form, with only external corrections. Its internal theme is common to my earlier works (in particular “Non-Evening Light”) - about the nature of the relationship between philosophy and religion or about the religious-intuitive foundations of all philosophizing. This connection, which for me had previously been invariably outlined in general outlines, is revealed here more specifically, and the history of modern philosophy appears in its true religious nature, as Christian hereseology, and therefore as the tragedy of thought that does not find an outcome for itself. Differing in material and form, as belonging to a different historical epoch, the present work is essentially devoted to the same subject, and belongs to the same class as St. Irinea, bishop Lyons "Against Heresies", St. Athanasius of Alexandria “Against the Pagans” and under. Christian dogma as not only a criterion, but also a measure of the truth of philosophical constructions - such is the immanent judgment of philosophy, by which it judges itself in its history and in the light of which, according to Hegel, die Weltgeschichte ist Weltgericht. Chapter one. On the nature of thought There is a natural problematic for philosophical thought, along with its inevitable aporia, from which it emerges at the cost of heavy sacrifices, falling into the one-sidedness of “abstract principles”, philosophical heresy (if by heresy we mean the arbitrary choice of one thing, a part instead of the whole, i.e. precisely one-sidedness). This choice, heresy, determines the motive and character of the philosophical system, makes it both a thesis and an antithesis in relation to other systems, and thus includes it in the goal of the dialectic of thought, into which Hegel made an attempt - and not an unreasonable one - to contain the entire history of philosophy. All philosophical systems that the history of philosophy knows are such “heresies,” conscious and deliberate one-sidedness, and in all of them one side wants to become everything, to spread to everything. We can give a preliminary answer to the question of what causes such one-sidedness, or single-motiveness, from which we then have to derive and develop the diversity of everything. The reason for this is not difficult to indicate: it is obvious. This is the spirit of the system and the pathos of the system, and the system is nothing more than the reduction of many and everything to one and, conversely, the derivation of this all or much from one. Logical continuity or, what is the same, continuous logical deduction of everything from one, which makes the entire system a circle around one center, continuously traversed in all directions and not knowing any hiatus or interruptions, this is the task to which human thought naturally and inevitably strives, without stopping at violence and self-deception, detours and illusions. Logical monism, which is a natural need of reason - ratio - and already implies the possibility of adequate, consistent knowledge of the world, constitutes an irremovable feature of any philosophical system that vaguely or clearly, instinctively or consciously, timidly or militantly claims to be an absolute philosophy and considers its sketch of being as a system of the world. And first of all, the question arises: is such a monistic system of the world even possible? Is absolute philosophy possible? And on what is such faith of reason based both in its own strengths and in the correctness of its very task? This question is most often answered in the spirit of skepticism, relativism, shameless wit, a la Pilate of Pontus: what is truth? But not to mention the fact that skepticism is also a kind of absolute philosophy that claims a lot, it contradicts the self-awareness of reason, its seriousness, persistence and persistence, or, better yet, its inevitable problematics. Reason cannot be affected by skeptical rot, because it is aware of its strengths and its aspirations. Its seriousness is so great that skeptical frivolity cannot find access to it, and real conscious skepticism is generally a rare phenomenon in history. Usually, relativism of various shades is mixed with it, that is, primitive, crude scientific dogmatism, which could not be further from skepticism (this is modern scientific positivism). The mind tortures and cannot help but torture new ups, and yet each such ups is inevitably accompanied by a fall, and the history of philosophy is not only a story about these ups, but also a sad story about inevitable falls and fatal failures. Even if these failures are not noticed by the creators of philosophical systems themselves, who exhausted themselves in this effort, remaining in love with their system until the end of their lives, like Schopenhauer, and imagining that they have comprehended the Truth itself, like Hegel. So much the worse for them, because history doubly stigmatizes this blindness of theirs and exposes their illusions. And how can one resist the multiplicity of systems, while at the same time asserting the absolute value of one’s own? Should we brand our opponents as idiots and swindlers, as Schopenhauer did, for example? But this is too cheap and only exposes bad taste and evil character. Or should we interpret them as our own predecessors, dialectically natural, but completely absorbed in an absolute system, like Hegel’s, so that the whole history of philosophy, in essence, turns out to be the history of Hegel’s own philosophy, dialectically unfolding? This means, without a doubt, the removal of the question itself, but even this claim is laughed at by the subsequent history of thought. Each such system wants to be the end of the world and the end of history, which, however, continues. Either absurdity or prematureness - such is the verdict of the history of philosophy, inscribed by it itself over all the efforts of reason, like Chronos devouring his children. The sight is inconsolable! The only thing that can save us from it is learned pedantry, which finds taste in collecting and turns the history of philosophy into a museum where objects of rarity and intellectual grace are collected. However, if we remember that this cabinet of curiosities contains not shells and trinkets, but the achievements of the highest tensions of the human mind, then the museum point of view will appear to us in all its inappropriateness and even blasphemy. The history of philosophy is a tragedy. This is a story about the repeated falls of Icarus and his new ascents. This tragic side of philosophy, which is the lot of every thinker, was keenly felt by some minds, like Heraclitus and Plato. Kant came to the very edge of the abyss in his doctrine of antinomies and stopped. The essence of the tragedy is that a person suffers here not from individual guilt, and even though he is individually right and obeying orders from above in his demands, he at the same time naturally perishes. The philosopher cannot help but fly, he must rise into the ether, but his wings inevitably melt from the heat of the sun, and he falls and breaks. However, during this takeoff, he sees something, and he talks about this vision in his philosophy. A real thinker, just like a real poet (which in the final sense is the same thing) never lies, never composes, he is completely sincere and truthful, and yet his destiny is to fall. For he wanted a system: in other words, he wanted to create (logically) the world from himself, from his own principle - “you will be like gods” - but this logical deduction of the world is impossible for man. And, first of all, for reasons beyond the human will and the abilities of reason: the world is not reasonable in the sense in which “deductive” philosophy, the philosophical system as such, which has its classical and ultimate expression in Hegel, wants to comprehend it. More precisely, although reason reigns in the world, it cannot be said that everything that is real is rational, as Hegel thought. This does not mean that it is unreasonable, and even more so counter-reasonable: the real is not only reasonable, but also extra-rational, and reason is not at all the only, exhaustive and all-powerful builder of the world, as every philosophical system that builds the world involuntarily professes it to be. In a certain sense, reason has only a reflection on the world, but it is not its origin. Therefore, in comprehending the world, the mind depends on the evidence of existence, on some mystical and metaphysical experience, which, however, in reality, philosophy does not refuse, always seeking to find the first principle in contemplation, to see it, to discover it. And this discovery is by no means an act of thought, it is given not by a mental effort, but by a chain of conclusions, it is a revelation of the world itself in human consciousness, a kind of knowledge. And a new question immediately arises: the knowledge of existence, as its self-revelation, lights up in the mind, but is the mind capable of mastering what is revealed and assimilating it, linking it into unity, into a system? That he does this and cannot help but do this is self-evident; such is his nature, “his architectonic ideal,” to use Kant’s language. But if the mind itself is empty and powerless to create by itself and from itself, then is it strong enough to reduce everything that is revealed to it to unity, that is, to a system? It is obvious that if the world, reality, is not only a rational being, although it is revealed to the mind, it cannot be revealed to the end, it remains forever only revealed, essentially being a mystery containing within itself the source of new knowledge and revelation, and it is not possible to bring the light of reason into all the secret places of the universe, to abolish all mystery, to make it transparent to reason, as Gogol, and in his person, all philosophy, imagined. The only conclusion from this is a kind of empiricism, freed from limited and vulgarizing interpretation, but taken into the full depth of life and mystical experience. Empiricism is the real epistemology of life, the revelation of secrets, which is always the knowledge of reality and thinking about it. At the same time, philosophy can never remain naked empiricism, which, incidentally, is not possible, because reason comprehends the connection of everything with everything, leading multiplicity to unity, and vice versa. So, reason cannot begin from itself and generate thought from itself, for it is also born in existence and in relation to existence, in the self-revelation of the latter; and at the same time he is self-accountable and self-legitimate in his path and in his work. If reason is not the first, but the second, not original and not self-generating, not arising and being born in that which is ontologically prior to reason, then its power is correlated with that in which it is born, which serves as the object of its knowledge for it. The state of the mind, like the state of a thinking person, can be different and have different stages. After all, if in philosophy a distinction is made between common sense or the ordinary practical mind, then reason and, finally, reason (this distinction is made with particular clarity by Hegel), then it turns out that in reason itself there are degrees, and there is a more and less reasonable reason: reason is an unreasonable reason, the wisdom of which is limited in the face of reason, and at the same time it is still the power of thought, mind, the same rational element realizes itself in both reason and reason. Why not allow further ascension into abstruse regions, even if now not yet achievable for him and, however, fundamentally possible, and moreover, according to the testimony of Christian ascetics, not inaccessible to them? In other words, illness, corruption, distortion of the entire human being, which was the original sin, affects the mind and makes it impossible for it, closing with the flaming sword of the cherub - antinomies, access to the tree of heavenly knowledge. And, in any case, wisdom itself requires self-knowledge from the mind, however, not only in the Kantian sense - dismantling the machine into separate parts in order to clean them and put them back together again, but in the sense of comprehending the real boundaries of the mind, which must be realized, even if the mind rests on antinomies. It follows that the most basic aspiration of the mind, to logical monism, that is, to a logically coherent and continuous interpretation of the world from one beginning, turns out to be unrealizable, and an absolute system of philosophy is impossible. This, of course, does not interfere with the fact that if philosophy is not possible, then philosophizing is quite possible and necessary and the reflective, comprehending work of the mind retains no less importance than in its incorrect and exaggerated self-assessment. Reason, striving for monism, for the logical creation of the world from itself, actually commits an act of arbitrariness, choosing this or that from the experimental principles available to it, and, thus, embarking on the path of philosophical heresy (in the sense explained above). Revelation about the world is God's revelation about himself. Religious dogmas, “myths” in the epistemological sense 30, are, at the same time, problems for the mind, which it masters and comprehends. The religious basis of philosophizing is a fact that is not even subject to dispute, whether it is recognized by it or not. And in this sense, the history of philosophy can be shown and interpreted as religious hereseology. The philosophical characteristic of heresy in the history of Christian theology consists precisely in the fact that a complex, multi-motivated, antinomian teaching for reason is simplified, adapted to the comprehension of reason, rationalized and thereby perverted. All major heresies represent a similar rationalism applied to dogma. Rationalism, as such an abuse of reason, has its source in the pride of reason, understood not in the sense of the personal arrogance of individual heresiologists, but in the objective sense of their ignorance of their own nature, boundaries and state. Consequently, in the language of modern philosophy, we can say that philosophizing hereseologists are guilty of dogmatism, of a lack of critical awareness of the boundaries of reason. There are three basic self-definitions of thought that form its outcome and determine its orientation. All philosophical systems with their basic principles are divided along these three lines: 1) – Hypostasis or personality 2) – Idea or ideal image, logos, meaning 3) – Substantial being as the unity of all moments or positions of being, as everything being realized. I am Something (potentially everything) - this formula expressing a judgment contains in an abbreviated form not only a diagram of existence, but therefore also a scheme of the history of philosophy. This three-part formula, which contains a logical trinity and a trinity of moments connecting it into inseparability and unsequence, is constantly dissected in different directions by philosophizing, and in the arbitrariness of this dissection and selection of individual principles, heretical thought, and the method of this dissection determines the style of philosophizing. At the basis of self-consciousness, as well as any act of thought that imprints it, lies a trinity of moments, a trinity, which is expressed in a simple type of judgment: I am A. (Summarizing this in logical-grammatical terms, subject, predicate and connective, we can say that the basis of self-consciousness is a sentence. The spirit is a living, constantly realizing itself sentence. Every subject, “a noun” or a word that replaces it, exists in the image and likeness of the first person pronoun, the subject (subject) par excellence: it is fragmented and multiplied in countless mirror repetitions 31 The first person pronoun, a verbal mystical gesture, has a completely unique nature and is the basis of every thing, as a noun. Each sentence can be brought to the type of connection of the I with its predicate; it can even be said that, having a true subject, I, is, entirely, a predicate of this I, for in relation to the I, everything, the whole meaning is a predicate, and each judgment is a new and new self-determination of the I, if not in form, then in essence. Each judgment is ontologically brought to the general relationship of subject and object, which are nothing more than the Self, the hypostasis, and its nature, which reveals its content, its predicate, it is not brought into connection with the subject by the bundle of being. In the form of judgment, the mystery and nature of thought, the key to understanding philosophical constructs. I, the self-closed one, located on an inaccessible island, to which no thinking or being can reach, finds in itself a certain image of being, expresses itself in the “predicate”, and recognizes this image as its own generation, self-revelation, which is the copula. In this sense, our whole life, and therefore all our thinking, is a continuously ongoing sentence, a sentence consisting of a subject, a predicate and a connective. But precisely because of this, philosophy stopped least of all on the proposition or judgment as a universal and self-evident form of thought, and only in its own way, in a limited formulation of the question, did logic and grammar stop. Kant’s critic also did not notice the proposition-judgment and its universal meaning. The sentence contains the essence and image of being, the sentence carries its secret, for the image of the trinity is hidden in it. According to the evidence of the proposition, the essential relation resists any monism, philosophy of identity, which seeks to dissolve all three of its members, reducing them to one: either to the subject, or to the predicate, or to the connective. Every philosophical system is guided by such aspiration, since it is a philosophy of identity. She declares either the subject, or the connective, or the predicate to be the only beginning, and everything is derived from it or everything leads to it. Such “deduction” of either the subject from the predicate, or vice versa, or both from the connective, actually represents the main task, and at the same time an insoluble difficulty for philosophizing thought, which strives for monism, for reducing everything to the first unity at all costs. The original and original unity, which denies the threefold nature of the proposition, is the root of every philosophical system and its tragedy. This unity is not only a postulate, but also an initial axiom for thought, and this axiom underlies the entire history of philosophy. Meanwhile, this axiom is incorrect, and therefore all the efforts of philosophy are in vain, and cannot but represent a series of tragic failures, moreover, of a typical nature: the heat of the sun inevitably melts the wax-glued wings of Icarus, no matter in what direction he flies. For, as evidenced by the form of the sentence - a judgment, reflecting the very structure of existence, the basis of existence is not singular, but threefold in unity, triune, and false monism, the claim of the philosophy of identity, is an error, πρῶτον ψεῦδος of philosophy. Substance is one and threefold. And nothing can overcome this conjugation of unity and the multitude of its moments, and therefore should not strive for it. Hypostasis, person, I, exists, having its own nature, that is, its revelation, which is constantly predicable and never fully expressed, which it realizes as its own being (in its different shades or modalities). “Substance” exists not only “in itself”, as a subject, but also “for itself”, as a predicate and, moreover, “in itself and for itself”, in conjunction, as being. And these three principles are not at all just dialectical moments of one, sublating each other and abolished in synthesis, no, they are three simultaneously and equally existing, like the roots of being, in their totality revealing the life of substance. The hypostatic Self is indefinable by its very essence. Being the Self, the hypostasis, everyone knows what we are talking about, although it is inexpressible (but only expressible). It is the very essence of hypostasis that it is indefinable, indescribable, stands outside the boundaries of words and concepts, and therefore cannot be expressed in them, although it is constantly revealed in them. In the face of the hypostasis, silence is appropriate; only a silent mystical gesture is possible, which is not named as a secondary, reflective act, but “instead of a name” is designated by a “pronoun,” I. This indeterminability, however, is not emptiness, a logical zero; on the contrary, hypostasis is a prerequisite for the logical, the subject of thought. It is a mistake to think that thought stands on its own feet, rests on itself: it arises and exists in that which is not thought, but at the same time it is not alien, foreign to thought, in which thought is born and what it constantly wraps around itself. If Kant’s distinction between noumena and phenomena is appropriate and applicable, then it is here, when characterizing the mutual relations of hypostasis and its nature, subject and object, subject and predicate, for I, hypostasis, is truly a thing in itself, a noumenon, and it, that is, the spirit itself, forever remains transcendental to thought in its nature, position and relation to it. But the transcendent is always and inextricably linked with the immanent, immanent; the subject, the hypostasis, is always revealed and expressed in the predicate. It goes without saying that hypostasis in this sense is not the psychological self, psychological subjectivity, which is already a definition of hypostasis, a predicate and not a subject: the spirit is not psychological, and hypostasis is not in any sense a psychologism. Hypostasis is not even that epistemological self that Kant knows as the unity of transcendental apperception. And this is only the shell of the self, its “transcendental” predicate, and it is a mistake to think that the immeasurable depth of the hypostatic spirit can be reduced to this point of light, to the torch of knowing consciousness. This is evidenced by the fact that Kant observed for all his critics that the self, hypostatic, noumenal, is an indivisible unity, realized not only in cognition, but also in will, feeling, action, in all life. It connects the “pure”, “practical”, and aestheticizing (evaluating) mind. The hypostatic self is a living spirit (which is, however, a synonym), and its life force is inexhaustible in any definition. He reveals himself in time, but he himself is not only above time, but also above temporality itself. For hypostasis there is no origin and death, beginning or end. She is both timeless and supertemporal, eternity belongs to her, she is also eternal in the same sense as God is eternal, who himself breathed from himself his Spirit into man at his creation. Man is the son of God and a created god, and the image of eternity is inherent in him inalienably and inseparably. Therefore, a person cannot conceive or desire his own destruction, that is, the extinguishing of the self (and all attempts at suicide represent a kind of philosophical misunderstanding and relate not to the self itself, but only to the image of its existence, not to the subject, but to the predicate). The Hypostatic Self is the Subject, the Subject of all predicates, his life is this predicate, infinite in both breadth and depth. But isn’t something that cannot be defined in any way, being fundamentally transcendental for thought, being introduced here into metaphysics, as a fundamental principle, isn’t there a misunderstanding, an error, an absurdity here? How to think the unthinkable? How to express the unspeakable? Is the verbal-mystical gesture of a pronoun a word? Or is “I” a concept when, by its uniqueness and individuality, it destroys every concept, that is, a general idea? In general, are we not encountering here such a strict critical veto, which only complete philosophical naivety can not fear? Such fears are the product of a frightened epistemological imagination. They are associated with the prejudice that thought has a self-generating force in itself, has as its subject something immanent, that is, itself: thinking, thinking itself, both subject and predicate. In reality, thought is born in the subject, it has a hypostasis and constantly reveals itself in it. Only that is beyond thought and, as completely transcendental to it, is zero for thought, that is, does not exist at all, which is completely and entirely transcendental. But such transcendence is nothing more than a mathematical limit, never realized by thought, and Ding an sich, the thing in itself is still τὸ νωύμενον, conceivability. What is conceived by thought as transcendental is precisely what is non-thought and in this sense is foreign to it, but at the same time it is related, accessible, and revealed in it. In general, transcendence is a concept correlative to immanence, and in this meaning the object of thought, which is its subject, hypostasis, subject, can be considered transcendental. What is transcendental to thought is not that which is unthinkable, as something that contradicts it, tears it apart and destroys it (and this does not exist for thought, there is “utter darkness” for it, pure zero), but that which is non-thought, or rather not only thought, and yet is realized by thought. In this problem of transcendence lies, as we see, the general problem of the conceivability of the object of thought. You can expand the area of ​​categorical synthesis as much as you like and see the categories of thoughts in things, but this basic question about the conceivability of what is not a thought or is not only a thought retains all its power and only moves to another place. It is clear that on its own, thought cannot give an answer to the question of how the transcendental is thought, and what non-thought enters into thought becomes thinkable, how the light of Logos spills into an area hitherto completely alien to light, and the matter of thought is caught by the network of logic, categorical syntheses. Here there is a certain pre-logical statement, there is a boundary between thought, separating it from what is not-thought. All three members are mutually indissoluble, for hypostasis is not conceivable in isolation from its nature, just as any substantial nature does not exist outside the hypostasis that possesses it, and this possession, its revelation, is an act of being, there is being in general, life, which therefore is by no means a concept or a logical definition, although it is in close contact with the logical. Therefore, being is prius, stands before being or existing; existence is a constantly occurring synthesis of the hypostasis with its own nature, self-disclosure in the act of being. Philosophical thought has always sought a definition of substance and has not found it. This is because (except for Christian dogma with its doctrine of the Trinity) it was looking for a bad, abstract unity - a simple and single substantiality. All efforts of logical monism, which defines the task for philosophical systems and is their universal implied axiom, come down to reducing the trinity of moments, the trinity of substance, to unity; thought strives to assimilate to itself that which underlies thought and is, however, unthinkable or, in logical language, irrational, is in its own way √2. The main “law”, self-determination and self-awareness of thought is the law of identity (the inverse form is the law of contradiction), guaranteeing the continuity of thought, protecting its immanent channel from leaps and gaps. And yet, that law, or rather, the postulate of identity, applied throughout all thinking within its own limits, is completely inapplicable to its origins. It is violated in the basic form of thought, the judgment-sentence. Kant established a completely arbitrary and incorrect distinction between analytical and synthetic judgments, which is so important for his system. In reality (as was, incidentally, noted by Hegel in the Science of Logic) - all judgments are both synthetic and analytical in form; they, under the guise of the known and self-understood (analytic), represent a leap over an impassable abyss and connect both its ends (synthesis). I am A, this cell of thought means the basic and original negation of the law of identity. This last one could at most lead to the same expression: I - I I - I ... - I, etc. etc., fruitless self-repetition or self-devouring of the I. However, it must be said that the second I, the predicate, in the sentence I - I, is no longer that same ineffable, hypostatic I, which is the subject or subject, it contains an idea as a predicate (and in this sense, in relation to the hypostatic I of the subject, it is no longer a non-I). The subject and predicate represent - and this is the whole point - not logical analysis, deduction, syllogism, proof (which is only possible in relation to combinations of already existing sentences), but a completely illogical, or rather extra-logical synthesis. I am not-I, I = not-I, I opens in not-I and through not-I, which through that becomes I. A sentence always contains a synthesis of I and not-I. How can the subject be determined through the predicate, I in not-I? There can be no logical answer to this, although this definition has the force of a basic logical fact, by virtue of which thought is generally possible. Conscious, self-reporting thought, immanent and continuous in its development and movement, cannot understand itself in its birth, in the first cell. The relationship between subject and predicate cannot be defined as necessary and continuous thinking, but only as self-birth: just as a word is born in something that is not yet a word, so a thought is born where there is no place for a logical connection yet, where it just arises. This attitude is expressed in naive babble by philosophical empiricism or positivism, which quite rightly feels the ineffability of existence and the powerlessness of logic to substantiate concrete knowledge from itself. Here, of course, the question arises: is every judgment of the type A is B (with all its modalities) legitimately reducible to the type I am A? Aren't these completely different species? However, although they are, of course, different in content, they are identical in structure. Epistemologically (and anthropologically) the original and typical is, undoubtedly, I am A. From the I the pronoun of the second and third person develops, and from the latter, through the personification of the concept, every form of judgment develops. At the same time, we can say that any judgment of objective content can be considered as a predicate to the I, as its self-determination: although the independent subject (“this table is black”) gives it a semblance of hypostasis, which in countless mirror repetitions is constantly created by our I, however, in essence (gnoseologically and metaphysically) all sentences of this type are only a predicate to the I: I see, I think, I feel this table is black. This judgment is briefly expressed in the statement of the existence of the table in itself and for itself, like I: this table is black. The primary source of thought, in any case, is not here, not in these objective subjects, but in the original formula: I am something, I am not I (as Fichte noted with exceptional insight). I, as a hypostasis, is self-closed and inaccessible; it in itself, in its own depths, in its nature, must give rise to its own revelation, which would already be different relative to the I, and in this sense not-I, but at the same time would be a revelation of the I. This is what the connective testifies and announces: there is (so familiar and harmless in grammar and so mysterious and significant in philosophy “auxiliary verb”). This IS, which is the main instrument of thought in its operations, is also completely incomprehensible logically, for it unites, as equal and identical, the different and the other. A is A is either nonsense, the same word, the deprivation of words of their specific content and operational meaning for thought, or the synthesis of different as equal, different as identical. Everything that is has at its origin not a grammatical and logical, but an ontological meaning: in it the self-revelation of hypostasis is realized, it is a bridge over the abyss connecting existence and being, subject and predicate, reality and existence are affirmed by it. In being they are given the image of things that exist, they give life, they live. The bundle IS is the life of beings. So, substance, that is, spirit, is the trinity of the subject and the connection between them, their existence, existing in actu, and all three moments are considered inseparable and unmerged. There is no hypostasis without nature, which is the basis of objectivity, and there is no being without a subject, without an existent, and without its predicate - nature. Existing posits existence, being is the actuality of being, which in its originality remains above being. The inseparability of these moments is clear, apparently, by itself, but their inconsistency should be equally clear. Philosophy errs in both directions, renouncing trinity for the sake of unity. Moreover, each of these three moments carries and actually contains both of the others. Pure hypostasis cannot become an object of thought without definition by being, that is, without a predicate and outside the context of being. Naked hypostasis, unnatural and extra-existent, is the pure zero of abstraction, which we can realize only by distracting thought as a remainder after removing all content from thought. The link to be, which connects the hypostasis, the subject with the predicate, is so strong that no forces of heaven, earth and hell are able to break it. And this ligament connects the hypostasis and its nature in a vital, existential act; they look into each other, are correlative to such an extent that each leads the other with the help of the ligament. Hypostasis is not even hypostasis without an object or without a predicate, it is necessarily a hypostasis of something or to something; in the same way, there is no definition or predicate that would be res nullius and would not have its own hypostatic face. And it is clear by itself that being, or a connective, necessarily has connected members, a subject and a predicate, is the being of someone and something. Thus, the substance is, as it were, an equilateral triangle the angles of which can be traversed in any order, but each of the three necessarily presupposes both of the others. So, substance is a metaphysical trinity that finds expression in a sentence. This trinity should be strictly distinguished from Hegel’s (allegedly) dialectical triad, in which its moments represent either a simple dismemberment of a thought expressed synthetically, or moments of one simple thought, from which each previous one is absorbed or sublated by the next, and in the end the thesis and antithesis lose their independent meaning and being, living in synthesis. Despite the deliberately and exaggerated sharpening of the dialectic, its contradictions are completely removed and explained in their relativity, turning out to be either moments in the development of the concept or misunderstandings. On the contrary, the trinity of substance that is being discussed here is not dialectical at all, there is no development of any concept in it, there is no thesis, antithesis, or synthesis in it. True, in it there is a sequence, an order, a connection of moments arising from their internal relationship. The subject, the hypostasis, is the first; predicate, εἶδος – second; copula, being φύσις – third. But in no way and in no sense can it be said that the third is therefore a synthesis of the first and second, or that the first is a thesis to the antithesis of the second. In general, these three moments do not at all have a logical nature, which dialectical contradictions necessarily have. On the contrary, they express ontological relations that are given for logic and cannot be overcome by it, even if they create great difficulties for it. To resolve the substantial trinity into a dialectical one would mean to logically overcome it and thereby give victory to logical monism, i.e., an absolute philosophy with a single center, a system. But this is impossible. It is impossible to break off or blunt the corners of the substantial trinity, which underlies every thought and constitutes its outcome. This trinity is logically even unacceptable for thought, because it seeks one beginning, and can only build from one. It cannot depart from the three principles if it wants to remain self-sufficient and immanent, and if, following the ancient Parmenides, it confesses: “Thought and what it thinks about are one and the same thing - without being, thought cannot be found, it is expressed in existence. There is and will not be anything other than being (i.e., in this case, the logical principle). The super-or extra-logical outcome of thought also turns out to be anti-logical, otherwise we can say that the object of thought - substance, being - is not immanent to thought, as philosophy invariably wants and claims through the mouth of Parmenides, but is transcendental to it, representing in relation to thought an abstruse mystery, which reason itself gropes for, orienting itself in its own foundations. Reason naturally runs into antinomies that determine its own structure and tasks. Through this he is not deprived of the opportunity to contemplate existence and philosophize about the meaning and significance of these contemplations, but he is attached to these contemplations; thought has empirical roots. And this means that the mind does not start from empty space and does not begin its thread from itself like a spider, but comes from mystical facts and metaphysical givens. In other words, every philosophy is a philosophy of revelation - the revelation of the Divine in the world. The axioms of philosophy are not deduced, but only formulated, and autonomous, pure philosophy is either impossible, or is fatally, irreducibly doomed to aporia, leading to the tragedy of hopelessness. In these words, one can least of all hear the voice of skepticism: quite the contrary, faith in the truth, which is deeper than reason and beyond it, does not at all weaken or paralyze the ascents to this truth. One cannot see here any disparagement of philosophy, which asserts its own place that belongs to it, freeing itself from false claims. Here, only the claims of rationalism to build a single, absolute, completely transparent system of the world are challenged and rejected, i.e. that very claim, which constituted and constitutes now in militant and self-confident, now in depressed and melancholic tones, is the soul of all new philosophy from Descartes, and received its ultimate and classical expression in Hegel. The latter quite frankly and consistently put philosophy above religion, while simultaneously recognizing the identity of their subject, but with differences in methods of assimilation. We put it the other way around: religion, as revelation, as a teaching that is not rationalistic, but dogmatic or myth-making, precedes philosophy and therefore stands above it. In this sense, any philosophy, as a doctrine about the world, about everything, is also necessarily theology. If a person could generate the world logically, that is, completely comprehend its existence with reason, then he himself would be God or would completely merge with God who creates the world (this is what Hegel essentially claimed). Then his philosophy also becomes, of course, theology, having reached the highest level of consciousness. But philosophy, accessible to man, is also natural theology in view of the fact that the secrets of the world and God are revealed here logically, through the development of thought. However, we do not mean here the self-consciousness of immanent thought, which does not need anything, because through self-generation it creates its own content. We mean elements that are otherworldly thoughts that are unacceptable to her and yet turn out to be at her very core. The antinomies that tear apart the mind are the ones that build and define it. “Critical antinomianism” in metaphysics and epistemology thus takes the place of dogmatic rationalism. The latter represents the self-intoxication of the mind, the intoxication of one’s own strengths and the desire to rely on the mind to the end, to carry out an experiment in the rational interpretation of the whole world. Such an experiment in its most grandiose form was, of course, carried out by the same Hegel. Criticism consists precisely in elucidating the structure of reason and its foundations, not for the purpose of debunking reason, but, on the contrary, for the purpose of strengthening it. And in the light of this criticism, the history of philosophy is precisely presented as a tragic hereseology. The central problem of sophiology 32 The central problem of sophiology is the question of the relationship between God and the world, or - which is essentially the same thing - God and man. In other words, sophiology is a question about the power and significance of God-manhood and, moreover, not only of the God-man as the incarnate Logos, but precisely of God-manhood as the unity of God with the entire created world - in man and through man. In this matter, Christianity in itself has been waging a thousand-year struggle with two extremes - with dualism and with monism, in the search for the truth that lies before us in monodualism, that is, in God-manhood. In the Christian worldview there are two extreme poles, both false in their one-sidedness: one is world-denying Manichaeism, which establishes an impassable gap between God and the world and thereby abolishes God-manhood, the other pole is pantheism or cosmotheism, which accepts the world as it is and actually deifies it, although this is also “secularization.” We find the first view in various and often unexpected combinations, mostly where an intense religious feeling and (direct) sensation of God confronts a person with an alternative: God or the World. Thanks to this, a person, in turning to God, turns away from the world, despises its values ​​and deeds and leaves the world, in its distance from God, to his own fate. We encounter this acosmism or even anti-cosmism in the history of the Church, on the one hand, on the basis of Eastern Christianity in the widespread monastic worldview, on the other hand, we observe it (among) orthodox Protestantism, which also argued that God is absolutely transcendental to the world and thereby de-godizes the world. The second view, which secularizes life, is affirmed in the general paralysis of modern Christianity, which has lost the power to guide life and is itself subordinate to it. If salvation is accepted as an escape from the world, accompanied on the other hand by slavery to this world, then the world turns away more and more from such Christianity and declares itself and its life an end in itself. Modern atheism, which is in reality the deification of nature and man, is therefore a special type of paganism. It is by no means irreligious, as it defines itself, but only a denial of Christianity. But Christianity turns out to be powerless to overcome in modern life this separation of religion from the world, for this separation does not take place outside of it, but in itself. Attempts to connect Christianity with life through subordination to the last powerful church organization (as is the case in Romanism) lead to an external only a combination of different-quality potentials that cannot maintain their unity, because each of them, in its desire for totalitarianism, mutually excludes the other. (Modern) social Christianity also lives in this tragic impotence, since it is only a kind of adaptation, a kind of opportunism without awareness of its dogmatic basis. It wants to be “practical Christianity,” the Nicea of ​​morality (ethics). However, this applied nature testifies much more to the complete absence of dogmatic Nicaea, to some kind of transactions with life, to agreement and compromise, than to creative leadership and inspiration. Christianity (alas) only follows life and even lags behind it, but does not lead it. For how can one lead anything without understanding it, without believing in it, without having any other attitude towards it than missionary adaptation, philanthropy and moralism? The social ecumenical Movement, completely filled with its practical tasks, has not yet realized its theological problems; the same lies in the justification of the world in God - as opposed to that (separation) of the world (from) God, which is actually preached and confessed in different types of Christian thinking - both in Orthodoxy and in Protestantism. Is there a ladder between heaven and earth on which Angels ascend and descend? Or is it only a springboard from which those who want to “be saved” must push off in order to escape from the world? Is the Ascension of the Lord the last and, so to speak, generalizing act of our salvation, or will it be followed by a new coming of Christ - Parousia, which will be not only judgment, but also the beginning of a new eternal presence of Christ on earth? The answer to this question has long been given in the Christian faith, but not enough attention has been paid to it. This answer is contained in the main dogma of Christianity - about God-manhood. The created world is connected to the divine world. In divine Wisdom the sky bowed (descended) to the earth. The world exists not only in itself, but also in God, and God dwells not only in Heaven, but also on earth - in the world and in man. Christ said about Himself “all authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me.” (Matthew 28:18). God-manhood is a dogmatic call both to spiritual asceticism and to creativity, both to salvation from the world and to the salvation of the world. This is the dogmatic confession which in all its power and glory must be proclaimed by the Church of Christ. The dogma of God-manhood is the main theme of sophiology, which is nothing more than the dogmatic revelation of all its power. Modernity is not able to give a new vital interpretation to the dogmatic formulas that the Church preserves in its tradition, but we can say that now there is not a single dogmatic problem that does not need such a revision. The focus remains, as before, on the main Christian dogma of the Incarnation, “The Word became flesh.” We firmly adhere to the dogmatic interpretation that Chalcedon bequeathed to us. The roots of this dogma reach to the depths of heaven and earth, to the innermost secrets of the Holy Trinity and the created nature of man. “Incarnationism” is now the basis of dogmatic thinking in both Anglicanism and Protestantism, not to mention the ancient Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches. But do they realize that this dogma already includes certain prerequisites? For it necessarily presupposes a doctrine about God, about man and about the original God-manhood. It is these premises that are developed by the doctrine of the Wisdom of God - sophiology. This applies to an even greater extent to another dogma, recognized by the Church, but even less understood and developed - the dogma of Pentecost, i.e. the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the world and dwelling in it and its connection with the dogma of the Incarnation, this connection, just as the truth about the power of Pentecost abiding in one humanity, also develops in sophiological doctrine. One of the greatest and still insurmountable difficulties of the ecumenical Movements of our time is that the Churches strive for unity, but do not have a dogma about the essence of the Church. We are talking here not about the external signs of the church system, liturgics, etc., but about what the Church is in itself and what “union of Churches” means, while the Church by its nature is one and only. From this point of view, whether the one Church as a revelation of God-manhood and the Wisdom of God - Sophia - is a matter of agreement or reality. Until the church consciousness reaches a depth of self-awareness, all ecumenical “agreements” will remain fruitless. For individual churches will always come up against the walls dividing them, in the tragic consciousness of both their powerlessness, helplessness, and the objective impossibility of true unification. For to achieve the latter there is only one correct way: to understand the Church as a revelation of God-manhood, as Sophia - the Wisdom of God. We will not list here the numerous theological problems that receive new illumination in the teaching about the Wisdom of God. Let us note only one thing: never before have questions about the fate of man in history, about man’s creativity and his responsibility before his own God-Humanity, faced the Christian consciousness with such acuteness as now. History is revealed to us as an apocalypse, apocalypse as eschatology, the end as a fulfillment, the second coming of Christ in Parousia as His expectation and His meeting with the Church: “And the spirit and the Bride say: come, come to her, Lord Jesus. (Rev.22:17:20). What is the curse of worldliness and the pale sickness of Manichaean flight from the world? Are they symptoms of the impotence of historical Christianity, its failure, or are they the passing darkness of the morning dawn, foreshadowing the light of a new day? And what is peace? The fulfilling God-manhood, the revealing Wisdom of God “The Woman clothed with the sun” (Rev. 12) is only driven by the dragon in the desert, or is he himself the desert, the “empty house” abandoned by the masters. There are two forces fighting in the world: cosmism and anti-cosmism, which are two sides of a bifurcated, but essentially united, divine-human theocosmism. Historically, secularization entered the European world with the Renaissance and the Reformation, which are two parallel streams of a single current - Anti-Cosmic Cosmism - no matter how paradoxical this definition may sound. The affirmation of peace in humanism, which ascribes to it the right of independent existence, is a reaction against the denial of peace in Christianity. Here we encounter a dialectic of insurmountable contradictions that are destroying modern culture. But this irresistible dialectic is not at all the last word of wisdom. In relation to the world, we need to establish correct Christian asceticism, which would fight the world out of love for it. We need to overcome the various forces of Humanism, the Renaissance and the acosmism of the Reformation, but this overcoming should not be dialectical, abstract and theoretical, but positive, arising from the love of the world in God. But this can only be achieved by some metanoia, a change in the entire worldview, which can be realized through Sophia’s perception of the world as the Wisdom of God. Only this can give the world new strength and new inspiration for new creativity, to overcome the mechanization of life and man. The future of Christianity lies in the Sophia worldview. Sophiology contains within itself the core of all theoretical and practical problems of modern Christian dogmatics and asceticism. In the full sense of the word, it is the theology of the Crisis (judgment) - but in the sense of salvation, not destruction! And in the end we turn to a culture that has lost its soul, weakened by worldliness and paganism, to our historical tragedy, which seems hopeless. The outcome can be found through the renewal of our faith in the Sophian, divine-human meaning of history and creativity. For Sophia the Wisdom of God overshadows this sinful and yet sanctified land. And the prophetic symbol of this overshadowing is the ancient Hagia Sophia in Byzantium, in the dome of which Heaven itself descends to the earth. Mariology in the Fourth Gospel (Chapter 7 of “The Theology of John the Theologian” 33) In relation to the Mother of God in the fourth Gospel, the main features of its presentation are especially clearly manifested: in the absence of repetitions of what is said by other evangelists, the deliberateness of what they convey. It has the character of intimacy, stemming from the special connection between the beloved disciple and the Mother of God and its symbolic ambiguity, with absolutely exceptional brevity, and therefore even greater weight of the narrative. As a matter of fact, all the Mariological material of the fourth Gospel is limited to two narratives: about the miracle in Cana of Galilee and about the standing of the Mother of God at the cross. (To this is added a mention, in its own way, however, also the only one, about her presence among the disciples, accompanied by Christ in Capernaum: John 2:12). But this brief material has absolutely exceptional Mariological and ecclesiological significance. The miracle at Cana is the first of the miraculous signs of Christ, “The Beginning of Signs”) (ἀρχὴν τῶν σημείων), and we must understand it precisely in this capacity, not only as the first, but also as a beginning, thereby having the features of universal validity for everyone. In it, Christ reveals Himself to the world: “He showed His Glory”, which is not said about any of the other signs, except the last one - the resurrection of Lazarus. “This sickness does not lead to death, but to the glory of God, that through it the Son of God may be glorified” (John 11:4). But here, too, we are not talking about the manifestation of Glory, but only about glorification, which is, of course, not the same thing. Exegetes also dwell on the physical side of this miracle, 34 which, however, has primarily a symbolic meaning. Only the fourth evangelist has it, while others generally lack the very motive of marriage (except for the parable of the twelve virgins). Here, without much explanation, the presence of the Mother of Jesus is especially emphasized: “There was a marriage... the Mother of Jesus was there” (John 2:1). And even the invitation of Christ and His disciples is timed to coincide with this presence of hers: “Jesus and His disciples were also invited to marriage.” And in general, she is the leader in the event: she turns first to the Son, and then to the servants who carry out her will, just like Jesus Himself. What draws attention here, first of all, is the Son’s address to her: “Wife!” It is also repeated on the cross and thus is the only name for her in His addresses to her in the fourth Gospel. This one word already transfers the thought from an external event - a modest and even poor wedding in the atmosphere of rural life - to the internal accomplishment that takes place here. This appeal, as if depersonalizing the relationship of the Son to the Mother, actually elevates them to a higher meaning and generalizes them to the utmost, receiving a Mariological and sophiological meaning. Humanity comes from the hands of the Creator in a dual form, as male and female, husband and wife. Such is its fullness, which has its basis in the dyad of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Christ the God-man is the male principle, but He is born from the seed of a Woman - according to the prophecy of God in paradise. She is the Woman about whom the ancient serpent was told that the seed of the Woman would erase the head of the serpent. This wife is the Mother of God. She is also the Wife who, with her presence, sanctified the marriage in Cana of Galilee. This Wife is the Church of Christ, which celebrates its spiritual marriage with Christ the Bridegroom (according to His name in the mouth of the Forerunner John 3:29). The language of the Apocalypse about the marriage of the Lamb – His wedding supper (Rev. 19:9) and His Bride: (Rev. 21:9) also corresponds to this. Thus, the whole event takes on the meaning of the image of the Church, its sign. This same meaning is revealed in the same sense from the other side: namely the Eucharistic one, for the transformation of water in large waterpots into wine, moreover, better than what was previously served (that is, in the Old Testament), is a Eucharistic transformation. In Eucharistic theology, especially Catholic, and under its influence also in Orthodox, the attention of exegetes focuses precisely on the physical transformation of “substance” without changing the “accident,” “under appearance.” The interpreters of the miracle at Cana also focus on this. But just as in the Eucharist one must see not a physical transformation, but a metaphysical transformation, so in Cana there was precisely a transformation, as an image of the coming Eucharist. It is this ecclesiological character of the first miracle, in the universality of its meaning, that makes it the beginning of the signs in which Jesus revealed His Glory. Glory refers to the fullness of accomplishment, which is accompanied by His Theanthropic revelation of the sophia of all creation in His humanity. Based on this general understanding, its individual features should be interpreted. First of all, Christ’s first answer, which at first seems like a refusal: “My hour has not yet come.” But we know what “My hour” means in the language of the Evangelist John: 35 it refers to the onset of the passion, in which the Eucharistic sacrifice is performed. Their hour had not yet come to completion, but it had already approached in anticipation, as “the beginning of signs.” And in this sense, his understanding is confirmed by the Mother of God, who, as if contrary to the direct meaning of the answer, precisely the refusal contained in it, calls on the ministers to do what He says, and these commands relate to the wedding celebration of the Eucharistic meal. The architriclinus calls the groom to witness the completed proposal. The specific images of the wedding feast here merge and become transparent regarding the mystical content of what is happening. The direct participation of the Mother of God in the Eucharist deserves special attention here, as this corresponds to its church celebration. In the image of the wedding feast we also have the image of the Church in its entire composition: the Mother of God, the apostles, the wedding guests, the architriclin, the bridegrooms themselves, the servants and invitees, gathered around Christ, who performs the mysterious transformation of water into wine. The Mother of God is an intercessor for people and a mediator before Christ. In this regard, one can understand her especially highlighted presence at the wedding as a precondition for the incarnation itself: “And the Mother of Jesus was there” (John 2:1), as if not even “called” like Jesus and His disciples, but already participating in it from the beginning. This implies the Annunciation, and the seedless conception, and the Nativity of Christ from the Virgin and all her service to Him and the Church. In the absence of a narrative about the birth and childhood of Christ, its first appearance in the fourth Gospel is associated with this symbolism of the Church. This ecclesiological meaning of the narrative ends with a kind of historical addition, where the name of the Mother of God and her presence are once again mentioned: “After this He came to Capernaum, Himself and His Mother, and His brothers and His disciples, and they stayed there a few days” (John 2:12). Other evangelists do not mention at all that the Mother and brothers accompanied Jesus. One can rather draw even the opposite conclusion from Matthew 12:46–50, where Christ seems to deny blood kinship for the sake of spiritual kinship. From this comparison one can see further confirmation of the ecclesiological interpretation of John 2:11. One more feature of this narrative deserves attention: how did the evangelist know everything that happened between Christ and His Mother at the wedding? One can, of course, assume that he, along with the other apostles, was not only an eyewitness to what happened, but also heard His Mother’s appeal to Christ, along with His response (although this does not have direct confirmation for itself, moreover, in the absence of a story about this from other evangelists). Isn’t it more plausible to assume that John learned all this directly from the Mother of God herself, and this confirms the deliberate Mother of God character of the Fourth Gospel? The miracle in Cana of Galilee belongs to that Mother of God tradition, which was naturally deposited in John’s communication with her. Of course, along with this, the possibility cannot be excluded that this was told to John directly from the Teacher himself, although this, in any case, does not exclude the tradition coming from the Mother of God. We have the second and last mention of the Mother of God in the story of the standing of the Mother of God at the cross. In the parallel listing of women at or near the cross there is no mention of the presence of the Mother of God. Typically, it is found only in John in his Mother of God Gospel. Here her name also stands among others: “The sister of His Mother is Mary of Cleophas and Mary Magdalene” (John 19:45). The first was the mother of the sons of Zebedee, therefore, of John himself, and also the sister of the Mother of Jesus (so John was also related to the Mother of God and was her nephew). So, standing at the cross, together with John, was his own mother, and even more expressive and significant were the words of Christ, next to his own blood mother, handing it over to His Mother, as if in a new spiritual birth, churching: “Jesus saw the Mother and the disciple standing here, whom he loved, said to His Mother: “Woman! behold your son. Then he says to the disciple: Behold your Mother. And from that time this disciple took her to himself εἰς ἴδεα” (John 19:25–27). The first and immediate meaning of this story relates to the expression of personal love and care for the Mother, whom He entrusts, as it were, to the filial care of the beloved disciple, and thereby crowns him before all the other apostles, not excluding the supreme leader, who, moreover, do not seem to be present. And this is not so much the combination of this dual motherhood of two mothers, Mary and Salome, but, on the contrary, its opposition and division. This is silently offered to the natural mother and, obviously, is accepted by her without complaint. Even after the death of Christ, she remains faithful to Him, “looking from afar” (Matthew 27:56). Christ first sees His Mother in Mary together with his beloved disciple and turns to them. However, this address itself sounds special: this is the “Wife” that was said at the marriage in Cana of Galilee: two church marriages. It is impossible to grasp the full depth and significance of this “Woman”, here as well as there, but its basic meaning in both cases is the same: “Wife” means the Church, the Mother of God as the heart and focus of the Church, its personal beginning. As such, she is the Mother of the Church, by whom the Church’s beloved disciple is adopted. These words, of course, remained burned into the memory of both the son and the Mother; they are the very core of the Mother of God Gospel, which is contained here in these few words. These words mean, as it were, the consecration of Mary to the dignity of the Church, through the mysterious calling of the Holy Spirit, who originally descended on her at the Annunciation as the Mother of God, and now carries out her ecclesiasticalization - the sacrament of pan-Church Motherhood of God. The adoption of John by the Mother of God is primarily related to him personally, as the first in the love of Christ, but it, of course, extends with him to all those who love Christ and believe in Him. In the very brevity of the words, along with the depth of meaning, one recognizes the trait of the Great Silent Woman with her “humility.” She herself remains silent at the cross, silent in response to the word of the Son. But this silence is more expressive, stronger, more meaningful than any words, for it expresses the greatest thing: Mary, the Mother of Christ, becomes the Mother of the Church. As such, it is also present at the general church service on Pentecost, at the descent of the Holy Spirit, among the disciples. (The only mention of her is in the Acts of the Apostles: Acts 1:14). All the ecclesiological images of the “Wife” and “Bride” in “Revelation” beg for comparison. They are all in tune with this gospel word. It contains: images of the Wife! clothed with the sun (Rev.12:1), - the Church militant, and the Woman who prepared herself for the marriage of the Lamb (Rev.19:7), with the final image of the Wife and Bride of the Lamb (Rev.21:9). These two texts exhaust the entire Mariological content of the Theotokos Gospel. This is not much in terms of external quantity, but immeasurably much in importance and content. 1. On the eve of Lent Those who fast, brethren, physically, For this difficult time, the time of Great Lent is coming. It was established by the Church for many times, in all their diversity. The regulations of the fast remain unchanged, as if without noticing it, in spite of it. But in the rapid flow of time, and in all the diversity of life, in essence, always in a new way, we feel the spirit of Great Lent, we strive to feel it especially now. Gone are the days when Lenten periods passed by in a measured and calm manner. We have been plunged into the sea of ​​life, boiling from a world fire, placed before trials and temptations that our ancestors did not know, although none of them was free from their own difficulties. Now it is especially necessary for us - each in his own way - to ask ourselves how he should carry out the commands of Lent. Is there something in them that is weakened and even disappears, eliminated by modern life, and that, on the contrary, receives a special kind of strength? First of all, the harsh demands of bodily abstinence sound weaker to our contemporaries, who have long ago, against their will, been plunged into a state of impoverishment and need. What, according to the Charter, should be a feat of voluntary abstinence, in our everyday life is involuntary. Therefore, more flexible and lenient requirements are applicable here, corresponding to the special conditions of our time, and the Pharisaic observance of the letter, according to the word of the Lord, is no longer useful: “The Sabbath is for man, and not man for the Sabbath.” Of course, it should not be used as a plausible pretext for complete liberation from bodily fasting, because abstinence can be carried out in different ways. If a person sincerely and conscientiously seeks how to apply it, he will find the proper measure and degree. However, if, due to the force of circumstances, bodily abstinence loses its primary significance as a free activity, the more important the commands of “spiritual fasting” become, as a special effort of thought and will in the corresponding direction. Let the duration and frequency of Lenten services be beyond the power of most of us, with the exception of very few exceptions. Our tension can relate to constant remembrance of God, to examining ourselves in the light of conscience, to spiritual self-collection, to deepening into our spiritual world. Seeing yourself in your sins before the face of God is repentance. It seeks grace-filled liberation from the severity of sins through the sacrament of repentance, to a repentant meeting with Christ: “Behold, child, Christ stands invisibly, receiving your confession”... And this repentant meeting leads to a marriage meeting with Christ, to the reception of the Heavenly Bridegroom into the soul, unknown to Him, in the sacrament of communion. Repentance gives birth in the soul to a new thirst for such union and bestows new joy from it. Communion of the Holy Mysteries of Christ, in connection with repentance, should be the main event of our life during the days of Great Lent, once, or, better yet, repeated. All this creates the special inspiration of the Lenten season, with its spiritual delights. It can and should appear not only as sadness for God, but also as bright joy about Him. Along with the life of God during Lenten life, thought of God must also find a place in it, albeit in short bursts. No matter how small our spiritual leisure time left by a difficult life may be, they do not exclude the possibility of lightning-fast insights, special Lenten revelations about God and man, about the Redeemer and redemption, about sin and salvation. They are also evoked by the services of Great Lent, with their deliberate theological intensity. The consciousness of our removal from God to a distant country becomes more acute in us, along with the call for the return of the prodigal son to the Father’s roof. In a certain spiritual transparency one can see the depth of heaven, in its azure one can feel the closeness of God. There is a special spiritual miracle of Lent, which we experience, often without realizing it at all - the childishness of the soul finding the open arms of the Father. Spiritual awakening increases from strength to strength, reaching its peak with the completion of Great Lent, with Holy Week, which is the miracle of all the miracles of Lenten. Christians forget more often and do not trust what they are called to in their spirituality. Absentmindedly and cold-bloodedly, they listen to spiritual things, as if they were something extraneous, alien and inaccessible. But it is for her that the soul should burn and be jealous, hope and believe. And in our days of need and confusion, war and disaster, this is the main task of the Lenten feat: to spiritually overcome your lack of faith, to know God in an earthquake and storm, to find the joy of faith. God is with us. This is why Great Lent was given to us, as a time of great spiritual work of the hidden. “And your Father, who sees in secret, will reward you openly” (Matthew 6:6) with Easter joy. The holy days of the Passion of the Lord are approaching, and our hearts anxiously await them. They are all desired and awaited: the resurrection of Lazarus, and the royal entrance of the Lord, and the last words and speeches of the Lord, and the majestically stunning events of the end: Gethsemane and Golgotha, death on the cross and burial. Memorably they take place before us, we contemplate and experience, love and pray, cry and worship them. But there is an event in this series that is now not only remembered, but also accomplished, happening. We participate in it, being present at it, together with Christ. It is the focus of both Lent and Holy Week, the entire church year, and the entire life of mankind and the whole world: that is the Lord’s Supper, the wedding feast of the Lamb, His farewell meal with people on earth, according to His word: “I will no longer eat this Passover with you until it is completed in the Kingdom of God, and I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until it comes” ( Luke 22:16–18). This Supper, once accomplished, is established for all times, is created in His remembrance, which is not only our human memory of that, but also the whole power of the Lord’s presence and our communion from Him. “For you are the one who offers and offers, accepts and distributes, O Christ our God” (mol. in Cherubim). It was secret and intimate, this farewell meeting of the friends of Christ, the Apostolic Twelve, not excluding the betrayer, but it was not closed and limited in relation to those absent from it. “Drink everything from her! "(Matthew 25:46), the Lord called, addressing not only the apostles, but also all of us. “The upper room is large and furnished” (Matthew 14:15) was then prepared for the Lord’s Supper, but it is expanding for everyone who comes to it, and we now fit in it, we are spiritually co-present with the holy apostles, although after them. And He Himself gives us, with His most pure hands, through the hands of a priest, His Body and Blood “for the remission of sins.” And we all heed the commandment “do this in remembrance of Me,” “until He comes” (1 Cor. 11:24–26). Take into your hearts, Christians, the power of the command and the strength of the promise: everyone is called to the feast of faith. Even though Christians, who for centuries were divided in doctrine and life, have lost the ability to come together to the feast of faith, the cup of Christ remains one and Christ alone calls and Himself communes to all who unite in the triumph of faith. And the upper room of the Last Supper, containing everyone, becomes the center of the world and all creation. The earth and the sky, the sun and the moon, all the stars and heavenly powers are worshiped in it, heeding the words of the Lord. And the Last Supper, once performed by the Lord, continues at all times on all altars for all who come with the same power as it was celebrated then. That is not a passing moment in the life of the world, but an always preserved memory, all-time, the most important, most necessary and most saving event. Our earthly events and upheavals, destruction and restoration, everything earthly is insignificant, powerless and empty before the gift of the Lord, given and taught in the humility of the upper room of Zion. This is how we must think and feel, in the face of such an accomplishment, we must place ourselves before the altar of the Lord. Let us not fear the inconceivable, for we are called to it by the Lord. He Himself came to earth “took on the form of a servant, becoming in human likeness” (Phil. 2:7). He Himself humbled Himself before us, placing the heavenly sky in the cave of Bethlehem and the upper room of Zion. He puts His divine-human nature into the bread and wine of communion. The King of the world entered it as “meek and lowly in heart” (Matthew 11:29), a servant who washes feet and gives an example so that we do the same “as I have done to you” (John 13:15). All temporary earthly greatness faints before true heavenly greatness. But it remains the mystery of the Last Supper, greatness visible through the eyes of faith. The Lord did not want to tie and force our freedom here, striking it with fear and signs, but protected it in its entirety. To believe and not to believe, to love and to enmity is left to human self-determination. In the face of the holy apostles, and in him the whole world, “knowing that his hour had come to depart from this world to the Father... Having loved those who were in the world, he loved them to the end” (John 13:1) and even to the humility of the Last Supper. Let us love Him and we will love Him in return, we will love Him to the end. And if our heart remains powerless and cold, then may He Himself help us to love Himself with His love. May His Most Pure Mother help us, who with the silent power of Her love is present with us at the Easter meal of the slaughter of the Lamb. Christ, passing from the world to the Father, mysteriously remains in it, according to His promise: “Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20), until He comes clearly in His God-man face. But the mysterious presence is equal in strength to the obvious one. And if then His coming will be a terrible judgment for the sinful world, then His present presence in the Holy Gifts is already for us a judgment of our conscience over us: “Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of this bread and drink of this cup. For whoever eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself, without considering the Body of the Lord... he will be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord” (1 Cor. 11:27-29). However, let us not be tempted by fear of our own unworthiness. Let no one ever consider himself worthy of the gift of Christ, but let him trust in Divine redemption, for love triumphs in him. “There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear... Let us love Him, because He first loved us” (1 John 4:18:19). Light and life are in the upper room of Zion, at the Lord’s Supper, “night” is outside it (John 13:30). Christ came to sinners to save us, and He Himself calls us now: “Come with the fear of God, faith and love!” The women who had previously “followed Christ from Galilee, serving Him” (Matthew 27:55, Mark 15:41, Luke 23:55) now also “with many others who came with Him to Jerusalem” (Mark 15:41), stood at the cross (John 19:25), while others “looked on from afar” ( Matthew 27:55–56, Luke 23:49, Mark 15:40). They saw how His most pure body was taken down from the cross by Joseph and Nicodemus, anointed with spices, wrapped in a clean shroud (John 19:39–40) and buried in a new tomb (John 19:38–41, Luke 23:50–53, Mark 15:42–43). Mary Magdalene and Mary of Joseph “sat opposite the tomb” (Matthew 27:61) and “looked where they laid Him” (Mark 15:47, Luke 23:54). After that, having spent the night “in rest according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56), they, in turn, “prepared incense and ointments” (Luke 23:56) and with them hastened to “look at the tomb (Matt. 28:1) and anoint the body of Jesus” (Mk.16:1), “while it was still dark” (John 20:1), “very early” (Luke 24:1), “at sunrise" (Mark 16:2). Then they were privileged to hear from the angel the news of the resurrection of Christ. Our souls burn with delight, contemplating this love and fidelity passing through trials. These hearts, torn by torment in the face of Jesus’ death on the cross, did not become petrified or frozen because of it; on the contrary, they retained all the vitality of their love. Now, as before, they rush to serve Him, already a lifeless dead man, in order to bury Him with dignity. They are not stopped in this impulse by fear of the guard assigned to the tomb, or timidity about their weakness, how they can roll away the stone from the tomb (and “he was very great”! Mark 16:4). Grief turned out to be unable to weaken their will. On the wings of love they rush to the tomb, and the first among them is the one who, during the life of the Lord, was worthy to anoint Him “for the day of burial” (John 12:7, Matthew 26:12, Mark 14:8), Mary Magdalene. The call and command of love silenced other thoughts, other desires, but Christ responds to them through the sending of an angel, the messenger of the resurrection, and then with his own appearance. How poor our world would be if it were deprived of the joyful contemplation of this feat. Just as our winglessness even now inspires, this movement of loving hearts towards the Holy Sepulcher overcomes the lethargy of the heart with inspired recklessness. The Church pleases them, calling them myrrh-bearing women along with Joseph and Nicodemus, to whom it was given to perform the burial and be the first to anoint the most pure body of the Lord. The searching thought involuntarily asks itself: how was it? How did the languid hours of this endless night pass for them in boundless sorrow? But the Gospels do not directly talk about this. All that is said here about the myrrh-bearers is only that “on the Sabbath they remained in peace according to the commandment.” But this applies only to external observance of the commandment. And what is said about their internal state is only revealed by a brief hint in the Gospel of John, in the story of Mary Magdalene. Having come to the coffin “early, when it was still dark,” she became convinced that “the stone had been rolled away from the coffin.” Then she runs to tell Simon Peter and the “other” disciple (John himself): “They have taken the Lord away from the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him.” The disciples also then ran to the tomb, saw its emptiness, the “other” disciple immediately believed in the resurrection, but after that they “returned to themselves again.” But Mary did not return. She “stood at the coffin and cried,” and even then “saw two angels sitting in the coffin.” To their question: “Wife, why are you crying?” she answered: “They took away my Lord, and I don’t know where they laid Him.” The shock of grief did not leave her even at this appearance, and it was so overwhelming that she did not even recognize the Lord who had appeared, mistaking Him for a gardener. She also asks him: “If you brought Him out, tell me where you laid Him, and I will take Him” (15). And only when the Teacher’s call “Mary!” reached her ears, then only, with a joyful cry of “Rabbi,” she rushes to His feet to “touch” them. Such was this numbness from grief that neither the hours of Saturday rest nor the impressions of Sunday morning, with the emptiness of the tomb, the appearances of angels and the mysterious “Gardener” himself, could free Mary from it. But what happened to Mary, the same thing, even if to a lesser extent, happened to the other wives, who in the morning came to the tomb with funeral lamentations. And yet this holy sorrow still remained limited in the extent of its comprehension by humans, just like joy. The Lord forbade even the latter to express itself in a natural movement: “Do not touch Me”! He explained to Mary Magdalene the mysterious power of his ascent to the Father, which still remained incomprehensible to her in her human feeling. Only after this admonition does she go to tell her disciples that she “saw the Lord.” The Lord chooses her to become the first preacher of the resurrection of Christ (to which neither Peter nor the “beloved disciple” himself were called). We have a similar testimony about this election from the Evangelist Luke (Luke 24:4-8) - having heard from the angels about the resurrection, “and returning from the tomb, they announced it to the eleven and to all the rest. It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and others with them, who told the apostles about this.” At the same time, faith and clairvoyance of love anticipate even the apostolic comprehension “And their words seemed empty, and they did not believe them.” With the same command, the angel sends myrrh-bearing wives to the apostles and in the Gospel of Matthew (Matthew 28:1-5): “And go quickly, tell His disciples that He has risen from the dead.” “And they ran to tell His disciples.” (The same in Mark 16:5–7,9–11). This is how the myrrh-bearing women perform their wondrous service to Christ. They fearlessly accommodate in their hearts events that were so difficult to accommodate in the hearts of the apostles (except for John). There is one feature that testifies to the whole difficulty of their feat; this is at the first end of the Gospel of Mark (Mark 16:8). Here it is stated about them: “When they came out, they ran from the tomb, they were seized by trembling and horror, and they did not say anything to anyone, for they were afraid.” However, at the second end of the Gospel of Mark this is no longer said, but it is directly reported that Mary Magdalene went and announced the appearance of the Risen One to those with Him (Mark 16:10). Obviously, that fear turned out to be transitory and was overcome by them, and this makes us even more appreciate the sacrificial service of the myrrh-bearing wives, with Mary at their head. But now let us ask ourselves about what the evangelists are silent about: where was the Most Pure One on this night of the resurrection? Was she and the myrrh-bearing women with whom she stood at the cross, contemplating Christ’s death on the cross and His burial? However, no, the Gospels now do not call it with them. She is not among the apostles, and even with her beloved disciple, who received her into his home according to the command of the Lord (John 19:27). He alone, without her, together with Peter only, goes to the tomb, here to believe in the resurrection. From here on, they again begin to speak only in the language of silence about the Most Pure Gospel itself. The veil of his mystery hides from us what happened on that night of resurrection with the Mother of God. Only some church hymns give vague indications about this. They testify, first of all, to the full power of maternal grief, in which she shares the mortal struggle of the Son. She also shares their human sorrow with the myrrh-bearers. “The Lamb, visibly drawn to the slaughter, followed Mary, tormented with other wives.” This is a mortal yearning for her too: “Now take me with You, my Son and God, so that I may go down, O Lord, into hell with You and I, do not leave me alone, for I no longer tolerate living without seeing You, my sweet light, but I will not leave Him alone, here I will die and be buried with Him.” However, in this sorrow, uniting with the apostles and myrrh-bearers, the Most Pure One is already separated from them. In it the mystery of the Theotokos revelation is accomplished through the unity of the resurrected Son with Matter. Christ's stay in the tomb is accompanied by His descent into hell, in it all the great mystery and power of Him - preaching in hell, the appearance after death and the ministry of Christ. Was this and His Matter known and separated? The Church remains silent about this, perhaps because this mystery, which took place outside the earthly circle, remained unknown to the Most Pure One herself, before her honest dormition. However, if not all knowledge, then foreshadowing of what is happening in the descent into hell, in it, could be available to her, together with the knowledge of the resurrection of Christ taking place in the world and for the world, which she had already experienced in her Son. And the Church testifies to this knowledge of Sunday joy, characteristic of the Mother of God, although in restrained words. From the darkness of the tomb the light of resurrection shines. “Don’t cry for Me, Mother, see in the grave... I will rise and be glorified,” she hears in the silence of the grave. “Oh, how the abyss of generosity is hidden from you, the Lord said to the Mother in secret: for although I will save my creation, I will die, but I will also rise again.” And the Mother answers: “I sing Thy mercy, O lover of mankind, and I bow to the riches of Thy mercy, O Master, for Thou didst lift up Thy creation, O Lord, from death, O Most Pure One.” From this we understand why the Most Pure One was not with either the myrrh-bearers or the apostles on the night of the resurrection, for she is above even this rank. When they were still in the grip of sorrow, she was already in the joy of the resurrection taking place, and her soul heard his gospel, earlier than the angelic one. But with this sacred secret she retreats into the deepest shadow of silence, in which she remains on Sunday night: “for the Lord has looked upon the humility of his servant.” 4. About the feat of joy (On the eve of Holy Easter) ... “and behold Jesus met them and said: In the darkness before dawn, amid deep sorrow, during a great earthquake, the news of the resurrection sounded: “Rejoice! It was announced then by the risen Lord himself, and He proclaims it now. What do we, who have forgotten how to rejoice, need for this word to resound victoriously in our hearts, and not remain dead and cold for it, as if not trusting itself and ashamed of itself? Called to meet the Risen One, as we say, “Truly He is Risen!?” We entered the days of Great Lent not without spiritual confusion and not without difficulty. Now they are already expiring, having committed in different ways. Everyone in their own way was given the opportunity to touch with their hearts and be spiritually beneficial to St. Pentecost. From it we take away the quiet lights from which we must kindle the candle of the Resurrection of Christ. Whether we could work hard or little spiritually, Christ calls everyone to the feast, so that those who worked from the first, and from the third, and from the sixth, and from the ninth and from the eleventh hour “will now receive a denarius.” For He “accepts the last as well as the first,” so that all may enter into the joy of their Lord. “Let no one weep for misery... let no one weep for sins.” The Lord Himself descends with luminous joy into the heart that opens to Him. And may it be revealed! But even on Sunday night a stone was rolled at the tomb of the Lord, a seal was attached, and a guard was posted. We feel even now the heaviness that has crushed the heart and sealed the tomb with the Body of the Three-Day Dead. It fell upon us from the unbearable, it seems to us, burden of life, from the cruelty of the military guard, from the insurmountable sadness in the heart. Everyone is exhausted in their own way: some from anticipation of future troubles, others from those that have already come; some from infirmities and circumstances, others from sorrows and deprivations. There is something in everyone’s soul that deadens and darkens it on the eve of Christ’s Resurrection. One involuntarily recalls the lightness and lightness of the days of the past, when the joy of Easter victoriously entered the world in its bright robes, in the rejoicing and generosity of grace. It seemed then that we worthily accepted what belonged to us, and that we ourselves were bright and joyful, resurrected and resurrected. All we could do was celebrate that gift, the more magnificently, the more appropriately. Nowadays this pomp seems distant and alien, cold and unnecessary to us. The soul has become not enough of it, and only the external is powerless, it seeks something else and more - the power and light of the resurrection, the joys of its freedom, the trampling of death with Christ and in Christ. We call and wait for Him: may He himself come closer and tell us his REJOICE! so that our hearts will tremble from it. What is needed for the power of Easter joy, for victory over death? What does it conquer in us? What do we need to do in ourselves and on ourselves in order to accept this joy given by Christ, to respond to this call? In response, we must demonstrate the feat of joy, rising to it on the wings of freedom, and free ourselves, even for a brief moment. Then joy itself will flash for us, its wave will overwhelm us, its light will illuminate us. We are slaves now. We are enslaved by fear and sorrow, confusion and coldness, routine and dryness, joyless everyday life. We are slaves of the prince of this world, no matter what guise he puts on, slaves of the world, and we are only trying to cover ourselves with ineffective robes of pomp. But on the path to joy one must break the chains of slavery, and its freedom is found in God. In Him you can forget from the world with its sorrow, from its very existence, having heard the call of Christ: “Do not be afraid, it is I!” And you need to become deaf and blind for the world, in order to free yourself from it, even for a brief moment, becoming, as it were, outside of it, and immerse yourself in the Divine being. Such is the nature of Easter joy. Then, even now, our Easter joy will be victorious and dazzling, as in the past, as in the times of the first Christians, when the prayer was poured out: “Hey, come, Lord Jesus!” ( Rev. 22:20 ) But this must be desired - with all the strength with which “the kingdom of God is constrained, and those who use force delight it” ( Matt. 11:12 ). It is sinful and cowardly for us to think that we are deprived or abandoned by God. He knows no partiality. But we are chosen and called to the joy of Easter not because we are rich and sought after by the mercy of God, but because we are poor and diminished, pitiful and unhappy. The strength of our joy is not in well-being, but in adversity; it is independent in truth and free, like the joy of the feat of Easter on blood, next to Golgotha, the hard-won victory of our faith. Let it briefly sparkle in us and soon fade away, but the brighter and more joyful will be the appearance of the Risen One. The darker the night in which Christ is resurrected, the brighter His eternal radiance. Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Priest Fr. Pavel Florensky The other day we received direct confirmation of the news of the death of the great Russian theologian and thinker priest Fr. Pavel Florensky. He died in Solovki, after a 10-year exile to remote places, from eastern Siberia to the White Sea. Of all my contemporaries whom I was destined to meet during my long life, he is the greatest, and the greatest is the crime of those who raised their hands against him, dooming him to something worse than execution, but to long-term painful exile and slow dying. He departed, illuminated by an aura of more than a martyr, but a confessor of the name of Christ, into the Antichrist persecution. Therefore, this death fills the soul not only with stunning sorrow, like one of the darkest events of the Russian tragedy, but it is also a spiritual triumph, like one of those that was said to the Seer: “Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on; to her, says the Spirit, they will rest from their labors, and their works will follow them” (Rev. 14:13). I am destined here, in a foreign land, to now testify to those who did not know him about the greatness and beauty of his spiritual image. But never have I felt the powerlessness of my word to such an extent as in the face of this duty of mine. Father Pavel was for me not only a manifestation of genius, but also a work of art: his image was so harmonious and beautiful. It takes a word or a brush or a chisel of a great master to tell the world about it. Moreover, he himself was not only born this way, but was also his own work of spiritual art, for which he had all the subtlety of spiritual and artistic taste. The features of his external face are captured in the famous Nesterov portrait - blessed calmness and enlightenment, the image of a kind of celestial being, who, however, was a son of the earth, experienced and overcame its hardships. There was no idyllic naivety and primitiveness in him at all; this could have been said about him: “Oh, don’t wake up sleeping storms, chaos is stirring underneath them.” But he loved her, this native land, as the all-human mother, the ancient Demeter, but at the same time he knew and honored her as the holy Land of God, the Most Pure and Most Blessed, which he so worshiped (see his dedication of the “Pillar”: “To the All-Fragrant and Most Pure Name of the Virgin and Mother”). From the outside, he was rather of a delicate and fragile build, but he had great endurance and ability to work, partly achieved through enormous ascetic training. I witnessed this ascetic self-discipline of his, as well as his laborious scientific feat: he usually spent his nights at work, going to bed only at 3-4 o'clock in the morning, but at the same time maintaining all the freshness of his mind during the day, and the same can be said about his eating regimen. And all this was in him not only the voice of his spiritual element, but also a matter of iron will and self-control. Weak by nature, in those years when I knew about him (alas, our separation was already a quarter of a century old), as far as I remember, he was never sick at all, leading a life full of ascetic deprivation. When Fr. Paul appeared anywhere, he naturally attracted the attention of at least sighted people, both before his priesthood and especially after it. There was something oriental and not Russian in his face (his mother was Armenian). Spiritually, I saw in him most of all an ancient Hellenic, and at the same time also an Egyptian; He carried both spiritual elements within himself, being, as it were, a living revelation of them. In his appearance, in his profile, in the reflection of his face, in his lips and nose, there was something from the images of Leonardo da Vinci, which always amazed, but at the same time... Gogol. I remember how we, who knew him and were present at the opening of the monument to Gogol in Moscow (Ern, A. Bely, etc.), saw him for the first time after the veil that covered him was removed, and gasped: “Pavlusha!” (that’s what his friends and peers called him, his schoolmates at the Tiflis gymnasium, now both retired: V.F. Ern and Father Alexander Elchaninov). And with this appearance, which cannot be passed by without noticing, there was nothing provocative or arrogant about her. It was the same in his voice and in his speech: Shakespeare’s word (Hamlet about Ophelia) always asked for him on his lips: he had a gentle, quiet voice, great charm (not only in a woman, but in this case also in a man). However, in this voice the hardness of metal also sounded when required. In general, the most basic impression of Fr. Paul had the strength to know and control himself. And this force was a certain primordial nature of a genius personality, who was given originality and self-sufficiency with complete simplicity, naturalness and any absence of internal and external posture, which is always a pretense of internal weakness. And in the paths of spiritual development and self-determination we observe in Fr. Pavle these same features. It can be said in a certain sense that Fr. Paul was a self-made man, approaching in his own way. He was born and raised in a cultured family (his father was an educated engineer) and he was brought up in the atmosphere of Beethoven and Goethe, but without religion. Being a spiritual aristocrat by upbringing, he was to a certain extent also an esthete. After graduating from the gymnasium, where he amazed teachers with his mathematical abilities, then already research ones, he entered the mathematics department of Moscow University, after which he was retained at several mathematical departments (and for a long time later Moscow physicists and mathematicians could not forget the gifted student). Instead of all this, Fr. Paul, dramatically changing his path in life, entered the Moscow Theological Academy as a student (at Trinity Sergius), accepting obedience to a new scientific theological work, and at the same time a religious feat. When and how the religious revolution took place in it, I do not have exact data. I recognized him after him. In a scientific guise, Fr. Pavel was always amazed by his complete mastery of the subject, alien to any amateurism, and in the breadth of his scientific interests he is a rare and exceptional polylogist, the full extent of which cannot even be determined due to the lack of complete data for this. Here he most of all resembles the titanic images of the Renaissance: Leonardo da Vinci and others, maybe also Pascal, and among the Russians most of all V.V. Bolotov. I knew him to be a mathematician and physicist, a theologian and philologist, a philosopher, a historian of religions, a poet, a connoisseur and connoisseur of art, and a deep mystic. The last years before exile Fr. Pavel gave lectures in Moscow on electricity and the theory of perspective. They say that even during his exile in Solovki, with his all-consuming inquisitive mind, he studied seaweed. If it is impossible to verify this, let it be a myth that naturally arises around a person who is also mythical in his own way. And all this wealth of gifts, and, obviously, achievements, is hidden, and perhaps buried by barbarity, the spiritual invasion of the Huns on Russian soil, crushed by the cast-iron press of “Soviet power” along with millions of human lives. I don’t know what survived from his scientific and literary heritage, but even then, during the years of our common life, that is, a quarter of a century ago, I knew that he had several ready-made studies on his desk (on names and renamings, various philosophical and theological courses, mathematical and other works). In general, he had little interest in their publication. But I personally believe that the book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth,” which deservedly glorified his name in theology, is still a youthful work, and not at all his last and only word from all that he took with him to his distant grave. However, in the creative world, nothing disappears from genuine spiritual values, even what perishes here on earth, “their deeds follow them,” and their seed sprouts in the next world... However, everything that can be said about Father Paul’s exceptional scientific talent, as well as about his originality, by virtue of which he always had his word as a kind of revelation about everything, is still secondary and insignificant if one does not know the most important thing about it. The spiritual center of his personality, the sun by which all his gifts were illuminated, was his priesthood. V.V. Rozanov, who, having once learned about. Paul, then could no longer tear himself away from him, as from the source of life (I know that Father Paul kept a huge and significant correspondence with him, in which they plunged together into the mystical depths of the Jewish question), he once wrote me a letter about him, also absolutely brilliant in strength and expressiveness (I don’t know if it survived in Moscow). I only remember one word from it. – As his most essential definition, V.V. Rozanov said: he is ἱερεύς (in Greek), priest. And that's exactly how it was. Priesthood Fr. Paul, like everything in his life (besides what satanic anti-Christian malice had done to him), was also his own self-determination, which from the outside seemed to be completely contrary to his entire life situation. Neither his engineer father nor his gymnasium or university teachers dreamed of such foolishness as a cassock. It did not even necessarily follow from the fact of entering the Theological Academy, but such was his inner voice, election and calling. In itself, it had no examples in the history of the Russian intelligentsia. The latter still knows of individual cases of acceptance of the priesthood associated with the transition to Catholicism, in aristocratic and secular convertism, but not in homespun, peasant Orthodoxy. We can say that Fr. Paul, by his example, first paved this path in our days precisely for the Russian intelligentsia, to which historically, of course, he still belonged, although he was always free from “intelligentsia” and was at enmity with it. With his ordination, he actually made a well-known challenge to her, of course, without thinking about it at all. Along the same path, but after Fr. Paul, people of well-known spiritual and cultural character have come. They go with him and after him, sometimes consciously, and sometimes even unconsciously. Until now, the priesthood has been hereditary among us, belonging to the “Levitical” blood, along with a certain psychological way of life, but in Fr. Paul, culture and churchliness, Athens and Jerusalem met and were united in their own way, and this organic connection in itself is already a fact of church-historical significance. What was Fr. looking for in the priesthood? Paul? This was not a calling to shepherding and teaching, although, of course, he did not deny them, but first of all and most of all, an attraction to stand before the Throne of the Lord, to serve the liturgical - Eucharistic. First about. Pavel sought, perhaps somewhat abstractly and ideologically, to obtain a village parish near Sergiev Posad, but then he received for himself a small house church of the Red Cross community in Sergiev Posad, where he was entrusted with the department of spiritual philosophy, 1918, from which his priestly homelessness already began. After this, obviously, his priestly ministry could not but be interrupted sooner or later. However, Bolshevik Moscow also remembers him giving scientific lectures in a cassock and wearing a cross. I won’t say exactly the year of his ordination, but it seems to have been around 1910. Shortly before his ordination, his marriage took place, which was unexpected in its own way for his loved ones. His ascetic path initially led him to monasticism, but then asceticism in the monastery gave way to asceticism in the family. He became the head of the family, a caring and gentle father of several children. Separation from them and worry about them, obviously, was also his special cross in exile. In his ordination, Fr. Paul stepped over the obstacle that for us, the “intellectuals” who returned to the Church, so to speak, was the dependence of the Church on the state, Caesar-papism. In his exceptional earthiness - despite and even despite his half-Russian blood - Fr. Paul was, or rather wanted to be, politically rather conservative, although this in him was combined with an apocalyptic and eschatological sense of life “not having a city that abides here, but seeking the one to come.” At a time when the whole country was delirious with the revolution, and also in church circles, one after another, albeit ephemeral, church-political organizations arose, Fr. Paul remained alien to them, either because of his general indifference to the earthly dispensation, or because the voice of eternity generally sounded stronger for him than the calls of temporality. The renovationist movement among the Russian clergy, which later degenerated into the Living Church, never found an echo in Fr. Paul, no matter how much he suffered from all the inertia of our church life. His Christianity was also not “social”, although at that time various currents of it arose around it. But this was least of all a simple guardianship in him; this outer shell was united with the fiery burning of the fiery spirit, although with a quiet light emanating from it. Therefore, he was not shocked by the change in the relationship between the Church and the state that came after the revolution. He remained internally free from the state, from which neither before nor after the revolution he sought anything, equally alien to any servility, both to the authorities above and below. We can say, without fear of paradox, that Fr. Paul passed through our catastrophic era, spiritually as if not noticing it, as if not paying attention to its external revolutionary nature. This indifference was also expressed in his loyalty to “obedience to all authority,” a paradoxical “priesthood.” However, at the same time, you need to know the full true extent of his love of freedom, which was equally able not only to obey, but also to disobey, of course, in what was essential and important for him. Having become a priest and having assumed the full responsibility of all canonical and hierarchical discipline, Fr. Paul remained free and alien to blind obedience for fear, and not for conscience, recognition of its “infallibilitas”. He remained free in his theology, which, however, was organically imbued with his churchliness and was inspired at the altar. He did not live to see the direct persecution of sophiology that came later, but, of course, he was ready to accept it with all its consequences. When the persecution of admirers of the Name of God (“name-glorification”) began, Fr. Paul gave his theological strength to support the theologically helpless but mystically right movement of the name-glorifiers. I could also confirm his spiritual fearlessness on the basis of some biographical data. In general, one can apply the German expression to him: nur für schwindelfreie möglich, and he remained schwindelfrei in his priesthood. It was characteristic that he could be found not only in the cell of Abba Isidore, among the elders of Zosima Hermitage, among Bishop. Anthony, who lived in retirement in the Donskoy Monastery, but also in various houses of our then Moscow “Florence”, writers and poets, sometimes where it seemed difficult to expect this, he was both a welcome guest and a night interlocutor. For all his ecclesiastical and liturgical nature, he remained completely free from both hypocrisy and stylish “priesthood”, knowing how to be interested in things on the merits. Therefore, he did not find a real place for himself in the academic environment with its special atmosphere. While remaining completely far from theological “modernism,” that is, rationalism, it was, of course, not alien to it in the best, true sense, recognizing that each era of history has not only the right to exist, but also the law of its life, the special requirements of its creative perception, and as a result of which loyalty to its tradition does not turn into inert guarding. When the theological academies were closed by the Soviet government, together with Fr. Pavel began to actively discuss the project of establishing a free “religious-philosophical” academy according to a modified and expanded program, and for this implementation they were looking for means and opportunities. However, life responded to these projects with cruelty in its own way, for Fr. Paul's imprisonment, which ended in confessional death, for me - lifelong exile in a foreign land. Such were the ways and orders of God's Providence. But in our current Parisian undertaking, which arose in the cultural ruins of Russian life, I would like to see, of course, if not completeness, then at least some faint reflection of our Moscow plans, and in what is conventionally called “Parisian theology” we find principles that are related to the inspirations of Fr. Paul, and his spiritual, as it were, complicity with us. However, full flowering and fruiting is possible only on its native soil and under its sun, and a greenhouse plant torn from the soil, even if it grows, inevitably withers. Father Pavel had an organic sense of homeland. Himself a native of the Caucasus, he found the promised land for himself at the Trinity of Sergius, loving every corner and plant in it, its summer and winter, spring and autumn. I cannot convey in words that feeling of the homeland, Russia, great and powerful in its destinies, with all its sins and falls, but also in the trials of its chosenness, how it lived in Fr. Pavle. And, of course, it was no coincidence that he did not go abroad, where, of course, a brilliant scientific future and, probably, world fame could await him, which for him did not seem to exist at all. Of course, he knew what could await him, he could not help but know, the fate of his homeland spoke too inexorably about this, from top to bottom, from the brutal murder of the royal family to the endless victims of government violence. We can say that life seemed to offer him a choice between Solovki and Paris, but he chose... homeland, although it was Solovki, he wanted to share his fate with his people to the end. O. Pavel organically could not and did not want to become an emigrant in the sense of a voluntary or involuntary separation from his homeland, and he himself and his fate are the glory and greatness of Russia, although at the same time its greatest crime. A quarter of a century has already passed since we parted with Fr. Paul, leaving the Moscow church after our last joint liturgy. And everything that was said above about him is the essence of the impressions of only the first decades of this century, already the distant past. Nevertheless, I do not feel that I remain in some kind of ignorance about him, because for me the past years lived together have allowed me to forever preserve in my soul this image, as if cast from bronze, like a monument. But, of course, it exceeds all powers to tell about it without seeing it and without feeling it directly. In order to talk about a genius, who is, after all, a kind of miracle of nature, you must be one yourself, or at least have the ability to imagine his image through the power of feeling. Let us hope that there will be those who will collect precious grains of memories of him over the past quarter century, although they will all face the same insurmountable difficulty: the real creativity of Fr. Paul is not even the books he wrote, or his thoughts and words, but he himself, his whole life, which has already gone irrevocably from this century to the future. And only those who believe and know that the life of creativity continues beyond the grave, that it is also possible to participate in the life here, have the Christian hope of meeting it in the eternal homeland, in intelligible Russia, in the coming century, in which nothing truly valuable is lost, but is multiplied, and the deeds of the righteous follow him... The memory haunts me, and at the same time the omen of future events and accomplishments. This is our portrait, painted by our mutual friend M.V. Nesterov (who also passed away from this life this year) on a May evening in 1917, in the garden at the house of Fr. Pavel. It was, according to the artist’s plan, not only a portrait of two friends made by a third friend, but also a spiritual vision of the era. Both faces expressed for the artist the same comprehension, but in different ways, one of them as a vision of horror, the other as a vision of peace, joy, and victorious overcoming. And the artist himself first had doubts about the appropriateness of the first image, so much so that he made an attempt to remake the portrait, replacing horror with idyll, tragedy with complacency. But the falsity and unbearability of such a replacement were immediately revealed, so the artist had to restore the original vision. But the image of Fr. Paul turned out to be something he immediately found; there was artistic and spiritual self-evidence in him, and he did not have to be changed. It was an artistic clairvoyance of two images of the Russian apocalypse, on this side and on the other side of earthly existence, the first image in struggle and confusion (and in my soul it related specifically to the fate of my friend), the other to the victorious accomplishment that we are now contemplating... He found his resting place. This is the Christian faith and Christian hope. But the world seemed to be empty without him for those who knew and loved him, becoming dull and boring, and the departed one was calling for him to follow him from the world. “And I looked,” says the seer, “and behold, a great multitude of people, which no one can number... stood before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes and with palm branches in their hands... These are those who came out of the great tribulation... they abide before the throne of God and serve Him day and night in His church... and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes”... (Rev. 7:9-17). And we believe that in their face one can see the priest of God Paul, the martyr and confessor of the Name of Christ. 4. IV. 1943 prot. S. Bulgakov wrote to Mother Feodosia: 36 “...during this time I experienced great shock and grief, although it was, of course, tempered in its immediacy by the distance of a quarter of a century. I have received undoubted confirmation of the news of the death of my friend, I can say: Friend, Fr. Pavel Florensky. He apparently died in Solovki, where he was in exile (during the last 10 years of his life). In recent days, with the strain of powerlessness to say anything about him worthy of the greatness of this man, I have been jotting down notes in his memory, which, perhaps, will be read in the collection of his memory that we are organizing. Do you remember his image in the photograph of Nesterov’s painting. The impressions of the last 25 years, it turns out, have not eclipsed this image, but I experience his martyrdom and confessional death as a spiritual triumph, in the images of the Apocalypse in which I live...” (Autobiographical Notes, p. 153). The meeting took place on April 11, 1943 at the Orthodox Theological Institute. Inviting Pyotr Berngardovich Struve to it, Fr. Sergius wrote on 3.IV.1943: Dear Pyotr Berngardovich, Thank you for the news about S. L. Frank, to whom I ask you to convey my mutual greetings and blessings. Until recently, I could not answer a request about his health from Nancy, but now I will write. I received (not directly) confirmation from Moscow of the sad rumor about the death of Fr. Pavel Florensky in exile (apparently in Solovki, where he was recently staying). I was very shocked by this news. Do you remember meeting him in my house? After it, he expressed to me his sympathy for you (in particular, for the timbre of your voice, how nicely you “creak”). Next Sunday, April 11, at exactly 4 o'clock in the afternoon, in the well-known auditorium of the Sergievsky Metochion there will be a funeral for Fr. Paul, besides me (of course, in someone else’s reading), Fr. Cyprian Kern, Fr. You. Zenkovsky, A. V. Kartashev, L. A. Zander. We would all be very glad if you honored this day with your presence. Greetings and blessings to Nina Al. and Ada. Theology and Church Issues Prot. John Meyendorff. On the way to the Ecumenical Council? Since 1961, several Pan-Orthodox Congresses and Assemblies representing the autocephalous Churches of the East have been convened by the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras, with the aim of preparing a “Great” or “Ecumenical” Council of the Orthodox Church. The humility (or, rather, caution) of the organizers of these Assemblies did not allow the unconditional application of the term “Ecumenical” to the proposed Council. However, in the minds of many, it is possible that the Council, after its “reception” by the Church, will be recognized as the “Eighth Ecumenical”. This is not the first time that plans to convene an Ecumenical Council have arisen in our time. Pan-Orthodox Assemblies, convened by the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, took place in 1924 and 1930, but, due to the lack of representation of the Russian Church, the real Council did not take place. Locum Tenens Sergius, who received an invitation to the Council, motivated his refusal to send representatives by the fact that the Patriarchate of Constantinople simultaneously sent an invitation to the “Renewal” Synod, which was then recognized by Constantinople. But, of course, in the conditions of general persecution of the Church, participation in the Council was, in any case, impossible on the part of the Russian Church. The preparations for the Council that are taking place today, on the initiative of Patriarch Athenagoras, are much more significant. They arouse a lot of aspirations and even enthusiasm. And indeed Orthodoxy needs unity. The single, strong voice of Orthodoxy should have sounded in the face of the world. The internal crisis of Western Christianity, where the replacement of the Gospel gospel with naive utopian secularism is becoming increasingly clear, places a special responsibility on the Orthodox Church as a living witness to the fullness of Christ’s truth. In addition, it is obvious that ordinary Orthodox believers need church leadership. The canonical legislation of the ancient Church, by which Orthodoxy lives, presupposes the existence of a Christian empire. Outside the conditions in which it was compiled, it is, in many cases, devoid of direct meaning and needs to be updated. The jurisdictional chaos and fruitless polemics about “rights” and “primacy” between churches must end. Of course, only through conciliarity can all these goals be achieved. The general meeting of Syndesmos in Boston (July 1971), the meeting of Orthodox youth in Annecy, (France, October 1971) and many other voices pin their hopes on the upcoming Council as a provincial event that can resolve the problems of modern Orthodoxy. But at the same time other voices are heard. One of the most respected modern Orthodox theologians, Serbian Archimandrite Justin Popović, who was deprived of his chair at the Faculty of Theology in Belgrade after the war, but retained great personal authority in the Serbian Church, issued an open letter addressed to the Serbian hierarchy. In a letter to Fr. Justina, the very idea of ​​a council, in modern conditions, is considered harmful and even dangerous. Because most Orthodox churches are under the control of communist governments and lack true freedom. On the other hand, there is still no necessary material for fruitful conciliar work, and the resolutions of the All-Orthodox Conferences are drawn up in such a way that doubts arise about their compliance with the Orthodox conciliar tradition. With some limitations, the author of these lines shares the point of view of Fr. Archimandrite Justin. The limitations relate to the apocalyptic tone of his writing, but essentially Fr. Justin is right that our Church, and especially the majority of the hierarchy, is not ready theologically and spiritually for a council. In practice, it is simply impossible to imagine that the Soviet government and the governments of other communist countries would, at the present time, allow the entire episcopate to travel abroad. It is also unthinkable to imagine that the “Great Council” would meet in one of the communist countries, where, to this day, not a single church meeting has taken place in conditions of free discussion. The Orthodox Church, both in Russia and in other countries of “people’s democracy,” lives thanks to the simple and persistent faith of millions of people. This is the great miracle of our days, but it was bought at a high price: the silence of hierarchies and external obedience to authority. A brief article on the proposed Council is not the place to discuss in detail the relationship between church authorities and the state in the Soviet Union and in other countries. From many accounts - including documents often published in the Herald - we know how complex these relationships are and how difficult, especially in the actions of the episcopate, to distinguish wise caution from criminal passivity. But as far as the Council is concerned, the doubts expressed by some representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate seem to me to be a positive fact. Much more dangerous would have been conciliar enthusiasm on their part. As “chekists in disguise,” as many imagine them to be, it would behoove them to strive for a council at which they, having a majority of votes, could easily completely compromise the universal Orthodox conciliarity! But it’s as if they don’t at all strive to play such a role. Enthusiasm for the cathedral is shown almost exclusively by representatives of Constantinople, with the hope, apparently, of supporting the fading prestige of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but even here a lot may soon change, in connection with the gradual descent from the scene of the extraordinary - brilliant, although ambiguous - personality of Patriarch Athenagoras. In its modern form, the preparation for the council is clearly insufficient; the topics chosen for discussion are either extremely abstract, such as the question of the “sources of Revelation,” or practically secondary, such as the question of fasting and the calendar. A more significant question is about the meaning of “oikonomia” in church law; but even here, to solve it, not enough ecclesiological material is presented. Fortunately, at the last Pan-Orthodox Conference it was decided to reconsider the entire issue of the agenda. It is remarkable, however, that not once, in all these preliminary Meetings, was there a discussion of the issue of canonical chaos in the Orthodox “dispersion,” although this issue is on the agenda of the proposed Council. All this forces us to agree with the pessimistic view of Fr. Justin Popovich regarding the proposed Council. But this does not mean that we propose to completely abandon conciliarity and any attempts to unite Ecumenical Orthodoxy. The mission of Orthodoxy in the West especially clearly demands Orthodox unity, and no apocalypticism is inappropriate here. But real “unction” requires, as Fr. Justin, “the fear of God, faith and love,” as well as humility and spiritual simplicity. The “cult of personality” of Patriarch Athenagoras, as well as Byzantine politics and myth-making about the “second” or “third” Rome, can only bring harm. All-Orthodox Commissions must continue their work and, even if they do not lead to a Council, some achievements can still be credited to them, as, for example, in the dialogue with the “Monophysite” churches. But this limited and “humble” pan-Orthodox unction must also begin to resolve truly important issues that require immediate resolution. No Ecumenical Council is needed to stop the undoubtedly harmful controversy between Constantinople and Moscow regarding American autocephaly. Almost two years have passed, but not a single all-Orthodox commission, openly and fraternally, has devoted a single meeting to this issue. Meanwhile, if there was good will, this issue would be very easy to resolve. Why, before the start of each ecumenical conference, are not at least one-day meetings of Orthodox delegates organized to clarify common issues? It is this kind of conciliarity - in which no one would challenge the initiatives of the Patriarch of Constantinople - that we really need, and it is also undoubtedly possible. Of course, the Lord’s miracle is also possible: a real Orthodox Ecumenical Council, assembled completely independently of Soviet power, from the Turks, from the Greek “colonels”, and dispelling all the human restrictions of the modern Orthodox world. We must always be ready to accept God's miracles, to understand their meaning and to humbly obey the will of God. But we should not “tempt the Lord God” (Matthew 4:7) by counting on a miracle when we are unlikely to be ready for it. Prot. Georgy Serikov. About the unity of Christians in Christ (About the Church) and about the Eucharist (the Sacrament of Body and Blood) as communion of this unity (continued) “...always in prayer and supplication open yours with thanksgiving desires before God. And the peace of God be your thoughts in Christ Jesus" (Phil.4:6:7). However, 37 recognizing myself as a sinner, but at the same time repenting of this sincerely, it would seem that I could - and based on all of the above, I should even have - take communion today, however, another thought comes to my mind and stops me: Looking at myself and my spiritual life, I see that the Christian “virtues” (faith, hope and love) in me personally are not so much a given as a given: - I actually have little faith, little hope and little love, and in truth, I’m still just going to “make a good beginning” (from the prayer for the day of St. John Chrysostom) of my real Christian life. Having analyzed myself, although I repent, repentance, in order to be factual, must be connected with reality, must be tested and proven by experience. How many times have I repented and it was frivolous and did not affect my entire life and work! This time, I’ll try to check my real capabilities and the strength of my will, I’ll put off communion for a while to make sure that at least this time I’m capable and have the will enough to repent “pour de bon”, that is, convince myself that I’m able to change my life, and not just promise to change it or have a good intention to do it. After all, “As they say, the path to hell is paved with good intentions!” Here I remember the words of the apostle. James that believing is good, but that demons also believe and tremble!... “Faith without works is dead” (James 2:17). “Dead” means nothing if it is not confirmed by deeds, but only if there is a theory or a beautiful idea. If I only talk about love for God and people, I dream about it and admire it in others (for example, among saints), but I myself do not have it “existentially,” then I am only “a ringing brass, or a sounding cymbal!” (1 Cor. 13:1). If I have decided only to hope for the resurrection of the dead and only mechanically sing at the liturgy: “I hope for the resurrection of the dead,” but if I myself no longer carry Easter joy within myself, and if my words at the all-night vigil “I have seen the Resurrection of Christ...” refer not to myself, but to someone else (for example, to the apostles), and I myself have not overcome sorrow and despondency within myself, then maybe it would be better for me to postpone communion for a week or a month of fasting, asceticism and vigil and see about the actual fruitfulness of my repentance? And if it turns out that my repentance today turns out to be fictitious and not real, then it would be better for me to repent again and for real, “for real,” and by doing this, that is, by postponing communion, I may sin less than if I took communion, and then, to my horror, I will see that I deceived myself, that is, that my repentance did not contain the need for an actual, radical change in life. Although I understand perfectly well that Christian life begins with repentance, that John the Baptist, even before Christ himself, pointed to the path to the Kingdom of Heaven through repentance (Matthew 3:2), but repentance is a change of life, and not just a change of opinion. And when people came to the Forerunner “confessing their sins” (Matthew 3:6), he strictly told them to “produce fruits worthy of repentance” (Matthew 3:8), for “every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (Matthew 3:10). Therefore, in order to be honest and sincere in my repentance, I must, at least for myself, check: whether my today’s theoretical repentance is not crafty idle talk and a fiction, whether I am actually changing my life, whether I am creating the fruit of repentance, or whether in fact I am a real barren fig tree, which should be thrown into the fire, and not partake of the “Eucharistic fire!” For this test, I need time to experience the reality and seriousness of my own repentance. Therefore, having collected within myself the meager and not yet fertilized crumbs of faith, hope and love, I believe that it is better for me to wait and postpone partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ for an indefinite time, in order to be honest, to create the truth, and in order not only to promise myself to “be worthy,” but to appear to them; and to the point. Thus, my hesitation does not relate to communion (which I want to postpone), but to repentance. I cannot forget that anyone “who eats and drinks unworthily, eats and drinks to condemnation of himself” (1 Cor. 11:29). I know, of course, that I can only be “worthy” through repentance, but precisely through the quality of my repentance, which should not be theoretical, but vital and fruitful. I must be confident in the fruitfulness of this repentance so as not to be false and not naively deceive myself and others. Therefore, for people like me, there is a “penitential discipline” in the Church, which takes into account the flow of time. "Time will show!" – there is great truth in these words. Over time, a lot becomes clear. Haste and rashness are reprehensible not only in physical activities, but also in spiritual ones. “If you hurry, you’ll make people laugh!” - says a wise proverb. And are not the spiritual seeds sown brought forth with patience” (Luke 5:15)?! But thinking like this, I completely forget about two things: firstly, that “the days are evil!” (Eph.5:16), that no one knows about the hour and minute of the coming of Christ (Mark 13:33), and that, therefore, according to the Gospel, we must constantly watch and pray, for the end of everything may be closer than we think (1 Peter 4:7). The parable of the servants (Luke 12:36:40), who must always be awake during the first, second and third watch of the night in order to meet their Master whenever He comes - this parable applies to us, and not only to Christ’s contemporaries. “Let your loins be girded and your lamps burning” (Luke 12:35). Can I put off my meeting with Christ for a year, a month, even a week?! "Insane! – maybe the Lord will tell me at the end of today. “This night your soul will be demanded of you.” Who will get the fruits that you have prepared to bring tomorrow (Luke 12:20) - the fruits of your faith, love and hope? And besides, is it possible to separate with time the fruits of virtue from its source and, so to speak, the vines from the human heart? Are our thoughts and thoughts only spiritual and abstract? Doesn't a person already commit adultery by thinking about adultery (Matthew 5:28)? Do not the material treasures that I dream about already have their granaries in my heart (Matthew 6:21)? My word, which I pronounce with my lips, comes from the heart (Matt. 15:18) - just as thefts and murders and deceit and all evil deeds come from it (Mk. 7:21-23). Love for God and neighbor, of course, must be reflected in deeds “By their fruits you will know them” (Matthew 7:16), and there is nothing secret and heartfelt that would not be reflected outside (Matthew 10:26), but the spring of love is the heart. “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matthew 22:37–39). The bad deeds of the evil servant appeared because in his heart he said: “My master will not come soon!” And he began to beat his comrades, eat and drink with drunkards in his heart, perhaps long before this act. The seed of the word of God (the material and real seed) is sown in the human heart, which is real and not abstract soil. It is sown in him and grows in patience (Luke 5:15). Therefore, when I distinguish too much between my faith and the fruits of this faith, then I do not follow the apostle along the path of real faith, who said: “We walk by faith, and not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Faith is real in itself, before its fruits appear. It is already fruitful in itself, even if it has not yet emerged outside. A living faith is not one that has been proven to someone, or to myself, but one that is relevant, one that enters the flow of living time, breaking it, one that is not “yesterday” and not “tomorrow,” but today, now, this very minute. And at this moment in time I am free to believe or not to believe, free to say “Hey, come, Lord Jesus!” Maybe in half an hour I will be crushed by a car or crucified on a cross, but at the present moment I am the master of my disposition, I have the terrible, incredible power to become like either a right-handed or left-handed robber, and this likeness is not illusory, not fantastic, but real. “Now” I can die either in heaven or not in heaven! (“Today you will be with Me in Paradise!” the Lord said to one of the robbers). Faith is the reality of what we hope for and the appearance of what is not seen (Heb. 11:1). Living faith already includes hope and love. If it did not include it, it would not be alive, relevant, but dead, everyday, antique. Faith without works is, of course, dead! But you need to have faith, which already includes “works.” (Just as you need to have love for God, which already includes love for your neighbor, and love for your neighbor, which already includes love for God (1 John 4:20.) Luther was not right in arguing with the Apostle James about faith, for the Apostle himself did not speak about the salvific nature of faith, divorced from works, but taught about fruitful faith, that is, about faith fraught with works, about faith that includes the seed of the Word of God. (James 1:3,6,8,21,22, 2:1, 3:14–18, 4:13–15, 5:9,13–15). The “works” of faith are its logical consequence, the implementation of which may or may not occur due to external reasons! But if fulfillment does not happen - like the right thief or Abraham who did not kill his son (James 2:21-23) - then this will not diminish the value of the act of faith, which includes both love and hope. “Abraham believed the Lord, and it was counted to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). “To him who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,” his faith is counted as righteousness. (Rom.4:5). Although, to be honest, the realization of faith may not happen not only due to external reasons that prevented this, but also due to an internal reason, but then this will mean that my faith was not strong, not real, but frivolous and irresponsible, not alive and not tenacious - the wind blew, thorns grew, birds flew in and faith did not sprouted into deeds... But if it is alive, if it already includes the implementation (“notification of those who trust” - Heb.11:1), hope and love, then it is blessed; We are called to such faith: “Have faith in God!” (Mark 11:23) “Take, eat; “This is My Body, broken for you” for the remission of sins... You can, of course, begin to receive communion only if you have living faith that I will eat not only bread... and that communion with the Eucharistic Bread will “create” (in reality, in reality) the forgiveness of my sins through the power of the Sacrifice of my Savior on the Cross and will deify me. This communion, this tasting, being the secret of faith, through this very faith will create the actuality of my Communion. Not in a year, not in a month, not tomorrow, but today, now - and at the same time in Eternity - the miracle of the Advent will take place, the miracle of overcoming time and space. The transcendent will become immanent, close. The miracle of faith occurs not only during Communion, it occurs through prayer and good deeds and patience and humility and joy and forgiveness and, in general, throughout life in Christ. So, not only by taking communion, by creating this “Feast of Faith,” I will testify to this faith. No, even when I call myself a Christian and live like a Christian, and when I love, I hope, when I go to church and light a candle and when I leave church, when I work, create, think, rejoice, endure the hardships of life... I always express my faith. I express it or I don’t express it! I have it or I don’t have it!! And that's the whole point. (After all, one can do “good deeds” without faith, without them being an expression of actual faith!) Therefore, we can say that I am not a believer not only when I put off Communion “until after Lent,” but also when I put off my life in Christ until tomorrow. Living faith does not think about tomorrow (Matthew 6:34), but about today, about what is relevant. But mainly I reveal my lack of faith if I postpone Eucharistic communion with Christ from day to day and look for all sorts of excuses for this (like the consciousness of my “unworthiness” or like the desire to check the “reality” of my repentance). In essence, by this I testify that I do not have an actual faith and that I am not actually a Christian yet, but only intending to become one tomorrow or in a month. Therefore, my preliminary prayer today for “Daily Bread” (Eucharistic) should be this: “Lord, increase our faith!” (Luke 17:5)! Living faith is not what was yesterday and not what will be tomorrow, but what is today. If I don’t have faith at the present moment, if I don’t pray unceasingly, if I don’t already love God and people now, this very minute, if I don’t hear the relevance of Christ’s words: “Take, eat!...Drink of it, all of you” for the remission of sins,” then I’m just still an unbeliever, like the two Emmaus disciples were before their eyes were opened (Luke 24:31), for “The eyes were held on to it, but His will know." (16) Bishop Alexander (Semyonov Tian-Shansky). The Calling of the Movement (Word spoken at the Feast of the R.S.H.D. in December 1971) Today I had a chance to think about the name “Russian Student Christian Movement” - R.S.H.D. Every word here is significant, but it occurred to me to rearrange the words and say “Christian movement, student, Russian.” This is certainly not a suggestion or a desire to diminish the meaning of any of these words; this is most likely a program for what I intend to say. All of us, of course, agree that first of all one must be a Christian; to be a Christian means to always be in some kind of movement. Therefore, these two words Christian movement are inseparable. One can distinguish two movements in the Christian life: one vertical, the other horizontal. Vertical is, first of all, going inside oneself, and then upward to God. None of us should forget that one cannot be a Christian without delving into one’s inner world, without paying attention; to what is happening in us, without understanding what is bad inside us and what is good. The bad must be cut off from the soul with prayer, and gratitude must be given for the good. All this is possible only with frequent prayer, with participation in the sacramental life of the Church, with reading the word of God and other religious, especially patristic books. So, going deeper into ourselves, as much as circumstances allow, we begin to gradually ascend to God, who can only be met within ourselves. In a person’s heart, in a pure heart, this meeting takes place - “the pure in heart will see God.” But inevitably, having found in ourselves at least a ray of God’s light, we begin a horizontal movement, or become missionaries, travelers on the face of the earth, as the apostles were. Self-deepening to meet God and the radiance of God’s word are inseparable from one another. “It is more blessed to give than to receive,” said Christ. But in order to give, you must have something, acquire something. Studying the history of R.S.H.D. we can say that in it and in its members there are at least the beginnings of both movements. Here it is appropriate to point out two dangers: the first is to become too carried away by external missionary, especially organizational activities, to the detriment of one’s own spiritual development, or, on the contrary, inexperienced, unable to delve deeper into oneself, get carried away by religious reading, forgetting about the world around us. When I say that the Movement has good inclinations, it means that the Movement must always move. Complacency is always a stop. In religious life you cannot stop, because there is no limit for improvement in it. Today I will not really develop the topic of vertical movement, that is, of spiritual life. The congress in Annecy, for example, where there was almost universal reverent Communion of St. The Mystery is a favorable testimony also for the Movement. In addition, the latest issue of Messager Orrthodoxe is dedicated to issues of spiritual life. I will only add, however, three pastoral pieces of advice that I often give to my flock. 1 piece of advice - at evening prayer or in connection with it, to remember the past day and ask God for forgiveness for the bad things we experienced and to give thanks for all the good things. This accustoms us to spiritual attention. Usually, quite soon, not only in the evening at our examen de conscidence, but also during the day, people begin to notice their spiritual mistakes and pray that God will protect them from them and at the same time learn to notice the blessings of God and give thanks for them. God then becomes a living person, a companion of a person and ceases to be an abstract concept or being located somewhere above the ceiling, above the roof or above the stars. The second piece of advice is, as far as possible, to read in small sips, but always, some spiritual book, to have it at hand, as the French call it as a livre des chevet. The third piece of advice is not to forget morning and evening prayers. If you are tired and unwell, you can pray while sitting, even lying down, and in the morning when you are in a hurry and while traveling, on the subway, on the bus or in your car. The main thing, of course, is not the length, but the attentiveness of the prayer. If we don’t forget to wash ourselves in the morning and drink our coffee, how can we not find time for prayer? Speaking about the horizontal, missionary movement, we must immediately say that here, too, there is no end to the matter. We now live in a semi-pagan, or, worse, in a godless world, and in order to testify about Christ we do not need to go to distant countries, unless there is a definite order from above. But where exactly does one bear witness? The movement is called student and naturally testifies to God and the Church in its young, close environment. But we must never forget our Parish, no matter what jurisdiction we belong to. The parish is the basis of the Church. It is impossible not to belong to any Parish and not to work in it. How can you not be horrified? Most of our Parishes are becoming similar to senile Homes, and besides what has a downright sinister character, some parishes are closing due to the lack of young people. So the once living Parish on rue de la Tour was supposed to merge with the Parish on rue de la Faisanderie, and then this double Parish disappeared. Recently, former parishioners of the Intercession Parish on rue de Lourmel refused to retain the new church built for them. This parish, which at one time gave birth to three martyrs who died in Hitler’s camps, was also closed. Indeed, how can two dozen retired old men support an entire parish?! 38 It is not difficult to imagine that soon we will be left in a complete void, and the wonderful young people who gather at undoubtedly very good conventions, which I sincerely consider blessed, will have no one to represent but themselves. I repeat, young people, in particular R.S.H.D. must unite, hold on to each other, but must, to the best of their ability, also integrate into parish life, sometimes doing seemingly prosaic, everyday work there. The situation is especially bad with parish Thursday schools. Some priests are unable to teach, and there are too few lay teachers. There are, of course, few and even very few priests, especially educated ones. There are plenty of Russian students at the Theological Institute. And there are quite a few young people in general. There are many young and middle-aged people who have completely lagged behind the church and, at best, come to the church to take out the Shroud or to consecrate Easter cakes and Easter cakes. It’s good if there are those who stay at least for Easter Matins and, perhaps, it’s even better if they fast at least once a year. But there are only a few of them. So I see two particularly pressing tasks that it is not enough to think about in youth organizations: firstly, to integrate into parish life, and secondly, to somehow catch from the abyss of church oblivion that many other young people whom we will call church renegades. How to do this? I can’t answer this now. I am only setting before your consciousness some absolutely necessary church tasks. They can be decided conciliarly and not without the participation of central church bodies, but the initiative here can belong to youth organizations. Now I turn to the last question - about the Russian Christian Movement. No matter how exciting the task of creating Western Orthodoxy may be, this task was given to us, of course, by God himself, who scattered us throughout the West; even in this work we can remain spiritually only Russian. No matter how many shortcomings there may be, local, folkloric, in Russian Orthodoxy, we cannot but proceed from Russian Orthodoxy, we cannot, with impunity for ourselves, tear ourselves out of the spiritual soil that gave birth to us. Indeed, Western Christians often come to Orthodoxy, having first loved the Russian spirit, our literature, our music, and sometimes simply ourselves, as Russians. I put Russianness in last place, because Orthodoxy is universal, but this, of course, does not mean that I renounce Russia, my soil and call for renunciation of it! We must protect our connection with our spiritual soil in every possible way. This is also prompted by the undoubted religious awakening of young people in Russia, about which I recently had direct, stunning news. We must help this awakening “there” and, who knows, maybe. someday our help will be decisive. Everything I said is in the well-known, constantly printed declaration on the goals of the Russian Christian Movement. I just wanted to point out some more specific, immutable objectives that follow from the meaning of this declaration. If there were an attempt in the Movement to take certain actions in the indicated direction, I am always ready to help, since I still have considerable experience, both in camp and in parish pedagogical work. There is hope that both my rank and position in our church can be useful to you. My life is coming to an end, but while I am alive, I cannot help but live what I have become accustomed to living since the time of my church service, namely serving our Orthodox youth. Ignorance in the service of arbitrariness 39 (On the state of modern psychiatry in the USSR) The history of the forced hospitalization of A. S. Volpin, set out in his notes, the declaration, like Chaadayevsky, of General Grigorenko as crazy, and other similar “exploits” of psychiatrists, cannot leave anyone indifferent who is informed about this. Moreover, these incidents are no exception: news of the intervention of psychiatrists in the thoughts and actions of citizens whose mental health was previously not in doubt by anyone is becoming more and more frequent. The purpose of these notes is to defend psychiatry and explain to a public that is far from a narrow specialization, although keenly interested in these problems, that it is not science that is guilty of various kinds of outrages, but those who seized power in it. In the history of Volpin's hospitalization, the uninformed are struck, first of all, by the external side of the matter - the rude unceremoniousness of the orderlies, the swagger of the doctors, which is not much inferior to them, and the amazing (however - in a typical “bossing” spirit) unprincipledness of the leaders of the psychiatric service, who easily deny the statements they made. To those in the know, behind the terrifying shell, a no less ugly essence is revealed. It can be characterized in just a few phrases: the actual liquidation from above of psychiatric science, its replacement with a few and increasingly simplified dogmas, which are very easy to be guided by, and even easier to hide behind, essentially knowing nothing. It is very bitter to say such words after working in psychiatry for 18 years. But there is no escaping the facts: although in recent decades doctoral dissertations in the specialty “psychiatry” have been defended in the USSR almost weekly, psychiatric practice in the last third of the 20th century in our country (by the way, in many countries of the West and East the situation is no better) has fallen to the philistine level. Exceptions - and not so rare ones - do not prove anything: we are talking about a trend. About a terrible trend: philistinism, which has absorbed psychiatry, is actively encroaching on eternally respected human values. It would be easy to explain the monstrous transformation of the most humane of medical disciplines into an instrument of human humiliation only by the general cruelty of morals, the general decline in culture - intellectual and aesthetic, and the police direction of departmental (and medicine is a department) instructions. In many ways this is true. But, firstly, this is a separate topic, and, secondly, it is not enough for the executioner to be fearlessly merciless. In order to mock victims, one must not only have the right to mock, one also needs axes, racks, ropes, “Spanish boots” and other “tools of production.” Psychiatrists, who voluntarily took on executioner duties, or, to put it mildly, gendarmerie duties towards patients, also have their own “Spanish boot”, which they try on for everyone if they want. The instrument of this refined intellectual torture is called the “doctrine of schizophrenia”: it was from this seed, planted at the beginning of the century, that such lush flowers of evil grew on Russian soil, zeal, for 15 years, planted in Soviet psychiatry by Professor A.V. Snezhnevsky and his increasingly prolific collaborators, who, as always, are more Catholics than the Pope himself. However, it would not be entirely fair to call A.V. Snezhnevsky “villain No. 1.” Maybe this would be flattering for him - but if we consider the issue chronologically, then in terms of the destruction of psychiatry, Snezhnevsky is not in first place, the foundations of this vicious teaching were laid much earlier, and with all the desire to call the current director of the Institute of Psychiatry of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences the root cause of all evils. He and his co-religionists are only continuers and imitators, although so zealous that they far surpassed in terms of speculation and manipulation of facts for the sake of the self-deceptive “theoretical harmony” of Eugen Bleuler himself. The name of this Swiss professor, who lived at the beginning of the 20th century, is completely or almost completely unknown to a wide circle. But in order to understand where doctors come from, who talk disdainfully to patients and keep them behind locked doors without any particular reason, you need to know this name: thinking humanity should remember not only Prometheus, but also Herostratus. Herostratus Eugen Bleuler committed sabotage against psychiatry in 1911, the catastrophic consequences of which, like spreading radiation, are becoming ever greater. At one end of this process there is an insight that once visited a Swiss professor in an unkind hour, and at the other there is now an army of psychiatrists who reduce human wealth, immeasurable by any terms, to the nickname-like word “schizophrenic.” Bleuler coined this word. And in order to understand the meaning of the catastrophic course of events, it is necessary to take a very brief excursion into the history of psychiatry. I hope that this excursion will not be very burdensome for the reader. The most ancient of medical disciplines (the Bible, the oldest written monument of humanity, already mentions the mentally ill) is and to this day the most backward. In many ways, the reasons here are objective: while other medical sciences, overcoming thousands of centuries of medieval backwardness and darkness, completely switched over to biological tracks during the 19th century, and now have closed in a rapid movement forward (although the horizons have separated) with molecular biology, biophysics, cybernetics, electrical engineering, etc. - psychiatry in both the 19th and 20th centuries continues to wander in words. Naturally, more and more of them accumulate, just like patients - without any particular benefit for these patients. Psychiatry itself is largely not to blame here - deciphering the genetic course, or rather determining the complex complex muscular work is one thing, and another is the psyche, which must be cognized by the psyche. Hence the forced limitations of the methodology, the approximate descriptiveness of definitions that do not affect the essence of the phenomenon, and the varied eclecticism of therapeutic measures. The best minds of the psychiatric world, both past and present centuries, felt, of course, the backwardness of their beloved science. They guessed that to help the unfortunate, whose service had become the life's destiny for the best minds, ascetic biographies, exploits that only descendants could appreciate at their true worth, 40 brilliant guesses that formed the basis of the edifice of psychiatric science under construction. These guesses are all the more striking because they were expressed at a time when biology itself was not yet very firmly on its feet - and they, these guesses, were primarily biological. They irrefutably proved the dependence of incorrect human behavior on biological factors. In the second half of the 19th century, individual glimmers of thought in the darkness of thousands of years of ignorant ideas became a system, psychiatry began to gradually catch up with other medical disciplines that had gone far ahead, and the darkness dissipated. This is not so surprising - no one was encouraged to go into psychiatry before, random people in white coats rarely found themselves among the staff of psychiatric hospitals - people came here out of sincere motives, deeply feeling, widely educated and keenly observant doctors came here. Close, compassionate attention 41 to patients gave rise to such a number of brilliant (life-saving, of course) discoveries that helped to identify not only individual symptoms, but also symptom complexes - holistic and typical pictures of mental suffering that are repeated in many patients. The terminology remained verbal, psychological, but it always corresponded to reality, to what the doctors saw, and not to what came into their heads. Psychiatrists still walked on the ground, but not because they did not want to fly into the sky, but because they did not want to jump up and immediately fall. Only at the end of the 19th century, Professor Emil Kraepelin from Munich created the first nosological classification, where he tried to describe not symptom complexes, but diseases that have a beginning and an end. Kraepelin was the first to build a stairway to heaven, although not all of his contemporaries thought this staircase was strong enough. Indeed, many of its steps were recognized by outstanding scientists of the 20th century as shaky. The concept of “dementia praecox” has been particularly criticized. Kraepelin identified this disease according to the characteristics (in a first, very rough approximation) of “early onset” and “same end”. However, upon further examination, the “same end” turned out to be, firstly, not the same, and secondly, not the end. And the start was not always early. But Kraepelin’s idea fell, nevertheless, on fertile ground - psychiatric science no longer needed to operate not with instantaneous, even vividly described pictures of illnesses, but with the concept of “mental illness” with all the patterns of its course. Brilliant guesses of the 19th century 42 several such concepts have already been created. Kraepelin’s “dementia praecox” and his “manic-depressive psychosis” completed the picture; they drew a line under the last stage of scientific research and marked the beginning of a new era. At the beginning of this era, Eugen Bleuler stood in the way of psychiatric science. He also came to psychiatry with the most sincere motives. He worked a lot and his books were published almost every year. But unlike his predecessors, Bleuler did not want to stomp on Earth any longer. He rushed into the sky, since the ladder was already roughly knocked together. And on its most shaky step he did not twist his leg or fall. Moreover, he lingered on this step and some time later announced that he had strengthened it so much that one could walk up and down completely without fear, moreover, this one step was worth the entire staircase. What was the strengthening carried out by Bleuler? In short, in unbridled, albeit beautiful, fantasy. Bleuler, however, already had a sample of this. The example that has conquered many minds is Sigmund Freud. It was he who was the first to abandon any reliance on the biological foundations of medicine. Bleuler merely followed Freud's example. In Kraepelin’s “dementia praecox” the concept is descriptive and quite controversial. – Bleuler put in “content.” It was as beautiful as it did not correspond to reality in the slightest degree. Bleuler, in essence, proposed to understand “dementia praecox” not as a personality-destroying process, but as “the formation of a new spiritual world.” An educated man, Bleuler followed the events of cultural life of the 20th century (at that time it was considered indecent to know only “your own business.” Now this is in the order of things). With a virtuosity worthy of admiration, were it not blasphemous, he plucked fashionable words from living life and declared them a sign of illness. But first, instead of “early dementia,” he came up with the word “schizophrenia,” or more precisely, “schizophrenia,” which roughly translated from Greek means “splitting of the soul.” This imprecise concept has taken root - perhaps because, in particular, it is imprecise and everyone could understand it in accordance with their own level, even low. Bleuler declared the main disorder in his invented “schizophrenia” to be “autism” - a concept so vague that even reading Bleuler’s own explanations it is impossible to understand what’s what. Thus, in the transformed Kraepelinian disease, the main thing was not the beginning, not the end, not the patterns of the course, but “autistic thinking” - that is, special, inherent only to these patients, which is how they differ from other mortals (“autos” - in Greek - oneself). Special thinking... Doctors were faced every day not with special thinking, but with its death, the destruction of personality. Special thinking, of course, existed and exists - but in healthy people, in every person who considers himself human. Bleuler attributed it to the sick. Perhaps he wanted to embellish human suffering, presenting it not as a destructive process, but as the creation of “a new world of new sensations” (Bleuler’s original words). In any case, he tried to describe this “new spiritual world”, borrowing universal concepts for this. “Special thinking” was only a “test of the pen”, it was followed by the following theft of normal human traits for sticking patients as symptoms. True, Bleuler slightly changed the terms he stole from normal life - just a little, but he changed them. Thus, symbolism became “symbolization,” i.e., the supposedly inherent property of patients with “early dementia” to decipher and encode their innermost experiences under other, distant in meaning words. This, generally speaking, sometimes happens in patients with a sufficiently rich cultural level before the disease for sufficient (essentially normal) imaginations. But it was precisely this, often quite understandable, conditioned symbolic vision of the world that Bleuler proclaimed as a characteristic symptom of schizophrenia. Thus, an entire artistic movement, an entire era in music, literature, and painting came under suspicion: they were filled to capacity with these “symptoms.” The richness of the human spirit was equated with pathology. A. I. Solzhenitsyn, fifty years after this, awarded from time to time by authoritative lecturers from high stands with the title of “abnormal”, should ultimately be grateful to Bleuler for this: with him the fitting of psychiatric clothes to artistic values ​​began... But the matter was not limited to “symbolization”. Bleuler turned into painful symptoms many other ordinary human qualities, although not found in everyone: mannerism (to the horror of many old and young actresses), pretentiousness (to the joy of many unlucky poets, happy that they could attract attention, if not with creative success, then at least with an imaginary mental “peculiarity”), word creation (the futurists, however, did not pay any attention to this). And, finally, a sign of mental illness, which Bleuler called “schizophrenia” - a sign that was supposedly characteristic of all absolutely sick people, but in fact - characteristic of all people without distinction of education, profession, inclinations - such a sign was proclaimed inconsistency of intentions - the same duality that is so characteristic of a person at the end of the 2nd millennium AD - well-known internal disorder, a tendency to doubt, acquired by humanity during progress and obligatory not only for philosophers, but also for all mortals. It was this duality, along with autism, that became for Bleuler the cardinal symptoms of Kraepelin’s former “dementia praecox”, and since 1911 - schizophrenia: not the onset of the disease, not its outcome, not typical patterns, but an accumulation of far-fetched symptoms. In purely methodological terms, it was a return to the very ancient times (at the worst level) of clinical description. In practical terms, this meant a turn in psychiatry from the path of scientific research, a rejection of a strict analysis of facts and an equally strict selection of them. Thus, psychiatry inevitably wandered into the realm of endless and groundless fabrications, which, if they have anything in common with fantasy (there is no need to talk about science), it is only external (for the average person) entertaining. For the patients who overflowed psychiatric hospitals, for years without seeing the light of God, losing, due to the almost prison regime alone, all interest in their surroundings (this also received its name - “emotional dullness” - and was proclaimed as another cardinal symptom) - the entertaining stories of doctors did not make their fate easier for these patients. It is not known whether this made Bleuler feel any better; after all, he was a psychiatrist of the old, nineteenth-century upbringing and felt sorry for his patients. It's a shame that he didn't spare the healthy ones. Bleuler's major logical (not to mention other) miscalculation lies precisely in the fact that patients can indeed exhibit a tendency towards introspection, emotional devastation, and meaningless neologisms - but all these phenomena can be - and perhaps to a greater extent - detected in healthy people. Therefore, it is unacceptable to proclaim certain behavioral traits or individual statements as painful symptoms, since a symptom is a sign of a disease and there cannot be a double interpretation of this. Bleuler mixed everything together, he - wittingly or unwittingly - expanded the right of psychiatrists to recognize the disease in cases where it did not exist at all, but there were only character traits, habits, inclinations, which did not indicate anything more than character traits, habits or inclinations. The stairway to heaven, built by Bleuler, led psychiatry not high up, but down - into a remote dungeon of the mind, where all the sparks of truth, carved out of ignorance by psychiatrists of the 19th century, went out. Fifty years later, one can only be amazed how Bleuler’s fantastic fabrications, presented by him as a description of the “main mental illness,” did not, a year after their publication, become just a tragicomic memory of how one day a professor was overcome by a thirst for scientific creativity. However, the fact remains that the writings of Mr. Eugen Bleuler have been retained and taken root in the minds of many psychiatrists as the ultimate truth. There is no space here to describe in detail how the most far-sighted scientists expressed strong objections to the “doctrine of schizophrenia” from the very beginning. Just as the incorrigible opponent of schematism and artificiality in science, Professor V.P. Serbsky, who, by the way, was not guilty one iota of the actions of the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry that bears his name (Serbsky died in 1918), did not accept either Kraepelin’s teaching “on dementia praecox” or Bleuler’s theory. To the credit of Russian psychiatry (which bears his name?), many Soviet scientists were very careful with this Commodity diagnosis. How in 1937 a real and merciless battle at the Second All-Union Congress of Psychiatrists was given, if not to schizophrenia itself, then to its no less monstrous creation - “mild schizophrenia”, in other words - to the real spread of Bleuler’s ideas to the mentally healthy population, if the individual traits of the citizen examined by enthusiasts did not coincide with the “normal standards” invented by them (and the citizen wrote poetry or cooked steel without disturbing anyone). And as already in the 50s, professors A.L. Epshtein from Dnepropetrovsk, A.S. Chistovich from Leningrad, P.F. Malkin from Kuibyshev, A.Yu. Vyasnovsky from Odessa and his students boldly declared the scientific thought of the 20th century on the pages of magazines and from the congress rostrums. Below we will talk about the fate of these professors and the punishments that befell them for their scientific integrity and honesty. Now we have to admit that, despite all the objections, the exotic Bleuler plant, transplanted from Swiss to Russian soil, yielded monstrous results. They spread with amazing speed - like all weeds. Reports constantly appeared that one or another doctor was able to clearly observe in his patients all these symptoms: emotional dullness, autism, and “reasoning” (theatrical role - a tendency to instructive monologues, not always necessary for both the speaker and the listeners - was also proclaimed the “leading symptom” of schizophrenia). Magazines 43 multiplied, where Bleuler's ideas were developed and taken up: the authors seemed to undertake an obligation to outdo each other in reasoning about things that were obscure to them. Monographs were published almost at the speed of light, where the criteria for “autistic thinking”, “features of schisis”, and so on, and so on, and so on were clarified and refined: lagging behind general medicine for centuries, psychiatry did not yield the palm to anyone in terms of inventing terms. And all these journal articles, monographs, and conversations at conferences meant only one thing: psychiatry was falling into a colossal self-deception with ever-increasing speed. They supported him with all their might. “Schizophrenia” acquired not only terms, but also biochemical, pathological, electrophysiological, neurological, genetic, experimental psychological, and later – virological, immunological and psychopharmacological studies, supplemented by the so-called. “studying the higher nervous activity of patients with schizophrenia.” The chimera acquired apparent flesh, and this is the worst and most dangerous type of chimera. Really, the alchemists of the Middle Ages deserve more respect than all these researchers who, armed with electron microscopes and atomic isotopes, rushed to look for the “basic somatic disorder” of proschizophrenia. Alchemists at least sincerely believed that mercury could be turned into gold if spells were cast over the flask, and did not use the atomic theory of the structure of matter, which was unknown to them, to prove this. Alchemists would give up their fruitless pursuits and tear off the medieval master's caps from their heads if they knew that it was impossible to change the atomic structure of chemical elements with spells. Psychiatrists who studied schizophrenia wielded microburettes and microgalvanometers, wearing master's hats, although, armed with stunning achievements in biology, they should have long ago realized that biological discoveries are not made from words in the 20th century. The entire mass of research (an effective list of the directions in which they were undertaken is given above) was useless, because a hypothetical, essentially clinical unit was studied, and serious biochemists and electrophysiologists got involved in the matter after the basis of the “schizophrenic thinking” of doctors was made a fatal diagnosis. The enormous work of the Norwegian Gjessing, for example, who meticulously studied the metabolism in catatonia, was significant only for this syndrome, which occurs in almost all mental illnesses, although Gjessing’s findings were declared specific specifically for the “catatonic form of schizophrenia.” All other studies were exactly the same - they were carried out after the patients were diagnosed with “schizophrenia” on often far-fetched and shaky grounds, although in fact it could have been any other mental illness, if it really existed. Is it surprising that completely heterogeneous and uncertain data were obtained? It could not have been otherwise - after all, completely randomly selected groups of patients were studied. Sometimes, however, these studies acquired a sensational character - like Boshyanovsky, a bad memory, a “scientific translation”. Thus, in the 30s, G. A. Rotshtein and M. Ya. Sereysky notified the Soviet psychiatric world about their discoveries of specific electrophysiological parameters (electric potentials) in the blood of patients with schizophrenia. Later Prof. P.E. Skorarev allegedly found voids in layers 3 and 5 of the cerebral cortex - imaginary local evidence of the schizophrenic process. And in 1954, V. M. Morozov, together with M. N. Morozov, announced at the All-Union Conference that they had discovered nothing more than a “schizophrenia virus.” But unlike Boshyakov’s sensations, these “discoveries” died quietly, exposed by colleagues without much fuss: “electric potentials of the cortex” turned out to be electropotentials of the skin, Skosarev’s voids were an artifact (a laboratory defect), and “viruses” were generally unknown formations that no one else saw except the father and son Morozov. 44 But God bless them, with sensations. It is much more important and scary that the diagnosis of “schizophrenia” has taken root both in the medical histories and in the minds of many, many psychiatrists. The reasons for the widespread success of this self-hypnosis need to be understood in more detail. And perhaps the most important reason was that the problem, essentially, was not far-fetched - on the contrary, it required close attention. In general, there are no far-fetched problems in science. At least in some way they come into contact with the real needs of life. So, after all, Lysenko’s criminal speculations were basically driven by the needs of society for large harvests. So, after all, the “Pavlovian teaching” was sincerely adopted by many physiologists because (until the hypothetical nature of Pavlov’s conclusions and the limitations of the methodology were revealed) it promised the solution to many mysteries of the brain. In the same way, the “theory of schizophrenia” was maintained due to the urgent needs of medical practice. This practice showed that every year tens and thousands of young people dropped out of life without dying. Within the walls of psychiatric hospitals, future mathematical geniuses, literary talents and ordinary people perished forever for society, each of whom could do something (at least the least) - if not for others, then for themselves. And when in 1933, Manfred Sackel’s fortunate as well as natural discovery showed that these patients could be treated, the situation did not change: recovery did not occur for everyone, but for those who did, it often turned out to be fragile 45 . The problem called out, the problem made us rack our brains. But the problem of schizophrenia is not the problem of mental illness in general; and this problem - at the level of the achievements of medicine and biology of the mid-20th century - could be resolved by calling on as allies a number of truly promising disciplines that made it possible to find out the external, rooted in life itself, sources of the constant defeat of mental illnesses of each generation - to alcoholism, infections of mental trauma, unfavorable heredity. But while the professors did not find a common language among themselves (it’s not that easy!), the “theory of schizophrenia,” parasitizing on the time-eaten trunk of the problem, flourished. She cleverly used dramatic circumstances: the patients did not get better from scientific disputes. More precisely, the results of these disputes were not expected to appear very soon, and for practical workers the problem was not a question of the future, but of the most pressing present. This is where the practice of being swamped with urgent matters took its toll: a practical doctor is a more, much more simply organized being than a professor, if only because he has no time to doubt 46 . Practical doctors had to imagine the problem in a much newer way - and here the helpful “Bleuler’s disease” promised innumerable benefits, pretending to be some kind of, albeit behind seven, perhaps sealed, method of uniform diagnosis and uniform treatment. And if, in addition, the professor who patronized the hospital professed the same “theory” (professors are people too, they also sometimes want not doubt, but simplicity and clarity...) - then was it possible to think differently? The authority of a professor (and even one who lives in the same city as you) is too great for an ordinary worker to disobey. And in general, “it has become easier to live with schizophrenia.” There was no need to rack your brains, reflect, think - there were so many fantastic “symptoms” that it was enough to stamp the diagnosis of schizophrenia in order to be on par with the eyelid. 47 Thus, step by step, starting with Bleuler’s arbitrary constructions and passing through scientific disputes, the “theory of schizophrenia,” instead of being preserved in the memory of posterity as an amusing anecdote, acquired material force and captured the broad psychiatric masses. Having blocked the path to reason, corrupted medical thinking and ruined psychiatric thought, this theory lay across the road, blocked all exits and led to a crossroads, from where many paths led, but, as in a fairy tale, each led to death. This death was facilitated by one most important circumstance: the “theory of schizophrenia” turned out to be extremely convenient in many ways. It has long been noticed that ideas are divided not only into progressive and reactionary, but also into convenient and inconvenient. Moreover, the conservative ones turn out to be the most convenient: in recognition of their evidence, evidence is replaced by the habit of “thinking this way,” life and facts exist on their own, and “concepts that satisfy everyone” live, regardless of either life or facts, happily adapting to any existing circumstances. This is how unusually convenient “Bleuler’s ideas” turned out to be. Below we will tell you how the powers that be liked them. How they delighted practitioners and continue to fascinate them now will also be discussed in due time. In the meantime, I would like to draw the reader’s attention to how the convenience of schizophrenic concepts was used by those who climbed to the heights of science in search of what was not truth - material wealth. The so-called “schizophrenia” turned out to be a very profitable semi-finished product for the production of scientific works (in our country, every work published, even in a small edition, but certainly in a typographical way, is considered a “scientific work”, no matter what its effective value). Works devoted to the “problems of schizophrenia” exceeded by the middle of the century all other works on psychiatry - after all, the number of patients with schizophrenia was considered to be more than 50% of the total number of mentally ill people. But so far everything written about schizophrenia concerned only psychiatrists - it was like a departmental collective game in which the stakes were low, like the then professorial salaries. But as soon as they increased (in the newspapers of that time they wrote a lot about the “concern of the party and government for scientists”), as soon as academic salaries appeared, the quiet board game acquired the character of a fist fight, in which, contrary to the noble street rules, people who were lying down were trampled underfoot. The beginning of it all was the “historical” (as it was called for fifteen years in a row) joint session of the Academy of Medical Sciences and the USSR Academy of Sciences, which was included in the Gerostratus list of the “great Stalin era under the name “Pavlovian”: a worthy heir and receiver of the no less “historical” session of the All-Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences. The results of the “Pavlovian” session are well known - the persecution of L. A. Orbeli and other prominent scientists, the usurpation of unlimited power in physiological science in the hands of some of Pavlov’s most clever “disciples,” etc. But much less known are the fruits of another “scientific meeting” - the 1951 session of the Academy of Medical Sciences, specially dedicated to “the situation in psychiatry and physiology in the light of the teachings of I.P. Pavlov.” It was at this session that the banners of careerism, meanness and unprincipledness fluttered especially victoriously. It was at this “scientific meeting” that the foundations of the current plight of Soviet psychiatry were laid. In short, the session had nothing to do with science. In her “works,” although published later, one can also find truly scientific materials – but not in the main text, but in the part that included “failed speeches.” By the way, one such “failed speech” (associate professor P. E. Vishnevsky from Leningrad) attacked schizophrenia as a concept with all passion, but was lost in hundreds of pages devoted to one single question: do the words spoken during their many years of activity (for others - from the beginning of the century) by leading Soviet psychiatrists correspond to “Pavlovian teachings”. All authors universally established that they do not correspond... In general, the session had the character of a grandiose settling of personal scores, undertaken on the initiative and with the blessing of the powers that be. It is curious that in time the session continued the noisy campaign of anti-Semitic “personnel purge” in a number of medical universities under the guise of the so-called. “certification” (100 Jewish professors, associate professors and assistants were removed from the Moscow Medical Institute alone), and closed ranks – already in 1952 – with such a noisy anti-Semitic campaign of “searching for murderers in white coats.” The main report presented by the co-authors at the 1951 session had a largely anti-Semitic character (it’s good to remember their names - A.V. Snezhnevsky, I.V. Strelchuk, O.V. Kerbikov, V.M. Banshchikov). The largest Soviet psychiatrists - M. O. Gurevich, A. L. Epshtein, A. S. Shmaryan, R. Ya. Golant (the list - in a national context - is quite eloquent) were recognized as “anti-Pavlovians”. In those years, this was almost tantamount to the famous term “enemy of the people.” True, then, after the session, no one was arrested (they arrested later, a year later, and not psychiatrists, therapists and neurologists), the “anti-Pavlovians” were only branded and expelled from work. Professor Mikhail Osipovich Gurevich, who did so much for Soviet psychiatry, not only a psychiatrist, but also an excellent neuropathologist and pathohistologist, the author of brilliant works that substantiated the organic nature of mental illnesses, was removed from the Department of Psychiatry 1 MMI, which he headed for 14 years. Professor Mark Yakovlevich Sereysky, Gurevich's co-author on five editions of a psychiatry textbook for medical institutes, was removed from heading the Department of Psychiatry at the Central Institute for Advanced Medical Studies. From the Institute. Serbsky was removed by Ts. Feinberg and M. Khaletsky, and R. Ya. Golant and A. L. Epshtein lost their departments, and there is nothing to say about the second professors: at best, they were sent from the capitals to the periphery in order to “strengthen the departments of provincial universities,” where, by the way, they were received very cordially, surrounded with honor not at all as recent “enemies of science.” And the places vacated by these enemies were immediately filled by the “winners” - the authors of that very indictment report, which served as the starting point of their dizzying career, which will be discussed in detail later. For now, just a dry note: A. Snezhnevsky took the department of psychiatry at the Advanced Institute, Banshchikov became the second professor, and then the head of the department of psychiatry of the 1st MMI, Kerbikov headed the psychiatric clinic of the 2nd MMI, displacing even such a famous (although, in essence, with the abundance of scientific works - unproductive) oldest Soviet psychiatrist as V. A. Gilyarovsky. The star of the current director of the Institute of Forensic Psychiatry named after. Serbsky G.V. Morozova shone over the psychiatric world at the same time - he showed up at the clinic named after. Korsakov (1st Moscow Medical Institute) as an associate professor. At the first stage, the “struggle” for Pavlovian teaching in psychiatry was thus reduced to the seizure by enthusiasts of the “cleansing struggle” of the most tasty and fatty pieces from the then not very lush psychiatric pie. 48 The subsequent stage of “introducing the truth” was frankly shameful: Pavlov’s hypotheses expressed 15, 25, 35 and more years earlier were declared undeniable dogmas, they were tried on psychiatric symptoms and everywhere a “correspondence” was found with clinical and physiological data (both were equally fantastic and unproven). It was at this time that the number of dissertations defended by psychiatrists rose sharply, although no one could yet predict their massive inflation at the end of the 60s. But the topics of dissertations were already sucked out of thin air even then. Thus, V. Banshchikov received a degree in medicine for his work “Ideas of nervism in Russian medicine of the 19th century,” and D. Fedotov received the same title for “Essays on the history of Russian psychiatry of the first half of the 19th century.” The eras were intricately intertwined: fantasizing “on Pavlovian themes” was very successfully combined with fortune-telling on coffee grounds on Bleulerian themes, and all this was overlaid with the radiance of the ideas of “the fight against sycophancy, for restoring the priority of Russian science” with “Michurin’s direction in biology.” 49 In this muddy water of hasty changes, leaders of science floundered (some, however, stepped over the corpses of drowned opponents) figures whose moral qualities not only did not resemble the ascetics of the 19th century, but also surpassed in terms of meanness and sneakiness other politicians who surrounded large and small thrones in a close crowd. It would be interesting for the reader to become acquainted with some of the biographies of those who broke through to the leadership of Soviet psychiatry at that time. You can start with everyone - everyone deserves each other. The most colorful, perhaps, is V. M. Banshchikov. Pet of the clinic named after. S.S. Korsakov (1st Moscow Medical Institute), after graduating from graduate school, he was the chief physician of one of the Moscow hospitals, where he became famous for his revelry, revelry and ability to get along with his superiors. He got along so skillfully that, having been the head of a hospital during the war (it is known that in wartime, the head of a hospital is required not to have knowledge, but to have other qualities dictated by the war) - after the war, Banshchikov suddenly became the director of Medgiz - the publishing house of Medical literature. Here he became notorious for fraudulent schemes, signing his name as an author on manuscripts that did not belong to him (the “Medical Worker” even wrote about this - that’s what the “Medical Newspaper” used to be called). However, no punishments fell on Banshchikov’s head, and he continued until 1952 to “stay on duty,” having only an indirect relation to psychiatry (he was listed as a doctoral student at the Korsakov Clinic). Everything changed after 1951 - Banshchikov, having acquired a doctoral dissertation of no value in the “Pavlovian era”, became the second professor, and then the director of the clinic named after. Korsakov, energetically pushing out Prof., who replaced O. Gurevich. Popov, headed - and for 15 years headed - both the All-Union and Moscow Society of Psychiatrists and Neuropathologists; became, in short, the official leader of psychiatric science. Throughout his stunning career, Banshchikov, however, did not gain respect from even his most obsequious employees. Everyone who worked with him unanimously noted his blatant psychiatric illiteracy, his attitude towards psychiatry as a collection of anecdotes, his inability for scientific creativity, which did not prevent him from publishing several hundred scientific works, signed, however, not by Banshchikov alone, but by him and his co-authors (Banshchikov often did not look at these works - the skills acquired as director of Medgiz came in handy...). Banshchikov’s carnivorous inclinations during his time in power developed to the greatest extent - he oversaturated his lectures with obscene language and greasy language, and considered every new female employee as a potential mistress. As for the banquets that he literally ordered to be organized, there he got drunk and went on rampages, not embarrassing anyone... And nothing - neither complete scientific failure, nor moral squalor - prevented Banshchikov from leading congresses, conferences all this time, representing Soviet psychiatry at meetings with foreign guests, etc. Only in 1969 did he announce his intention to resign from all his posts “for a well-deserved rest,” which was accepted by everyone without horror, but also without joy - to the emptiness at the very top of Soviet psychiatry we've been used to it for a long time. The biography of another “luminary” of Russian psychiatric science, A.V. Snezhnevsky, is stricter and more beautiful, although the harm he caused to society is disproportionately greater than Banshchikov’s. Possessing extraordinary abilities, Snezhnevsky wrote several truly valuable works in his youth, successfully directed the Kostroma Psychiatric Hospital, and after 1950, having been at the head of the Institute. Serbsky, cleared of many undesirable persons after the “Pavlovian” session, actively joined the “struggle for Pavlovian teaching” on a national scale. Writing reports, making speeches similar to the reports and speeches at the AMS session in 1951, adapting Pavlovian naive hypotheses to clinical symptoms, and in the process of doing this, he proved to everyone his own unusual ability to adapt. Since 1954 he began to preach “his own theory of schizophrenia,” which initially appeared as “schizophrenia explained from Pavlovian positions,” then from “the point of view of Selye’s adaptation syndrome,” and then as schizophrenia “in a psychopharmacological context,” schizophrenia in “epidemic coverage,” and finally as “schizophrenia divided downstream.” Thus, Snezhnevsky’s most important quality as a “scientist” turned out to be fantasy - a quality that makes him similar to Bleuler, whom he sometimes, flaunting his knowledge, and not bad, of the German language, scolds with quotes. The main method by which Snezhnevsky so successfully remained at the head of science, without embellishing it in any way, turned out to be closeness to the former minister Kurashov, and not at all his authority in the scientific world (“authority” came later, but more on that later). And the main result of Snezhnevsky’s activities (he is now a full member of the Academy of Medical Sciences, editor of the Journal of Neuropathology and Psychiatry) was the creation of a school of militant ignoramuses, which will also be discussed below. Another biography - smaller, but extremely characteristic of the era described. Now this professor (M. P. Nevsky) occupies a department in Rostov-on-Don, and in 1951 he was an assistant at the clinic named after. Korsakov; a student of M. O. Gurevich - he was extracted by him from the province in 1945, where he was in danger of great trouble (being the chief physician of the Ulyanovsk psychiatric hospital during the war, Nevsky was caught embezzling the gold belongings of those who were evacuated and then died in the evacuation of mentally ill patients). Nevsky repaid the teacher in full for his good deed: in 1950 he made a public denunciation at the Academic Council of the 1st Medical Institute, when the question of the “anti-Pavlovian sins” of the Department of Psychiatry was raised. Later, Nevsky, head of the department in Chelyabinsk, gained fame as a hunter of female students; in this hunt he was not stopped by his own four children... As for Nevsky’s scientific activities, not counting his candidate’s dissertation, written under the dictation of M. O. Gurevich, he did not create anything (a dozen or two denunciations, naturally, cannot be recognized as scientific work), although, of course, he has long been a doctor of science. No less disgusting are the careers of G.V. Morozov, Romasenko, Portnov and others, the “young generation,” based on intrigue, denunciation, outright meanness and scientific unscrupulousness. The only exception is V. M. Morozov, the current head. Department of the Institute for Advanced Medical Studies. Coming from a “scientific” family (his father is a world-famous virologist), he received an excellent education and read everything there is to read on psychiatry and related disciplines in 4 or more languages. But the erudition acquired as a result of this was - and now also is - of a scolding nature; Morozov was unable to create anything original, excluding only the “viral theory of schizophrenia” that we mentioned. Having worked with Snezhnevsky for a long time, V. M. Morozov completely obeyed him, having learned to look into the mouth of his energetic boss, and now acts only as his shadow, not producing anything on his own. Thus, on the crest of the “struggle for Pavlovian teaching”, people came to power in psychiatric science either with zero scientific potential, but completely unprincipled, capable of meanness and denunciations (not only public), or people, although educated, but scientifically unpromising, completely subordinate to circumstances. Despite all the differences in their characters and biographies, they were united by one thing: a burning desire to remain at the head of science by any means, to live by dictating to others; and not answer to anyone. But to achieve these goals, a simulation of scientific activity was necessary. At first, flirting with the “Pavlovian teaching” helped out, which is what they all did successfully. Then the main motive for everyone’s activity became the “psychopharmacological explosion” (numerous drugs borrowed from abroad that affect individual symptoms). And in the end it all came down to “unity on the basis of schizophrenia” - a dark area, suitable for any arbitrary interpretation, and hence extremely promising for depicting scientific attempts. The ignorance of many “professors” and their students played a significant role in cementing this unity. And an equally important basis for this unity of meanness and ignorance was, in addition to the irresponsibility of words, conclusions and actions regarding the sick who were powerless to protect themselves from them, and the “theory” itself, which offered an easy life for those who agree to profess it. True, this easy life was threatened by some professors who occupied quite authoritative departments. They made their way to the pages of magazines and to the stands of congresses, they called on psychiatrists to come to their senses and realize what a threat to the medical mind the monstrous cross between Bleuler's fantasies and modern psychopharmacological achievements meant. The touching wolf unity of ignorance and intriguers was in danger of collapse - the fertile soil from which they reaped abundant harvests of increased wages was disappearing from under their feet: the elimination of the pseudo-teaching about schizophrenia also meant the elimination of all their “merits.” And in the 70s, the new heads of psychiatric science, who were deprived of the future by the high spirit of scientific research, high demands on facts, the desire to help the patient no matter how much they pay for it, shown by the “anti-schizophrenists” - these bosses dealt with the impudent ones who encroached on the well-being of the leadership, with no less cruelty than in their time with the “anti-Pavlovians”. Getting rid of a few people who attacked false, although widely held, views was easier than giving up the sweet schizophrenic life. And - the “deliverance” began... Gossip, “scientific” persecution and administrative levers were used. Evil jokes were told about “anti-schizophrenologists”, which in no way corresponded to the truth; in the event of various service complications at their departments, drastic “educational” measures were immediately taken, so that, first of all, the leaders were punished - the same “anti-schizophrenologists”, who were also mercilessly punished for mistakes that were inevitable in the course of any scientific search. Academicians (of the small medical academy), Snezhnevsky and Morozov ironically told cadets coming for advanced training courses about “some stubborn old people” - this was how the widespread conviction was prepared that psychiatry could easily manage without these old people. As a result, in 1960, Professor A. S. Chistovich was removed from his post as head of the department of psychiatry at the Military Medical Academy and demobilized from the army. He was the first among psychiatrists in 1953 to loudly speak out against the destructive “concept of schizophrenia.” I remember with what glee the peripheral administrator who had just arrived from Moscow informed the peripheral doctors about this... Then persecution fell on Professor A. L. Epstein, who supported A. S. Chistovich at the Korsakov Conference in 1954 - deprived of the department for his “anti-Pavlovian sins,” he never regained it until his death (1965), wandering around Country hospitals as a consultant. Professor A. Yu. Vyasnovsky, who largely identified with him, after the liquidation of the Research Institute of Psychiatry in Odessa, has still not received a position worthy of his knowledge and intellect. The reprisal against opponents of “schizophrenia” (in a global, very convenient sense) on the ground took place, of course, more brutally and simply: they were dealt with at meetings and conferences, removed from administrative positions - everything depended on the meanness and determination of the commanders. However, the leaders of science found little “organized measures” to be taken. The removal of opponents of the “schizophrenic front” from leadership positions did not yet mean the creation of an obedient army of like-minded people. And again the “material incentive” came to the rescue - it was he who helped the adherents of the “doctrine of schizophrenia” win over to their side the crowds of ignorant doctors who came to psychiatric hospitals after 1961. What brought them there, in essence, was the pursuit of the blessings of life, which at one time “pulled dozens of young scoundrels into science; this pursuit included among the people called psychiatrists many people who should not have been allowed within sight of psychiatry. Compared to the improvement in the “financial situation of scientists” (1946–1947), in 1961 we were talking only about scale. In one case, it was possible to do nothing while receiving a salary as a research assistant; in the other - to do the same pleasant idleness, receiving 30% more money than local therapists and a 48-day vacation in addition. “Schizophrenia” as a concept provided these possibilities in the best possible way. Inspired by the ringing of free gold, gynecologists, pediatricians, therapists, emergency doctors, hematologists, hygienists, dentists (some of them worked in their previous specialty for 10–15 years, which made it completely impossible to change the professional stereotype) grabbed onto schizophrenia like a straw in a completely unfamiliar psychiatric sea. The ignorance of the top merged with the ignorance of the bottom. “Training according to Bleuler” proceeded at an accelerated pace; both “converted psychiatrists” and those who really felt drawn to psychiatry from their student days were subjected to it. The existing system in our country (good in theory) of periodic advanced training of personnel instilled a schizophrenic faith in those thirsty for knowledge almost forcibly: psychiatry in advanced courses was taught by the same Snezhnevsky and Morozov... In addition, those who spent two or three months “at the top” saw how easily they became professors, professing nothing but a schizophrenic religion. Who doesn't want to live easier? The most far-sighted wondered how many steps they would have to take before they reached the same heights as Banshchikov and Snezhnevsky. And, I must say, only the very slow ones failed to take several of these steps. It is very characteristic that the mobilization of this schizophrenic guard occurred in 1954–1965, i.e., when the social situation should have opened the way for fresh winds in science. However, as we have seen, the “new” leaders who came to power in psychiatry in the last years of Stalin’s life and the army they recruited not only did not suffer any damage, but also became unusually stronger after the emerging collapse of the “cult of personality.” As a result, by the end of the 60s, throughout the vast territory of the Union, schizophrenia as a scientific (more precisely, as a pseudoscientific) worldview of the majority of psychiatrists had established itself, excluding Leningrad, Kiev, Ural and some other islands, everywhere. These events would not have deserved, perhaps, so many words and conversations if they had not meant a threat to millions of completely sane fellow citizens of “academician” Snezhnevsky and thousands of truly mentally ill people: they turned out to be completely defenseless against the ranks of certified ignoramuses. And the fact that in some places there are still doctors who hold different views, to the detriment of their well-being, only confirms the ingrained order. Briefly, it can be characterized as the replacement of everything that has been created by psychiatric - foreign and domestic - science over the centuries with brief “points of rules” that have nothing in common with the scientific worldview. Of course, sometimes these rules are not fixed and not a single minister has approved them, nevertheless, they exist and 90% of currently serving inpatient and community psychiatrists are guided by them. We will try to talk in detail about the entire, in short, police-psychiatric squad that is now opposing reason in the USSR in the following essays. Ya. P. Pozdeeva. System of atheistic education in the USSR From the moment they came to power in Russia, the leadership of the CPSU/B was aware that the spread of Marxist ideas and the creation of the so-called “Soviet man” was impossible as long as people believed in God. One of the most important forms of the government’s struggle against religion was anti-religious propaganda, the forms of which changed depending on the time, but remained unchanged in their purpose. Getting acquainted with the methods of atheistic propaganda in the USSR from the perspective of time, we see four main periods that differ from each other both in the concept itself and in the forms of propaganda. A characteristic feature of the first period, which lasted from the moment of the revolution to 1925, was the attempt by the authorities to destroy the Church as an organization. The laws issued by the Soviet government put the Orthodox Church in a position of complete lack of rights. The extent of the struggle against religion is evidenced by the fact that during the first seven years of the existence of the Soviet state (that is, from 1917 to 1924 inclusive), 119 different decrees, instructions and resolutions were published in the RSFSR alone, limiting the rights and activities of the Church to the utmost minimum. The mass murders, arrests and exiles of clergy that took place in the same years served essentially the same purpose. The anti-religious propaganda campaign carried out at the same time was spontaneous, rude and cruel. It was aimed at the religious and moral corruption of the masses by attracting them to active personal participation in anti-religious and blasphemous events, such as: looting churches, killing priests, mocking icons and other sacred objects, participating in anti-religious buffoonish demonstrations, etc. By carrying out such initiatives, the party ensured that people brought up in religious traditions, but indifferent to faith, crossed the line beyond which psychologically there could be no return to the fold of the Church. Those who mocked God and blasphemed the Holy Spirit had no other choice but to become an active atheist, thereby finally convincing themselves of the non-existence of God and drowning out the feeling of fear of punishment for the grave sin they had committed. In their own way, the Bolsheviks were right. Personal participation in reprisals against clergy, robberies of churches or anti-religious hooliganism led to the departure from the Church of a significant number of young people in the post-revolutionary years, who frivolously succumbed to the influence of the “progressive modern times”. Most of these people continue to disbelieve in God to this day. However, in comparison with the entire people, these were a few whose behavior outraged not only believers, but also the majority of the population of the Soviet Union. By the beginning of 1925, the Soviet leadership was convinced that an effective fight against religion was impossible without the systematic conduct of anti-religious propaganda and its coverage of all segments of the population. To organize this matter, the Union of Militant Atheists was created under the leadership of the Secretary of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks Yaroslavsky. This was the beginning of the second period in the development of atheistic propaganda in the USSR, a period that lasted until World War II. The League of Militant Atheists was a mass organization with several million members (in 1932, at the height of the organization, the number of members of the Union reached 5,700,000 people). The activities of the Union extended to the entire USSR. The Union of Militant Atheists had its own publishing house, printed books, published newspapers and 2 magazines: “Atheist” and “Anti-religious”. Under the leadership of the Union of Militant Atheists, over 50 anti-religious museums and exhibitions operated. Local organizations of the Union prepared and conducted anti-religious rallies and speeches, organized mass campaigns to close churches and monasteries. Despite the support of the authorities, the Union of Militant Atheists did not have much success in the fight against religion, mainly due to the low level of atheistic propaganda, as well as due to the use of crude methods in the fight against the Church and believers. In 1937, the Soviet leadership itself became convinced of the insolvency of the activities of the Union of Militant Atheists. Data obtained in 1937 during the population census showed that about 50 million of the country's adult population continued to consider themselves believers 50 . The Union of Militant Atheists was subjected to a brutal purge, as a result of which about 50% of its members left the organization. Many prominent leaders of this organization were arrested, and some were even shot. After the purge, the activity of the Union increased somewhat again, but the quality of propaganda remained the same, and the fight against religion was successful only where terror was used. In 1941, with the outbreak of war, the Union of Militant Atheists stopped working and practically ceased to exist. From 1941 to 1947, the leadership of the CPSU did not wage an intensive struggle against believers and even granted some freedom to the Orthodox Church and other religious associations in the USSR. This led to the revival of religious life in Russia and, first of all, to the opening of many churches 51. By the end of the forties, the religious revival of the people became so obvious that the authorities had to think again about the issue of fighting religion. The leadership of atheistic propaganda was entrusted to the All-Union Society for the Dissemination of Political and Scientific Knowledge, founded in 1947, which was later renamed the All-Union Society “Knowledge”. In contrast to the Union of Militant Atheists, the Knowledge Society was not a mass organization covering all segments of the population. The Knowledge Society attracted only the intelligentsia to its ranks. Therefore, the number of members of this organization never reached the number of members of the Union of Militant Atheists 52. A scientific-atheist section was organized under the Knowledge society, headed by the former secretary of the Union of Militant Atheists Fyodor Oleshchuk, and his closest collaborators were former activists of the SVB. Therefore, it is not surprising that the atheistic propaganda carried out by the Knowledge society, despite its apparent intensity 53, was not much different from the anti-religious propaganda of the 30s and, naturally, did not bring the desired results. This caused discontent among the Soviet leadership, and soon after Stalin's death, his heirs decided to make serious changes in the field of atheistic propaganda. The resolution of the CPSU Central Committee, adopted on November 10, 1954, “On errors in carrying out scientific-atheistic propaganda among the population,” signed by the Secretary of the Central Committee Khrushchev, stated that: “The Central Committee of the CPSU has facts indicating that in recent years, serious mistakes have been made in scientific-atheistic propaganda among the population in a number of places...” 54 According to the Soviet leadership, these mistakes were expressed primarily in the departure of party organizations from the direct leadership of atheistic propaganda, gross ignorance of the propaganda itself and rude antics towards the clergy, which outraged the population of the country. The resolution stated that: “Many party organizations have withdrawn from the day-to-day management of scientific-atheistic propaganda, not caring about the careful selection of propaganda personnel. People ignorant of science and matters of atheistic propaganda are often allowed to appear in the press, lectures and reports, and sometimes even hacks who know mainly only anecdotes and fables about clergy. Such an irresponsible approach to the selection of authors of articles, lecturers and speakers and the lack of reliable control on the part of party organizations over the correct direction of scientific-atheistic propaganda causes serious damage to educational cultural and educational work carried out among the population... Deep, patient, skillfully delivered scientific-atheistic propaganda among believers will ultimately help to free oneself from religious errors. On the contrary, all kinds of administrative measures and offensive attacks against believers and clergy can only bring harm, lead to the consolidation and even strengthening of their religious prejudices...” 55. Pointing out the inconsistency and primitiveness of the anti-religious propaganda of Stalin's time, the leadership of the CPSU decided to take the path of involving wide circles of the intelligentsia in scientific and atheistic propaganda. “The Central Committee of the CPSU emphasizes that carrying out scientific-atheistic propaganda requires the most attentive and caring attitude to the choice of lecturers, speakers, authors of articles and brochures on anti-religious topics. This work should involve exclusively scientifically qualified personnel: school teachers, teachers of technical schools and universities, doctors, agricultural specialists, workers of scientific research institutions, literary and artistic figures and others who are capable of convincingly explaining the anti-scientific nature of religion from the position of a materialistic worldview...” 56 . But these measures did not produce the desired results. The All-Union Society “Znanie” failed and was unable to force the Soviet intelligentsia to take an active part in anti-religious propaganda. The scientific and creative intelligentsia, who actively participated in the work of the Knowledge Society until they were forced to engage in anti-religious propaganda, generally withdrew from the work of the society. On August 27, 1959, the CPSU Central Committee issued a special resolution “On measures to improve work and scientific knowledge,” which stated: “...The All-Union Society was created as a voluntary, amateur organization, based on the initiative of broad layers of the Soviet intelligentsia. But in recent years the social principle has weakened significantly. Many prominent scientists of the country, social and political figures, writers, composers, and artists withdrew from the work of the Society. Often, individual employees of the Society, showing unscrupulousness, provide a platform for all kinds of hacks, money-grubbers, random people, thereby compromising both society and the work of lecture propaganda... Significant sections of the population are not covered by lecture propaganda... The CPSU Central Committee believes that shortcomings in the activities of society are largely a consequence of the fact that many party organizations leave this important area of ideological work outside of leadership and outside control...” 57. Concerned about the failure of atheistic propaganda on the one hand and the incoming information about the revival of religious life on the other, the Soviet leadership recognized the need to conduct a series of serious and maximally objective sociological studies in the USSR that would make it possible to determine the actual state of affairs and show what percentage of the population believes in God and why. All this in order to then develop the so-called. “scientific” methods of combating the religiosity of the population. The conduct of these studies was entrusted to the Institutes of Philosophy, History and Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. In order to familiarize themselves with the actual state of affairs, the above Institutes equipped several scientific expeditions, the objects of study of which were believers in different regions of the European part of the USSR 58 . In addition to the Orthodox, the attention of Soviet scientists was drawn to sectarians, especially Baptists. The expedition participants were tasked with reaching the widest range of people and collecting the maximum number of facts. In order to study the existing situation as objectively as possible and to avoid bias, Soviet scientists were asked to “take the facts as they are,” without making generalizations or mixing them with propaganda data 59 . The results of research conducted in 1959–61 were collected, classified, discussed and appropriate conclusions were drawn from them. Based on the data obtained, the leadership of the CPSU was convinced that many citizens of the USSR continued to believe in God and that Soviet youth, supposedly brought up in an atheistic spirit, were becoming more and more interested in religion. Extremely concerned about the current situation, First Secretary of the Party Khrushchev, speaking at the XXII Congress of the CPSU held in October 1961, demanded an all-out attack on religion by creating “a thoughtful and harmonious system of scientific-atheistic education that would cover all segments of the population, preventing the spread of religious views, especially among children and adolescents” 60. In order to implement these plans, the party leadership decided to involve the entire party and state apparatus, schools and scientific institutions, mass and public organizations in the fight against religion. By the end of 1963, the Ideological Commission under the CPSU Central Committee, under the leadership of the Secretary of the Central Committee Ilyichev, developed a plan of measures aimed at strengthening the atheistic education of the population. The Central Committee of the CPSU, having approved this project, invited the Central Committee of the Republican Communist Parties, regional committees and regional party committees to begin its immediate implementation. The measures proposed by the Ideological Commission of the CPSU Central Committee covered essentially all groups of the population and were aimed at solving the following individual problems: 1. Scientific development of issues of atheism and training of anti-religious specialists at the highest level in scientific institutions specially created for this purpose. 2. Organization of permanent courses for propagandists of atheism at various levels under the direct supervision of the relevant party authorities. 3. Organization of systematic education of children and adolescents in primary and secondary schools. 4. Activating the system of atheistic education of students of higher and secondary specialized educational institutions and attracting them to active participation in atheistic propaganda. 5. Gradual but systematic re-education in spirit; atheism of all Soviet citizens who graduated from higher schools under Stalin and therefore did not receive special training in the field of atheistic propaganda. 6. Activation of atheistic propaganda at all industrial enterprises of the country with the aim of constantly covering all workers and technical intelligentsia with this propaganda. 7. Activation of atheistic propaganda on collective and state farms in order to cover the entire rural population of the Soviet Union. 8. Activation of atheistic propaganda in various kinds of party, state, trade union, public and mass organizations in order to reach people who do not fall under the previous categories (for example, persons of a free profession, housewives, pensioners, etc.). 9 . Maximum use for the purpose of atheistic propaganda of all means of ideological influence on the masses, such as the press, radio, television, cinema, theater, literature and art. Thus ended the third period in the field of atheistic propaganda in the USSR - the period of gradual development of the so-called “scientific methods” of conducting mass atheistic propaganda, covering all segments of the population of the USSR from a very early age to old age. Atheistic education in the USSR at the present time. Management of the “scientific-atheistic education of the working people” The leadership of the so-called “scientific atheistic education of the working people” is in the hands of the party itself and is carried out by councils on atheism created under the ideological commissions of the Central Committee of the republics, regional committees, regional committees, city committees and district committees. Party organizations conduct anti-religious work through three channels: – through scientific and educational institutions – public organizations. a) All so-called scientific and theoretical work in the field of the fight against religion is subordinated to the Institute of Scientific Atheism, created in the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the CPSU, that is, under the direct control of the party. In collaboration with other scientific institutions and educational centers of the country, the Institute develops various kinds of theoretical problems, trains highly qualified cadres of propagandists and gives methodological instructions on the issue of teaching atheism in educational institutions. b) All organizational and educational work related to the dissemination of atheistic ideas among the population and individual work with believers is entrusted to the party apparatus. Local party officials organize and conduct various kinds of conferences and meetings on the issue of combating religion, allocate personnel to lead and organize atheistic propaganda locally and monitor the success of its implementation, create special courses and schools for propagandists. c) The All-Union Society “Znanie” supplies speakers for conferences and seminars, gives practical recommendations for work in cities and villages, helps organize houses and clubs for atheists - in other words, manages all “scientific and practical” work related to anti-religious work. Atheist education in primary and secondary schools The atheistic education of Soviet citizens begins from school. The essence of the modern method of anti-religious education in Soviet schools comes down to the transformation of schoolchildren from an object into a subject of atheistic propaganda. Therefore, much attention is paid to ensuring that children from a very early age take an active part in atheistic propaganda among their peers and believing adults. In the first four grades of the school, the atheistic education of students is limited to individual conversations and discussions conducted by class mentors and teachers from time to time, for example, before major religious holidays! But already here, primary and secondary schoolchildren are required to fight at home with their believing parents and relatives: “tell their grandparents about everything they learned at school” 61, and then retell to their teachers the results of these conversations. From fifth to eighth grade, classes on atheism are included in the curriculum of other subjects. For example, in history lessons the following topics are discussed: 1. "Religion in Ancient Greece and Egypt"; 2. “Historical conditions for the emergence of Christianity”; 3. "The Christian Church in the 11th and 12th centuries"; 4. “The struggle between science and the Church in the 18th century”; 5. "Islam and its class essence"; 6. “The spread of Islam in Central Asia and Azerbaijan”; 7. “The struggle of advanced people of Russia against religion and the Church in the 19th century.” 62 The program of these classes provides not only for the active participation of schoolchildren in lessons, but also for them to conduct “independent research” using materials specially selected by teachers. After students have conducted such research, discussions are held in class, during which the speaker must defend the anti-religious arguments he has found and presented in his speech. In the ninth and tenth grades of secondary school, the “atheistic education” program is allocated to a special subject for which 60 hours are allocated (of which 25 hours in the 9th grade, and 35 hours in the 10th grade). In the ninth grade, students are introduced to the origin and essence of Christianity and other religions common in the USSR. The main emphasis is on showing the “inertia and backwardness” of religion in general, the “harm of religious ideas,” and the “immorality” of the clergy and believers. In the tenth grade, the curriculum on atheism is more practical. This subject is usually taken after studying the philosophical section of social science. The training program consists of four parts: 1. studying Lenin's works on religion, 2. studying the problem of the attitude of the Soviet government to religion and the Church, 3. familiarize yourself with the state of religiosity in your area and 4. studying the possibilities of using modern technical means in the fight against religion. The marks received for the subject of scientific atheism are given not only for knowledge of the material, but also for the student’s ability to conduct atheistic conversations in grades 1–7 of the school or for independently preparing and conducting a pioneer gathering on an atheistic topic. At the same time, the children are given the right to choose 63. In order to further activate schoolchildren in the field of atheistic propaganda, they are invited to actively participate in school anti-religious clubs, to review anti-religious films and performances in school wall newspapers, and to discuss anti-religious books and works of art in classes. In many schools, school atheist museums or atheist corners are created by the students themselves. High school students are forced to go to cultural centers and atheist houses to listen to lectures on anti-religious topics in order to then convey their content at pioneer gatherings. In many schools, high school students are involved in anti-religious work among adults. For example, in Polotsk, students of the 12th secondary school took patronage of the local meat processing plant and pledged to conduct atheistic propaganda among the workers of this enterprise. 2 high school in the same city maintains a similar connection with an automobile repair plant, and 1 school with a fiberglass plant 64. Sometimes we deal with the opposite situation, when workers of some factory take patronage over a school. For example, workers of the Victory of October factory in Ryazan took patronage over the 9th vocational school and helped teachers in the atheistic education of students, paying special attention to people from religious families. In order to obtain data on the success of anti-religious work at school, anonymous questionnaires are administered to schoolchildren in grades 9–10 about their attitude towards religion. Atheistic education in higher educational institutions In 1959–60, the teaching of an elective course “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” was introduced in all universities of the USSR. In the same year, measures were taken to train teachers for this course. In the full-time, evening and correspondence departments of the historical and philosophical faculties of the university, students began to specialize in scientific atheism. Since the 1964–65 academic year, taking the same course, but with mandatory passing of exams, has been introduced in all universities, medical, agricultural, pedagogical and library universities. The course “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” takes 24 hours (there are cases when this course is taught for 30 hours or only 10–14 hours, as, for example, in Odessa universities or in the evening departments of Uzhgorod University, but this is an exception to the rule 65. In most cases, the subject “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” is taught in senior courses. Practice has convinced us that the best understanding of the topic is achieved when students are already familiar with their core disciplines and the cycle of social sciences. The course program “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” includes the following five topics: 1. Marxism-Leninism about the essence of religion and atheism, 2. The opposition of religious and scientific worldviews, 3. Criticism of religious morality, 4. Major modern religions and religious organizations, 5. Construction of communism and atheistic education of workers 66. The course “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” consists of theoretical (18 hours) and practical (6 hours) parts. In the practical part of the course, students are introduced to the following questions: – scientific and atheistic education of youth, – the policy of the Communist Party in relation to religion and the Church, – with forms and means of anti-religious propaganda. 67 According to Soviet experts, the program of the course “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” suffers from many shortcomings and, first of all, some primitiveness. In order to overcome these shortcomings, some universities and universities hold joint meetings of teachers of natural and social science departments, at which the possibilities of increasing the level of atheistic propaganda in universities are discussed. There is also talk about the creation of an interuniversity scientific coordination center, which will develop recommendations for teachers and develop methods for teaching “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism.” In addition to the course on scientific atheism, universities and higher education institutions conduct many events aimed at involving students in active anti-religious propaganda. For example, at the Odessa Hydrometeorological Institute, students, after listening to just a few lectures on atheism, are asked to immediately read abstracts on atheistic topics. Last year, students from the biological, geographical, chemical and physical faculties of Odessa University presented over 250 abstracts and scientific papers on atheistic topics 68 . Many other universities organize student lecture groups and special circles for propagandists of atheism, where students are prepared for open presentations among the population. The teaching experience of some students begins in the 2nd or 3rd year and continues after receiving their diploma. For example, students of the Ryazan Agricultural Institute during the winter holidays of 1969–1970. held 152 lectures and conversations in the regions of Ryazan and neighboring regions, students of Odessa University prepared more than 300 lectures in 1970, and students of the university in the city of Gorky annually conduct 150 lectures and themed evenings on atheistic topics 69 . Many universities create seminars on the theory and practice of atheism, which many students are forced to attend. For example, at the Agricultural Institute of Kamenets-Podolsk, about 200 people are involved in such a seminar 70 . Some universities have active atheist clubs. The program of work of such clubs is not very diverse and classes in the club often turn into an additional course on atheism. For example, at the N.I. Lobachevsky University in Gorky, members of the atheist circle are required to take four additional courses on atheism, 34–36 hours each. The seminar participant is required to pass a test in two of the four seminars and two special seminars, the topics of which change from year to year. Attending classes and preparing tests requires the student to spend about 260 hours a year, that is, four hours a week, and more than half of this time goes beyond the curriculum 71. As noted earlier, the active and personal participation of students in atheistic propaganda is considered in the USSR the most effective measure to prevent religious students from graduating from university. On this occasion, the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper gave the following example: At one of the institutes they accidentally found out that one of the senior students was a believer. He was asked: “How is this so? After all, you passed your exams in Marxist philosophy with flying colors. How can you believe in religious fairy tales?” “What’s special here,” answered the student. I was asked about the views of Marx and Engels. I knew them well. But no one asked me about my views." 72 The journal Science and Religion provides many such examples. According to information from this magazine, quite recently in Odessa they learned that one of the very intelligent female doctors was a preacher of the Adventist community. In Gorky, a graduate of the Faculty of History and Philology, Yudin entered the Zagorsk Theological Seminary. A student at the Faculty of Industrial Technology, Nelly Z., joined the Pentecostal sect. One of the biology students, Ilya G., was associated with the Seventh-day Adventist sect. In the classrooms of Gorky University in the dormitories and reading rooms, someone is scattering religious leaflets and anonymous letters written by Orthodox believers, as well as “Brotherly leaflets” of Baptists 73 . Atheistic education in pedagogical universities The Soviet leadership paid special attention to atheistic education in pedagogical institutes and technical schools, where future teachers are educated, that is, those who will have to educate the next generations of Soviet youth. In addition to the course “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism,” which is naturally taught in pedagogical institutes with special care, students of these institutes study the problems of atheism while passing a number of other disciplines. For example, in the course of Marxist-Leninist philosophy, special sections are devoted to the consideration of the topic of the essence and origin of religion in general and its epistemological and sociological roots. The same course examines the relationship of communism and Soviet power to religion. It is interesting to note that in recent years the content of the course on Marxist-Leninist philosophy has expanded with a number of lectures devoted to the criticism of religious existentialism, neo-Thomism and neo-positivism. This is apparently caused by the great interest of Soviet youth in these philosophical trends 74 . The course on scientific communism has a special section on the atheistic education of Soviet citizens. In addition, when going through the methodology of teaching general education subjects, future teachers are required to highlight all issues that could illuminate religion and the Church in a negative sense. This is especially shown in the study of history, literature, art and such exact subjects as biology. For example, in the course on methods of teaching biology, issues related to the formation of a materialistic worldview of students and their atheistic education are specially highlighted. The genetics course emphasizes all the laws that exclude the supposedly religious idea of ​​​​the creation of man and the soul. Many pedagogical institutes have created special retraining courses for teachers who received their education under Stalin. At these courses, Soviet teachers become familiar with modern methods of atheistic education of youth and various types of anti-religious work being carried out at the present time. Some other faculties also pay a lot of attention to anti-religious propaganda. For example, at the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University several special courses are devoted to religious issues on the following topics: religion and the progress of spiritual culture, neo-Thomism and scientific knowledge, the structure of religious consciousness, criticism of Christian axiology, psychology of religion, scientific criticism of the Bible 75 . The problem of personnel of teachers of scientific atheism in universities and universities The Soviet leadership is extremely concerned about the lack of qualified teachers of the course “Fundamentals of Scientific Atheism” at universities and colleges. The first two departments of the history of religion and atheism, where specialists in this field are trained, were created only in 1959 at Moscow and Kiev universities. The number of such departments is increasing very slowly. Currently, on the territory of the RSFSR there are only two departments of the history of religion and atheism: one in Moscow and the other in Leningrad. There are only three of them in Ukraine: in Kyiv, Lviv and Ivano-Frankivsk. Attendance at these faculties is not high, but it is possible to make a scientific career in them quickly and easily. Over the 10 years of the existence of the Department of History of Religion and Atheism in Moscow, only 105 people graduated from this department, almost all of whom were accepted into graduate school, and 7 people even managed to defend their doctoral dissertation 76 . Due to the lack of specialists, the course “The Basis of Scientific Atheism” is taught in most universities in combination with a course in philosophy, history or scientific communism. According to available information, many teachers teach this course in a primitive and uninteresting manner, which naturally affects the students. Atheistic education of adults Having analyzed the problem of atheistic education of students, one should ask the questions: “What happens to people who graduated from school a long time ago? Is anti-religious work being carried out with them? To what extent are they influenced by atheistic propaganda? According to the resolution of the CPSU Central Committee of January 2, 1964, atheistic propaganda should cover the entire population of the USSR, regardless of age and educational qualifications. Beginning in the spring of 1964, problems related to the conduct of atheistic propaganda began to be systematically considered in the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the Union Republics, at meetings of regional, district and city party committees. In some republics, scientific and methodological conferences on this issue began to be periodically held. For example, in 1967, a congress of atheist propagandists took place in Kyiv, in which more than 400 people took part 77 . In 1969, a republican meeting on issues of atheistic propaganda was held in Leningrad, in which more than 300 experienced propagandists, university teachers and school teachers from different regions of the RSFSR took part 78 . In May 1970, a Ukrainian republican scientific and methodological conference was held in Ivano-Frankovsk on the topic “Lenin’s atheistic heritage and current problems of the formation of a scientific-materialist worldview” 79 . In the summer of 1970, a scientific and theoretical conference on criticism of religion was held in Uzbekistan. In Bukovina, where there are especially many believers, conferences of so-called “folklore lovers” are held annually, at which the issues of creating Soviet civil rituals and replacing religious traditions with it are discussed 80 . At the end of 1970, a meeting was held at the republican level in the department of propaganda and agitation of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Tajikistan, at which the organization of atheistic propaganda in areas where the majority of the population is illiterate was discussed 81 . In order to control the practical implementation of various resolutions in the field of anti-religious work, councils on issues of scientific-atheistic propaganda were created at all party centers, and councils for the coordination of scientific-atheistic propaganda were created under the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Republics 82 . The task of the councils was to coordinate all levels of anti-religious work in the areas under the jurisdiction of these centers. Councils on issues of scientific and atheistic propaganda draw up annual work plans, the development of which also takes into account individual events of party and Komsomol organizations, departments of public education and boards of the organization of the Knowledge Society. Through their sections, councils on issues of scientific and atheistic propaganda monitor the implementation of planned plans, generalize and disseminate the experience of anti-religious work of individual organizations, and introduce civil holidays and rituals 83 . At the regional, district and city committees of the Komsomol, commissions have been created for the scientific and atheistic education of youth, which monitor the anti-religious education of Komsomol members and train agitators from among pupils and students. A significant role in organizing the system of atheistic education is played by departments of social sciences at universities and universities, as well as special schools and courses for atheist propagandists and agitators. Currently, permanent two- and three-year schools of atheist propagandists have been created in all republics. Classes in these schools take place on-the-job, in the evenings. Most students attend these schools as part of their party or social workload. The usual contingent of listeners is various kinds of middle-level activists, both from workers and from the intelligentsia. Many communists are preparing to conduct anti-religious propaganda in the party training system. The size of this action is evidenced by the fact that in Moscow alone there are 39 two-year schools for training atheist agitators, in which about 1,000 people are currently studying. In addition, in Moscow there are special permanent courses of scientific atheism for three associations: school teachers (2 groups - a total of 300 people at a time), medical workers (6 groups - a total of 500 people) and trade and catering workers. In the same Moscow, in the library of the House of Scientific Atheism, there is a permanent anti-religious methodological seminar for librarians of the city 84. Similar schools and courses exist in almost all regions of the RSFSR. For example, in the Vologda region in recent years, 4 two-year schools have been opened for propagandists of atheism, and in the Ryazan region a seminar of atheist lecturers has been operating for the fifth year. In addition, in Ryazan in 1967, two regional “scientific and practical” conferences were held on the following topics: “On the system of atheistic education of workers” and “Content, forms and methods of atheistic education of the population at the present stage” 85. As for other republics, even more attention is paid to the fight against the religiosity of the population there than in the RSFSR. An example is Uzbekistan, where in recent years 218 permanent schools have been opened to train atheist agitators. The total number of places in these schools exceeds 3000. At the same time, more than 1000 people in Uzbekistan are undergoing atheistic training in the party education system 86. In addition to permanent schools and courses, in many regions of the USSR various kinds of seminars are held on atheistic topics for teachers, librarians, medical and agricultural workers, that is, for all those who work with people in their profession. In most cases, attendance at these seminars is required. They last 2–3 weeks and invite from 200 to 300 people 87 . In order to reach wider circles of the highest-level Soviet intelligentsia with anti-religious propaganda, so-called people's universities of scientific atheism were created in republican and regional centers. In Uzbekistan alone there are 29 such universities 88 . The university program lasts 2 years, subject to attending lectures once a week. Professors of local universities and universities, major party workers and various specialists, including former clergy who have left the Church, are involved in teaching scientific atheism at universities as a public service. The students of these courses are usually persons occupying a certain position and striving for a further career in the service: senior engineers at factories, members of the boards of various “public” organizations, etc. During the first year, students of the course receive some knowledge about the origin of various religious teachings, become familiar with the attitude of Marxism to religion, the party policy in relation to the Church and the situation of believers in their area. In their second year, they prepare to become high-level promoters of atheism. To do this, they become more familiar with the contents of the Bible and the Gospel (or the Koran in Muslim areas), conduct debates and conversations on theological topics, review atheistic literature, organize excursions to museums, make trips to existing churches and houses of worship in the vicinity of the city, where they engage in active propaganda among believers. Since the people's universities of scientific atheism have only been in existence for a few years and have little operational experience, they suffer from a lack of stable or exemplary curricula and programs, and also lack trained lecturers and teachers. Attendance at the people's universities of scientific atheism is quite high. For example, in 1967, there were more than 100 students at the Alma-Ata People's University of Scientific Atheism 89 . While various seminars, courses, schools and people's universities of scientific atheism were created mainly to work with wide circles of the Soviet intelligentsia, party and public figures, anti-religious work with the masses is carried out somewhat differently. To organize this mass work in the cities and villages of the USSR, houses, clubs and rooms of atheists, anti-religious museums are created, exhibitions and film festivals are organized, days and weeks of atheism are held. In houses and clubs of atheism, scientists and representatives of the Knowledge Society give presentations, conversations are held on atheistic topics with filmstrips shown, meetings with former clergy, question and answer evenings, anti-religious performances and concerts are held. The walls of clubs and houses of atheism are usually decorated with stands and posters on anti-religious themes, the best artists of the city are invited to create them. Some clubs organize various kinds of competitions to create the best work of art on an atheistic theme. Several such competitions were held on an all-Union scale. Many clubs publish typewritten newspapers of 4–6 pages, which are distributed free of charge to businesses and individuals. Atheist clubs organize various excursions to the holy places of their area to conduct anti-religious agitation among believers. Sections are formed at atheism clubs: lectures, individual work with believers, and the introduction of civil holidays and rituals. Each club has a propaganda lecture hall, whose members conduct anti-religious propaganda in factories and enterprises, in sponsored schools and collective farms, in courtyards and families where believers live. In many republican and regional centers, museums of atheism have been created, the activities of which are very similar to the activities of atheist clubs. In museums of atheism, traveling exhibitions are organized, anti-religious films are shown, and various seminars are held on atheistic topics. One of the most important centers of atheistic propaganda should be considered the Museum of the History of Religion and Atheism of the USSR Academy of Sciences, in which in 1960 the department “Overcoming Religious Survivals in the USSR” was created. Libraries are also engaged in mass atheistic propaganda. Soviet librarians are required to notify readers about all new products in the field of anti-religious literature, organize evenings with reading atheist articles from magazines or excerpts from books, and hold reader conferences on atheist topics. The press, cinema, radio and television also promote atheistic ideas. All Soviet newspapers and magazines regularly publish articles on atheistic topics. Many films ridicule believers and promote atheistic propaganda. Every year special anti-religious films are created like “The Miracle Worker” based on the story of the same name by V. Tendryakov or the television film “Save Our Souls”, produced several years ago by the Krasnodar television studio. Most Soviet radio stations also engage in anti-religious propaganda. Many radio stations and radio centers have introduced a special anti-religious program called “The Bell,” and the radio station in the Shepetovsky district of the Khmelnitsky region broadcasts a radio chronicle three times a month under the general title “For Militant Atheism” 90 . All of the above forms of anti-religious propaganda, although intended for the broad masses of the population of the USSR, concern, to a greater or lesser extent, only those who, due to different motives, but with personal consent, are ready to listen to this propaganda. Many Soviet citizens do not go to the houses of atheists or anti-religious museums, do not watch anti-religious films and do not listen to anti-religious broadcasts on the radio. It is more difficult to refuse to participate in atheist seminars or courses, especially for those who occupy a certain position in Soviet society, but in some cases it is possible. The party's unremitting attention, however, is also paid to those who do not want to listen to atheistic propaganda, either due to a lack of interest in this topic, or because they believe in God. According to the plan of the party leadership, everyone, literally everyone, should fall under the influence of this propaganda and should become militant atheists. In order to reach all workers with anti-religious propaganda, anti-religious rallies and meetings are held in institutions and institutions, at enterprises and factories, on collective and state farms during office hours and lunch breaks. Every summer, in city parks of culture and recreation, theme evenings are held on anti-religious themes, at which, after speeches by agitators, compositions from the works of classics are read. Atheistic propaganda is carried out in all rest homes and sanatoriums, in all maternity hospitals, hospitals and clinics. Most medical workers are forced to attend not only various kinds of atheistic seminars and courses, but also regularly conduct anti-religious propaganda among patients. In addition to anti-religious conversations held in the wards, atheist lectures are given to convalescents in many hospitals, and atheist literature is distributed. For the purpose of anti-religious propaganda among non-working women, women's councils on atheism are organized throughout the USSR. House committees conduct atheistic propaganda among the disabled and pensioners. In cases where atheistic propaganda does not achieve its goal, so-called individual work with believers is carried out, based on the fact that agitators go around the houses of believers and conduct anti-religious propaganda in their homes. The size of this work is evidenced by the fact that already in 1963 the party leadership of the Ukrainian SSR allocated more than 70,000 agitators-talkers for this work, and in Belarus, in the Grodno region alone, 2,230 people are engaged in this 91 . The whole point of working individually with believers is to starve them out. Believers, in most cases simple, unintelligent people, are afraid to throw out of their home the person sent to them by the party leadership. The only way to get rid of the daily visits of such an agitator is to agree with him and declare your departure from the Church. Soviet experts in the field of anti-religious agitation consider this method to be very effective. Scientific development of teaching aids in the field of atheistic propaganda In 1964, the Institute of Scientific Atheism was created at the Academy of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the CPSU. The Institute was entrusted with the leadership of all atheistic work in the field of developing methods for its conduct and in the field of training specialists at the highest level. The Scientific Council of the Institute included representatives of the Ideological Department of the CPSU Central Committee, central scientific and ideological institutions and so-called public organizations. The Institute of Scientific Atheism is engaged in the development of many issues related to the problem of combating the religiosity of the population. From 1966 to 1970, under the leadership of the Institute of Scientific Atheism, 69 studies in the field of the so-called “scientific atheistic education of workers” 92 were carried out in research institutions of the USSR, higher pedagogical educational institutions and universities. Most of these studies were on the topic of studying the religious consciousness of believers in a socialist society and methods of atheistic education of youth 93. In 1969–70 Special attention of the staff of the Institute of Scientific Atheism was paid to the problem to what extent a person’s nationality influences his religious views and belonging to one or another religion. In the upcoming five-year period, the Institute of Scientific Atheism plans to pay attention to the problems of the psychology of religion, the reasons for the persistence of religiosity in the USSR, the peculiarities of the fight against religion at the present time, the problem of communist and religious morality and the problem of the attitude towards religion of modern youth. The materials developed by USSR scientists are based not only on theoretical data, but also on specific sociological research obtained as a result of trips and field surveys. In recent years, similar studies have been carried out in Ukraine, Belarus, Kazan, Orel, Penza and some other cities and regions of the RSFSR. Despite all the tendentiousness of the materials collected by sociological expeditions, those obtained by the Institute of Scientific Atheism in the Penza Region showed that sectarians are much less susceptible to the influence of atheistic propaganda than Orthodox Christians 94 . In addition to research work, the Institute of Scientific Atheism annually holds various kinds of conferences and symposiums, both of all-Union and international significance. For example, last year the Institute of Scientific Atheism, together with the Higher School of Social Sciences under the Central Committee of the PUWP, held a joint symposium in Warsaw on the connection between the national question and people’s belonging to various kinds of religions. The Institute is currently preparing a conference on the role of religion and the Church in the historical process of human development. It is expected that this conference will be of great importance for the preparation of materials in the field of criticism of various religious theories. In order to train specialists in anti-religious propaganda, employees of the Institute of Scientific Atheism take direct part in organizing seminars on atheism held in different cities and regions of the USSR. Over the past three years, such seminars have been held in Astrakhan, Brest, Bryansk, Vladimir, Vilnius, Tallinn, Gorky, Grozny, Gomel, Kalinin, Kuibyshev, Leningrad, Minsk, Perm, Ryazan, Smolensk, Kharkov, Cheboksary, Chelyabinsk and Yaroslavl. Content and level of atheistic propaganda The main task of the Institute of Scientific Atheism and the All-Union Society “Znanie” is to improve the content of atheistic propaganda. The Institute publishes the collection “Questions of Scientific Atheism”, collections entitled “Science and Theology of the 20th Century”, “Religious Morality and Modernity”, “Atheism and Socialist Culture” and a significant number of books on various topics, from criticism of modern religious thought to discussion of the problem of religiosity in developing countries. The Knowledge Society publishes the anti-religious magazine Science and Religion and many books and brochures. Employees of the Institute of Scientific Atheism collaborate in almost all the thick magazines of the country, and primarily in such as “Questions of Philosophy”, “Communist” and “Soviet Ethnography”. It is interesting to note that the level of atheistic propaganda has increased somewhat in recent years and its content has changed. Currently, the greatest attention of atheistic literature is paid to criticism of Russian religious philosophy on the one hand and modern Western religious thought on the other. According to Soviet experts in the field of atheism, this became necessary because not only believers, but also young communist revisionists became interested in Christian philosophy, “... because revisionist theorists want to complement Marxism at the expense of the rich Christian heritage.” The second most important topic is the problem of sectarianism: Over the past five years, several dozen books and brochures have been published in the USSR on the issue of combating sectarianism, which talk a lot about the danger of expanding sectarianism in the country. Many books and brochures are devoted to analyzing the reasons for the existence of religiosity in the USSR. Some serious studies discuss issues related to increasing religiosity among young people. In connection with all of the above, it is quite obvious that the Soviet government is making every effort to completely kill the Russian people’s faith in God and turn him into a Soviet robot. It is also quite obvious that during the 50 years of domination in Russia, the Soviet government failed to achieve this, otherwise why would it be necessary to devote so much effort now to the fight against faith. An all-out attack on the enemy is carried out only when the enemy is strong. They don't fight windmills. Having become familiar with the situation in the USSR, you involuntarily ask yourself the question: how, despite all the temptations of atheistic propaganda, could faith in God be preserved in Russia? Thinking rationally, this seems impossible. Our mind cannot comprehend this. But what is inaccessible to reason is accessible to faith. The answer to this question can only be found in the Gospel. After all, Christ said, “I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). Dark afternoon in the Arctic. February. According to the calendar, spring is coming. Behind the heavy clouds the sun is already rising above the horizon. And disappears again. And again it’s night. There is less and less strength left to endure the winter that began in September. It’s hard for everyone to live in this climate, which is equally unusual for everyone who finds themselves here by accident. Prisoners brought by force, commanders who came more or less voluntarily, soldiers of the garrison serving their military service here. In this respect, the position of prisoners differs little from that of free people. Everyone unanimously curses the north, curses the fate that brought them here, and waits. Their expectations are different. Prisoners live with dreams of a mythical amnesty and hopes for some mysterious “changes.” The bosses are waiting for a transfer “to Russia” or retirement. And time moves inexorably. Years of life are passing. And quite a few prisoners and free people are buried in the same hateful frozen tundra. An urgent meeting of the entire command staff has been scheduled in the office of the head of a small women's disabled camp in Abezi 95. While waiting for the appointed hour, the boss nervously walks around the room. The boss is an elderly major, a short, dense brunette with gray hair. His office is just a room in the barracks where the entire camp administration is located. But there is a carpet on the floor. On the table is a telephone from the twenties. Embroidered gauze curtains hang on the windows. And on the wall behind his chair is a map of the camp, also hung with embroidered gauze over thick blue fabric - a tribute to the vigilance needed by the authorities in such conditions. The captain, “operator” (operational representative of the Ministry of State Security at the camp), is sitting on the sofa. Half-lounging, he smokes lazily, occasionally glancing at the major. After knocking on the door, the head of the camp regime, a junior lieutenant, enters. He is over fifty, and the rank of junior lieutenant was awarded to him not so long ago due to the fact that he worked for twenty-five years “in the camp system.” He is already a grandfather, managed to buy himself a house near Rostov and is looking forward to retirement. Most of all, he is afraid of any complications in his service and quite successfully avoids them. Along with him comes the head of the KVCh (cultural and educational unit) - a senior lieutenant of about forty. He is filled with self-esteem and sincerely believes that his work - educating prisoners in the spirit of love for Soviet power - is a matter of national importance. - Sit down. Now the others will come too. Things to do, brother. “I was already thinking what kind of miracles they were.” We just arrived from Inta today and immediately had a meeting. This is not good... The door opens again and a woman, the head of the medical unit, and two men, the head of the communal services unit and the head of the quartermaster supply unit, immediately enter. The head of the medical unit is the only one in civilian clothes, although she has the rank of captain. A tall, stately blonde, she only puts on a jacket in the most extreme cases. Now she is wearing a tight-fitting sweater. But she still can’t part with her felt boots and cotton trousers. Forty degrees below zero is stronger than female coquetry. The head of the household unit is a junior lieutenant who received this rank, like the head of the regime, for his length of service. This is a good-natured red-faced bumpkin. He is from Arkhangelsk and the frosts do not frighten him. He is about to retire and his biggest concern is to “save up some junk” so that he won’t buy anything for himself until his death. The head of the quartermaster's unit is much younger than everyone else, except for the opera and the doctor. He spent the entire war in the same regiment with the camp commander and came north at his invitation. This is an active, cunning Ukrainian. He proved himself very well in political classes in management, when all his notes invariably turned out to be the best and most sensible. The major, who knew his abilities, was surprised at this for a long time, until he learned that all the notes and papers for political classes were written by prisoners for the quartermaster. After that, he began to appreciate it even more, but at the same time he became wary. “Since the head of the special unit is on vacation, I declare the meeting open,” the major said solemnly, sitting down on his chair and inviting the others to sit closer to the desk. “So, comrades, we will have to discuss one very important and responsible issue regarding the situation that has created in our camp. Those present looked at each other in bewilderment. In their opinion, there was no situation in the camp and, therefore, there was nothing to discuss. “The general made me so sad, he made me so sad.” And in front of everyone, and one on one... he barely jumped out,” the major switched to a less official, but more understandable language for those around him. - For what, Comrade Major? - Startsov, the head of the regime, could not stand it, - It seems that everything is fine with us, thank God... -...Thank God, thank God... that's it, comrades, that's what I was fighting for. Thank God... thank God... Everyone was babbling like sons of bitches, and I answered. For these very same “nuns”, damn them, I was making sand. “Sorry, Comrade Major, I don’t understand,” said the head of the medical unit, “why did the general attack the nuns?” Because they don’t go to work, we have a disabled camp. There aren’t even any working objects. They pray, they fast, they don’t riot, they don’t get sick, what else is needed... – You, Lidia Petrovna, forgive me, you are reasoning somehow strangely. They don't get sick. Nothing else interests you. You have no political sense, no state approach to the issue. They don't get sick. They don't work. So let them get sick to hell and die. Everything would be better. – If they were sick and died, as you put it, this would reduce our performance in the medical unit. And we are still in first place in this regard. And again things would go wrong. And I look after their health. “Let’s leave the bickering,” the officer intervened, “continue, comrade major.” We are listening to you. - OK. The general had a meeting with the camp commanders. Well, everyone reported their own story. So, they say, and so. I also reported in full. The composition is such and such, behavior is good, there are no violations, cultural events are such and such. The general was the last to speak, and then I was scalded as if by boiling water. “At the sixth women’s camp there is a complete disgrace going on. People there get money for God knows what, and they also dare to engage in fraud. Yes, fraud. And, he says, these people became so insolent that they even received bonuses last year. And now they still dare to laugh in my face and tell me that they are holding cultural events. Damned sycophants...” Everyone looks at me with malice, and I sit there like a baked lobster. The meeting ended. The general tells me “you stay. I want to tell you a few more words.” And he tells me that what we have here, he didn’t say there’s a disgrace going on, but it’s just a mess, he said. “To hell with it,” he says, “I’m keeping you parasites and quitters there if you can’t deal with women. Are there some nuns there and you can’t deal with them?” Well, I explain it as it is. These people, I say, are imprisoned for religious prejudices. Of course they don't work. But, since we don’t have workers’ facilities for all the fifteen hundred prisoners we have, this doesn’t present any particular inconvenience and we don’t force them away so as not to increase the number of people refusing to work. “That’s right,” said the operator. - Wait. He says to me, “What are you, an employment office or a maximum security forced labor camp? Three, he says, there’s a blockhead sitting there.” So he said: “You, opera, and even EHF. And to you, he says, I declare and tell them that I haven’t touched you until now, I thought you’d become wiser yourself. But I see little hope for this. I’ll send all three of you, and even the head of the regime, to the collective farm to twist the cows’ tails, and maybe I’ll also give you a prison term for anti-state activities. You, he says, are a former front-line soldier and I feel sorry for you. That's why I'm giving you a week to fix it. And in a week - if you don’t return to normal, you’ll have to blame yourself, I warned you. Because of you, I also don’t want to get a scolding from Moscow. Go, act." So, comrades, we have a week to deal with these damned nuns. - And what did he order to do with them? – asked Startsov. He was afraid for his pension and was eager to fix everything immediately. – First of all, do not allow them all to live together in one barracks and perform religious rituals there. This time. Two, so that none of them would no longer wear their own clothes, but that all of them should be dressed in uniform, in camp uniforms. And, three, to culturally and scientifically explain to them that since there is no God, they should not believe in Him and pray to Him. And to report to him about what was done. That's it, comrades. – The comrades were silent tensely. They understood well that the general’s demands were almost impossible to fulfill and, therefore, their peaceful existence was in danger. “As for me, to resettle them, that is, in different barracks,” Startsov began, “so I’ll get down to this job myself right now and carry it out.” I’ll put the grandmothers on a sled and, with the guards on duty, I’ll take them to different barracks. This is doable. – How can I scientifically prove to them that God does not exist? – asked Berezov, the head of the cultural and educational department, sweating with excitement. – I don’t even have the appropriate materials. And then they don’t even go to the movies when we bring him. There is no way they will attend a scientific atheist lecture. Well, let's say, we drag them by force on a sled to the club. So they won’t listen. They will lie on the floor and pray at the top of their voices, but the lecture will be disrupted. – – What if you take them to a punishment cell and give them a lecture about God? - advised the opera. “They were already in the punishment cell from the very beginning, they were just brought here.” And handcuffs were put on them 96. You can’t get them through a punishment cell,” Startsov objected. - Yes, and my punishment cell has two rooms. Well, one has two grandmas, the other two. It won't come in anymore. In the corridor, say, the lecturer will read to them loudly. Again, they won't listen. They will pray. And it will take a lot of time to drag them onto the sled, to transport them, to unload them, to drag them to the punishment cell, and then a lecture for at least half an hour. So it turns out that for every four pieces, put at least five hours, or even more. And there are more than fifty of them. And, most importantly, there is no point. Well, how do you prove to them that there is no God? - Or maybe we have some educated, smart prisoners among us who could give them such lectures so that we don’t have to embarrass ourselves in front of someone else’s lecturer? Yes, a stranger can inform on us to the general that, they say, the grandmothers didn’t believe the lecture,” the head of the household department, Sokolov, expressed his opinion. The head of the cultural and educational department, Berezov, perked up. “I have one such woman in mind who is well-versed in politics. Old already. Party member since twenty-two. A well-read, educated woman. Another time, when she gets going, she says something like this on a scientific topic - well, you don’t understand anything, but you feel that she speaks well. So she will help us support state power and dispel the religious dope of grandmothers. – “I know her,” the operator said contemptuously. “She’s a pure Trotskyist.” He considers everyone for fools and allows himself a lot in terms of all sorts of conversations. “That’s why he’s sitting,” the major objected. – Do you have a more suitable candidate? - Well, that's all right. You, Berezov, talk to her. Explain what's what. Of course, don’t talk about the general and our secret meeting. Just say that it’s time for us to open our grandmothers’ eyes to their gray backwardness from the bright days of our wonderful future. Let him go to their barracks and give them his scientific atheistic lectures every day. She does hers, they do theirs, and in six days we’ll do six lectures, and we’ll report back. That's all with this question. Now, and this applies most of all to you, Cherednichenko, sixty sets of brand new uniforms will be delivered to us this evening. This is the most important thing. Tomorrow we will hold lectures, move them into barracks, resettle them, and report on everything. But this is a dark matter. Go check it out. Both we and the general understand this. But the uniform is a clear, visible matter. There's no bullshit here. Here, even without a report, every fool can see. You can't argue against that, brother. Moreover, Comrade General also told me that he supposedly heard that grandmothers do not want to wear government uniforms because it has the “seal of the devil” on it. It is they, the prostitutes, who talk about our star, for which so many noble people shed their blood and gave their lives. Give them everything new. Let the bastards walk around in it and thank our Soviet authorities, because they are not worth such a gift. – - So, give the refusenik grandmothers the uniforms of the first term, which our camp is generally not entitled to, when my leaders and idiots are sporting the second term. – Cherednichenko was indignant. - State interests, nothing can be done. Look, the general says that we are already negligent in our duties. For how many years the grandmothers have been in prison, but since they were ignorant and uncultured, they remained so, we did not conduct any educational work with them. “I just think, Comrade Major, that they won’t take government-issued uniforms,” Sokolov said timidly. “They are very ideological women; they will not give up anything on their own. – The idea is a great thing, it is the basis of communism. But they have a relic, a prejudice, a dope, in a word, opium, and not an idea,” Berezov edifyingly notes. “I agree with Comrade Sokolov,” the head of the medical unit, who had been silent until now, spoke up. – This is an exclusively remaining and uncultured element. When we called them in for commission work, there was just one misfortune. They don't want to take off their clothes, period. Both on dresses and on shirts, crosses are either embroidered or sewn on. And there are so many scandals over personal hygiene. Many of them consider it a sin to go to the bathhouse. It’s a sin, they say, to show your naked body and indulge your flesh with washing. Solid grey. “I told the general all this, I didn’t hide anything from him, I reported everything to him in truth. He advised me then, in a good, fatherly way. You, he says, don’t be a fool, take them all to the bathhouse. They will undress in the same dressing room, hand over their clothes as they should be cooked, and then go to the bathhouse to wash themselves. When they wash up and go to another dressing room to get dressed, they will find there, instead of their clothes, brand new first-term uniforms. They're not going anywhere, either give up or freeze. Do you understand now? I've been waiting, maybe one of you will come up with something simpler and advise. Yes, I see that nothing is working out. So, that means we will implement the general plan. First we will equip them, and then we will place them in barracks. It's clear? “I see, it’s clear, Comrade Major.” Only I personally, as the person responsible for the sanitary condition of the camp, am against it. The grandmothers are so persistent that they can sit for half an hour or an hour in a cold dressing room, and then pneumonia can break out in the camp. – - Pneumonia, pneumonia... well, a couple of them will die, the others will be easier to deal with. Don't scare me with this sanitation of yours. A government approach is needed here. One disease, even an epidemic, in the camp. Counter-revolutionary activity is completely different. We need to understand this and we must not lose our proletarian instinct. Enough. Let's wrap up, it's time for lunch. I'm an old front-line soldier and I don't like long conversations. You, Cherednichenko, this very evening you will take the new uniform to the bathhouse and tell the manager to keep it under lock and key so that not a single fool knows what it is for. You, Sokolov, will order the bathhouse to be properly heated this night, and that there will be plenty of hot water. Not like always, when your idiots give half a gang of hot water per person. You think I don't know. And so that there are sixty free gangs, enough for every grandmother. Let the grandmothers wash themselves properly, steam, and be more accommodating. You, Lidia Petrovna, will order that the prisoner doctor be on hand in the bathhouse from the very morning, in case medical assistance becomes necessary. And you, Startsov, concentrate all the guards on watch. Gather everyone - a weekend free from outfits, let them sit there. So. I have everything. Tomorrow at nine o'clock zero we begin Operation Bathhouse. I ask all unit commanders to be in their places. – Everyone left silently. No one believed in the successful outcome of the operation, but did not dare to object. Already in the yard, Startsov grumbled to Sokolov: – Front-line soldiers, their mother... everything is like this, upside down. “Zero-zero” and women’s naked asses. Eh! Meanwhile, the inhabitants of that section of the fifth barrack, which everyone called the “monastery,” had no idea that they had become a subject of discussion of extreme importance for the authorities. There were many prisoners in the camp who received sentences for religion. They were charged under the same article of the code: article fifty-eight, points ten – anti-Soviet propaganda, and point eleven – “group case” (i.e. participation in an organization or group engaged in anti-Soviet propaganda). While they were in prison, where they always tried to place them in different cells, they meekly bore all the hardships of prison life and quietly prayed in the corners. When they were brought to the camp and they saw that there were many of them, they felt their strength and mutual support. They began to gather in groups whenever possible and pray together. They had more than enough time for this, since they refused to work for the “Antichrist government” once and for all. The bosses put them in a punishment cell, handcuffed them, took them to work in wheelbarrows and sleds, and kept them on starvation rations for weeks. It was all in vain. After the “nuns,” having gone through all the punishments and tests available to the authorities, still refused to work, the authorities gave up and stopped paying attention to them. It was calmer that way. Moreover, they were sent to a disabled camp precisely because in the workers’ camp, by their example, they had a bad effect on the working masses, and each refusal was considered a major violation of the camp’s standards. Among the “nuns” there were fanatics who took their religiosity to the point of absurdity. These were the spiritual descendants of the noblewoman Morozova and Archpriest Avvakum. They were very intolerant of all dissenters and did not enter into any conversations with them. They refused to eat food prepared in the common kitchen. They persistently did not go to the bathhouse, so as not to “pleasure the flesh,” and occasionally they were taken to the bathhouse in wheelbarrows or sleds, depending on the time of year. The guards undressed them and doused them with water. Then the “nuns” washed themselves. We washed ourselves with pleasure, washing our body, which had been itching for a long time and required water, and at the same time getting rid of the sin that had completely fallen on the soul of the authorities. Some went so far as to enter the common restroom and first sign the sign of the cross over the hole so that the “unclean” one would not accidentally crawl out of it. There was also another category of “nuns”. These were calm, believing women. The camp gave them the opportunity to pray, where two or three (or sixty) gathered in His Name. In the wild they did not have such an opportunity for various reasons. These willingly went to the bathhouse, ate everything that was given, and sometimes helped in the kitchen. Among them were well-educated women. There were even former party members and Komsomol members. The fanatics considered them something of a second class and pushed them around. But they accepted it with meekness. The third category consisted of young people who, before they got to the camp, had never thought about whether they believed in God or whether He existed at all. But the craving for something higher, bright, and pure was too strong. The mental wound inflicted by the cruel and senseless consequence, the lies surrounding them from everything they had been taught to believe since childhood, the glaring contradiction between newspaper and other statements and real life, all this required balm. They were captivated by the harsh environment, they liked the intransigence and love of truth of the “nuns,” and they liked their constancy. This was so different from the disregard and hooliganism of the thieves, who also formed the opposition to the authorities. These young people joined the ranks of the “nuns,” devoting themselves to religion with all the passion of neophytes. There were many religious books in the “monastery”. Or rather, carefully and carefully wrapped in cloth, and sometimes even bound, manuscripts rewritten many times. From the Gospel, from prayer books and missals. These manuscripts reached the prisoners despite the most careful vigilance of the authorities. According to these manuscripts, women “served” (read the prayers of the service). When the choir director of one of the Rostov churches was brought to the camp, the happiness of the “nuns” knew no bounds. They formed a choir. Now all “services” were accompanied by the singing of a real church choir, in which even non-believers sang. The regent was experienced, the choir was excellent, the tunes touched the soul. And they sang with greater pleasure than in the camp amateur choir with its “invigorating” melodies, which were boring to everyone and on the radio. Women from all over the camp began to come to these “services” at the monastery and, as in any monastery, donations flowed here, abundant according to camp standards. Once Startsov’s granddaughter fell ill with the flu with a complication that threatened her life. After much arguing with his wife, Startsov gave up. Calling the elder of the “monastery,” he asked her to pray for the health of “baby Irina.” Using his camp agents, he made sure that morning and evening in the “monastery” they prayed for his granddaughter. A few days later, the girl felt better, to the surprise of the head of the medical unit, who treated her, but was confident that the child would not survive the disease in the local harsh climate. A few weeks later, two new icons appeared in the “monastery”, the Mother of God and St. Irene. The opera was completely bewildered. - Operational grandmothers, you can’t say anything. How did they manage to get themselves such two icons? It seems that I personally check all the parcels. On watch, the search is done according to all the rules. And here you are, please. – “Artists, to be sure,” Startsov agreed. Cherednichenko’s wife had a difficult birth and he told the kitchen workers about it. In the evening, the head cook, a prisoner, also Ukrainian, approached him. - Don’t be offended by me, citizen boss, but listen to what I tell you. It wasn’t me who made it up, it’s the old people who say it. You promise the Lord God that you will baptize the child who is born, as people are supposed to do. The Lord will help your wife. And as soon as the child is born, you quickly bring him to the zone and the “nuns” will immediately christen him. You will thank yourself later. - What are you talking about, Yurko, they could kick me out of the service and from the party for this. - So if they find out. But no one will know. I'll sort it out myself. And so it’s very simple and you can be left without a wife and without a child. Everything is in God's hands. – The newborn, with the full approval of the grandmother and the silent consent of the mother, was brought into the camp kitchen area. From there, Yurko mysteriously, but carefully and solemnly, brought him to the “monastery”. There he was baptized and named Alexander. He was taken home the same way. Soon after this, the “nuns” began to be given rationed food so that they could prepare their own food in the barracks. Until then, the refusal of many of them to eat food prepared in a common cauldron created complications and troubles for their superiors. Without much difficulty, Cherednichenko proved to his comrades that giving food to the “nuns” was much simpler and more profitable for everyone. Especially for the bosses. Relations with lower authorities, i.e., with supervisors, were simpler. They were superstitiously afraid of the “nuns” and never persecuted or offended them. – They live for their own pleasure, like American millionaires. They don’t work, they don’t go to meetings, they pray to their heart’s content. And they get food for free. And they can’t do anything with them. And you suffer. You'll get into trouble with them. Here they will curse you to the bones, so you won’t live in the next world. Screw them. What to contact them with. And all this peaceful coexistence, all this relative well-being of some, and the peace of others, was now in danger. One of the “nuns,” who helped peel potatoes in the kitchen at night and slept after dinner, woke up and said: “Oh, Orthodox, some kind of big trouble awaits us.” I just saw such a dream, such a dream. He's not good. Truly I tell you. “It’s a terrible dream, but God is merciful,” her bunk neighbor objected. And in the morning Startsov appeared at the “monastery”, accompanied by four guards on duty and a doctor, prisoner Braverman. - That's it, women, let's be quiet and good. Soon the inspection will arrive to us, led by the general himself. They will go through all the barracks and check everything as it is. And you have air here - even hang an ax. So let's all go to the bathhouse quickly. Healthy, sick, whatever. And there are no excuses for colds and all sorts of rheumatism. Come on, women, get together. – The “nuns” protested in unison. However, most of them, continuing to grumble and object, began to pack their things. Some said that they had a cold and could not go to the bathhouse. - Braverman, explain to them in medical terms that cleanliness is the key to health. Wash yourself properly in the bathhouse, then go to the doctor for an appointment. She’ll give you all sorts of powders and that’ll make you feel better. But you still can’t avoid the bathhouse. The guards are with me, and ten people with sleds are waiting in the yard. If you don't go on your own, we'll take you on a sled in the best possible condition. There is an instruction from the authorities - to buy them all out as one. An order is an order. Come on, hurry up. “Finally, almost the entire population of the barracks got dressed and crowded at the door. There were still six more stubborn people left. Lying on their bunks, they seemed to look indifferently at the commotion that had arisen. Startsov knew from experience that they never went to the bathhouse themselves. They always had to be carried on sleds. He didn't waste any time. “Vdovichenko,” he turned to one of the attendants, “call the women and let’s load these stubborn ones onto the sleigh.” We'll lose the whole day here. – Six women entered, kitchen carriers, whom the whole camp called “mares.” Their duties were to bring water and coal to the kitchen and remove slag and slop from there. Only the strongest were hired as drivers, because the work was hard. They ate well at the kikhna. Thanks to this, and constant physical work in the air, these women developed enviable muscles. As soon as brute physical force was needed somewhere, they were called upon. Every time the grandmothers had to be taken to the bathhouse, they resorted to their help. In this regard, they have developed great skill. They silently approached the “nun” who was lying closest to the door, looking at them indifferently from under a scarf bandaged to her eyes, and, grabbing her, two by the arms, two by the legs, dragged her out of the barracks. The head hung indifferently below. The women put the “nun” on the sled and returned to the barracks for the next one. They took the second one in the same way and placed it on top of the first one. Then the two pulled the sled towards the bathhouse, which stood about a hundred meters from the barracks. Having dumped their load on the snow at the door of the bathhouse, they ran back to the barracks. The sled with the next pair of stubborn women was already driving away from there, and the loaders were pulling another one out of the door by the legs. The work went quickly and efficiently. When all six “hygiene saboteurs” were piled up at the entrance to the bathhouse, the loaders also quickly and without further ado dragged them into the dressing room, where they were at the disposal of the bathhouse staff. Those, also without engaging in unnecessary conversations, separated them. Then, each grabbing a bare heel, they dragged one after the other into the soap bar and doused them with a bunch of water. Braverman sat in the dressing room and smoked thoughtfully, watching the picture of the human conveyor belt that bored her. Life is incomprehensible and the inner world of man is bizarre. She remembered the war. At that time she was not prisoner number such and such. She was a major in the medical service, awarded orders, and a respected field hospital doctor. She pitied the soldiers, respected them for their endurance, for their contempt for all inconveniences, for this complete subordination of the body to the spirit. But there were young, healthy people there. There was a constant rise. What do these old women who have turned into mummies have? Here she is, a Jewish woman who does not believe in God, a communist who was a former party member... because now she envy them. They have some kind of enormous inner strength that she herself never had and never will have. She doesn’t have the courage to answer the question of who is happier. Startsov and the warden inspected the barracks, made sure that there was really no one left in it, and also went to the bathhouse. He entered not into the entrance, but into the exit dressing room. Sokolov and Cherednichenko were already sitting there, sheltering from the frost. On the benches lay neatly folded new uniforms: pea coats, padded jackets, padded trousers, felt boots, hats with earflaps, dresses, T-shirts, leggings, foot wraps. Startsov sat down on the bench. “We will live, we will see,” he said without addressing anyone. -Where is the head of the medical unit? – - In that dressing room he checks for lice. – Cherednichenko nodded towards the soap bar. - Eh, such uniforms are fit for a fighter. Give it to the parasites, but my chief cook is sporting hemmed felt boots. – “As soon as they leave the bathhouse, we will go out into the yard.” The major ordered them not to be disturbed. - said Sokolov. The head of the medical unit came in from the yard. - Well, comrades, everything is fine with washing. The head of the bathhouse warned them that they would get plenty of water, but that she would not allow any washing and would not allow them to take any rags with them, only washcloths. I opened the door and they washed with pleasure. They'll get a good sweat, they won't sit here naked for long. They'll get dressed right away. Our general is such a subtle psychologist - whatever you want, an educated person. How he correctly took into account the psychology of the prisoner. – The uneducated authorities, in whose garden the stone was thrown, were just thinking about what to say to her, something so sarcastic and offensive, when the door of the soap bar opened and one of the female servants reported to Sokolov: “Citizen Chief, they’ve already washed themselves, they’ll be leaving now.” – - Let's go, comrades, have a smoke in the yard... “Let’s get some fresh air in forty degrees below zero,” Cherednichenko added. They left. Wet women with their hair down their backs, also wet, began to enter the dressing room. They looked around, looking for their things. There were no things. The head of the bathhouse loudly proclaimed: - Attention, women. The citizen commander took care of you and ordered that you be given new, first-term uniforms instead of your tattered junk. So, get dressed quickly. Each person takes only one set. You yourself know what is required for one set. So, don’t take someone else’s, but grab yours, of course. Have fun buying, women, while they are giving for nothing. – - Sisters, what is this? Are we really going to put the Antichrist seal on ourselves? Lord, do not allow me to sin. The power of the cross is with us! A ringing hysterical cry, in which one could hear the bitterness of the resentment of a deceived creature and the horror of an unexpectedly befalling disaster, lashed the nerves of the other women. Everyone started shouting at once. - Servants of the Antichrist, damned Herods! – Persecutors of the Orthodox Faith! - We will accept death, but we will not take sin upon our souls... – Mother of the Most Holy Theotokos, pray to the Lord for us... - Do not allow, Lord, the servants of the devil to abuse us... “Sisters, Orthodox Christians,” the elder’s voice sounded loud and firm, and the women fell silent, listening. “The servants of the evil one have decided to deceive us by putting his seal of Antichrist on us. The Lord Himself endured persecution and torment, and the holy Christian martyrs joyfully accepted suffering and death in the name of Him, our Lord Jesus Christ. The hour of testing for us sinners has come. Not everyone is worthy of testing from the Lord God. Those who do not have the strength to endure, go and put on satanic clothing and may the Lord have mercy on you. And to those who have been given the good fortune to endure this test, rejoice that the Lord has vouchsafed us to accept torment in His name. Let's not put on satanic clothes! We will not betray our Lord Jesus Christ. Pray to God. And don’t ask the enemy for anything. Do not defile your lips by talking with the servants of the Antichrist. – Having said this, she sat down on a bench and, folding her hands on her stomach, began to read prayers. The others followed suit. They all seemed to have turned to stone. The head of the bathhouse wanted to say something. But, looking at them, she changed her mind and left. Soon the head of the medical unit and Dr. Braverman entered the dressing room. The “nuns” didn’t even look at them. In ordinary times, these women, entering the dressing room, tried to find their clothes as quickly as possible and, while they were looking for them, covered their “shame” with one hand or the other. Grabbing their clothes, they covered their “shame” and pitiful flabby breasts. Now they were sitting upright, not moving, with their hands folded on their stomachs and not trying to cover themselves. Their appearance was truly terrifying. Extreme thinness, unhealthy pallor of prematurely aged skin, angularly protruding skin-covered bones, hair flowing along bony shoulders - all this gave them the appearance of people from the other world. The overgrown toenails were already purple and the skin was covered with pimples from the cold. The lips were pursed mournfully. Only the eyes burned with some kind of internal fire. The head of the medical unit spoke hesitantly. – Women, as a doctor, as a representative of medicine, I categorically declare to you that you are simply killing yourself by not wanting to get dressed, but sitting naked in a cold dressing room after a hot bath. And any murder, especially suicide, is, in your opinion, a sin. Why are you doing this? – Not a single face flinched or turned towards her. She looked back helplessly at Braverman and both left. Startsov, Sokolov and Cherednichenko, who were waiting for them, approached in the courtyard. “They won’t get dressed,” Lydia Petrovna told them categorically. “I already told them that they are killing themselves, that suicide is a sin.” They didn't even look in my direction. This is some kind of mass psychosis. “There’s Berezov walking along,” said Startsov, “the cultural and educational part.” Let's take him and go do explanatory work. We can’t, you live a great life, give up. Discipline completely disappears, and the general will not have mercy. – All the management entered the dressing room and stopped at the door. The room was wet, they were afraid to get their felt boots wet. There was dry ice build-up at the door. Those sitting did not pay any attention to the men who entered. They made no attempt to cover themselves or at least change their position. They continued to sit motionless and only their tightly clasped fingers betrayed their internal tension. They had nothing that could be fiddled with or sorted out and thus give at least a little release to this tension. Cherednichenko came out first, followed by the rest. “We need to finish the parsley,” he said gloomily, “this rigmarole has been dragging on for two hours, and there’s no point.” I’ll go and talk to the major, he knows best. You, Braverman, stay here. If anyone starts to die, drag them immediately to the medical unit. And then I’ll come and give orders. - - Well? – the major met him. “You can’t imagine anything worse.” They sit, remain silent, and pray. At least bring tanks. I don't know what to do. They didn’t even touch the new uniform. This is what I wanted to ask you. So, according to an old acquaintance, how we fought together at the front. Was it about the bathhouse that you were thinking about or the general? Of course, you will forgive me for asking you this. – – I told you yesterday that the idea was the general’s, but the design and development are mine. And what? - Yes, that's it. If it were your idea, well, it didn’t work out, and that’s okay. That's not how they approached it, they say. And now he will say that we ruined his brilliant idea. They could not, they say, put such an idea into practice. He wasn’t here, he didn’t see what kind of persistent women they were. We have to do something, Comrade Major, otherwise we will all look pale. - - Do! What should I do? Well, figure it out if you're so smart. - Give them all their rags to hell and let them go to hell... – How easily you reason, Cherednichenko. What is this? Does this mean giving up on all counts? So then not only these damned “nuns” will laugh at us and the prisoners with them. And ours won’t be able to pass through either. If you go to a club, people will point fingers at you, saying that these are the ones who didn’t deal with the women. And there’s no need to talk about all sorts of meetings. This is impossible, Cherednichenko. – “We should force them all to dress, and then tie their hands so that they can’t undress... - Who will wear it? You can't force prisoners. And if someone, say, agrees, he will also act with caution. After all, they are all, whatever one may say, our enemies. What is our sorrow is their joy... Ah.. ah.. well, listen, I have one thought... An hour later, the senior lieutenant, the commander of the garrison, was sitting in the chief’s office. The major explained to him the whole matter, including the beating he received from the general, and in the face of an emergency, he asked for help. - Give me your guys, they are all Komsomol members, politically savvy comrades, conversations are held with them all the time about this bastard prisoner. They understand what's what. They will immediately help us dress the attendants, and we will drive them into the barracks. So we'll close the gap. And then, you know, it becomes an embarrassment. The senior lieutenant listened attentively and sympathetically to the story and shook his head. “I can’t, Comrade Major, I just can’t.” And I would like to, but I can’t. You are responsible for your business, and I am responsible for mine. Think for yourself. My guys are all young and stupid. Well, how can I explain to them, so that they understand why we are sending here by force to clothe these sixty, or how many of them there are, “nuns”, while in your own zone you have one and a half thousand women who are quite suitable for this task. This time. And secondly, how come they themselves become infected with this religious spirit, they themselves succumb to this intoxication. Not all, of course, some. This is how the infection will spread. You yourself said that many of you have spread to them. This is a dark matter. What do you care? You have prisoners, so to speak, a lost element. And my fighters are the guardians of our homeland and its future. I can’t show them such visual religious propaganda. And they wouldn’t have been able to dress the money. And they would be embarrassed, naked. It would be a shame. And most importantly, I do not have the right to introduce security guards into the zone without an extremely important reason. You yourself know the regulations. – The boss got dressed and went to the bathhouse. The women were already completely blue and were shaking with small, frequent tremors. The uniform was intact. The major looked at them with hatred and despair. - Oh, women, you’ll finish the game. Until now, I have acted kindly with you, but you have not been at all. But my patience is running out. What happens next, you have yourself to blame. – The head of the medical unit approached him in the yard. “Comrade Major, as a doctor, I’m telling you that if we keep them here for even half an hour more, it will look like a deliberate mass murder.” Not only you, but also me will answer. We need to do something. “I have to, but I can’t think of what exactly.” Hey, Startsov, come to me! - I’m listening to you, Comrade Major. – - Let's go to the women so that they, bitches, are frozen in the next world, and give the command: march to your barracks. Who got dressed, okay. Those who don’t – let them stomp through the snow in a ceremonial march, barefoot, naked... their mother... - Comrade Major, it’s a warm day outside, the frost is now forty degrees at night. I’m over there in a fur coat and felt boots, and they, excuse me, are naked. – - Comrade Startsov, follow the order. – – Sergei Petrovich, I understand Comrade Startsov and, as the head of the medical unit, I am categorically against this mass murder. Haven't you seen what these women have become during the time they've been sitting there? We will all be blamed. Think about the consequences. – - Why are you all coming at me with your warnings? What am I, in the end, the head of the camp or a walrus tusk? Consequences, consequences... That I myself don’t know these consequences or what? They'll give me a knee in the ass, period. Otherwise they’ll add more time. But it’s time to end this theater. Cherednichenko, gather all the authorities. And you, Startsov, give us all the people on duty. Lidia Petrovna, as soon as these crazy people enter the barracks, now give them all sorts of medicines, there is no danger for them, give them. At least not everyone will die. Sokolov, supply more coal and firewood to their barracks. Let it not only be warm there, but just hot. And order both stoves to be lit all night, and not to save coal. At least they'll warm up, you vipers. At the front, b..., it was easier to fight with the Fritz than with the damned women. – The major stood in the doorway of the dressing room. - Listen to my command, women. Since you are such an irresponsible element that you continue to believe in your God, but do not understand your own well-being, then to hell with you, and you all go to hell in your barracks. I open the door and march into the barracks. Went! The eldest stood up first. She staggered, straightened up, and with small, shuffling, but firm steps, walked towards the door. Passing by the boss, she bowed low to him: The others also slowly began to follow her. Not a single one touched the clothes lying there. Everyone bowed low to the boss and repeated: Some of the women could not walk. The stronger and more resilient ones dragged them by the arms. Before his eyes, along a path trodden in deep snow, a column of naked women walked. They sang something in barely alive voices. Under bare feet the snow creaked unusually, pitifully. This was not the usual creaking of snow under felt boots. It was an accompaniment to the weak, heart-aching singing. The women were followed by a crowd of bosses and guards. The entire procession was brightly lit by lamps from the restricted area and camp lanterns. The women walked slowly. The authorities did not rush them. Listening to the singing, the major recognized words familiar from childhood that he had forgotten, but remembered at the front. “Our Father, who art in heaven...” The next day, the head of the medical unit came to the “monastery,” accompanied by Dr. Braverman and the prisoners’ nurse. “Hello, women,” she said in an unusually gentle voice, sitting down on a stool by the table in the middle of the barracks. – I want to take all of you’s temperatures and listen to everyone. Now the doctor and I,” she nodded at Braverman, “will take care of this.” Please don't resist. And if anyone has the slightest indisposition, don’t hide it, tell us yourself. We are people and doctors, and we only want to help you. – The “nuns” were dressed in a wide variety of rags. Having learned that their own clothes were not returned to them, other camp women in the evening brought to the “monastery” everything they could spare for theirs. Under the influence of yesterday's shocks and their victory, the “nuns” condescendingly submitted to the medical examination. No diseases were found. Everyone's temperature was normal. Having finished the examination, Lidia Petrovna left with Braverman. – Just a little more, Braverman, and I’ll stop believing in... medicine. Is it possible to scientifically explain such phenomena? These emaciated - they brought themselves to degeneration - shadows, not people, yesterday after a hot bath they sat for six hours in a cold dressing room. Then, slowly, completely naked, through deep snow and ice, we walked more than a hundred meters to the barracks. And this is at forty degrees below zero. I was sure that many would not live to see the morning, and the rest would be seriously ill. We examined them very carefully. Healthy. Since, of course, they can generally be considered healthy. Not even a runny nose. After all, if a young, truly healthy guy is subjected to such a procedure, he will collapse in half an hour. You are an old experienced doctor. How do you explain this to yourself? – Braverman looked at the embarrassed, perplexed boss. Then she smiled bitterly. With hidden envy she said: “Didn’t you hear yesterday how they themselves explained everything when they sang: To the UN Commission for the Protection of Human Rights On December 10, 1948, the session of the UN General Assembly adopted the Great Declaration of Human Rights. The USSR delegation also voted for this Declaration. To object to it meant to place oneself in the eyes of the whole world in the ranks of opponents of progress and democracy, in the ranks of opponents of freedom. Ambassador Tsarapkin, on behalf of and on behalf of the Soviet government, solemnly sealed it with his signature. Since then, the official bodies of the USSR have celebrated this day annually as an important step for humanity towards freedom. In 1969, speaking in defense of Greek political prisoners, the official legal body of the USSR, the Committee of Soviet Lawyers, issued a statement saying: “In Greece, people are tried only for promoting their views and beliefs, which is illegal from the point of view of any law.” So who are the judges who condemned us for promoting views and beliefs? Aren't they Soviet lawyers? Or what is illegal in Greece from the point of view of any law is legal here? We believe that arbitrariness remains arbitrariness, no matter where it occurs. “Every person, in order to establish the validity of the accusation against him, has the right to have his case examined publicly and in compliance with all requirements of fairness by an independent and impartial court,” says Art. 10 UDHR. “Provide the accused with all opportunities for defense,” requires § 1 of Art. 11. How to combine these requirements, by the way, sanctioned by the Criminal Procedure Legislation of the USSR, with the holding of officially closed trials in cases that do not contain state secrets; so-called “open” court hearings, to which no one is allowed except representatives of the KGB and strictly selected officials? How to combine the requirements of the possibility of defense with the situation that a lawyer who dares to ask for an acquittal of his client faces almost criminal punishment? We are accused of disseminating anti-Soviet views, “slanderous fabrications discrediting the Soviet state and social system.” And they are judged for it. But by anti-Soviet views, judges understand any critical remarks addressed to the CPSU Central Committee and the Soviet government. Slander is understood as any independent assessment of actual facts, even a simple mention of facts about which no information was officially given. That is why in the verdicts there is no deciphering of the concepts “anti-Soviet” or “slanderous”. Facts that disgrace the Soviet social and state system, unfortunately, still exist, having nothing to do with Soviet legislation, or with international legal norms, or with basic decency. Our judgments undoubtedly relate to these facts. Deputies! The Constitution of the USSR states: “Each union republic has the right to self-determination, up to and including secession and the formation of an independent state.” For whom and for what are these words written? If this is a rule of law guaranteed by the state, then how can we explain that there are tens and hundreds of people in prisons and concentration camps of the Soviet Union, whose entire guilt lies in the fact that they sought this self-determination? They achieved this not with weapons in their hands, but through agitation and propaganda. And these people are not only tried for anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda, but often for treason, they are separated from their family and friends for 10 years or more. Here, in concentration camps and prisons, dozens of “traitors to the Motherland” who wanted to take advantage of the right granted by Art. UDHR 12: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.” The question arises: how can you sign an international legal document and not comply with a single article? How can you celebrate every year and not observe a single article of it? How can one annually celebrate the adoption of the greatest Declaration of our century and at the same time practically mock its contents? Deputies! Art. 5 UDHR says: “No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”; “Punishment does not pursue the goal of causing physical torture or humiliation of human dignity,” the executive labor codes of the union republics echo this article. For us, political prisoners of the Soviet Union, these words sound like a bitter mockery. Thrown into concentration camps and prisons on the basis of a gross violation of elementary legality, we are subjected to constant abuse - moral and physical. There is no blood on our hands, we are not robbers, thieves, rapists, however, we are treated worse than criminals. Keeping us together with those convicted of crimes against humanity during the Second World War can only be regarded as an outrage against all humane thoughts and actions. In Soviet concentration camps, for example, Jews sit together with those who once helped the Nazis exterminate Jews; Along with the healthy, Soviet concentration camps and prisons contain the elderly, disabled people who can barely walk, people suffering from severe gastric, heart and pulmonary diseases, paralytics and even the insane. Dressed in paper prison clothes, with our heads shorn, we are deprived of the right to wear warm clothes in the forty-degree frosts in the cold barracks of concentration camps, or in the damp dungeons of prisons. Over the many years spent behind barbed wire and in prisons, we have forgotten not only the taste, but also the appearance of fresh vegetables, fruits, meat, butter and many other food products. The constant diet of sick and healthy is oats, rotten vegetables, half-rotten fish, etc. “delicacies”. In order to completely undermine our health (it’s hard to imagine any other goal!) from prison stalls, where we are allowed to buy food for 3–5 rubles. per month, all more or less high-calorie and fortified products were withdrawn, as well as from parcels, which are allowed to be received once a year weighing up to 5 kg after serving half the sentence. Isn’t it a torture of exhaustion during the first month of being in prison, when prisoners are deliberately given a diet that brings them to partial degeneration? Having been thrown behind prison bars for our thoughts and beliefs, they are trying in every possible way to cut us off from the outside world, from connections with our family, loved ones, and friends. The letters that we are allowed to send, 2 letters a month in a concentration camp, 1 letter in prison, are “lost” in the mail (like those sent to us), officially confiscated under any pretext. The literature sent to us is not received. The visits granted to us (once a year - up to 3 days, as the law says, are limited to two nights, and sometimes one, i.e. 8-9 hours!). And because of these 8-9 hours, sick, elderly parents, wives, with small children travel hundreds and thousands of kilometers, are subjected to all sorts of humiliating procedures, and sometimes even a personal search. Political prisoners, former students, thrown into concentration camps and prisons from various courses at institutes and universities, are forever deprived of the real right to complete their education; only education within high school is allowed. The only means of our “re-education” is slave free labor. Or rather, almost free, since half of the earnings go to the maintenance of our jailers (a practice condemned at one time by M.N.T.). Qualified engineers and university teachers, school directors, and lawyers perform the most unskilled, hard work, which is often actually beyond their strength and harmful. However, for refusing to work, as well as for failing to meet production quotas, we are thrown into punishment cells, deprived of visits, parcels, the right to use a kiosk, etc. Formally, there are some kind of correctional labor codes that fix some of our “rights”. But in fact, our entire life depends on the arbitrariness of the camp and prison administration and the KGB. If we try to protest against violations of this or that “right,” it almost always turns out that there are instructions, mostly secret, that cancel or change this “right.” Deputies! If what is said here is humane and fair, then what is called inhumanity?! Thrown for many years into concentration camps and prisons in violation of not only international, but also Soviet laws, even after “liberation” we do not become equal citizens, we do not cease to be a kind of indefinite prisoners - we are subject to so-called “administrative supervision”: we do not have the right to leave the house after a certain hour, appear in many public places, go anywhere on personal business, etc. § 1 Art. 13 UDHR says: “Everyone has the right to free movement and choice of residence within each State.” The Constitution of the USSR says the same thing. But nevertheless, we do not have the right to live in almost all large cities, even if our children, wives, and elderly parents live there. And after “liberation” we are doomed to separation from them. In Art. 23 § 1 of the UDHR states: “Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of work.” Most of us have higher or incomplete higher education. Deputies, have you ever wondered why almost all of us, after “liberation,” “prefer” to work not in our specialty, but as loaders, stokers, laborers, etc. Isn’t this a continuation of punishment? The whole world is outraged when A. Davis was removed from teaching for promoting communist beliefs. Your voices were also heard in the chorus of indignant voices. And why are you silent, deputies, when hundreds and thousands of our wives, fathers, brothers and sisters, just friends - your voters, are fired from work, repressed in the same way or differently, only because they knew about our thoughts and did not report it to the KGB, and often simply because they are our relatives and friends. Citizens deputies! From all – domestic and international – stands the voice of the Soviet government sounds loudly in defense of Freedom and Democracy. But is it really possible to defend freedom somewhere and suppress it at home? Is it possible to call other countries for justice and humanity, and be guided by lawlessness and arbitrariness in your own country, violate all international and domestic laws, and mock your citizens? On the 23rd anniversary of Freedom Day, we, Soviet political prisoners, turn to you and demand: 1. Compliance by the Government of the USSR with international and Soviet laws that do not contradict general democratic provisions, including the UDHR, the Constitution of the USSR, the Convention on the Prohibition of Forced Labor, etc. 2. Recognize Art. 70 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR and the corresponding articles of the criminal codes of the Union republics are unconstitutional and contrary to international legal obligations adopted by the government of the USSR, and to review all cases of those convicted under these Articles. 3. Immediately stop persecuting individuals for promoting their views and beliefs, except for views and beliefs that contradict international legal conventions. 4. Immediately stop persecuting people for promoting the ideas of national self-determination. 5. In the USSR, not only domestic, but also international legal norms are violated. Therefore, we appeal to the UN Committee for the Protection of Human Rights with a request to send an international commission to Soviet concentration camps and prisons to examine the real situation and demand that the Soviet government create all conditions for the free work of the commission. 6. We demand that you take the initiative in developing a convention on the “Regime of Political Prisoners” and submitting it for approval at the 27th session of the UN General Assembly. 7. Upon the development and adoption of this Convention, we demand immediate official recognition of us as political prisoners with the introduction of conditions of detention established by custom for this category in all civilized countries, namely: a) voluntary labor and the immediate abolition of payment to camp and prison administrations at the expense of political prisoners; b) lifting restrictions on correspondence and visits; c) lifting restrictions on obtaining literature; d) lifting restrictions on receiving parcels and purchasing food products from personal funds; e) opportunities for scientific work, distance learning at universities; f) wearing your own clothes and abolishing the degrading practice of haircuts. 8. Immediately release the mentally ill, disabled people, seriously ill chronically ill people, and women with young children. 9 . Immediately cancel all secret instructions, as well as instructions and Rules that are contrary to the law - those in force in concentration camps and prisons. 10. Immediately stop any form of persecution of our relatives, friends and acquaintances; punishment of persons organizing such persecution. 11. Abolish all extrajudicial punishments - “administrative supervision”, prohibition of residence in resort towns, etc. - as contrary to the Constitution of the USSR, international legal norms and elementary justice. 12. Prepare and carry out a general political amnesty for persons whose crimes are caused by the presence in the Criminal Code of the Soviet Union Republics of articles that contradict the UDHR. Deprived of the opportunity to appeal to the governments of other countries, we, Soviet political prisoners, instruct the legislative body of the USSR on our behalf to demand from the governments of states where there are political prisoners their immediate amnesty. In support of our demands, we use the only right that really belongs to us - the right to hunger strike, which we declare from December 8 to 10. Kandyba I. A. (with some reservations) A. Solzhenitsyn. On the death of Tvardovsky There are many ways to kill a poet. For Tvardovsky, it was chosen: to take away his brainchild - his passion - his magazine. Sixteen years of humiliation, humbly endured by this hero, were not enough - if only the magazine would last, if only the literature would not be interrupted, if only people were published and people read. Few! – and added the burning sensation from acceleration, from defeat, from injustice. This burning sensation burned through him, six months later he was already mortally ill and only survived until now by habitual endurance - until the last hour in consciousness. In suffering. Third day. Above the coffin is a portrait where the deceased is nearing forty and the forehead is not yet furrowed by the bitter hardships of the magazine, and in all its radiance is that childishly illuminated gullibility that he carried through his whole life, and even to the doomed it returned to him. They carry wreaths to the best music, they carry wreaths... “From Soviet soldiers”... Worthy. I remember how at the front the soldiers completely distinguished the miracle of the pure “Terkin” from other military books. But we also remember how army libraries were prohibited from subscribing to the New World. And just recently, for a little blue book in the barracks, they dragged me to interrogation. But the entire odd dozen SECRETARIAT poured onto the stage. In the honor guard are the same dead-flabbed ones who hounded him with hooting. It’s been like this for a long time, it’s been like this since Pushkin: it’s the dead poet who falls into the hands of his enemies. And they efficiently manage their bodies and express themselves in lively speeches. They surrounded the coffin with a group of stones and thought they had fenced it off. They sold out our only magazine and thought they had won. You have to not know at all, not understand the last century of Russian history in order to see this as your victory, and not an irreparable miscalculation. Crazy! When young, harsh voices are heard, you will regret that this patient critic, whose soft admonishing voice everyone listened to, is not with you. It will be just right for you to rake the earth with your hands in order to return Trifonich. It's too late. Anna Akhmatova. From unpublished In each ear is the body of Christ, In every tree is the crucified Lord, And prayers are the most pure word My life is as bright as a stream. I just don't feel like singing To the sound of prison keys. Oh, you still don’t speak enough Russian And you want it in all languages Know how steep the ascents and descents are And how much do we have conscience and fear? I kiss those who betrayed me on the forehead, Anatoly Radygin. Wreath of Sonnets The sheets of poetry are burning at my tired feet... I greedily drink poisoned mash. I am exhausted from adversity and disaster. But an unknown blacksmith helped me. In the glow of the forge he is like a magician. He pulled out a broken sword Into the dagger's dazzling blade. And I again rush to my usual path. Overcome thundering rapids On a narrow but stable pie Armed for combat, chest to chest. And again they don’t attract me at all Peace fireplace and road bonfire. The fireplace of peace and the bonfire of the road, Warmth and light, fabulous comfort, Cool rooms and dry cabins Inconceivably luxurious palaces. In a prison forgotten by God and people In a crowd of stinking, hungry Judases Warmth, and right, and dry crumbs They give it away in exchange for honor and conscience. Intellectuals are slippery like lampreys Commoners are disgustingly cunning. Keep peace and eternity for the time being And they are waiting for me, like in a boring epilogue. And they are waiting for me, as in a boring epilogue, And everyone counts how many days in a year, And they are waiting for me, like the prodigal son, to come And I’ll fall face down on my father’s toga. Don't wait! Should I carry my trouble? Along the paths where ibex get stuck Like a needle disappearing into a burning haystack And freeze on the polar ice. Give me strength in many years of torture Neither an oath, nor an oath, nor a pledge, But wise truths are gold bars. I learned my lesson well. Leave weak drinks to the weak Lazy kvass and good-natured grog. The world is spinning, it is illusory and clear. Sit and believe, like among old fables Once upon a time there lived a funny and good-natured King Pea. And alcohol!? Sip! and the sigh burns. Hangovers are hard, and hops are dangerous! Robbers Bolotnikov and Razin, Like me, we breathed into the casemate moss. Look, Stepan, through the crack at the dirty bunks, The last dinar taken from Persia A golden circle rolled down from the sun. What are we waiting for, we are barefoot and wretched, Steel-tied stone bag, But I’m waiting for you, as before, on the threshold. But I'm waiting for you, as before, on the threshold, I know the secrets of numbers and miracles. I hear the earth's juices fermenting And I even saw Christ resurrected. I knew for sure that Croesus would go bankrupt, Rome was protected by the complaisant gods, But I knew that, hairy people and bicorns The Germans will enter the Teutoburg Forest. Brave like a poet and wise like a yogi I unraveled in the hum of an old lyre And the day when mortars die with fire, When the sinister idols fall, When the inevitable time comes. When the inevitable time comes And thunder will crash in my vast land. We are soldiers, but it won't be easy for us Load the cartridge and pull back the trigger. The failure of betrayal is black and deep. The philosopher crawls from him to the icons, Fronder to the yoke, republican to the thrones, I am terribly alone in the truth. They will trample, tear and crush For your native, domestic whip. Yes! I live with the enemy in the same den. Sorry, stepmother Russia, sorry We won't have a common path When I get the alarm. When they alert me, I'll reach for the English sword To the Khokhlyat saber, to the Turkic fang, To the Lithuanian pitchforks and the Georgian tokhi. And let the hordes of scythes approach I won’t jump off to strangle Rededya. And the storm extinguishes Pimen’s candle. Supporter of the mile, supporter of the pound, Yesterday I replaced my bast shoe with a boot, You'll have to choose, you vulgar buffoon, The fire of invasion or the torch of rebellion, Freedom or two arshins of soil, The alarm of Russia or Roland's horn. Alarm of Russia or Horn of Roland They got used to jamming with the Borodino March Everything was lordly, divine and royal Iron peaks and pieces of wood dried. And the sleepy patriot prayed to the elders, I didn’t see the truth between the lying lines, Chewed full of chauvinist minced meat A thousand-year-old stale pie. But I threw the truth on the scales, They won’t help you out now, Russia, Neither the red flag nor the famous Savior. Moscow did not believe in tears. So it means - We need to see Moscow cry. The arrival of a tsunami, a menacing surf, And the mirror of the ancient trolls is distorted The fragments will shower on you. The future is clear as a diamond. In ruins, without mythical embellishments My charred Troy lies. You, patriot, prone to heart attacks, Blind and weak-hearted Ruy Blas, Look, the earth is already burning, The snake of fronts is already crawling across the maps. Listen, deaf, like before the start The torpedo bombers increase their gas. Torpedo bombers increase gas, The chassis drops into the blue sea. I am a kamikaze, brave and narrow-eyed, I take off on a fast device. It's not an order to throw me into the air, There is no stake in honor in a samurai dispute, Not sacrificial rapturous ecstasy, And hatred is cast iron. And soon I will carry an unheard of load A cruel but meaningful chord. My course is unwavering and my mind is firm, And somewhere near the Strait of La Perouse Lined up for my ceremonial escort The destroyers took anchors under the fairleads. The destroyers took anchors under the fairleads, But the bidding is over for me. The face of a blizzard looks into my bars Snake-haired sentinel jellyfish. Roman turuses are brought to the walls And although my enemies are doomed, They will have time to trample the circles And burn my native Syracuse. And be known as a traitor, apostate, godless Everywhere behind the guarded ornament, Through the thick rods there are rusty knots, Waryly cold and angry. Wary cold and angry Convoys of the grand stage - Professor of handcuffs and gags, Gendarmes with a dog's face and a broom. Half a planet reaches out of the darkness, Without a miss, a grabbing paw, She is much more skillful than the Gestapo: He will shoot you and sell you under the counter. They will kill and bury you before dawn Then they will find someone to judge for this, Then they squeeze each other into shackles. “How long,” and as the last argument of Kapet Heavy trunks have been uncovered. Heavy trunks are uncovered, The corporals are wheezing, the battalions are forming, Still clean to the point of creepy cutting Surgeons' snow-white tables. Very fresh, from the saw yesterday For those who surrender; like heroes Already glistening with birch bark Restricted areas, high stakes. There are no uprisings, they didn’t start a war, And I am already wounded and in captivity. And revenge with the rough bed of an arquebus Set fire to the rockets, "guard to the fire" And retreating, the muses fall silent. And retreating, the muses fall silent, When the war is in the chariot shafts Already harnessing wild mares And Liszt displaces the blues on the air. The excitement and fear of towns and capitals, Enmity, love, sympathies and tastes Already included as pros and cons Into the dry codes of combat tables. What do laws, codes and bills mean to me? I cut it down like they cut it in ancient times, Your doubts are a tangled tangle. And thrown under the tracks of tanks Ruins of foreign castles in the air Burning at my tired feet. Burning at my tired feet Peace fireplace and road bonfire And they are waiting for me, as before on the threshold But I'm still waiting, as before on the threshold When the inevitable time comes, When I'm on alert Wary, cold and angry Heavy trunks uncovered Andrey Platonov (1899–1951). Chevengur 97 (Several pages from an unpublished novel) ...Near the cemetery, where the revolutionary committee was located, there was a long hole of settled earth. “The bourgeois are lying down,” said Piusya. “The Japanese and I also beat the souls out of them.” Kopenkin tested the settled soil of the grave with satisfaction. - So you must be like this! - he said. “This cannot be avoided,” Piusya justified the fact, “we have to live... Pashintsev was offended by the fact that the grave lay uncompacted - he should have compacted it and moved the old garden here in his hands, then the trees would have sucked the remnants of capitalism out of the ground and turned them, like a master, into the greenery of socialism; but Piusya himself considered the ramming a serious measure, but he did not have time to carry it out, because the province urgently removed him from the chairman of the emergency committee; He was almost not offended by this, since he knew that to serve in Soviet institutions they needed educated people who were not like him, and the bourgeoisie was useful there. Thanks to this consciousness, Piusya, after his removal from the post of revolutionary, once and for all recognized the revolution as smarter than himself - and fell silent among the masses of the Chevengur collective. Most of all, Piusya was afraid of offices and written papers - at the sight of them, he would immediately fall silent and, gloomily weakening with his whole body, he would feel the power of the black magic of thought and writing. During the time of Piyusi, the Chevengur emergency room itself was located in a city clearing; Instead of recordings of reprisals against capital, Piusya made them publicly visible and suggested that the farm laborers themselves kill the captured landowners, which was done. Nowadays, when there was a final development of communism in Chevengur, the emergency zone, according to the personal conclusion of the Japanese, was closed forever and houses were moved to its clearing. Kopenkin stood pondering over the common grave of the bourgeoisie - without trees, without a hill and without memory. It seemed to him vaguely that this was done so that Rosa Luxemburg's distant grave would have a tree, a hill and an eternal memory. One thing Kopenkin didn’t quite like was that the grave of the bourgeoisie was not firmly compacted. – You say: they beat the soul out of the bourgeoisie? – Kopenkin doubted. “And that’s why they canceled you, so they didn’t beat the bourgeoisie completely and not to death!” They didn’t even tamp the ground! Here Kopenkin was sharply mistaken. The bourgeoisie in Chevengur was killed firmly, honestly, and even the afterlife could not please them, because after the body their soul was shot. The Japanese, after a short life in Chevengur, began to have a heart ache from the presence of a dense petty bourgeoisie in the city. And then he began to suffer with his whole body - for communism the soil in Chevengur turned out to be too narrow and clogged with property and wealthy people; but it was necessary to immediately define communism as a living base, but the housing from time immemorial was occupied by strange people who smelled of wax. The Japanese deliberately went into the field and looked at the fresh open places - shouldn’t communism be started there? But he refused, because then the Chevengur buildings and utensils created by oppressed hands should disappear for the proletariat and the rural poor. He knew and saw how much the Chevengur bourgeoisie was tormented by the anticipation of the second coming and personally had nothing against it. Having served as chairman of the revolutionary committee for two months, the Japanese was tormented - the bourgeoisie lives, there is no communism, and the future is led, as stated in provincial circulars, by a series of successively offensive transitional stages, in which the Japanese suspected with his feelings a deception of the masses. First, he appointed a commission, and that commission told Chepurny about the need for a second coming, but Chepurny then remained silent, and secretly decided to leave the bourgeois trifles so that the world revolution would have something to do. And then Chepurny wanted to suffer and called the chairman of the emergency committee, Piusya. – Clear my city of the oppressive element! - Chepurny ordered. “You can,” Piusya obeyed. He was going to kill all the inhabitants of Chevengur on a first-hand basis, to which the Japanese agreed with relief. - You understand - it will be kinder! - he persuaded Piusya. “Otherwise, brother, all the people will die at the transitional stages.” And then, the bourgeoisie are now still not people: I read that a man, just as he was born from a monkey, killed it. So remember: since there is a proletariat, then why the bourgeoisie? it's downright ugly. Piusya knew the bourgeoisie personally: he remembered the Chevengur streets and clearly imagined the appearance of each homeowner: Shchekotov, Komyagin, Pichler, Znobilin, Shchapov, Zavyn-Duvailo, Perekrutchenko, Syusyukalov and all their neighbors. In addition, Piusya knew their way of life and food and agreed to kill any of them manually, even without the use of weapons. From the day of his appointment as chairman of the Cheka, he had no peace of mind and was irritated all the time: after all, every day the petty bourgeoisie ate Soviet bread, lived in his houses (Piusya had previously worked as a stone mason for twenty years) and was a quiet bitch across the revolution. The oldest gap-toothed personalities of the bourgeoisie turned the patient Piusya into a street fighter: when meeting with Shchapov, Znobilin and Zavyn-Duvailo, Piusya beat them with his fists more than once, and they silently wiped themselves off, endured the insult and hoped for the future; Piusya didn’t come across any other bourgeois, and Piusya didn’t want to go into their houses on purpose, since frequent irritations made his soul feel stuffy. However, the secretary of the council, Prokofy Dvanov, did not agree to exterminate the bourgeoisie on a door-to-door basis. He said that this should be done more theoretically. - Well, how - formulate it! – Chepurny suggested to him. Prokofy threw back his brooding Socialist Revolutionary hair in thought. - Based on their own prejudice! – Prokofy gradually formulated. - Feel! – without understanding, the Japanese was going to think. – Based on the second coming! – Prokofy expressed himself accurately. “They want it themselves, even if they get it, we won’t be to blame.” Chepurny, on the contrary, accepted the accusation. - How are they not to blame, please tell me! - Since we are the revolution, then we are all to blame! And if you formulate it for your forgiveness, then go away! Prokofy, like any smart person, had composure. – It is absolutely necessary, Comrade Chepurny, to announce the official second coming. And on its basis, clear the city for proletarian settlement. - Well, are we going to act here? – asked the Japanese. - In general - yes! Only then we need to distribute household property so that it no longer oppresses us. “Take the property for yourself,” Chepurny pointed out. – The proletariat itself has its hands intact. Why are you yearning for bourgeois chests at this hour, please tell me! Write an order. Prokofy briefly formulated the future for the Chevengur bourgeoisie and handed over the written paper to Piusa; he must, from memory, add to the order the family list of property owners. Chepurny read that the Soviet government provides the bourgeoisie with the entire endless sky, equipped with stars and luminaries for the purpose of organizing eternal bliss there; As for the land, fundamental buildings and household equipment, these remain below - in exchange for heaven - entirely in the hands of the proletariat and the working peasantry. At the end of the order, the date of the second coming was indicated, which in an organized, painless manner would lead the bourgeoisie into the afterlife. The hour for the bourgeoisie to appear on the cathedral square was set at midnight on Thursday, and the basis for the order was considered to be the bulletin of the meteorological gubernia bureau. Prokofy had long been fascinated by the impressive dark complexity of provincial papers, and with a smile of voluptuousness he rearranged their style for the district scale. Piusya did not understand anything in the order, and the Japanese took a sniff of tobacco and asked one thing why Prokofy scheduled the second coming for Thursday, and not for today - Monday. - On Wednesday it's fast - they'll get ready quietly! – Prokofy explained. - And then cloudy weather is expected today and tomorrow - I have weather reports! “It’s a vain benefit,” the Japanese reproached, but he didn’t particularly insist on accelerating the second coming. Prokofy, together with Klavdyusha, went around all the houses of the wealthy citizens and simultaneously requisitioned from them non-bulky hand-held items: bracelets, silk scarves, gold royal medals, maiden powder, etc. Klavdyusha put things in her chest, and Prokofy verbally promised the bourgeoisie a further delay in life, if only the income of the republic increased; The bourgeoisie stood in the middle of the floor and humbly thanked. Until Thursday night, Prokofy could not free himself and regretted that he had not scheduled the second coming on Saturday night. Chepurny was not afraid that Prokofy had a lot of goods: it would not stick to the proletarian, because the scarves and powder would be worn out on his head without a trace for consciousness. On Thursday night, the cathedral square was occupied by the Chevengur bourgeoisie, who had arrived in the evening. Piusya cordoned off the area of ​​​​the square with Red Army soldiers, and brought thin security officers inside the bourgeois public. Only three bourgeois did not appear on the list - two of them were crushed by their own houses, and the third died of old age. Piusya immediately sent two security officers to check why the houses had collapsed, and he himself began to arrange the bourgeoisie in a strict row. The bourgeoisie brought with them bundles and chests - with soap, towels, linen, white donuts and a family memorial book. Piusya looked through all this from everyone, paying close attention to the memorial book. “Read it,” he asked one security officer. He read it. – About the repose of the servants of God: Evdokia, Martha, Thirs, Polycarp, Basil, Constantine, Macarius and all relatives. About the health of Agrippia, Mary, Cosmas, Ignatius, Peter, John, Anastasia with their children and all relatives and the sick Andrei. - With the children? – asked Piusya. - With them! - the security officer confirmed. Behind the line of the Red Army soldiers stood the wives of the bourgeoisie and sobbed loudly in the night air. - Eliminate these henchmen! – ordered Piusya. “There’s no need for community members here!” – They should be finished too, Comrade Piusya! - the security officer advised. - Why, head? Their main member has been cut off! Two people came from checking the collapsed houses and explained: the houses collapsed from the ceilings because the attics were loaded with salt and flour beyond their weight; The bourgeoisie needed flour and salt in reserve - for food during the second coming, in order to wait it out safely, and then continue to live. - Oh, you are! - said Piusya, and lined up the security officers without waiting for midnight. - Kick them, guys! - and he himself fired a bullet from a revolver into the skull of a nearby bourgeois - Zavyn-Duvailo. Quiet steam came out of the bourgeois's head, and then hair appeared, a mother's raw substance similar to candle wax, but Duvailo did not fall, but sat down on his home knot. - Baba, wrap a bandage around my throat! – Zavyn-Duvailo said patiently. – My whole soul flows there! - and fell from the bundle to the ground, hugging her with outstretched arms and legs, like a master to his mistress. The security officers fired their revolvers at the silent bourgeoisie who had received communion yesterday - and the bourgeoisie fell awkwardly and askew, twisting their greasy necks until their vertebrae were damaged. Each of them lost the strength of their legs even before feeling the wound, so that the bullet would hit a random place and become overgrown with living meat. The wounded merchant Shchapov lay on the ground with an impoverished body and asked the bending security officer: - Dear man, let me breathe - don’t torture me. Call me a woman to say goodbye! Or give me your hand quickly - don’t go far, I’m scared to be alone. The security officer wanted to give him his hand: “Hold on,” you’ve now called off your call! Shchapov did not wait for his hand and grabbed a burdock to help him in order to entrust his unlived life to it; he did not free the plants until he lost his longing for the woman he wanted to say goodbye to, and then his hands fell of their own accord; no longer needing friendship. The security officer understood and became worried: with a bullet inside, the bourgeoisie, like the proletariat, wanted comradeship, but without a bullet, they loved only property. Piusya touched Zavyn-Duvailo: – Where does your soul flow – in your throat? I'll kick her out of there now! Piusya took Zavyn’s neck with his left hand, squeezed it more comfortably and rested the barrel of the revolver below the back of his head. But Zavyn’s neck itched all the time and he rubbed it on the cloth collar of his jacket. - Don’t scratch yourself, you fool: wait, I’ll scratch you now! Duvaylo still lived and was not afraid: “And you take my head between my legs and squeeze it so that I scream, otherwise my woman is standing there and doesn’t hear me!” Piusya punched him on the cheek in order to feel the body of this bourgeois for the last time, and Duvaylo shouted in a complaining deliberate voice: - Mama, they’re beating me! – Piusya waited until Duvailo stretched out and fully uttered the words, and then shot him twice in the neck and unclenched the hot, dry gums in his mouth. Prokofy tracked down such a single murder from afar and reproached Piusya: – Communists don’t kill from behind, Comrade Piusya! I'm pissed off and immediately found my wits: - Communists, Comrade Dvanov, need communism, not officer heroism!.. So, keep quiet, otherwise I’ll send you to heaven too! Every b..b. wants to cover herself with a red banner: then, they say, her empty space will immediately be overgrown with honor... I’ll find you with a bullet through the banner! Chepurny appeared and stopped this conversation: – What’s the matter, please tell me? The bourgeoisie on earth is still breathing, and you are looking for communism in words! The Japanese and Piyusya went to personally examine the dead bourgeoisie; the dead were lying in bushes - threes, fives, and more - apparently trying to get closer at least with parts of their bodies in the last minutes of mutual separation. Chepurny tested the bourgeois throat with the back of his hand, as mechanics test the temperature of bearings, and it seemed to him that all the bourgeois were still alive. - In Duvail, I even knocked the soul out of my neck! - said Piusya. - And rightly so: the soul is in the throat! – Chepurny remembered. – Why do you think the cadets are hanging us by the throat? - from the very same thing, to burn your soul with a rope: then you really die completely! Otherwise you’ll keep digging! It's hard to kill a person! Piusya and Chepurny probed all the bourgeoisie and were not convinced of their final death: some seemed to sigh, while others had their eyes slightly closed and pretended to crawl away at night and continue to live at the expense of Piusya and other proletarians; then the Japanese and Piyusya decided to additionally insure the bourgeoisie from prolonging their lives: they reloaded their revolvers and shot each lying propertied person - in sequential order - from the side of the throat - through the glands. - Now our business is calmer! – Chepurny spoke out after getting off. “There is no poorer proletarian in the world than a dead man.” “It’s solid now,” Piusya was satisfied. – We must go and release the Red Army soldiers. The Red Army soldiers were released, and the security officers were left to prepare a common grave for the former bourgeois population of Chevengur. By dawn, the security officers got off and dumped all the dead with their bundles into a pit. The wives of the dead did not dare to come close and waited in the distance for the end of the excavation work. When the security officers, in order to avoid the hill, scattered excess earth on the empty square illuminated by the dawn, and then stuck their shovels in and lit a cigarette, the wives of the dead began to advance on them from all the streets of Chevengur. - Cry! - the security officers told them, and went to bed from fatigue. The wives lay down on the clay lumps of a flat, traceless grave and wanted to grieve, but during the night they caught a cold, the grief had already been endured from them and the wives of the dead could not cry anymore. Priest Pavel Florensky (1882–1943). Memories from childhood 98 Meanwhile, horrors began to invade the cloudlessness of my childhood delights, no matter how much I protected my inner world from them. As I grew, the spiritual beings that inhabit nature grew with me, or were pushed aside by other beings that I had not previously thought about and about which I had not previously known. Elves were now less often in my thoughts, and goblins more often. Previously, mermaids were only charming with their long green hair, but now I began to realize their dangerous side. The destructive spirits of nature began to crawl out of the shadows on the other side of the fence of my Eden, and I felt how they grew bolder and lost their complacency. Every bush, every backwater, every dark space now became dangerous and caused alarm. I was sometimes struck by sudden fear in the room during the day, and even more so in the bright sun around noon, when I was alone. My worldview did not contain anything similar to such confusion of concepts, and the boundaries of separation passed in the same place where they pass now for me, and where they pass for every person. If we talk about the distinction between then and now, then it had exactly the opposite meaning: these boundaries between individual things, beings and phenomena were incomparably deeper than now, and were recognized more acutely and impenetrably. Indeed, in fact, a child’s perception is of a more aesthetic nature than an adult’s, scientific, or at least scientific-like perception. And therefore, each individual object in a child’s perception, as contemplated aesthetically, is holistically closed in itself, and from its unity there are no transitions to the self-closed unity of another object. The predominance of things over space in a child’s perception makes the world incomparably more firmly divided than in the perception of an adult. Scientific knowledge establishes a commonality where it was not visible before, looks for intermediate phenomena between extremes, builds bridges for crossing hitherto impassable abysses, generally blurs the clear separation of the world, dulls the pathos of difference. In a critical and consistent scientific worldview, the immediate feeling of the impossibility of any rapprochement, transitions, transformations must be delayed, and in this is the spirit of science “Celui qui en dehors des mathématiques prononce le mot “impossible” manque de prudence,” coined by the glorious Ampère, and, moreover, in the heyday of rationalism, when it was believed that everything was fundamentally known, and the circle of knowledge was almost closed. So, it was not out of inability to sense the natural boundaries between phenomena that I perceived the life of the world. The scientific worldview weakens the external difference between phenomena, leaving the phenomena themselves, even when they are identical in quality, alien to each other, and the world, devoid of bright diversity, not only does not unite, but, on the contrary, falls apart. Children's perception overcomes the fragmentation of the world from within. Here the essential unity of the world is affirmed, not motivated by one or another common feature, but directly felt when one merges the soul with perceived phenomena. This is a mystical worldview. Of course, I was well aware that the violet had nothing in common with me, and I was well aware of the non-existence of its eyes (alas, now I don’t know this, and therefore the gaze of the violet, for the sake of conversation, I can order: and according to botany, plants have eyes). But I directly took in the very essence of a modest flower, felt its life, so close to me internally and so distant in externally considered manifestations, and this inner life, comprehended by me, was told to myself in words, as they say, metaphysical. Some small and even difficult to formulate sign could then, but only then, that is, when the being was already known from the inside, become evidence that I correctly understood the essence of the matter. But for me it was not external proof, obligatory for others, and I would even be embarrassed to tell anyone about it: it was a sign, some kind of natural miracle - when the innermost essence lifted the veil of its secret and cast a sly glance from there. I remember well this sudden and far from everyday feeling that gaze met gaze, eye rested on eye - it would flash, sharp, and stop, and I would not be able to withstand this direct contemplation of the face of Nature for a long time. But, instantly, this feeling gave absolute confidence in the authenticity of this meeting: we saw each other and understand each other through and through, not only I him, but also, even more acutely, he me. And I know that he knows me even more deeply and sees me even more clearly than I do him, and most importantly, he loves me completely. Once, many years later, I experienced the same meeting with crossed gazes, and the feeling that the gaze was penetrating right through me, to the innermost recesses of my being. And this was the gaze of an approximately two-month-old child, my son Vasya. I took him early in the morning to lull him half asleep. He opened his eyes and looked for some time directly into my eyes consciously, as neither he nor anyone else had ever looked, in my memory: it would be more correct to say that it was a super-conscious look, for with Vasya’s eyes it was not his small, unformed consciousness that looked at me, but some higher consciousness, greater than me, and himself, and all of us, from the unknown depths of existence. And then everything passed, and before me again were the eyes of a two-month-old baby. It was this experience that constantly directed the course of my relationship to nature. Nothing, nothing; and suddenly - and a glance darts, now tender and deep, full of some kind of expectation from me, now slyly cheerful, saying that we, with nature, know what others do not know, and should not know. Nature, as I believed and felt, hides itself from people; but I am her favorite, and she wants to show herself to me in her true essence, however, so as not to become obvious to others. And she sends me her signs, speaks to me in significant forms, accessible to me alone, so that I know where to pay attention. Young animals, some birds, small lizards with beautiful brown eyes, sometimes small green frogs, and of course, many flowers communicated with me in this way. Minerals, various natural phenomena, especially many colors, smells and tastes - were permeated with the deep energy of nature incomparably more than animals and birds, even flowers, but in them this intense and bubbling power lay silent, devoid of an organ of expression. She swelled, striving towards me, just as she swelled in me towards her, but between us there always remained a transparent layer of thin but impenetrable isolation, and the desire for a mystical discharge was never fully satisfied. I always felt insatiable with my green color, my sparkles, my smell and the sound of the sea. Various, semi-subtle signs were significant and therefore especially mysterious. But in addition, there were whole classes of natural forms that were exciting, always desirable, always evoking a desire to embrace them from the inside, to be imbued with them and to become like them, of course, not externally, but in some depths of the deep will. Oh, why am I not that shape? Or: after all, that form is me,” my feeling then fluctuated unsteadily between these two formulations. I liked many of the forms in nature, I admired many, but not all of them touched my heart and moved me to the depths, and I think that not only now, in retrospect, but even then I quite accurately identified my inner need in the word. This is what I told myself: Internally, certain forms, bounded by elastic surfaces and elastic lines, chain me to themselves. I am looking for elaboration of forms, but their callousness and dryness alienate them and there is too much tenderness, cunning, and complexity. In plants, the most attractive to me are straight lines, or those that are imperceptibly slightly curved, but both of them must be elastic; the slightest interception either towards callousness and mechanical correctness - like a stick, or, on the contrary, towards softness, flabby, or flirtatious inclination - and all the charm of the straight line disappeared irrevocably, making it in one case - boring and dead, and in the other - somehow sticky and disgusting. Naturally, this elasticity of straightness must be maintained and expressed by a corresponding structure, in which the direction along the line itself clearly predominates, so that the line appears as a tightly connected bundle of longitudinal fibers. In plants in general, I was worried about their fibrousness, especially when on the surface it was expressed by the thinnest flutes of the stem, such as horsetail, in some aquatic plants, in lilies, or in the visible structure of longitudinally elongated cells with silvery longitudinal air bubbles between them, as in the stems of water lilies, many bulbous and others. This same elastic elongation most often determined my attraction to birds and animals. The thin and long, elastic beak of the woodcock, the even thinner and even more elongated beaks of hummingbirds, the same beaks and legs of storks, cranes, waders, generally long-legged ones, were perhaps the main reason for my spiritual closeness to them. That’s why I loved goitered gazelles, gazelles, deer, fallow deer - for their thin legs and elastic neck. When I felt in the surface bounding a certain body the natural surface of equilibrium of the elastic forces of the whole organism, when with my inner gaze I saw how it, elastic, was being pushed out by internal forces, and it, in today’s words, solves the problem to a minimum, then something swelled in me in response, and I felt it as my surface, and myself as its contents: such was, for example, the surface of some shells. I was excited by the restrained power of natural forms, when behind the obvious there is an anticipation of infinitely more - the hidden. In the elasticity of forms I caught life, which could have manifested itself, but restrains itself and only trembles with fullness. The elastic stem of a water plant, the elastic petals of white lilies, the elastic dark blue bells of field hyacinths, the elastic drops of dew collected on the hairy leaves of the cuffs, the elastic convexities of shells, the elastic neck of the goitered gazelle and the Karabakh horse, and countless other flexible and at the same time full of inner strength forms excited me to the point of tickling my heart just like a revelation. the most creative power of nature. The thing, as such, already fully expressed, touched me little, unless I felt that there was much more undisclosed in it than what had become obvious: I was worried only about the secret. I was extremely fond of buds and buds, but I accepted the luxurious beauty at its peak with the same shade with which adults treat rag flowers. Yes, the rose is beautiful, but it is all here, it does not excite the mystery, and the life that produced it has reached its peak and is now drying up. The rose is obvious and therefore not mysterious. It’s the same with every other thing - it excites you as long as you feel the bud of another being in it; and when it is on its own, sensually given, it is too understandable and therefore does not attract attention. I have always had a certain feeling that what is truly significant is modest and hidden, while in the open beauty of magnificent magnolias, roses, tulips, etc. there is something that makes one feel embarrassed for them. And I preferred the violet, a modest, although sacred purple flower, hidden under the bushes among its own greenery, again a modest and little accessible forget-me-not. The height of attractiveness was, almost mythically in my mind, the lily of the valley, which I knew more from Aunt Yulia’s stories and drawings, and later from garden specimens. Sometimes I found lily of the valley leaves in the forest and, delighted with the finest structure of their veins, all parallel to each other, I kissed them. My dream was to find a plant in bloom; but in the vicinity of Batum the flowering of the lily of the valley probably occurs so early that my search never reached its goal. Subsequently my feelings towards the rose and other luxurious plants changed; but not because the nature of my internal demands would change, but in connection with the incompleteness of the rose that was revealed to me. Perhaps my very perceptions have become less strong, so that this excessive luxury in my eyes has become more modest. But in any case, it lost its lush self-sufficiency and became a bud of other possibilities and a different completeness. It’s the same in other areas: my perceptions in themselves were too bright for the bright and abundantly luxurious to give me satisfaction. Of course, a lot can be entertaining, you want to know and see a lot, but only modest things are really cute. A bird, perhaps non-existent, light brown in color, like coffee with milk, with a blue head, jumped in front of me in my imagination, like an image of this cherished modesty. Invisibility, quietness, humility were dear to my heart. And at the same time and despite this, the same soul was drawn to the exotic, although here with something corresponding to this modesty. I have always wanted to live in as simple a situation as possible; surrounded by modest nature, but with tropical nature somewhere at a distance. Partly this duality is reflected in the mountain landscape, where the harsh and deserted unsociability of the heights almost touches the subtropical flora. Isn’t this also the place of my birth, Yevlakh, where the steppe, abundant with natural resources and burdened with an excess of luxurious life, is constrained by two snowy mountain groups? But rather, in this duality of nature, which raised me, I am inclined to see a clear expression of my own duality, in which north and south, through the historically youngest and most ancient blood, intensely oppose each other, not only not mixing, but on the contrary, stimulating each other to stronger self-determination. So, while that brown and blue bird was jumping in front of me, I passionately and almost painfully dreamed of a hummingbird, and it seemed to me that there could be no better destiny than to kiss a living hummingbird - most of all I loved the elf, both for its smallness and somewhat funny, ruffled appearance, and for the very name - and die. I greedily asked everyone for details about these charming birds, looked at the existing images of them countless times and remembered with bitterness that it was not possible to keep them in captivity, that the syrup they were fed became sugary in their small stomach and killed them, and that therefore there was no hope for me to see them alive. Then I begged the confidant of my desires, Aunt Yulia, to purchase a stuffed hummingbird. And in order to motivate this purchase, I asked her to put a hummingbird on her hat - which, by the way, I really wanted due to my passion for outfits. I pestered him for a long time, trying in every possible way to prove the need for such decoration on the hat. Finally, dad told me to fulfill my wish. It was already quite late and somewhat cold, that is, according to the Batumi climate, when my aunt and I went for the coveted purchase. I think it was late autumn or winter. Batum was still a free port at that time, and therefore very elegant and high-quality foreign goods were sold in squalid Batumi shops. Among the large selection of stuffed hummingbird hats, my eyes ran wild, I chose one, then another, then put it back and chose again, until finally it began to get dark and it was time to lock up the store. Aunt Yulia, somewhat dissatisfied with my indecision, finally helped me make a choice and paid for a rather expensive purchase. The bird was wrapped, slightly bending the paper on both sides so as not to crumple it. My aunt didn’t want to give me the purchase, fearing that I would crush it, but I begged so much to let me carry it that my aunt gave in, only warning me about the same thing again and showing how to carry the air bag by one edge so as not to hurt the hummingbird. I clung to this region and conscientiously fulfilled all the instructions. But when, after walking some distance, my aunt wanted to check if I was crumpling the birds, it turned out that the bag unfolded from the bottom, the bird fell out, and I was diligently carrying the empty paper. I was so upset by this loss that I didn’t even cry, but my aunt was upset for me. We went back, but it was dark and damp, and of course there was no bird. This incident inflicted a wound on my soul, one of those that never heals, even if we consciously forget about it. I no longer even wanted to buy a new hummingbird, and I rejected the offer in this sense; even talking about the hummingbird was painful for me. A few years later, dad read somewhere an advertisement about a luxurious color album of hummingbirds published in Paris and, remembering how I froze when asking about these birds, without saying anything, he wrote out this album and gave it to me. The album was truly wonderful. But my half-forgotten wound in my heart was so painful that the album left me cold, and I hid it somewhere far away. A few years later, in the third or fourth grade of the gymnasium, my classmate, Volodya Ern, once asked me for some book with pictures to draw from. I gave him the hummingbird album back then, but I never got it back, despite his requests. I suspect that Ern, in his then passion for chickens, turned my hummingbirds into chickens. Then I didn’t even regret this album, and only now, when the impressions of childhood return every day, did it begin to come to mind again. But so many in life were unlucky with these birds, in which for me there was the very edge of grace. I have this feeling from childhood that I actually never, or almost never, came to a calm state; All day long, ecstatic elation did not leave me, when I either talked incessantly, for which Liza’s aunt in the village peasant girls called me in Armenian “tsitsernak,” that is, swallow, or everything in me sang and blossomed in ecstatic sounds. These states were hardly the ordinary liveliness of any child. Apparently something was happening in my brain, if not something wrong, then at least extraordinary, which caused me quite a bit of suffering. I remember well from early childhood headaches that began and stopped only when I was about ten years old, if I’m not mistaken, which can be partly compared to severe brain fatigue at the end of long and intense mental work. Probably, these were strong blood flows, moreover, precisely to the back, lower part of the head, and I tried to find relief from this pain and heaviness by quite often raising, throwing back my head and pressing the back of my head for a moment to my neck; It seems to me that this movement of mine was somewhat reminiscent of a characteristic reflex during meningitis. It’s not easy to walk around with such a head, and if it weren’t for my constant delight and interest in existence to the point of self-forgetfulness, I probably would have been constantly whimpering from my pain. Poor dad was always concerned about my health, and many times a day he felt my forehead to see if I had a fever, and invariably asked: “Does my head hurt?” But both his palpating and his question were unnecessary: ​​I had a headache, and I just tried to forget about it, and I also almost always had a fever, from malaria, which the whole family, starting with dad, suffered from. I don’t know whether I had a rush of blood to my head from my usual inner agitation, or, on the contrary, the excitement itself was intensified by the flow of blood. In addition, we all, not only our family, but also all our acquaintances, were sitting on quinine in Batum, absorbing it in jars, and this could hardly help but affect our general well-being. But no matter what, everything from the realm of nature interested me, without giving my mind a moment of rest. How many times a day did I climb onto the railing of the balcony and, holding on to a wooden post, examine again and again the well-examined cherry laurel tree near the balcony and for the thousandth time I stroke and apply its dark green varnished leaves to my face, chew them, think about how drops are made from its black berries, smell the flower clusters and find in their smell a resemblance to bitter almonds Then the large orange and lemon trees growing on our balcony in boxes with still unripe fruits and white flowers, dear to me, are subjected to the same examination. It seems to me that a lot of time is spent in such activities. Then I begin an investigation that is both attractive and risky: a careful examination of the wormholes gaping with black elliptical holes in the balcony pillars. I realized long ago that these dark holes had a secret meaning, and therefore I turned a deaf ear to the adults’ explanation that they were being eaten away by some kind of worms. Sometimes Aunt Yulia went out onto the balcony to replant plants or plant them in long boxes, arranged by order of dad, all around the house, along the balcony railings. Aunt loved to dig in the ground with flowers, and I loved to help her: I was interested in the roots of plants, young shoots hiding in the ground, germinating seeds, and I was horrified, although without later developing disgust, by the mole cricket digging in the ground. But these are separate impressions. They multiplied and worsened when I found myself outside the city. Dad loved and considered it useful to give us all-day walks around the outskirts of Batum. A phaeton, sometimes two, was hired, a supply of provisions and, most importantly, tableware was made, and we excitedly drove along one of the highways. The most beloved and most frequently visited place for such walks was the first station of the Batumo-Akhaltsykh highway built by my father - Adjaris-Tskali. The road first goes near the sea coast, flat, deserted - this is a good preparation for the subsequent wealth and steep cliffs of the Adjara Gorge. But this deserted piece of 2-3 miles is not without interest for us. Not far from the road you can see huts covered with dry corn stalks and from the same stalks on the trees there are whole stacks of round shapes, like nests of gigantic wasps. These huts and these stacks of corn belong to the Negro colony located near Batum. To our delight, a tall black man, almost a giant, or a black woman with a baby at her black breast and another black child clinging to his arm or hem, will cross the road and stop with curiosity near us. In them I feel the meekness of the heroes and the openness to nature, which later began to be painfully sought by me. Their black color doesn’t bother me at all, I’m just thinking to myself that I’ll have to paint myself with wax or mascara if I settle among them. How strange: as a child, the feeling of closeness to people, strangers, was alien to me, except for a very few. But during such meetings, threads of sympathy are stretched. Let's move on. Here is the river from which the road under the direction of the pope begins and the first bridge he built on this road. We are proud that dad is building bridges, and on this basis we consider them our property, and therefore, together with dad, we must examine it with an economic eye to see if everything is fine there. Dad stops the “phaeton driver” by pressing a stick into his back - for some reason everyone is sure, despite humane ideas, that otherwise the phaeton driver will not hear. We rush under the bridge to splash in the clear water flowing on the sand - although we are strictly forbidden to drink it - we catch frog eggs or tadpoles, depending on the time of year, and, of course, this is at any time, we pick up pretty twisted black shells from the bottom. We would willingly stay for more, but we are in a hurry, we get into the carriage and start a quarrel with Lyusya, if we didn’t have time to arrange it when leaving, who should sit on the uncomfortable front bench, which seems to us a place of honor and independence, and in addition has the advantage of an observation point. Dad tells us about the development of frog spawn or the smelting of copper from copper pyrites, about the huge piles located along the road. In these pyrite mounds, spreading the smell of sulfur dioxide - I had long ago learned all this chemistry - the sulfur burns out, and the resulting copper oxide, as I learned, will subsequently be reduced by coal. From my dad, I also learned to regret the flying sulfur dioxide, from which I could make sulfuric acid that occupies me and burn a rag with it without fire. I also know that pyrite mining is carried out nearby and I am internally proud that our, I would like to say, my Batum is not devoid of real ore, that is, some connection with the underground world. Secretly, I deduce from this further consequences that since there is ore, there may be underground mines and corridors leading into the very underworld, and then stalactite caves; In the background of all this one can see the still somewhat vague possibility of meeting the gnomes. And my dad’s story about gold-bearing sand excites me even more. I, of course, remember well the Argonauts’ campaign to the mouths of Phasis in Colchis for the Golden Fleece. And long ago I also firmly understood that these “mythical places” are exactly where we live, and that, therefore, the myth is as real as I myself and our Colchis. Phasis is the present-day Rion, and I also knew that the rock on which Prometheus was crucified still stands in the Rion Gorge. By the way, my parents seemed to have made a mistake here, isolating me from church teaching and fairy tales, as if they were still living, they treated ancient mythology lightly, probably considering it hopelessly dead. The consequence of such an oversight was that I felt more clearly like an ancient Hellene than a Russian, and I loved and knew fauns and nymphs more than goblins and mermaids. So, the Greek myth was close to me, and the ground on which I walked was saturated with the vapors of antiquity. Regarding the golden fleece, I knew from my dad that in ancient times (and this word seemed to me filled with the same mysterious darkness as the caves, and therefore was just as exciting) the sands of the Colchis rivers, including Rion and Chorokhi, were gold-bearing and remain so to this day, that is, before me; and gold mining was carried out by washing gold-bearing sand over sheep skin. When the curly litter becomes saturated with gold grains stuck in it, it is burned, but the gold remains. It was for this golden fleece that such a hero as King Jason once came to us. How could you not be proud of your country? – he almost came to me. True, there was also some stumbling block in the form of the evil sorceress Medea, who was also awarded by our Colchis in addition to the fleece. But Medea instilled in me a feeling of hostility for deceiving my father and killing my children, and in my thoughts I tried to avoid her image. So dad told us, near Artvin, that is, about thirty versts from Batum along the Chorokh stream, gold is mined using such a skin, but the gold content in the sand is very insignificant. Just around this time, the gold-bearing sands of Chorokh gave some two dodgers the idea to do a business: they brought gold-bearing sand from Siberia, partly already washed, i.e. with a very high gold content, and added it in a certain place to the sand of Chorokh. A commission was appointed by their machinations, which was supposed to believe in the Chorokhi gold mines, and therefore promote their sale at appropriate prices. But the deception was easily discovered, because the sand poured into some hole was clearly Siberian, and was not located on the banks of Chorokhi. Dad was somehow involved in this commission. After investigation, he brought me from this place some added magnetic iron ore with small sparkles of gold. I really liked this coal-black sand, from which I extracted grains of gold with a pin, and I myself shone in my own eyes with the borrowed brilliance of gold mining. I kept it in a wooden thermometer case, from where I occasionally poured it onto a sheet of paper and watched how it was attracted by a magnet. “I didn’t like the exposure of the deception described.” Firstly, my mind did not accommodate fraudulent tricks, I did not understand the selfish side of this whole matter, and it seemed like some kind of misunderstanding. And secondly, it was upsetting that dad doubted the real gold content of our Chorokh, which, of course, was undeniable, since Jason came to us from afar. Having passed this place of failed mines, which still remained in question for me, the road turns into the narrow Chorokha gorge and goes over its steep, rocky shore, while on the other side of the road there are cliffs and wooded mountains. Similar mountains rise on the other side of Chorokhi. It was wonderful to see how the Adjara Mountains, foggy blue in the humid Batumi atmosphere, before our eyes, as we approached them, turned blue, then began to turn black, and finally turned out to be green, or black-green if it was not winter, while on their tops sparkling snow lingered for a long time and fog almost always swirled in the mornings and evenings. Sheer cliffs in many places are covered with the purest white veils of water splashes and foam from countless streams falling from above and breaking with such force that there is no trace of water left. I especially loved the magnificent basalts with their vertically standing hexagonal prisms, black and even blacker with moisture. High, so high that you can’t even throw your head, rises an almost vertical, broad-chested staircase of basalt pillars, with clearly cut vertical edges and precisely horizontal hexagonal platforms. And this entire huge surface, to its entire height and width, is covered with a transparent, soft-white water fabric and breathes coolness and purity. The columnar structure of the basalts showed me, as I felt, the internal structure of the rocks, and echoed my favorite crystals. When it was not possible to get to the building and any material stood before my eyes as a fused mass, I felt a wall separating me from nature, a stone wall of mystery. On the contrary, all kinds of individuality, layers, order and rhythm showed the trust of nature and pleased - not with rationality, for what is rational here when they themselves need to be explained, but precisely with trust, the open pulse of the life of nature. On the Adjara Highway, from childhood I learned to see the earth not only from the surface, but also in section, even mainly in section, and therefore at the very time I looked from the side. This is not a matter of abstract concepts at all, and everything I point out is extremely easy to approach guided by reasoning. And the point here is in the habits of the mind that were absorbed from the beginning and formed my thoughts in their own way: certain concepts, which generally seemed abstractly possible, became necessary methods of thinking in me, and my later religious and philosophical convictions came not from philosophical books, which, with rare exceptions, I always read a little, and, moreover, always reluctantly, but from childhood observations, and perhaps most of all, from the nature of the landscape familiar to me. These layers of rocks separately, these layers of soil, gradually changing, penetrated by roots, this layer of turf covering them, the bushes and trees above them - I learned about them not from geological atlases, but from sections and outcrops in nature, to which I was accustomed as if they were my own. In the structure of my perception, the plan appears internally distant, and the cross-section appears close; simultaneity speaks and tends to break up into separate groups of objects, sequentially observed, while succession is my way of thinking, and it is perceived as simultaneous. The fourth coordinate - time - became so alive that time lost its character of bad infinity, became cozy and closed, and approached eternity. I'm used to seeing the roots of things. This habit of vision then sprouted into all thinking and determined its basic character - the desire to move vertically and little interest in the horizontal. Sheer cliff on the left, sheer steepness on the right above the rapidly rushing Chorokh. The narrow road goes on like a shelf, and my heart either shrinks with horror that the horses will turn a little to the side and we will end up in Chorokhe, or that I will somehow fall straight into this abyss - then it expands with a greedy examination of the warm rocks dotted with nimble lizards. I remember one time I gaped at them and fell out of the carriage, so imperceptibly that the elders did not pay attention to it and drove off some distance before they missed me. And I lay on the road and, despite a fairly bruised leg, watched my lizards. For the sake of these lizards, dad quite often stopped the carriage or carriages, and we got out to catch the cute animals. But more often than not, this catch ended badly for them, because the lizard, having freed itself from the tail we had grabbed, ran away. The tail suddenly became disgusting to us, as a result of our remorse, although it was amusing, but not surprising, to watch how it beats, bending in a ring first in one direction and then in the other. I firmly remember the words of the elders that he would fight until sunset, and we drove away further, looking back at the beating tail. The Chorokh Abyss itself should have been interesting. The mere fact that in its further course Chorokh was the Russian-Turkish border should have attracted attention to it. The fast current of this river swiftly carried rafts and numerous feluccas loaded with fruits, olives, butter, and honey. It was even scary to watch: a long felucca almost falls straight onto a piece of rock in the river, and the death of the narrow shell, like a pod, seems inevitable; but at the fatal moment of the collision, the felucca man pushes off the rock with his pole, and having just been on the verge of death, rushes past. And little, I understood how tense and ready for death you had to be in for hours in order to float your cargo to the mouth. Back ahead lies a tedious journey, as slow as it was fast, and as demanding of patience as it was of vigilance; making his way among the coastal cliffs and over stones, the owner drags his felucca on a woolen rope. “In reality, I myself didn’t realize how my heart sank from this Chorokh and his menacing-sounding name. But in my sleep, perhaps in connection with some kind of brain process in my head, every or almost every night I woke up from a painful vision. The visual material of his sleepy fantasy was his impressions of Chorokh, and the initial core of his education was the mental wound received in my earliest infancy from my fall from the high bank of the Kura River, where my mother and aunt were swimming below. My mother’s scream at the sight of me rolling along the slope, and Aunt Remso only caught me right at the water’s edge, the fall itself - all this is embedded in my body, and I don’t care whether or not they believe that I remember it - this incident was so vividly and painfully reminded of itself throughout my entire childhood. This is what I saw: my dad and Aunt Yulia were driving along the Adjara road, or, more often, I was alone, very little, trudged along the highway. Everything is flooded with sultry light and stuffy. On the left is a high chocolate-brown rock, hot from the sun, it is all woven with the finest cobwebs and almost completely covered with countless newly hatched spiders, a little larger than a pinhead; most of them are bright red, like arterial blood in strong sun, but there are also bright yellow and bright emerald green. These spiders run back and forth, and I have the feeling that somehow they are in my head. Now, feeling into this dream still standing before my eyes, I definitely know that the red spiders were some kind of projection of blood flow into the brain capillaries, and the yellow and green ones were related to some brain cells or centers; Finally, a hot chocolate-colored rock projects the inside of my cranial vault in a dream. I say this, not rationally interpreting the dream, but from direct sensation, for now I see with some other vision the internal picture of my anatomy and see how it is clothed in symbolic images, hovering before me in a space other than the space of sensory perceptions. However, everything described so far is only the situation. The essence of the dream is that on the right hand of the road along which I am walking is a steep bank of a river in which my mother is drowning and screaming in a voice that is not her own, and sometimes Aunt Yulia, also drowning, joins here. I’m mortally sorry for my mother, I’m trying to help her, but I’m unable to move - it’s as if I’m tied up, swaddled, hand and foot, and no one else is here, or they don’t hear either my mother’s screams or my impulses - I say impulses, because I can’t tell them anything. I actually don’t see my mother, I only hear her, and the main thing is that I directly know that she is down there. With this painful feeling of helplessness and complete inability to help, shedding tears, I woke up every time. For some reason, I never told anyone this dream as a child, despite the persistent efforts of adults to find out what I was actually crying about and what I was afraid of. I felt what I saw in my dream was so real in some sense that it seemed that one word about what I saw - and that reality would break through here, into this life, threatening my mother. I knew within myself that from my slightest hint something irrevocable and destructive would happen, especially in relation to my mother, and therefore I kept the sleepy threat at bay with my silence. So the phaeton rolled over a menacing cliff, and on the other side of the road cold springs bubbled from the rocks and bright flowers hung. The right side of the road was protected by a stone wall. Along the wall, at regular distances from each other, there were piles of rubble standing in gentle cones. Sometimes workers, Greeks or Persians, were seen breaking cobblestones with hammers. Sometimes dad stopped the phaeton driver with a stick to inspect the prepared crushed stone. The pile was measured with a special square, then swept out to check whether it contained soil. While sweeping out the heap, I also rushed to examine the rubble, looking for interesting minerals, and often found geodes of agate or carnelian, sparkling druses of rock crystal, smoky topaz or pale amethysts in quartzites, pieces of phosphorite that fascinated me, emitting a smell when rubbed against each other and glowing in the dark, the inclusion of pyrites. Then we rushed to drink from the cold crystal spring flowing from the rock and pick flowers, for which we had to climb the rocks. But we were persuaded to leave this until the return trip - so that the flowers would not wilt. We followed further. We are already looking forward to counting the miles on the pillars. Suddenly the gorge widens - it feels as if a cork is being pushed into a bottle, and suddenly it falls through. This is the Adjaris-Tskali station. From here, one road, crossing the Chorokhi bridge, goes along the Chorokha gorge - to Artvin, and the other, along the Adjara gorge, - to Akhaltsykh. Dad actually built the Batumo-Akhaltsykh road, and our friend engineer Passek built the Artvin road. But the bridge over Chorokh was built by my father. I remember that there used to be a ferry with kayaks, and when we arrived in Adjaris-Tskali, we always made a ferry crossing to the other side - it was an eerie pleasure to feel how the ferry, carried away by a swiftly powerful current, seemed to be about to fall off the rope. Then, as I remember, they began to transport large iron pipes, trusses, barrels of cement, winches and cranes to Adjaris-Tskali, and by one of their arrivals a bridge appeared; but he took away something from the wildness of our Adjaris-Tskali and deprived us of the ferry. We firmly consider Adjaris-Tskali our estate, much more ours than the Batumi apartment. Everything here has already been divided between me and Lyusya. The river at the entrance to Adjaris-Tskali is mine, and adults call it nothing less than the Pavlina River. She became mine when Lucy was still very young and did not strive for property. But on one of the trips, having heard about the Peacock River, Lyusya suddenly realized that there was an offense here for herself, she became capricious, as she generally knew how to be capricious. They barely calmed her down, making compensation from a stream that flowed a little further, beyond Adzharis-Tskali. True, this Lyusin stream was smaller than the Peacock river; but, I remember, he had some merits of his own, so I became envious. Both of these mountain streams flow into the Adjaris-Tskali River, flowing through relatively small gorges. And between them, on a hillock, there was a stone two-story guardhouse to stop travelers. On the lower floor lived the watchman Akhmet, who was extremely devoted to dad, like all his subordinates, and on the upper floor there were two or three rooms separated by a corridor. We considered this gatehouse our own home, that is, not our father’s, but ours, our children’s, and one room was mine, the other was Lyusina’s. When we arrived, we settled down in these rooms much more freely than at home: after all, at home it was necessary to maintain order and not create dirt, but here, in the almost empty rooms, you could do whatever you wanted. Once or twice during this time, some passing engineer stopped in one of these rooms. Although he left very soon, there was no end to our inner indignation and jealousy. We could not understand how “some stranger” could dare to settle in our lodge and why dad, so attentive to all our whims, would not take measures to remove the uninvited guest. My indignation was softened only by the fact that it was Lucy’s room that was occupied, not mine. We were met by the friendly Akhmet, whom we loved very much. He was an Adjarian. These are the people of the Kartvelian group, very close to the Georgians, inhabiting the Chorokha and Adjari-Tskhali valleys. Located either within Turkey or on its borders, this tribe, once Christian, had long since converted to Mohammedanism, but became, with the renegades, fanatics of the new faith. Almost all of them are robbers, they are at the same time secretive, moderate and, like all robbers, they know a sense of devotion. At that time, rarely did anyone manage to travel along the Batumo-Akhaltsikhe road without being robbed, despite the escort of guards and weapons. Even a trip to Adjaris-Tskali in those days, i.e. in the eighties, was considered far from safe and for many such a picnic did not take place without great trouble. But at least I was internally glad that my Adjarians were protecting my possessions from uninvited guests. Undoubtedly, although I did not know this name, I felt like a feudal lord, and on the part of the Adjarians I really did not see anything other than signs of loyalty. This was not childish self-delusion; but this was not as self-evident as it seemed to me, for it happened due to the completely exceptional relationship of these Ajarians to my father. Nothing ever happened to him on this road, not even an unpleasant meeting, and things were never cut off from the back of his phaeton. Meanwhile, my father always refused the guards offered to him by the authorities in view of the danger of such trips, and not only did not carry them with him, but also did not have any weapons at home: the only thing he traveled with was a stick. Moreover, he did not give concessions and demanded from employees a “conscientious”, as he usually said, attitude towards the matter and, if he saw the opposite, he could shout loudly due to his temper. He demanded absolute cleanliness, and the slightest sign of sloppiness, dirt and disorder could cause an attack of anger in him, albeit very short-lived, but to the point of self-forgetfulness. In particular, they required absolute cleanliness along the entire length of the highway. He would lose his temper if he noticed any dust, some dirt, paper, or wood chips on the highway. When he shouted, the workers suffered anger, taking it for granted: but the highest measure of anger - already unbearable for us - was something else - this was the silence of the pope: having snatched a broom from the nearest of the workers, the pope began to vigorously take revenge himself and did this for quite a long time. They knew the possibility of this and were extremely afraid of it, considering it as their shame. However, despite all these outbursts, all the employees were very devoted to the pope for his justice, benevolence and generosity. Due to the close clan cohesion of all Adjarians, the devotion of some, the employees, also obliged all the workers. Without knowing it, the pope was always surrounded by guards, ready to protect him from the slightest trouble, and even those strangers whom the pope entrusted to one of his employees, as his guests, enjoyed the same security. Apparently, the pope was not even fully aware of the threat he would have been under if he had not been recognized by the mountaineers as the legitimate head of the Adjara Gorge. After his death, one of the employees came to Tiflis to look for a place for himself with his father, and, upon learning that he was no longer alive, he burst into tears and began to praise him. And then he talked about this protection of him in Adjara by the mountaineers themselves, and in particular he recalled one incident that remained unknown to my father: he once spent the night in a guardhouse at the Khulo station. Having heard that someone was staying for the night, the surrounding robbers came to do their job. But they were met by the employees who were here and announced that they would not allow even conversations that could agitate their boss, and the robbers peacefully dispersed to their villages. The narrator told me that without such intervention, my father would not have survived then. It was this devotion to my father that extended to us, and I clearly felt like the sovereign prince of the Adjara Mountains. Akhmet, who came out to meet me, carried me up the stairs in his arms, and Lucy, if she also came, was carried by dad himself. Having washed ourselves with cold water from the spring, we, more than me, ran into the gorge of my river. At this time, the samovar was put on, hard-boiled eggs were boiled, and chickens were roasted on a spit, an invariable property of Adjaris-Tskhali, and sometimes Adjaris-Tskhali trout with red spots on the sides was boiled in salt water. In addition, Akhmet invariably served cornbread - chad, matsoni, that is, a special type of sour milk, in a clay cup, and a flatbread of local cheese, very strange and still incomprehensible to me in its composition; it consisted of long elastic fibers, like a tightly compressed coconut washcloth, and as soon as you grabbed the end of these fibers, the cheese spiral unwound. All this was very fresh, and after a trip of two hours or more, I ate it with great appetite. But the peacefulness of our breakfast was disrupted each time by the division of the Adjari-Tskhal chicken. Most of its parts were registered, and the violation of property rights seemed to us almost on the same scale as a violation of the international balance now seems. The slightest inattention on the part of Aunt Yulia, or any of the elders, and a threat to the foundations of world justice arose. This is not an exaggerated way of expression: my legal concepts were absolute and undoubtedly were sacred norms. The point here is not in favorite pieces, but precisely in the consciousness of the eternal foundations of sacred law; to give in - I gave in willingly, but I could not allow inattention to the order, which seemed to me to be rooted in the essence of things. I am the owner of Adjari-Tskhali (the others are participating in this only because of me), and it would be a ruin to my sovereign dignity to have a light attitude towards ancient rituals - and I felt myself for immemorial years owning this feud, it seemed to me that these places never had another owner, and although I knew that I was once born and even liked to consider myself and call myself small, but in matters similar to the ownership of Adjaris-Tskhali, in relation to to parents, etc. I definitely felt trans-temporal. The sign of my eternal power was the Adjaris-Tskhal chicken or chickens. I didn’t like some parts and, most importantly, considered them not sublime. But it was Lucy who valued them. Therefore, when she was given chicken legs, I did not object at all, and I would not have encroached on the part that rightfully belonged to her; mine were the wings, dried and roasted in the flame until completely hard. I gnawed them with pleasure, especially the tips, and I liked the smell of burnt meat and the sublimity of the name: in my division of things and phenomena, flight and wings belonged to the category of the noble and poetic, which I could never think about without trembling, while walking and legs belonged to the everyday and prosaic. The owner of Adjaris-Tskhali, of course, had a skinny, but noble part, and the vulgar fleshiness of the legs did not make them worthy food. Further, Lucy owned the liver, and I owned the stomach. In the flabby constitution of the liver and in its fatty content, I felt something base, and even when, in Lucy’s absence, liver was offered to me, I refused it, as something beneath my dignity. On the contrary, the tense elasticity of the stomach and the definite structure of its tissue testified to me about the dignity of this part. Of course, taste also meant something here; but the main ones were still considerations of dignity, perhaps vague but of a metaphysical order. I wanted white meat, and on occasion I ate it. But since I valued it only in terms of taste, but metaphysically its dignity was not clear to me, I never allowed myself to insist on brisket: to demand something metaphysically indifferent and therefore to reveal my desire for food as a sensual object of taste meant in my eyes to lose my sacred dignity and lose some kind of dignity. – Finally, the most difficult question of dividing was eggs, not boiled eggs in the shell, but from chicken. My interests here collided with the Lyusins. True, in ordinary hard-boiled eggs the yolk, like yellow, fatty and too material - crumbles and smears - seemed to me not one of the sublime objects, unlike the white, mysteriously blue and elastic white. I only valued this last one, while Lucy had the opposite view, and so we exchanged our least favorite parts of the egg. But egg yolks directly from chicken, firstly, are mysterious in their very origin. These eggs had to be divided, starting with the largest, one for me, another for Lucy, one for me, another for Lucy. But the difficulty is who comes first. Of course, I thought that the first became me; but here Lucy often raised a scandal and thereby got what she wanted, and then I calmed down with the thought that the smallest testicles, in an indefinitely large number, which I received as compensation, carried the very secret. After breakfast, with all its pitfalls, we had to move on to the most important thing - the flowers. Everyone came out and scattered in different directions. Behind the guardhouse there was a clearing. Now there are dense plantings of subtropical bushes and trees, made by dad. I remember how on one of our visits we found our entire clearing riddled with holes, and among them one was especially large. Near the gatehouse lay and stood plants brought, I remember, from Sukhum. Dad ordered the planting of these plants for us, and we also planted a tree, each as a souvenir. All plantings have been done; General bewilderment was aroused by the huge hole, and not a single tree remained unplanted. Then the brought gardener, to the friendly laughter of all the workers, carried out a barely visible seedling from the lodge, which he declared to be a cedar. This garden subsequently grew luxuriantly, but the cedar, despite the soil being carefully loosened and prepared for it, did not grow. It was in this clearing, both before and after planting, that we began our flower picking, and from there, carried away, we walked and crawled further, although this was considered not entirely safe - it seems, because of the snakes that crawled out from under all the bushes and, rustling the leaves, hid in the continuous thickets. Anyone who has not seen with their own eyes the forests of the Black Sea Coast, and especially the Adjarian forests, will find it difficult to give an idea of ​​the abundance of plant life that makes the local thickets a continuous tangle of intertwined trunks, flexible stems, plant vines, and branches. The plants here are piled on top of each other; different types of ivy cover the trunks of chestnuts, ash trees, oaks, wild apple and pear trees, etc. from top to bottom. But these beautiful trunks, covered with a dark green mosaic of ivy leaves, are doomed to death, and you can see many trees already withered and rotten, standing, or even fallen, from this decoration. Between the large trees there are smaller ones: the hard greenery of the Caucasian palm, or boxwood, growing here, trunks up to half an arshin thick in diameter, jogjali, kurma, different types of aluchi, mumshala, negnap. A vine climbs through the trees, everything is intertwined with thorny and steel-like stems of salsaparacha, blackberries and other climbing plants. They climb the trunks to the top of the trees and hang from there in powerful tangles, are thrown from tree to tree, entangled with each other, blocking all passages with impenetrable barriers. There is no way to get through these vines. You see nothing but a mysterious green twilight, neither up, nor down, nor to the sides. You don’t understand where you are going, what you are stepping on. Underfoot are huge, thick, smelling of either cucumbers or dampness, ferns of very different types, on the sides there are delays everywhere, and countless thorns pierce so that it is impossible to take a single step. If you somehow wandered into such a forest, you would have to die in it, despite the abundance of plant food. And we, of course, did not dare to make such attempts, although we gladly collected fruits and berries at the entrance to it. Forest grapes, wild apple trees and pears - probably the remains of ancient orchards, salsaparilla berries, strawberries and field strawberries, kurma and mumshala, the fruits of which are called "cones" in the Caucasus, large rose hips, blueberries, chestnuts, walnuts and small nuts, beech nuts, Jewish cherry berries and much more, were brought to us by the outskirts of the forest thickets. There were such wild apricots there, very tasty, but for some reason they were considered harmful and were almost forbidden to us. At different times, different prey appeared, others, like grapes, kurma and cones, were good only after the first frost, but stayed on the trees all winter. What seemed most worthy of attention to us, in connection with the far north, were the birches and rowan trees that grew in the mountains and which dad told us about. After frost, bunches of rowan berries were delivered to us from Adjara and used for jam. But we considered fruits and berries to be pampering, and flowers were the real deal. They appeared in Adjaris-Tskali, and in general in the vicinity of Batum, early, approximately from mid-January. At first, crocuses and colchicas, white, pink, lilac, sometimes purple, leafless harbingers of spring, covered all the meadows with their cups. Then the “milky color,” as the ancients put it, snowdrop, and another, two species, of which with larger, but coarser flowers, grew in swamps and was therefore little accessible to us, and the other, more noble, in my opinion, could be found on dry soil. I was excited by the exquisite appearance of these flowers with three axes of symmetry, a double row of petals of various shapes and a thin greenish rim, which, in combination with the white color of the entire flower and yellow stamens, seemed exceptionally elegant to me. The fact that snowdrops belong to the bulbous species, their triaxiality, almost fluorescent self-luminescence, the bright yellow-green of their leaves and stems, the elastic succulence of the whole plant, elastic everywhere, the thin membrane on the flower shoot, the shy drooping of the flower corolla, hanging like a bell, and finally, its first appearance after winter, although too short in our Colchis, - everything made this flower family to me. The other type, more magnificent and less elastic, I recognized only for its resemblance to this one. From late autumn to early spring, we found a Christmas rose along the Adjarian road. This large and rough flower, with hard petals and no scent, seemed more amusing than attractive, judging by its name and the strange, dirty pale green color of its petals, stamens and pistil. It was strange to see a flower that differed little in color from the leaves and stem: its appearance and color were completely November - gloomy, gloomy, hostile. Added to this was his toxicity. He was the flower of winter for us. On the contrary, we recognized the onset of spring by violets and cyclamens. Usually they tried not to miss the first appearance of these flowers, which always bloomed together. The pope ordered the employees going on road business to see if they had disbanded and to notify them when this happened. Having received this news, dad announced to us: “the violets and cyclamen have blossomed,” probably no less solemnly than the Athenian priest, who proclaimed the onset of the spring festival of flowers - anthesterium, and this meant: one of these days we are going to Adjaris-Tshali. Poor dad. In his concerns about the family, he restored the cult of the Lares and Penates, only turning it from the past to the future, and in his love for nature, he also had an ancient cult attitude towards it. I rejoiced at the cyclamens, because it seemed a violation of all truth not to admire these delicate pink flowers, sometimes red, sometimes lilac, with the finely detailed coloring of their petals, with red fragile pedicels, with strange heart-shaped leaves and even stranger tubers somewhat flattened in the shape of an orange. The grayish-green color of the leaves, their red undersides, the finest grain of the petals sparkling in the sun - all this should have attracted people to this plant. But the feeling for nature is as straightforward as the feeling for man: I was hostile to cyclamen for some almost imperceptible immodesty, for the deliberate sophistication of the lapel of their petals. They seemed to me the direct opposite of their closest relatives, violets, with their warm fragrance, with their bottomless purple velvet corollas, set off by golden-orange stamens and with the thinnest dark purple veins of the petals. From my dad, I knew that it is impossible to artificially compose violet essential oil (this was achieved much later), just as it is not possible to extract it from the violets themselves. Their color is the true color - ancient sacred purple. And at the same time, these sacred eyes of nature, royal and fragrant, hide, from afar only announcing themselves as a delicate scent. There is only one smell related to this, although somewhat coarser and also stronger. I was worried about it, for a long time not being able to understand why it suddenly smelled like violet meadows sometimes, obviously from a distance. I asked around and no one gave an answer. Finally, I found the very source of this fragrance in flowers even more modest in appearance and color: the blossoming vines from tall trees were fragrant. Then I smelled childhood, already at the Academy from the pages of the Bible, when the very sign of spring in the Song of Songs is indicated: “And the vine, as it blossoms, gives off a fragrance.” So the spring of my life was winnowed for me by this incense of violets and vines. From childhood, among the first flowers of the Batumi spring, I also remember primroses - primroses. First, a pink type with individual flowers bloomed, then another pink one, in which a flower brush rises on the arrow, then a yellow, warm, sometimes peach-yellow color, also with flower brushes, somewhat reminiscent of Central Russian rams. But the light peach smell of northern sheep there was thick, as if from a basket of real peaches, and unusually tasty, although too rich, too edible for a flower. In Adjaris-Tskali, mostly in shady places, a pleasantly deep dark blue periwinkle was modestly hiding; blue snowdrops (Icilla amaeha) jumped out of the ground, going there salted for food; my favorite fawn hyacinths (muscari), dark blue, dark purple and dark blue, sometimes almost black, attracted me with their bulbousness, the tight density of their brushes of clearly chiseled balls, in which, upon careful examination, one could see many tiny, clearly worked details. There were many irises, purple and yellow, of which the first grew in the water of the springs and were distinguished by large flowers. I knew that “violet powder” was made from their roots, and this in itself was a virtue in my eyes. There was an attractive, incomprehensible to me, triaxiality of their flowers, the flatness of their leaves, their airiness. But I also approved of them somehow formally, with secret disapproval of their deliberate poetry, too obvious elegance, which after a few minutes turned into a slimy black and purple lump in the bouquet. I myself am surprised by the children’s duality: the outfits interested me very much, an elegant suit and taking care of it did not seem like a trifle, despite my mother’s suggestions. But when I saw the slightest shade of pretentiousness in nature, I immediately lost my personal tender feeling and looked with an external gaze. Purple porridges, wonderful dark blue swamp forget-me-nots, deep blue gentians and other simple flowers were much closer to me, and I felt them as family, and therefore I tried to give them full attention. There was a conviction within me, the conviction of my heart, that flowers—my flowers, loved by me—love me, bloom just for me, and that my inattention to their beauty would be an insult, or rather a wound, to their ardent feelings for me. People, both then and after, seemed to me independent and free, so that everyone loves or does not love - according to his own desire, and, not receiving an answer, not only should not complain, but also be upset. When I later began to devour Walter Scott’s novels, the sighs of love seemed so meaningless to me that I considered this type of phenomenon invented specifically for the plot of the novel, and did not believe the sincerity of these longings. Flowers are something completely different. They love me because they cannot help but love me, for the sake of love and growing up. True, not everyone loves: there are coarse flowers like the Christmas rose or the royal scepter, which stupidly perceive life. “There are also self-satisfied flowers, busy with themselves, such as cyclamens and irises. But most flowers see me as their master and friend. Not to pick such a flower and not to take it home when it was just waiting for my arrival and purposely blossomed by this time - doesn’t this mean to upset him in his best feelings. And I tried as much as I could not to offend anyone. Without bending my knees and crawling on my stomach, I collected, collected until exhausted, took heaps of flowers to Aunt Yulia, then ran to new collections, brought them to her again and ran away again, showering her with flowers. They tried to persuade me: “sit down and rest,” but I responded with lack of time: “I need to pick more flowers,” and ran away again. I felt sympathy in Aunt Yulia and, I don’t know, it was so, or it seemed to me that she silently shared my attitude towards flowers. I considered it my duty, the duty of reciprocal love, to pluck every single flower, everything, and even more so, all the violets. But before me spread out thickly overgrown with flowers, the same violets, clearings, beyond clearings, and all, as in the best flower garden, completely covered with flowers. No matter how hard I tried, my work was not at all visible even in the nearest places: after all, heaps of flowers could be picked there without leaving the spot. In addition, when discussing individual flowers, I could feel something disapproving about them, but I loved the flower kingdom as a whole to the point of oblivion and believed that I could not help but love it, even if my surname, as I then thought, comes from Flora, the goddess of flowers. And therefore, the internal need for collecting flowers extended to the entire kingdom of Flora. I tore and tore, and before me stretched the mountains, all the slopes of which were covered with flowers, and then I began to feel that the whole Adjaris-Tshali would remain offended. The day is approaching evening, dad calls us to get ready to go home. I say “now” and continue to tear; then they call again - “Daddy, wait a little,” and again I tear, this time convulsively, and I myself cry with pity, kiss the flowers, pouring tears over them, asking for forgiveness, I promise to come again very soon and then I’ll probably pick them. Meanwhile, the elders are breaking huge bouquets of rhododendrons, magnificent pink, white, red, lilac, with large, but unfortunately easily falling corollas and beautiful glossy leaves. This species, growing in large bushes, should not be confused with the poetic species of rhododendron, small-growing and relatively small-flowered, continuous impenetrable thickets covering many square miles of the Caucasus Mountains and growing so densely that sometimes fires occur from spontaneous combustion. A more noble large species grew in Adjaris-Tskali. In addition, an indispensable feature of the Adjaris-Tskhala trip are no less huge bouquets of dark yellow acacias, blooming so densely that their branches, sticky with resinous juice, even have few leaves. All these bouquets, brooms, branches, wreaths, pieces of turf with whole plants, and finally just armfuls of flowers, with great difficulty and the combined efforts of everyone, from dad to Akhmet, are placed in phaetons, literally from all sides, so that we ourselves can barely squeeze ourselves together. Flowers are tied to the back, to the top of the phaeton, which usually rises due to the onset of evening dampness, they are stuck into the lantern brackets, onto the trestle of the phaeton driver, placed under his feet, put on our heads and all our hands are occupied with them. When we have already sat down, wrapped in a blanket, Akhmet arranges the steps of the phaeton with new bunches of flowers tied there. Finally, the packing of us and the flowers is finished, and dad tells the cabbie to “go.” We shout goodbye to Ahmet and the other employees and graciously console them on our departure, promising to come again soon. There are no longer any special arguments over the front bench: it’s cool, and we would rather try to squeeze into a warm nest between the adults, or peacefully settle down at the bottom of the body among the flowers and under a blanket. A flower basket is rolling along the highway; now it’s fast, while the carriage was constantly slowed down by the father on its way there. We do not stop, saturated with impressions and flowers, the fragrance of which surrounds the phaeton by night. We quickly eat something without stopping. The manganese mountain turns black at the entrance to the Chorokhi Gorge. This means that Batum is not far away. A black colony flashes in the semi-darkness, we drive across the last bridge, and now our mother is kissing us, missing us as if we were leaving for a year. After dinner, the flowers they brought are quickly laid out in vessels with water; In addition to numerous vases, some of them quite large, we have to use salad bowls, soup bowls, dishes, deep plates, and glasses for flowers... The final sorting of flowers will be done tomorrow, in the morning, as soon as we get up. And now, half asleep, I hear the restless conversations of the elders that it is impossible to leave so many strongly fragrant flowers, especially azaleas, in the rooms at night. Dad recalls cases, almost like Batumi, when inexperienced visiting flower lovers fell asleep and never woke up, having placed only a bouquet of these yellow, poetic azaleas on the night table near the bed. He also tells, not for the first time, that the most fragrant honey from these flowers is deadly, but kills when eaten with its aroma alone; Occasionally it comes across in our market, but knowledgeable people carefully avoid it. Indeed, the azaleas pour out a smell that is strong and pungent throughout all our rooms. This is not the stuffy smell of bird cherry, not the sticky smell of many garden plants; there is no cloying, no moisture, no sensuality in it - it is strict, partly reminiscent of some types of incense. Immensely superior in strength to the other fragrances that now fill the air of the entire apartment, and drowning them all out, the smell of azaleas does not seem, however, intrusive or unpleasant: the air has simply become dense, like a transparent solid. But whether it seems to me from a dream, or is it in reality, I see the thinnest arrows, like those rays that surround a night light, swiftly rushing through the air from the azaleas, with my eyes closed, as long as my finger at that time. They are the same amber-yellow color as the very flowers that send them out. They are carried by currents of air and are so thin that they stick with their poisonous tips without pain. But if a lot of them stick in, you will die, poisoned by these arrows, similar to the golden arrows of Apollo. Half asleep, I hear how the adults, having finished their dinner, move chairs and take some of the destructive flowers outside, and I fall asleep, as this very rarely happens, without painful tossing from side to side and sleep without nightmares all night. V. Veidle. After "Twelve". Offering to the cross at the grave of Alexander Blok The letter addressed by Blok on January 8, 21 from St. Petersburg to Moscow to Nadezhda Aleksandrovna Nolla has not been published in full. It begins, in the eighth volume of the Collected Works (1963), with one of those (as stated in the preface) “few bills” with the help of which they hide from Russia - in this case, as in others - everything that it is not supposed to know. “You will know a lot, you will soon grow old.” Soviet citizens should always and everywhere, even in hard labor, be vigorous and young. A truncated letter, unknown why, is still printed - the elements of a state crime are undoubtedly evident here - could not be more precious for anyone who wants to understand who Blok was, how and why he died, what he thought shortly before his death. I'll quote it in its entirety. Nadezhda Aleksandrovna, Blok’s true friend in the last two years of his life, was expecting a child at that time. He is discussed in the letter. After the address and three dots in angle brackets, here is its text: “I have become infinitely heavier from my whole life, and you remember this and do not think about 99/100 of me, about everything weak, sinful and insignificant that is in me. But I have, however, 1/100 of what I needed to pass on to someone; I could express this best part of me in a wish for your child, a person of the near future. This wish is this: let, if only possible, he be a man of peace and not war, let him calmly and slowly build up what was destroyed by seven years of horror. If this is impossible, if the blood still boils in him, rebels and destroys, as in all of us sinners, then let his conscience always and relentlessly torment him, let it at least neutralize his poisonous, terrible impulses, which our present time is rich in and perhaps the near future will be rich in as well. “Understand how I say this, I say it with pain and despair in my soul; but I still can’t go to church, although she calls. Have pity and cherish your unborn child; if he is good, what a martyr he will be - he will pay for everything we have done, for every minute of our days.” The signature follows: “devoted to you Alexander Blok.” This is the most significant text of all that Blok wrote in the last years of his life and has come down to us. In this text he revealed himself as in no other, more deeply than in Pushkin’s speech a month later, and than in the Note on the “Twelve” nine months before. Back in the Lenten days of 18, some two months after the end of “The Twelve,” he wrote (in a fragment of his autobiography “Confession of a Pagan”): “I haven’t confessed for a very long time, I need to confess”; this letter is a confession - although brief, it is not fragmentary (relating to one particular episode); although not ecclesiastical, like the first one, which he did not even bring to its real subject, but, like that one, not without the thought of ecclesiastical; and not without explaining why it cannot be church in any way (in the first case) or (in the second) cannot yet be. Key words of the second confession - not the last? who knows?, but for us the last thing is pain, despair, sinfulness, insignificance, conscience, retribution. Payback - “for every minute of our days.” It reads “ours,” sounds like “mine,” or ours and mine, painfully intertwined. “I still can’t go to church, although she calls” - this does not mean that “comrade priest” (Do you remember how it used to be / He walked forward with his belly, / And his belly shone like a cross at the people) sent a psalm-reader after him; this means that the church in his own soul is calling him, and it didn’t start calling him since yesterday (“I still can’t”). This “still” takes us back to April 18, to what was just said: “eh, eh, without the cross,” and to that first draft of the confession, where, after the words just quoted, we read: “One of the benefits of the revolution is that it awakens the whole person to life, if he goes towards it, it strains all his strength and opens those abysses of consciousness that were tightly closed.” These “chasms of consciousness” have apparently never been closed since then. The intellectual Christ, wearing a flower rather than a crown of thorns, and even Renan’s “feminine ghost” turned out to be, therefore, truly for Blok... Or it’s better to think not about what happened, but about where it started. “A spot as white as snow is ahead”, “grows quickly, becomes huge”, “turns into the silhouette of a person”, “excites, attracts”. “I look: Christ!” “I didn’t believe it, it cannot be Christ.” “He’s coming, I’m looking closely: no, Christ!” Is it the miraculous Savior of the Assumption Cathedral or a pious picture, the art of which is worthless; whether it is the gospel word or “flowers of eloquence”, albeit paper, albeit thoroughly poisoned flowers; for the essence of what should never (by force), but can always (by free will) happen in a hearing and seeing human soul, is completely indifferent. Yes, and there is still no appearance in the spot, in the silhouette, in someone huge, growing in the darkness, when the torch beats in the wind. And no words. It is not known whether the son then read anything else from the mother’s Gospel other than “today you will be with me in paradise”; but even by reading Renan it is possible to come to other thoughts, leading not to the vulgar and sinful “play about Jesus Christ”, even being – almost from the cradle (we are assured) – an “embittered anti-clerical”. That metanoia, the insanity of the mind, that inversion of the soul, “repentance” or “conversion” so feebly translated into modern languages ​​- no one has indicated the boundaries of the reasons, large or small, that promote it, call it, push us towards it. Blok wrote down everything in the same eighteenth year (June 13) Ivanov-Razumnik’s story about the “priest of the Vvedenskaya Church” Yegorov - “Blok does not call him a priest” - mentioned “The Twelve” in a sermon, saying that “Christ is where He is not expected.” And long before that, on February 28, exactly a month after “The Twelve” was finished in rough form: “Today I lost my wings, and that’s why I don’t believe it. Again – a lie for 10 years. And there is old age, mediocrity.” These wings are the ones that covered him when he wrote his poem; the same “faith”. But this faith turned out to be - he himself did not expect it - interspersed with a completely different faith. “With all your body, with all your heart, with all your mind – listen to the Revolution.” With these words he finished the article “Intellectuals and Revolution” on January 9; he heard this music all the time while he was composing his poem. I have written and talked about this more than once; He emphasized this hearing so persistently, as if he wanted to describe some kind of barely bearable noise in the ears. I wrote “Scythians” in two days, still hearing it. Then I stopped hearing. Forever. "Lost my wings." I stopped writing poetry. But in this music - at the top, in its overtones - there was another, completely different music. He did not stop hearing her - even if just barely, occasionally. I don’t draw any “final” or “decisive” conclusions from all this. I don’t try to read from texts what is not in them. I’m not just afraid of popular sayings like “lost faith”, “believed”, “cursed what I worshiped”, “found a quiet – or even stormy – haven.” I know for sure: I didn’t find any haven, I never really went to “be healed by Christ,” I didn’t publicly repent of that sin of hatred and, at the last depths, of pride, through which he said “yes” to destruction, and gave the bloody paper word “revolution” a capital letter. I also know that the diary entries, supposedly from April 11 of the same freshly revolutionary year, but which had already become a musicless year, “I am destroyed, I have been gone for three days. Die?" they speak, as has happened before, as will continue to be the case until the end, about a sharp change of mood, about intermittent rather than continuous despair, and that it would be reckless or dishonest to look for some kind of testament or last word in them. It happened, until the very end, that at times my soul felt lighter and more cheerful; I don’t see, however, that even occasionally these enlightenments were caused by what was happening around him, in his homeland. In 1818 (March 7), he recalled Klyuchevsky’s judgments that the course of Russia’s development “resembles the flight of a bird that is carried by a whirlwind and tossed beyond the strength of its wings,” and wrote down, after a telephone conversation with Ivanov-Razumnik, his words: “Disgusting - a socialist-philistine-Bolshevik paradise.” I don’t think that these quotes at that moment expressed exactly his own opinion: it was just taking shape, he was afraid to take shape. And what was happening around did not look too much like paradise - albeit a philistine one, with all the understanding that we were talking about the dubiousness of the ideal, not about its difference from reality. As for the “wings”, then, having lost his own, he must have felt the same about Russia with great speed and, remembering Klyuchevsky, with a firm hand he wrote on his own behalf: “The bird that the wind “throws up” - so he threw it off.” He “dumped” Russia and him too. The letter to Nadezhda Alexandrovna, written almost three years after that, doesn’t just talk about him, it doesn’t sum up the results for him alone. In this supplementary “note” about the poem, his testament - not the last word, but the last will - it is said that the not yet born “man of the near future” will have to pay for everything that we have done and “slowly build up what was destroyed by seven years of horror.” Destruction, retribution, creation - they concern Russia, not just the Bloc. “Seven years of horror”, this is not about horror for him alone. This is primarily said about Russia, which he always loved and continued to love with a sharp, painful love, the very quality of which was completely alien to the victors of that time, and was not always properly taken to heart by the vanquished. But this was said by Blok, this is his judgment, his assessment, crossing out all his previous assessments, cemented by death. Seven years of horror. What are seven years? This was said seven months before his death, but, of course, he could have repeated it before his death, when it was exactly seven years since the declaration of war. Let that unborn baby “be a man of peace, not war, let him calmly and slowly build up what was destroyed by seven years of horror.” “Calmly and slowly” is an invitation not to revolution, but to healing from the revolution, which - Blok saw this - was even more destructive than the war. And most importantly, and indeed the most significant thing in general in this letter: Blok does not make any fundamental difference between the first three years of horror and its four subsequent years. I once burned with anger, but there was also a glimmer of hope in this anger. “To the unsightly horror of life /Open quickly, open your eyes/. Until the great thunderstorm / swept away everything in your homeland, - / Let your rightful anger ripen...” Three years later, hope flared up brighter, thunder struck, the “great thunderstorm” passed, the wind tossed Russia - and so what? Reset. I can only remember the old bitter words; “Everything is equally stinking, dirty and stuffy - as it has always been in Russia,” and more correctly: “Nothing can be changed anymore - no revolution can change it.” Sometimes I thought so even before her, but now? – - Lies again. And then old age, mediocrity... Die? 7. “Write poetry for the forgotten Blok” With this slightly clumsy line, more than a year before his death, he finished a rather pale, even in its playfulness, album poem. Of course, he did not forget how poetry is written, he did not forget how to write them. Just six months before the end, I wrote, with a light tread from afar, following Pushkin’s steps, light—as the hands of seriously ill people are—poems to the Pushkin House. It wasn't a matter of skill. “The other day I thought that I don’t need to write poetry, because I’m too good at it.” He wrote this down a long time ago (as it must have seemed to him in 21 or 20): March 25, 1916, three days after he isolated from the drafts of “Retribution” the poem “Kite”, one of the best and last lyrical and tragic, his creations grieving about Russia. He rarely wrote poetry even then. In the recording, after the above words, we read: “We still need to change, or for things around us to change, in order to once again be able to overcome the material.” It would be more accurate to say: “to obtain material for overcoming,” because the ability to overcome it, when it exists, depends on skill, in which there was no shortage. There was only a year to wait for changes around, but was it necessary to assume that these changes would certainly come to the aid of the poet? Internal ones are one thing, unless they are really bad. Regarding external ones, such a “cynical” (as others will say) thought is also possible: if cloudless prosperity is established on earth, where then will the “muse of revenge and sadness” find refuge (I know it was not Blok’s that was named by this name, but wouldn’t this name also suit her?). - This did not happen; did not happen, not only “on earth”, but also here. However, fate’s answer to this recording by Blok turned out to be ironic, and very sad for him. At first it seemed that the poet had shown himself to be a clairvoyant. There has been a change “around” – and what a change! Already in March 17, the joy was great, but when it completely collapsed, Mother Rus', and “Our Russian Empire”, like Borya Bugaev (i.e. Andrei Bely), buffoonishly, but also lovingly, crumbled to pieces, and then his friend, no longer in his 48th notebook, but in the 56th, noted January 28 in capitals in the letters “Twelve” (he probably finished the poem that day), and on the 29th, already working on “Scythians,” he wrote three words in it and underlined them: “Today I am a genius.” There is no further mention of either the “Scythians” or the “Twelve” until February 18, when the entry ends with the words: “I’m somehow exhausted. Either I’m giving birth or I’m tired.” The birth, however, was over by that time. The fatigue never went away. Entry March 28: “Old Age.” Changes continued, but the main one was behind us. The revolution, with a capital R, is over; “the revolution of the 17th and the first half of the 18th year” (this is his expression); but one day he expressed an even more correct idea (if you think about it yourself): he said that the revolution lasted from 1901 to 1918; and in a speech about Solovyov (in 20) that “already January 1901 stood under a completely different sign than December 1900”: “the very beginning of the century was filled with significantly new signs and forebodings.” But now the “noise from the collapse of the old world” has stopped, and with it the music in general has fallen silent. He didn't hear anything else. “Deaf” (he said this more than once). In 20, he recalled: “then I felt very tired; then the decline in creative hops, the music that sounded at the end of 17 and in the first half of 18, became noticeable.” He repeated the words found in Gogol: “If music leaves us, what will happen to our world then?” Already in the previous year (March 30), he inserted them into a short anniversary greeting to Gorky - completely inappropriately - and then, with even more inappropriate words, he ended his greeting: “Only music can stop the bloodshed, which becomes dreary vulgarity when it ceases to be sacred madness.” Dreary vulgarity? Such contempt and anger cannot be explained by another jump in well-being. But he didn’t talk about “sacred madness” again either the next day or a year later. The ferocity of power, raging for the sake of its own defense, did not seem sacred to him. His mother could have reminded him of his letter from 1909: “Let them hang, scoundrels, and die in their own slop.” True, there were no gallows. The “scoundrels” were of a different rank, they didn’t even shoot, they shot (in the basements), but... But how well it all started! Three years ago, on March 23, 17, he wrote to his mother from St. Petersburg: “The picture of the revolution is more or less clear to me: something supernatural, delightful.” And in the same letter: “I wandered the streets, looked at the only spectacle in the world and in history, at cheerful and kindly people swarming the unclean streets without supervision. The extraordinary awareness that anything is possible is menacing, breathtaking and terribly fun. A miracle happened and, therefore, there will be more miracles.” He wasn't wrong. An even more extraordinary and wonderful October has arrived. “We are Russians,” he wrote in the article “Intelligence and Revolution” (January 9, 18), “we are living through an era that has few equals in greatness” (...) The artist’s job, the artist’s duty, is to see what is intended (...). What is the plan? - Redo everything. Arrange so that everything becomes new, so that our deceitful, dirty, boring, ugly life becomes a fair, clean, cheerful and beautiful life.” When such plans (...) break the fetters that bound them and rush into a stormy stream, breaking dams, sprinkling extra pieces of the banks - this is called a revolution. The smaller, the more moderate, the baser is called rebellion, rebellion, revolution; but it's called revolution." Blok mixed up the names. He admired precisely a riot or a rebellion of very large proportions, an uprising (which seemed to him to be a nationwide one), and not a revolution at all, not the replacement of one ruling layer by another, one bureaucracy and army by another bureaucracy and army, and the implementation in practice of what already existed on paper, that is, an ideology that someone had concocted from such and such components, and about which he himself, moreover, had a more than vague idea. What he called revolution actually existed in premonitions and flashes from the beginning of the century and actually ended approximately at the same time when he finished writing “The Twelve.” The music of the uprising fell silent. Those everyday life of the revolution began, which turned into “dreary vulgarity”. The “deceitful” life returned and was re-established - even more deceitful, because the truth was subjected to a stricter ban - and no less “dirty, boring and ugly” life. The “plans” faded, became propaganda bait, and were blabbed into official chatter. For a poet to assert that life is inherently beautiful and should become beautiful for all people, it becomes awkward when newspapers write that now it is a hundred times more beautiful than before, and tomorrow it will become two hundred times more beautiful. And to grieve about the present and vaguely dream about tomorrow becomes completely impossible. It’s a pity that we don’t know what thoughts came to Blok’s mind when he reread his poem “Kite” three or four years after it was written: Drawing a smooth circle after a circle, The koshun circles over the sleepy meadow And looks at the deserted meadow. – In the hut, a mother grieves over her son: On the bread, on, on the chest, suck, Grow, conquer, bear the cross. There is a rebellion, villages are burning, And you are still my country, In tear-stained and ancient beauty. – All the sadness, but also all the poetry of these wonderful lines rests on “Centuries go by...”, “And you are still the same...” and on unanswered final questions. Well, now, in, say, 20, could Blok write these poems? Even if we assume that they would have been published, contrary to the doctrine that in the socialist fatherland kites do not circle and mothers do not grieve? No, I couldn't. The tear-stained and ancient beauty was noticeably pale and melting already at that time, and it would be extremely inappropriate to talk about it. It was also better not to mention bread. There was no bread in the village, and there was no milk, even mother’s milk. In the central and Volga provinces there were many cases of cannibalism. Some gloomy joker might say to the poet: “This son was probably eaten a long time ago; what good and mother.” As for “submit, bear the cross,” unquestioning obedience to ideology and power was no longer glorified in such expressions; glorifying obedience to anything else was strictly forbidden; to condemn this forbidden obedience in poetry would only suit a fan of lynchings and bullets in the back of the head... “Centuries pass, war roars / A rebellion arises...” Now it’s not the same: the music is not the same, and there is no music at all. “And you are still the same, my country” - it was still possible to feel something similar, but it was impossible to write poetry about it. Blok did not write any more poetry, except for humorous ones, album ones, and even that Pushkin farewell poem 99 . I re-read the old ones and corrected them sometimes. I was preparing a new edition of an old collection of poems. I wrote down once (February 6, 1921): “The next collection of poems, if there is one: “Black Day.” But there was nothing to compose a collection from even with such a title. In Nadezhda’s presence, Pavlovich one day “took up his first volume and in an impassive, dull voice, as she writes, read: When we erected the building We dreamed of his fall - and closed the book: “That’s how it happened. But it seemed that there was enough strength to build a large building.” He completely arbitrarily tore these two lines out of their context; (the poem “We will forgive everything - and will not violate it”) gave them the meaning of a gloomy prophecy, which they did not have at all. But this is precisely what is significant. They now became an omen for him - not the death of the “old world”, which he so passionately desired, but the death of everything that he and the people of his generation sought to erect with their own hands and minds. “Life has changed,” he wrote in the last year of his life (April 18); she is changed, but not new, not nuova” (that is, not Danya’s Vita nuova, not an enlightened, transformed life, and he continued: “the louse has conquered the whole world, this is already a complete thing, and everything will now change only in the other direction, and not in the one in which we lived, which we loved.” And again his mother could have reminded him of the letter from his ninth year: “Nothing can be changed, no revolution can change it. “Let’s forgive the gloominess, is this / His hidden engine: / He is all the child of goodness and light, / He is all the triumph of freedom.” We are ready to repeat this now; but at 21, and even at 19, he could no longer write this. Between his new gloominess and his old, it was precisely the thunderstorm that broke out: that revolution, about which he was still unable to firmly decide that it would not change anything. Now he could not say or whisper words about the triumph of freedom through clenched teeth. What he now thought about himself was best expressed, again, in a rethinking of his previous poems. According to Chukovsky’s story, leafing through his third volume with him, he pointed to the poems: How hard it is for a dead man among people, Pretend to be alive and passionate! and said: “It turns out I was writing about myself. When I wrote this, I didn’t even think that it was a prophecy.” 8. The seventh and final year The last year of Blok’s life was the last of the “seven years of horror.” He began to consider them terrible after the delight instilled in him by “February” and then by “October” disappeared; when his “Scythians” and “Twelve” became a thing of the past, and he was left to starve and be cold, to sit, to write reports, “to write poetry, the forgotten Blok.” It was already January 6, 19, when they called him from the State Publishing House: “Hello. Ionov says (...). I propose to publish the Twelve in the Petrograd Soviet of Deputies,” he said: “Don’t you think that the Twelve contains a somewhat belated note?” “Exactly right,” answered Ionov. We are interested, however, in Blok’s opinion, not Ionov’s. Although Ionov was one of his tormentors, the torments that were inflicted on him by individual people were not now the main ones. Dark days had come for him and were becoming darker, in accordance with the now invented title of the non-existent collection. The nineteenth year was black, the twentieth was blacker, in the twenty-first year we demolished it at the cemetery and Akhmatova rightly wrote “Our sun went out in agony.” It’s bitter, but also funny to see how his current biographers or commentators are rushing around to obscure the truth. The last two or three months were all right: he was ill, but in all the others he was supposed to be cheerful, cheerful and revolutionary, as if the “belated note” continued to sound for him, as it sounded in October (in fact, it sounded even more cheerful in February). Perhaps the funniest example of such futile efforts (I say “funny” so as not to say something worse) is shown to us by the already mentioned arch-commentator of our poet V. N. Orlov. In the seventh volume of the Collected Works (1963) on page 458, having mentioned the gloomy flavor of Blok’s personal notes, he explains that such moods did not completely absorb the poet and coexisted in him with “violent fun.” “So, for example, in December 1919, he wrote in a row in a notebook: “hard”, “monstrous day” and so on, and it was at the same time, on December 6, that he wrote infectiously cheerful poems, splashing with genuine cheerfulness, in the handwritten almanac of K. I. Chukovsky: That we are not fragile, not breakable, Cheerful poems, nothing to say! Can anyone really believe that this vaudeville-verse tone seemed “wildly cheerful” to Blok or, in Blok’s poems, to Chukovsky? And the meaning is clear: we are healthy to this day, to the surprise of our posterity, but if we had been even a little fragile and brittle, we would have ceased to be healthy long ago. What's so fun about that? Where is the “unfake cheerfulness” here? The humor of these poems is gallows; it is entirely in keeping with the gloomy flavor of that month's recordings; as well as the humor of the entire poem, all these ironic verses, entitled “Poems about Essentials” by Blok. They say that the romantic blue flower, now, in 1919 (the arch-commentator is silent about the famine of that time) is called by a different name: “In this world, where it is so empty, / You look for it, find it, / And, having found it, call it cabbage, / Put it in cabbage soup every day, / Don’t blame the cabbage soup for not being thick - / They will be thinner in the future.” Oh, what poems “sprinkling with genuine cheerfulness”! Here is their conclusion: “The names of the flower are not loud, / Requisitioned - just right, / But to the one who wears knapsacks / And cabbage - pineapple, / Like a beautiful stranger, / He does not take his eyes off her. / And distant descendants, / And for this they will praise us, / That we are not fragile, not breakable, / We are healthy to this day. / (Yes, sir). / Are my poems not loud? Or does the Romantic Pegasus, harnessed to a tarantass, tear the lines badly? If you believe the commentator, he not only tears the traces, but also “splashes” with “infectious fun”: “Don’t blame the cabbage soup for not being thick - / They will be thinner in the future.” But the commentator knows that among Blok’s notes there are also the following: “I’m hungry”, “I’ll die of hunger”; knows that “they will be thinner ahead,” if this is not attributed to cabbage soup alone, it turned out to be a genuine prophecy. He is well aware that after Blok’s death Chukovsky wrote: “In 1919, Blok could still laugh. But then he stopped,” and that on May 26, 21, Blok wrote to the same Chukovsky: “So,” he had mentioned his illness before, “hello, now it’s impossible to say: the filthy, rotten, dear Mother Russia has devoured it like a pig of its own.” And so it happened: she devoured it; and he still mocks, through dummies, his bitter laughter, as if sparkling with genuine cheerfulness, and all his long, months, years of dying agony. Material deprivation and physical suffering were not the main thing in this torment, but people who diligently minimize them deserve - I wanted to say - contempt, but no, I’m afraid that they deserve pity even more. The same Orlov, praising the cheerful lines “Hello and now / (Yes, sir)”, writes: “The tone of the records of the 20th year is also, in the overwhelming majority of cases, extremely gloomy.” This means that he does not dare to deny; continues, however: “But this is how Blok seemed to Sergei Gorodetsky at that time” and then quotes Gorodetsky’s article from “Press and Revolution” of 1922. “The first thing he told me,” writes Gorodetsky, “when we hugged in the summer of 20, after a long separation, was that he chops and carries firewood and bathes every day (...). He was tanned, red, and looked like a Finn. He spoke about the firewood not with the lady-intelligent flirtatiousness, like everyone else, but like a big guy... I didn’t notice any whining in him.” – Tanned, red, this corresponds to reality, and, of course, one could not expect “whining” from Blok, and whining in front of Gorodetsky was, perhaps, risky. But I don’t know, Academician Shakhmatov, whose heart could not stand the carrying of firewood to the sixth floor, did he talk about this carrying “like a big man” or with “a lady’s intellectual coquettishness”? Is it important? Isn’t this more important than the “untimely death” caused by this (as they like to announce in a mourning frame) of a great scientist? Blok was younger and lived lower than on the sixth floor; but there is still an opinion that he tore his heart out with this dragging. Has neither Gorodetsky nor Orlov ever heard of this? Through malnutrition in the year of famine, Blok acquired scurvy, and NEPA’s balyks and pies were beyond his means. But, of course, I’m not saying - the lubok was such a foreign product - as if he died of hunger. Food of very good quality and plentiful supply was at his disposal when he was no longer able to eat it. Just like permission to go to a Finnish sanatorium with his wife (he could not go there alone) was obtained when he was no longer lying in bed, but on the table. For years they tormented him with verbal debates at meaningless meetings and forced him to seek food by working as a literary day laborer. At the beginning of 21 years (January 17), he wrote down: “Morning, terribly sharp thoughts, amid the depths of despair and death. Learn to read "Twelve". Become a couplet poet. You can always have money and warrants...” Of course, this is not a serious intention (“The Twelve” he always left to his wife to read), but it is clear that things are coming to an end. However, already in 19, when he still knew how to laugh, he wrote (June 11): “What cannot be taken away from the Bolsheviks is their exceptional ability to eradicate everyday life and destroy individual people. I don't know if this is bad or not particularly good. This is a fact." Because he probably didn’t know whether it was bad or not, because only very shortly before that he stopped glorifying the Revolution, and yet it would be difficult to consider the persecution and destruction as anything other than its direct consequence. Further, however, he still mentioned - not about her: about her sons, the piglets of that pig that will soon eat him up. The way they “corrode everyday life” is described in the same entry (it refers to Blok’s walks towards Holguin and Lakhta): “Everything is dirty, even more so than last year. Traces of conscious and unconscious trashing are visible.” True, nothing was added to the record about the destruction of people; it is not said that it can also be called etching when it begins with bullying. Blok began to be persecuted in the last year of his life. In May, when he was already sick and went to Moscow, at an evening at the House of Press he was called a dead man. According to Chukovsky and Alyansky, he agreed with this and said: they are right. In fact, he only had three months left to live. According to Alyansky, at first someone from the audience shouted to him that his poems were dead. “There was a noise. The one who shouted (...) was asked to go onto the stage. He came out and tried to repeat the thrown words or explain them, but there was so much noise all around that it was impossible to make out anything.” Without a doubt, it was not only Blok’s defenders who were making noise. Alyansky's story should be supplemented by Pasternak's story. Blok performed first at the Polytechnic Museum; He was taken from there to the Printing House. “At the evening at the Polytechnic,” writes Pasternak, “Mayakovsky was there. In the middle of the evening, he told me that at the House of Press, Blok, under the guise of critical integrity, was preparing a “benefit performance”, a dressing down and a cat concert. He suggested that the two of them go there to prevent the planned baseness. We left Blok’s reading, but went on foot, and Blok was taken by car...” So they were late. “The scandal that was feared happened in the meantime. They told Blok (...) a bunch of monstrous things, without hesitation to reproach him to his face for being outdated and internally dead, to which he calmly agreed.” "We talked." And not that “someone said something.” They reviled him collectively, not individually. From what Pasternak told (it is clear that the “benefit performance” was prepared, and that it was prepared in such a literary circle that Mayakovsky would not have received hostility - that is why Mayakovsky knew this plan. For the same reason, it was he who had the opportunity to prevent the execution of the plan. Whether he wanted to interfere, or wanted to show a scandal to Pasternak under this pretext - no one can judge this with complete confidence today. While Blok was alive, in any case, he did not show much affection for him: “not his own guy,” - this is how he must have felt in the poem “Good”: And immediately changed his face more sparingly Darker than death at a wedding: “The stingier money changer” is a strange expression (maybe a thieves’ expression?), but that’s not the point. Mayakovsky, in his memoirs about Blok, written down immediately after his death, expressed the same idea with impeccable clarity; Blok approved the revolution, said “good” to it, however, he regretted the burning of the library. “Blok did not choose whether to praise this “good” or moan over the conflagration in his poetry.” Well, if so, I’ll add on my own behalf, then why protect him from his enemies? From those in the House of Press, or from people like Sergei Bobrov, who, while Blok was dying, wrote a vile article in “Print and Revolution” (1921, I) about the publication of “Gray Morning,” a collection of Blok’s former, magnificent pre-October poems: “We are occupied with mortal melancholy,” he wrote, “with inexpressible horror and inarticulate pleas into empty space.” pages. There are no limits to decomposition." "The block is no more." While Blok was still there, he wrote about the defeated and polluted Shakhmatov - whom he loved not with acquisitiveness, but with a love that Mayakovsky could hardly imagine - at the very beginning of his last year, having received a package from there with something saved from the defeat: “Leaves from notebooks, pieces of my lost manuscripts, pieces of my father’s archive; agendas (...), some drafts of poems, pictures that were on the wall in the outbuilding. – Some have dirt and traces of human hooves (with horseshoes). And that’s it.” (Letters, diaries, and other drafts disappeared without a trace). I didn't regret the money. And I never said such words to anyone. “That’s where he belongs,” Chukovsky said about Shakhmatov. And almost the same about myself. I didn't lie. But we still feel from Mayakovsky or Bobrov, or this entry: it was painful for him, although the main pain was not from here. And it wasn’t caused by bullying. But all this helps to understand why he broke the bust of Apollo with a poker on the eve of his death. Our duty, our impossible one - for the time being, for the time being - is the duty to wash away all this dirt, all traces of human hooves from his memory, again carry his body on the shoulders of the Smolensk Intercessor and put up a white, tall cross again on his grave. 9. For every minute of our days Blok is a pre-revolutionary poet; but he did not die immediately after he greeted the revolution with enthusiasm, and he did not stop being a poet, even stopping writing poetry. In a few letters, articles, records, and eyewitness accounts, something no less important is conveyed to us than what is expressed in his poems; and although it is not conveyed by poetry, it relates to poetry and the poet, to the poetic understanding of life and the poetic judgment of it. The transmission is fragmentary, imperfect, and not all archival materials have been published, and in the published ones malicious ones are still being made, that is, deliberately distorting the truth. But in general outlines this truth is clear; It is difficult to express it in a generalized form without falling into simplification. Quite roughly speaking: there was a Russia that Blok hated, whose disappearance he wanted with all the strength of his soul. The time came when this disappearance was accomplished and he rejoiced at it. After which another time very quickly came when he stopped rejoicing, and when the new Russia, which had replaced the disappeared one, began to seem to him just as or even more deserving of curses than the old one; while the former one now turned to him with a different, less hateful appearance. With his whole being he first moved from hatred to joy, and from that then not to new hatred, but to hopeless, suicidal disgust. Hatred seeks to eliminate, destroy, or at least curse - in verse; disgust withdraws into itself, has no time for poetry, wants to leave, and in this case also says: “you yourself wanted this, you called it on yourself and your country.” “Retribution” - this word has long burned with poetic fire for Blok, or, perhaps, a simpler word: “retribution” could more often come to his mind. That is why it is impossible to imagine that he was not thinking about himself when, in January of 21, he wrote to his friend Nadezhda Alexandrovna about her unborn child, that martyrdom awaited him if he was good, that he would have to pay “for everything we have done, for every minute of our days.” Is it really true that if “we” have done this, then “we” don’t have to pay for it, but only our children? No, let martyrdom begin with us, if there is anything “good” left in us. It began for Blok, long before; “I will open,” said death, as in his poems, “let him suffer a little longer.” No wonder Akhmatova wrote: “We brought to the Smolensk Intercessor / Our sun, extinguished in agony.” Avoiding responsibility was alien to Blok. He paid, accepted the torment for himself and for us, for the indefinite “us” who once shared his anger and his hope, “for everything we have done, for every minute of our days.” As soon as he finished “The Twelve,” he began to reflect poetically on what, symbolically, was being destroyed and was destroyed by the “twelve.” I think: I began to calm my conscience. He thought with poetic hatred and justified destruction with this hatred. At the end of February, I sketched the beginning of “Russian Delirium”: Begin Russian nonsense... ...An ancient image in a dark shrine, Before him is a scoundrel in a tailcoat, In ribbons, stars and crosses... He began with images that were so familiar to him, to his old hatred - as in the poem “To sin shamelessly, deeply,” as in the letter to Rozanov about the whip and stole. “An ancient image in a dark shrine”, this seems to be good, but for some reason in front of it there is certainly a scoundrel in a tailcoat”, as if everyone was always in tailcoats and appeared in church, as if no one prayed in front of the images except the “scoundrels”. But he himself, and even in 1905, didn’t he pray, “having staged a revolution against himself,” as he wrote to his friend Zhenya at the same time, “to the three Mother of God in the Kazan and St. Isaac’s Cathedrals,” and yet he had not completely forgotten how to light the lamp. Be that as it may, the poems slowed down: more than a year passed until he, not that he finished them, but abandoned them completely. He continued like this: “There is one thing that has died in her” - in her, that is, in Russia. And this “one thing”, it could be Russia itself: There is one thing that has died in her There and here, this means both here and abroad, both those who left and those who stayed. But why a corpse? No one honors the memory of a corpse; they honor the memory of the living or the living, looking at the dead body, or at the coffin, or at the grave, at the cross that is above the grave. “Eh, eh, without a cross” - now it is not even above yours. But this “dead irrevocably” in your country, you would also like to honor it - if only it weren’t for the fat-bellied philistines, the scoundrels in tailcoats. And no one else, really? Neither here nor there? Neither here nor there. - It didn’t work out; I stopped writing. He added three more lines in April 19: So ring the arrow, in the fog An angry verse and an angry sigh, Crying is ordered, you can’t bind dreams It broke off. No arrow rang, no angry sigh or verse was born. He forbade himself from crying, but without it his dreams could not cohere, his delirium could not be coherent. And when two years later, on the eve of his last illness, he returned to the drafts of the continuation of the second and third chapters of “Retribution”, then in the second chapter of Shakhmatovo of his youth he remembered himself: Tall white horse, sensing We know that it is Sasha who will gallop to his bride from Shakhmatovo to Boblovo. But I wasn’t the only one who remembered himself: Behind her are forests and fields again... This, perhaps, is the “dear memory of a corpse”? Just not maliciously, not at all maliciously, he honors her. And there is nothing fat-bellied in this church, which was white above the river, and now, very likely, like above so many other rivers, it is no longer white above this river. As for the third chapter, back in July of his last summer he tried to return to it; there was still a lot left to write, but he was drawn to the very end, where his hero - himself - was supposed to die in the arms of a woman named Maria. “What should I call you? – Maria / Where are you from? “From the Carpathians.” “Mary, tender Mary, / Life is hateful and empty to me.” Perhaps it was planned long ago to call this woman this way, but still it seems to me that it is no coincidence that in “his last fatigue” the poet repeats so many times not some other name, but this name. “Tell me, do you miss your wife? / No, no, Maria is not talking about her.” And everything that was recedes Then it is written: “And he dies in her arms,” and another phrase relating to the plot of the poem, to its long-planned end. But then, at the end of the manuscript, there are again unfinished poetic lines: a return to the complaint, to the appeal: I'm empty, I'm disgusted with living! What I had to do. The last two lines never came out, but the call and complaint received their melody, sounded lyrically, and I cannot get rid of the feeling that the voice of the poet himself sounds in them, that they were spoken on his behalf... In what thoughts he died, we will never know for sure. We only know that again, in recent months and years, I lived in a terrible world - only not quite the same one in which I lived before. Partly in the same way: no radical - supernatural, in essence - change that he expected in the seventeenth or eighteenth year did not happen. The world was just as terrible, in many ways even more terrible, but it was no longer the same world, the horror of which he himself was involved, and which therefore fed his poems, so that he will remain his poet forever. He no longer wrote poetry. Those that are written do not count - his real count -; but he read, in St. Petersburg, in Moscow, when he had to read, as if dully, dispassionately, but with even greater, perhaps restrained passion, all the same about the “terrible world,” and among them the most prophetic, the most hopeless of all. Vsevolod Rozhdestvensky spoke about one reading of these poems at a meeting of the Union of Poets, as well as what happened after the reading, but here he did not understand everything or did not want to finish “everything.” I will also give this story, shortening it, but also completing what was not said. “The meeting ended with a round-robin reading of poetry. Blok read no more than five or six poems. And when no one expected him to continue, he started the last thing. His face, until then calm, was distorted by a painful wrinkle at his mouth, his voice rang dully, as if cracked. How often do you and I cry? Oh, if only you knew, friends, The cold and darkness of the days to come! There is no limit to lies and deceit, Everything will be blacker than the terrible light, And the whirlwind of planets becomes more and more crazier “He leaned forward a little in his chair; heavy lids fell on his eyes, half closing them: Spring child, you will be waiting - You will call the sun to the sky - And scream when you start screaming “He said the final lines almost in a whisper, with painful tension, as if overpowering himself: Be happy with your life, Oh, if only you children knew “We all had a kind of depressed feeling.” Blok smiled, said a few reassuring words, and then suggested: “Let’s read something from Pushkin. Nikolai Stepanovich, now it’s your turn.” “Gumilyov was not at all surprised by this proposal and after a minute’s pause began: Here Rozhdestvensky breaks off the quote and writes: “The bright name of Pushkin relieved the general tension.” Mochulsky, in his book, reproduces his story without comment. But Gumilyov read the entire poem, and it ends: They rush, collide in a common cry - Obviously, during the “minute pause” Gumilyov figured out what to read. Poets have premonitions, sudden insights. The enmity between these poets was not to death; It was not a duel that one of them imagined. But Blok did not have long to live, and Gumilyov was shot three weeks after Blok’s death. Six months before his death, in a note about “The Twelve” (April 1, 1920), he said with all firmness and directness that for the last time he blindly surrendered himself to the elements when he wrote his poem and that he did not renounce it for this reason, and immediately compared politics with “a small backwater like the Marquis pool.” “In this glass of water,” he wrote, “there was also a storm then.” “For the last time”, “blindly”, “a storm in a teacup” - that is why the text of this note was only once - in 22 - fully printed in Russia, which was renamed by politics. If they publish it there, it is in excerpts, sometimes longer, more often very short. It ended - after the words that there was a drop of politics left in the poem - like this: “We'll see what time does with it. Maybe all politics is so dirty that one drop will muddy it and ruin everything else; maybe it won’t kill the meaning of the poem, maybe, finally - who knows - it will turn out to be a fermentation, thanks to which “The Twelve” will be read someday in times other than ours. Now I myself can only talk about this with irony; but let’s not take decisive judgment upon ourselves now.” What about us? Will we take this trial upon ourselves? A lot of time has passed, but “our times” are not over yet. What Blok suffocated from is what is still suffocating in his country for everyone in whom “secret freedom,” in his and Pushkin’s words, has already awakened, and who, in search of the obvious, ends up in a camp, in prison or in a madhouse. The time when he wrote “The Twelve” is no longer ours; but the time when he wrote the note about them is still our time. But it’s still clear now, and it was clear to me even in 20, that “The Twelve” is on the other side of politics, even though its theme seems to be political, and that if there is a muddy drop in the poem, then this mud is of a religious nature and has nothing in common by nature with politics. That is why this poisonous droplet seeped into poetry itself. Political poetry is not poetry until it has outgrown politics. There is not the slightest doubt that Blok outgrew it in his poem. But you cannot outgrow religion, you can only bypass it. Blok did not want to, or rather, was unable to do this. So much the worse for the Twelve. But souls are not under our jurisdiction. I don’t dare say: so much the worse for him. There is no direct blasphemy in The Twelve. If we forget about the diary entries inspired by Renan, it sometimes smoked and flickered near Blok’s image of the Mother of God, and not near the image of Christ. Not only in those “Italian” poems, which he himself later apparently (although without admitting it) was ashamed of, but also in the whole pink confusion that envelops - and even gave rise to - most of his poems about the Beautiful Lady. Zinaida Gippius, in anger at the “Twelve,” sharpened her arrow sharply, but took aim with a trembling hand. On May 7, 19, Merezhkovsky handed over her poems to Blok, which were preceded by an explanation in the form of an epigraph: “At a dance in Kronstadt, a drunken sailor, offended by the young lady’s refusal, tore off the icon of the Mother of God and began to dance with it. An hour later he died. “The legend (or truth) of our days.” After which Blok read: “Christ did not walk ahead of the 12: That's what the boors themselves told me. But in Kronstadt there is a drunken sailor I danced the polka with the Beautiful Lady. They say he died... What if he didn’t? Don't you feel sorry for your Lady, poor poet? He answered quietly, meekly, and most importantly, tiredly - this feeling already had the strongest hold on him: You are life, still not at all You don't know. Polka has changed They have a sad Kickapoo... And what are you smart about hunting? Throw the salt of an anecdote at them Can you see only shantrap in them? He answered wisely, and did well that he did not mention the Beautiful Lady: she does not participate in “The Twelve.” If we identify her with the One whose icon was torn from the wall by the sailor, then Blok, who in former years “danced” with this icon, was not without sin before the prototype of this image. But Gippius did not say anything about this, and she made the identification with not very pious ease. He could not object to her about the ending of his poem: it was hopeless to convince her of the authenticity of the vision, but he himself knew that “ahead of the 12,” if Christ walked, it was without their knowledge, and that everyone who made “October” or benefited from “October” resolutely denied it. Less than a year earlier, in the first days of June 18, he answered Gippius, having received her book with the inscription (which has not reached us) much more decisively and cheerfully; compared the international with a banner, raised this banner above the already oratorically elevated (like “Scythians”) verses. Now he fully realized his loneliness; did not raise any banners; he lost his voice, “got deaf” and - no matter what interruptions and returns lay ahead - one can say without hesitation: he began to prepare for death. Back in September of the penultimate year, just three months after that first answer, meeting Zinaida Nikolaevna on a tram, he asked her: “They say you are leaving?” and after her answer: “Well... here it’s either die or leave. Unless, of course, you are in your position,” he paused, and then said, as she writes, “especially gloomily and clearly”: “You can die in any situation.” In those days, the “situation” was understood by 3. N. extremely simplified; later, however, shortly after Blok’s death, in 1922, finishing her memoirs about him, she wrote the very decisive thing that should have been written: “With great suffering and death, he atoned not only for all his voluntary or involuntary guilt, but perhaps partly for the shame and sin of Russia.” These are powerful words. I feel sorry for those who have not yet signed for them, as well as for those who are still not free to dispose of their signature. Moreover, these words are weighty because it was to Blok that Gippius at one time addressed the corrected Nekrasov verse: “You are obliged to be a man”; Now she, albeit late, realized that among all the poets, both of them contemporary, he, less than anyone else, could be accused of trying to evade such a duty. Perhaps she also regretted that “Kronstadt” poem. But here we must still admit that despite all the fog that enveloped her target, and the injustice of her anger, she still somnambulistically correctly chose the arrow - “You don’t feel sorry for your Lady” - if only not to think about the Beautiful Lady, but about the Mother and the Virgin depicted in the icon. Nobody knows exactly what “chasms of consciousness” opened or slightly opened to Blok after he shouldered “October” and wrote “The Twelve”; just as no one knows in what exact thoughts he wrote to Nadezhda Aleksandrovna Nolla about “conscience” six months before his death. Or what exactly the craving of his last years for the poems of his youth meant. “I have never known a bright angelic lie.” Knew, knew! Not then (1909), so before. And how can lies and poison be angelic? It’s all a mess, and not just a pink mess. But here is the last stanza of a very chaotic poem, written shortly before (1908): Vain heat. Vain wanderings. We dreamed, having stopped loving dreams. So - the joylessness of dreaming is destined There is no doubt that this “You”, with a capital T, must be deciphered in the feminine gender, and not in the masculine gender. And now, before the end, the muse of the joyless, but unforgettable dream of a terrible world, fell silent. The “vain heat” has cooled down - The vain dreams are over. Memory could now awaken - in what hiding places, in what abysses - and even consciousness? - stored... The two beings were inseparable and separated from him; stayed with him, very close to him until the end. “If there were no wife and mother in the world, I would have nothing to do here,” written in the diary on June 15, 1912. Mother and wife. A frail, puny mother - he shared everything with her, she knew everything, it seemed to him at times, as he wrote, “that they had one soul between them.” Chubby, red-cheeked, tall wife. Not a wife, but a bride. She remained a bride even after she gave birth to someone else’s baby, who died a few days after birth. “Darling, the Lord is with you,” he writes in his diary when he cannot tell her this; baptizes when she is not there, her room, her bed. He talks about her like a little child. No matter what, no matter how she acts, she is innocent and pure to him. This is the very real thing that remains from the half-fake fog of those idyllic, but most, in essence, insane, wickedly maiden “Lady”, the chaotic dream of her crippled youth. Mother and wife and I we are in the crypt Above - everything is louder, more and more absurd, And the last day is coming. I have given the first verse in its original form; then, in the poem “Dream,” dedicated to his mother, he began to read: “I had a dream: we are in an ancient crypt.” There were no further changes: Sunday morning is just dawning. Above us are red stones And He comes from the smoky distance; And angels with swords are with Him, Just like in the books we read, She doesn't want to be resurrected... And I hear my mother whisper next to me: - My son, you were strong in life: Press the arch with your hand, - No, mother. I suffocated in a coffin And there are no more experienced forces. So that the angel rolls away the stone. Blok confirmed this poem with the last minute of his life. The one whom he sought with both faith and unbelief, Dante called in the last song of his poem the Virgin Mother, the daughter of his Son. Christianity honors the Bride and Mother in one person. On earth they are not united into one person. And in two persons there is not always friendship and alliance between them. Lyubov Dmitrievna had a hard time getting along with Blok's mother, especially in the last years of his life. When he became mortally ill, she wanted to follow him alone. Mother had to leave. She returned, at the call of her wife, only when death came close to her son. She was not allowed into his room. She had spent the last three nights sitting on a chair next to the closed door. No one was allowed there: the Blok was too weak. He was delirious, even raging - he calmed down, repeated: “God, forgive me,” and fell into oblivion. In this room there were memories of Italy (probably, the god of poetry, broken by a poker, belonged to them). One relatively recent one: a photograph of Madonna Sassoferato, a late and somewhat cloying imitator of Raphael, in whom Blok found similarities with Lyubov Dmitrievna. The other, on the contrary, is very old, not about Florence in 1909, spoiled for him by noise and dust. About immemorial, a quarter of a century before. Above his head, in a frame and under glass, always from that time hung a modest picture, given to four-year-old Sashura by a seven-year-old Italian girl when he lived with his mother near Viale dei Colli, from where such a heavenly and serene view opened up on the dome and bell towers, on the tiles of the roofs, on the hills behind them. The girl's name was Sofia - a significant name, not for a four-year-old, of course, but later for Seryozha Solovyov's young, twenty-year-old friend and Lyubov Dmitrievna's fiancé - and the picture depicted Immacolata, the Immaculate Virgin, Ever-Virgin of the Immaculate Conception. When his last day and hour came, when he shouted, called his mother, who was sitting outside the door, ordered her to stand on one side of the bed, and his wife on the other, that picture still hung over his head. “Pray and ask both” - there was no need to utter these words. He apparently didn't say another word at all. It was Sunday, ten o'clock in the morning. The Annunciation Church is not far from the corner of Officerska and Pryazhka. According to his mother, her sister writes: “When his lifeless body sank onto the pillow, the solemn and distinct sounds of the gospel were heard, calling for mass.” Blok no longer heard them. But after three days We brought it to the Smolensk Intercessor, Brought to the Blessed Virgin Mary In your arms in a silver coffin Our sun, extinguished in agony - Alexandra, the pure swan. B. Petrovsky. Andrey Bogolyubov. "Son of Man" Andrey Bogolyubov. Son of man. Brussels. Ed. "Life with God", 336 pp. with illustrations. On the first page of Andrei Bogolyubov’s book we are greeted with a dedication: and those who believe in the possibility of obtaining it On the reverse is the Face of the Savior from the Shroud of Turin. In the preface, the author clearly limits the circle of readers for whom the book is intended: it is addressed to the modern Russian reader, either completely unfamiliar with the Gospel, or familiar with it superficially or third-hand. The author’s goal is to awaken interest in careful and reverent reading of the Gospel among believers and non-believers, to help them come closer to understanding the meaning of the Eternal Book. The method chosen by A. Bogolyubov for depicting the life and teachings of Jesus Christ is perfectly suited to the task at hand. The author calls his method “synthetic”; we will allow ourselves to call it more simply – artistic. With one caveat, however: the language of the book does not always meet the requirements of artistry; the author, in places, obviously sacrifices it for the sake of clarity of thought. The orderly composition of the book is also sometimes disrupted by theoretical excursions or long extracts from Vl. Solovyov. Despite this, the entire book seems written in one impulse. This unity of the narrative is achieved in other cases by successfully interweaving gospel words into the author’s text, in others by an almost exact retelling of them, and in others by inspired poetic passages. The setting of the Savior's earthly life is depicted in such a way that the reader sees the flowering gardens and vineyards of Galilee, the fishermen-apostles, the learned Pharisees and the urban common people as realistically as artistic insight can give. It is no coincidence that the author leads the reader from a simple description of events to the deepest and most difficult truths of Christianity. Thanks to this technique, those who are completely unfamiliar with the Gospel are slowly and carefully brought to its understanding, while those who have read it superficially have the opportunity to change their minds and experience a lot anew. It is especially valuable that the manner of presentation adopted by A. Bogolyubov, which is new and may even be unexpected for the Russian Orthodox reader, is the only one that allows the view of our contemporary to break through the thickness of centuries-old cultural layers and prejudices, to see the Gospel events simply, impartially and openly. It should be noted that the gradualness of the presentation is obviously caused not only by propaedeutic considerations, but also by the historicism of the author’s thinking. This historicism has a peculiar connotation. We see, as it were, two streams of human history - internal and external, we see their interaction, we follow the change in their relationship. Thus, the “Prologue” reads almost like the beginning of a historical novel. Against a broad (historical and cultural) background, the main ideas that the Roman Empire lived on the eve of the Nativity of Christ emerge here. The contradiction between the Empire and the East is clarified; the teaching of the prophets is briefly, but quite clearly, given. In the course of the presentation, external events recede more and more into the background, while the motive of “true history, which is done in silence,” sounds louder and more urgent. Finally, the confrontation between the two worlds, Rome and the East, which occupies such a large place in the Prologue, seems to be completely forgotten and all the reader’s attention is focused on the Nazarene with a small group of disciples and the crowds of people gathering around Him. Only occasional reminders of the present day force the reader to briefly take his eyes off the gospel events. The drama of these events builds slowly and steadily, reaching its climax in the chapter “Jesus on the Cross.” The joyful turning point - “Victory of life” - gives, as it were, an impetus to the reverse movement: the history of a small community from a provincial Roman province grows into the history of the Church of Christ, covering the entire history of mankind. The author's style in presenting miracles and mysterious events is peculiar. And here he remains faithful to the principle of gradual revelation of meaning. Thus, at the beginning of the book, the greatest events of Sacred history are presented as if under cover and it is up to the reader himself to believe or not to believe in their mysterious meaning. “The morning dawn flared above the dark historical horizon. In the twentieth year of the reign of Augustus, in the small Galilean city of Nazareth, the Virgin heard the words: “You will give birth to a Son and call His name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High, and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David, and He will reign over the house of Jacob, and His kingdom will have no end” (p. 32). Thus, for the first time, a golden thread is woven into the fabric of the “historical novel” - the news of the Annunciation. After the story about the wise men who appeared on the streets of Jerusalem and about the cruelties of the reign of Herod, there follows a sparse and unpretentious message about the Nativity of Christ. “Meanwhile, a rumor had already spread in Bethlehem about a mysterious Baby who was born in a sheep pen. Local shepherds were the first to see Him and spoke of a miraculous vision that announced to them about the Baby. The Young Mother, who had arrived in Bethlehem with her guardian husband during the census, now lived in one of the houses in the city, although at first she had no shelter." “...The world greeted the Savior coming to it with threats and hatred. But this was not the whole world. Those who believed and waited, who were pure in heart and full of hope, met Him differently. The Bethlehem shepherds, the pious old man and the eastern sages recognized Him as the King and worshiped Him” (pp. 38–40). This is how the idea of ​​a spiritual sword dividing is introduced into the narrative. The first miracle described in detail in the book “Son of Man” is the first miracle of the Savior Himself, the transformation of water into wine at the wedding in Cana. We learn about it, having already become quite accustomed to the calm narrative tone of the book; it appears against the backdrop of the Lord’s wanderings through the flowering fields and groves of Galilee, immediately following the words: “He brought joy everywhere; He blessed life, and this blessing transformed it” (p. 68). Our attention is focused here not so much on the mystical, educational meaning of the miracle, but on the thought of the power of Divine love bringing joy to the world: “... true joy, true life can only be where He is present among people” (p. 70). Next, a separate chapter is devoted to the miracles of Jesus. “Your faith has saved you,” said the Lord, thus placing the possibility of healing from ailments of soul and body in direct connection with the faith of the patient. This connection can be traced in many events: in the healing of the sick “according to their faith” or according to the faith of their loved ones, and in the lack of faith of Peter, which almost became the cause of his death, and in the unbelief of the Nazarenes, of whom the Lord was able to heal only a few, and, finally, in the sad words: “...you seek Me because you ate bread and were filled. Do not strive for bodily food, but for food that endures to eternal life...” This connection is explained by the fact that: “ardent prayer and deep faith, as it were, lift a person from the earth, make him a participant in the supersensible, transcendental world and give him dominion over the material world. In prayer and faith, man tears apart the veil that separates us from the eternal Source of strength” (p. 116). The healing of the sick and demon-possessed, the multiplication of loaves, the transformation of water into wine, walking on water, the cessation of a storm - all these miracles of the Lord, which at first glance have nothing in common with each other, have, however, at their core one, all-illuminating meaning: they are a sign of new life, life in the Kingdom of the New Testament, where elemental forces are subject to the Son of Man, “the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, and the dead are raised..." (Is. 29:18; 35:5-6). Thus, the theme of miracles turns out to be closely intertwined with the main theme of the book, which is not accidentally called “The Son of Man.” Here the Divine-Humanity and Divine Sonship of the Savior is consciously and systematically emphasized, the idea of ​​a two-way connection is emphasized, which arose once in history and constantly arises again in the life of every person, when the impulse of human faith rushed towards the ever-flowing stream of Divine love. The new order of life, revealed to the world in this meeting, releasing the healing and saving power of God, is called in the Gospel the Kingdom of God, the Kingdom of Heaven. “The Gospel of the Kingdom” - this is what the author called the chapter, which tells that Jesus Christ brought to earth the good news about this new order of life, about the Kingdom of God, the King of which He proclaims Himself. “Only through Him can man achieve true bliss in communion with the Father, therefore He is the only true Savior of the world. Here we enter the region of the most mysterious and decisive in the Gospel. Here an impassable gulf instantly opens up between Jesus of Nazareth and all the prophets and founders of religions. “...He speaks not in the name of God, but as God. He promises salvation to those who believe in Him. He forgives sins, He tests hearts” (p. 92). However, salvation from sin and approaching the Kingdom of God is not an easy and painless process. Christianity is not Buddhism or Tolstoyism. Achieving the Kingdom of God requires struggle. This struggle goes on continuously throughout the entire historical existence of Christianity and throughout every human life, “... the historical ore will have to go through fiery purification before the hour of universal transformation strikes” (p. 85). Thus, notes of tragedy burst into the joyful and bright story about the life and preaching of Jesus of Nazareth. In the chapter “The Mystery of the Son of Man” the reader is already face to face with the idea of ​​the inevitability of Golgotha. This short chapter is unusually rich theologically. It contains almost all the main Christian ideas. We say almost everything, since the author, true to his artistic instinct, does not allow himself to go beyond the boundaries of historical plausibility, and in the book ending with the Ascension, he does not dwell in detail on the dogma of the Trinity. We find here a very clearly presented idea of ​​the Fall, of human free will, of the futility of mankind’s historical attempts to free itself from the consequences of the Fall on its own, of the idea of ​​the union of God and man in the religion of Israel, and, finally, of the expectation of the Messiah-Liberator. We also learn that “it is not for nothing that the Gospels were written not in the form of teachings, but in the form of a biography... of a great and unique Person,” since at the center of Christianity “stands the Person of the God-Man, Jesus Christ, through Whom heaven is united with earth” (p. 134). Personality, not ideas, even the most beautiful ones. “He did not conquer people with the evidence of His power. He did not use force, but left human freedom intact. He did not want slaves, but wanted sons who would unselfishly love Him and follow Him, the Crucified Carpenter from a remote province.” For the chosen disciples, the veil of secrecy was lifted, the light of Tabor shone upon them, but the thought of the suffering Messiah still remained incomprehensible to them. More and more often, instead of words of consolation and mercy, words of accusation and bitter prophecies come from the Savior’s lips. His loneliness is growing, the crowds of followers are thinning, sad words addressed to the disciples: “Do you also want to leave?” speak for themselves. Here the author takes us to a pass, from which the olive trees of Gethsemane and the height of Golgotha ​​are clearly visible. Even the people closest to the Lord are far from truly understanding the events taking place before their eyes. The sons of thunder share seats at the throne of the Messiah, Simon thinks about humanity... He said terrible words that made even the most courageous disciples shudder: “I came to bring fire to the earth and how I wish it would already ignite! I must be baptized with baptism, and how I languish until this is accomplished! Do you think that I have come to give peace to the earth? No, I tell you, but division” (p. 145). Imperceptibly, the light and warm coloring of the book changes, the shadows thicken. We see not the splendor of the King’s solemn entry into the city that rightfully belongs to Him, but a sad Man riding on a donkey, immersed in his thoughts. Pilgrims, disciples and children greet Him with enthusiastic cries. At the sight of Jerusalem, tears appear in His eyes: “Oh, if only on this day you knew what serves for your peace! But from now on these things are hidden from your eyes” (Luke 19:42). “He thought about the bitter lot of the people, who found themselves in the grip of harmful illusions” (p. 159). This picture is very far from our usual idea of ​​the Lord’s Entry into Jerusalem, refracted through the festivity of the Palm Resurrection service, in which the motif of the proximity of the general Resurrection sounds so joyfully and confidently. From this moment on, the theme of kenosis, the humiliation of the Lord, no longer ceases to sound in the narrative. The pace of the story is accelerating, chapters and phrases are being shortened. A reader well acquainted with the Gospel may complain that so little space is given to the Last Supper and Gethsemane in the book. But after reading the chapter “Jesus on the Cross,” we involuntarily agree with the author, realizing that the steadily increasing tragedy leaves no room for unnecessary words. This part of the book contains the most direct quotes and paraphrases close to the Gospel text. The author seems to leave the reader alone with the horror and extraordinary nature of what happened, and he himself falls silent and steps aside. An unjust trial, the scourging and mockery of the mob, the horror of a slow, painful execution, abandonment by friends whom He taught for three years, for three years alleviating their suffering... And, finally, the darkness of abandonment by God. In a few phrases, the author makes us understand into what terrible abyss of emptiness and despair the disciples of Jesus plunged after the crucifixion. “What remained for them now? Go back to Galilee and start fishing again..." These chapters are perhaps the most successful in the entire book. The story of the Resurrection of Christ is not inferior to them, however, in power and brightness. The author makes us, as it were, see and experience anew all the acuteness of that unexpectedness and suddenness with which the souls of the disciples were torn away from boundless despair and plunged into the radiance of Easter joy. We seem to follow the wives, Peter and John, step by step to the empty tomb, we share their amazement and their impatience to understand, to accommodate... We also share Thomas’s doubt. A separate author’s digression is devoted to Thomas’s assurance, which is especially valuable now, when so many of us, not without reason, can consider the apostle. Thomas as his patron. “Faith is not simple trust in what is heard, faith is a gift of God, but it is effective only when our will does not resist the possession of this gift... The Apostle Thomas, when he said “if I do not see, I will not believe,” he almost believed, he was almost imbued with faith in the resurrection... That is why the Church speaks of “Good Thomas’s unbelief” (p. 208). Thus, the Lord here, as always and everywhere, does not violate human freedom, but meets his free striving for faith. Next come the lines addressed directly to our contemporary: “And every person whose will is open to the Light has a moment in life when he clearly hears the voice of God, and it is up to him whether to heed this voice or not... No, even the most rigorous proof of truth can replace living experience, living faith. Faith does not prove itself, but shows...” (p. 209). What follows is a brilliant brevity and psychological convincing refutation of various explanations of the fact of the Resurrection of Christ, which we find among atheists of various persuasions. At the same time, A. Bogolyubov especially emphasizes that “the entire foundation of Christianity lies in the fact of the resurrection of Jesus, His victory over death.” The Resurrection of Christ and its significance in the history of mankind is considered according to Vl. Solovyov, from whose letters quite extensive extracts are given. The entire discussion ends with the words of St. John Chrysostom: “Death, where is your sting? Hell, where is your victory? Christ is risen and the angels rejoice. Christ has risen and life reigns!” The wonderful final chord is an epilogue, ending with a prayerful appeal: “Give us, Divine Teacher, the strength of their faith, the invincibility of their hope and the fire of their love for You. Through the roar and roar of the technical age - so powerful and at the same time so powerless and poor - let us hear the silence of Eternity. When on the dark road of life, lost, tired and confused, we stop, not knowing where to go, groping for support, let us see Your clear Face in the midst of the storm and hear Your encouraging Voice speaking to us. “I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” We take the liberty of highlighting some particulars: Our attention is drawn to the interpretation of the motives for the betrayal of Judas, which goes back to the interpretation of Blessed Theophylact. It turns out that the reason for the betrayal was not just love of money. More precisely, Judas’s greed is deeper and more dangerous than simple theft, although, as we know, he did not disdain this either. His love of self-interest is inextricably linked with the love of power and is rooted in one of the most terrible temptations for the human soul: the temptation to replace the heavenly ideal with an earthly one. Thus, Judas, along with many of his contemporaries, imagined the future Kingdom of the Messiah in the form of the earthly kingdom of Israel. And in such a kingdom, he, the treasurer in the community of the enthroned Teacher, could count on both honor and wealth... When “Jesus directly announced to the disciples that His death was near...” it seemed to him that the Teacher had deceived his hopes. “Judas... completely disappointed, accepted the offer of the priests and scribes to betray his Teacher” (p. 169). “Perhaps he secretly hoped to the end that an uprising or miracle would free Jesus if He really was the Messiah,” and when this hope did not come true, he committed suicide. This interpretation is not only interesting as a psychological revelation of the inner motives of Judas’ actions, it also provides an explanation for a fact that otherwise remains inexplicable: why did Judas agree to such a paltry payment? If he were a simple thief, it would be in his interests to maintain his place in the general treasury for as long as possible, and, in any case, he would demand a high price for betrayal. From the literary examples of A. Bogolyubov, it should be noted the method of defamiliarization of the presentation of some Gospel events. Here are some examples: “In Bethlehem... a rumor spread,” “the local shepherds were the first to see Him and spoke of a miraculous vision... (p. 38), “they also said that when “Mother went to Jerusalem...” (p. 39). “There were terrible rumors about his /Judas’ death for a long time” (p. 184). “Ominous rumors spread throughout the city: they said that an earthquake had damaged the beams on which the curtain in the church was supported; the veil was torn from top to bottom...” (p. 199). Such refraction of events through someone's stories or rumors creates an atmosphere of unsteady mystery and makes the reader want to be convinced of the reality of these events; it, as it were, provokes the reader's active attitude towards what he read. To what has been said about the literary merits of the book, we will add a few words about its language. It amazes with its lightness, freshness and simplicity. This is the simplicity that seems hopelessly lost to people of the twentieth century and forgotten as long ago as the simplicity of a child’s perception of the world is forgotten by us. In this simplicity, A. Bogolyubov’s style comes into contact with the best traditions of 19th-century prose, while remaining at the same time completely modern. Its modernity is primarily in its laconicism, in a certain monotony of epithets, in the abundance of short, and in some places deliberately shortened phrases. Apparently, all these qualities of the language are not accidental and do not so much characterize the author’s manner of thinking, but were deliberately chosen by him as most relevant to the content of the book. Indeed, a greater wealth of vocabulary could lead the reader’s imagination astray and thereby only weaken the impression, only impoverish the meaning of the Gospel story. The author has successfully avoided the Scylla of rhetorical beauty and the Charybdis of boring details of presentation. In places the author resorts to modernizing individual words and expressions. Obviously, this modernization is also carried out as a conscious technique and goes back to the advice of St. John Chrysostom brings events closer to the modern reader so that he can feel like a witness or participant in them. For example, it is said not “warrior”, but “soldier”, not “chief of a thousand”, but “commander”, not “taking into custody”, but “arrest”, etc. However, such modernization was not successful everywhere. For example, the phrase: “Christ rejected their crude materialistic ideas” (p. 163) would only have won without the annoying word “materialistic”. Unfortunately, the book contains many such rough edges. The shortcomings of the book include the story about the temptations of the Lord in the desert, which is too short and therefore does not leave a trace in the reader’s soul. We think that after Dostoevsky it is no longer possible to handle this text so easily. We are also not convinced by the phrase: “Both Buddha and Socrates and Isaiah and Seneca taught the same morality.” An attentive reader can guess that the author here was guided by a desire to emphasize, in contrast to the teachings of L. Tolstoy, the idea that the testimony of Jesus Himself “about Himself and His teaching does not at all resemble a simple moralizing sermon” (p. 134). However, in this case, it should be said that the pre-Christian teachers of humanity also taught sublime morality, but they could not teach the same morality as Jesus, since his moral teaching is inextricably linked with His Person. Obviously, there was a simple stylistic misunderstanding here. There are also some glaring typos in the book. For example, it is easy to guess that Peter was possessed by a gust of faith, and not by the wind (p. 119), that this refers to a war within the state (p. 118), etc. In general, the book is designed very nicely, equipped with many illustrations and valuable applications. Among them, the extensive essay “Myth or Reality?” especially stands out. This essay examines in detail and very convincingly, and in some places very wittily, the attempts of the mythological school to explain the origin of Christianity are refuted. This essay is far from outdated, since in Russian popular literature, unfortunately, the mythological theory continues to exist to this day. It seems to us highly desirable to publish it as a separate brochure. This pamphlet would be read by those readers who are so prejudiced against Christianity that they would not dare pick up a book called “The Son of Man.” At the same time, it will be read with interest by many Christian believers who suffer from a lack of historical knowledge. In conclusion, it must be said that A. Bogolyubov succeeded in the most difficult and most important thing: the living image of the Savior permeated the narrative. And that’s why, when we close the book, a feeling of clarity remains in our soul, an elusive breath of that radiant spirituality that made the apostle. Peter exclaims, “It’s good for us here.” The Light of Christ enlightens everyone, but everyone sees it through the eyes of their own personal faith. And I would like to thank the author for the fact that he did not hide under a bushel his deeply personal vision of the Light - the Face of Christ, but took the trouble to convey it to everyone seeking the Truth. Many thanks to the publishers who released the necessary book and invested a lot of love and work into its design. Ep. Georgy Vagner. Prot. Nikolai Afanasyev, Church of the Holy Spirit Prot. Nikolai Afanasyev, Church of the Holy Spirit. Paris 1971, YMCA-PRESS, 332 pp. Finally, a book by Fr. Nikolai Afanasyev: Church of the Holy Spirit. This is his major work, known so far only from some, more or less random excerpts. To write a real review of this long-term and multifaceted work of the late teacher would mean writing a new, rather voluminous study. So many important theological issues are touched upon here. We must, however, first of all stop before the living image of the great Orthodox theologian who again rises before us from the pages of this book. It can be said that the theological creativity of Fr. Nicholas is based primarily on two foundations. This is a constant appeal to primary sources and a living theological intuition of the mystery of the Church - the Body of Christ. Fr. Nicholas never succumbed to the temptation to theologize “simply” - from his own mind. He began to write his works, as he himself admitted to his wife, “with the tears and blood of his heart.” We learn about this from the very valuable introductory article by M. Afanasyeva: “How the Church of the Holy Spirit took shape.” But his gaze was always turned to Divine Revelation, to the sources of Church Tradition, to the depths of consciousness of the Church itself. Father Nicholas felt most of all like a historian of the early Church. He always sought an encounter with the truth that is indelibly attested in the primary sources of our knowledge about the early years and decades of the life of the Church - despite the difficulty of the task for us now to decipher their testimony with all possible accuracy. One must see and understand the creativity of Fr. Nicholas primarily in the light of his connection with the tradition of the church historical “school” within Russian theology of the 19th and early 20th centuries. The name of his teacher, Church historian A.P. Dobroklonsky, already connects him with this tradition. The significance of this tradition - perhaps the most valuable - in the history of Russian theological science, unfortunately, is not sufficiently recognized these days. And therefore, rarely do any of the readers of Fr. Nicholas correctly unravels his theological genealogy. But it was precisely his historical sense, refined by his constant delving into the sources, the solidity of his historical argumentation and the associated ability of his theology on the basis of Scripture that amazed many of Fr.’s listeners. Nicholas and constituted his glory in theological circles inside and outside the fence of the Orthodox Church. In his writings, he is in constant conversation with the sacred authors of the New Testament Scriptures, mainly with the Apostle Paul. We always find him in a lively dialogue with the Fathers - especially the early, ante-Nicene period and with the authors of the canonical rules. An indispensable reference to the sources of Fr. Nicholas is not only the usual method of his scientific work. It has the power of personal testimony for us, his readers and students, about where we should look for the foundations of real theological knowledge: in living communion with the Word of God and with the Tradition of the Church. U o. Nicholas had the undoubted gift of clearly seeing before him the main ideas of his theology. Its main theme, of course, is the mystery of the Church realized in the Eucharistic assembly. I remember how, in a conversation with one Protestant theologian, Fr. Nicholas, when asked what the Church is, directly answered with the instruction: The Last Supper. The book “The Church of the Holy Spirit” is the answer to Fr. Nicholas to all those who - from Tertullian to the liberal theologians of our day - are tempted by the historical flesh of the Church. In vain do these seduced ones seek, in addition to the Body of the Church, which is created by the Spirit through the Eucharistic Mystery, some other “church”, supposedly “spiritual”, “charismatic” or “invisible”. All charisms of grace are given in that Church, which is founded on the apostles and which is built by the Spirit on the model of the Last Supper. And the entire structure of the Church must be seen in the light of the order that is intended by the meeting of Christ with his disciples at this Supper. This, in particular, applies to the highest ministry in the Church - episcopal. The bishop is not the “prince of the church,” but, first of all, the head of the Eucharistic assembly, continuing the ministry that Christ performed at the Last Supper. As “the primate of the brethren” (in the words of Justin Martyr), the bishop - or the presbyter replacing him - in the assembly of the Church occupies the place that Christ occupied at the Supper among the disciples, and fulfills His ministry: he offers thanksgiving over the Bread and over the Cup. The myth that at the beginning of church history some kind of “gracious anarchy” supposedly reigned, Fr. Nicholas contrasts the order that necessarily follows from the Lord's Table and lies in the very essence of the Church as the Body of Christ. For Fr. Nicholas, this system of the Church initially did not have a legal character, but only a grace-filled one. The grace of the Spirit is the beginning of life, but it is not an anarchic combination of individual atoms that can live, but only the body as a harmonious organism. Defending the organic structure of the Church, Fr. Nicholas did not close his eyes to tragic events along the paths of church history. Here he raises the question of the undue intrusion of the legal principle into the grace-filled life of the Church. He languished with this question all his life. Occupying the chair of church law himself, he - oddly enough - denied the legal principle of the “right of residence” in the Church. One can, of course, argue about terms here. And is Fr. Didn’t Nicholas himself recognize, at least in the early years, a certain legal character “sui generis” behind church rules? The point is not in terms, but in the fundamental difference between power in the Church, the power of love and truth, and worldly, earthly power. “Kings rule over nations, and those who rule over them are called benefactors; but you are not so...” (Luke 22:25). And the structure of the Church cannot be compared to any state system. Hence the warning about. Nicholas before confusing the concept of the Church as the “people of God” with state forms of parliamentarism. The principles of the state system, no matter how valuable and necessary they are in themselves in the field of the state, ultimately can never be identified with the principles of life of the grace-filled organism of the Church. Along with the expression of his living theological intuition, we find in the works of Fr. Nicholas and bold personal conclusions. In particular, Fr. Nikolai was not afraid to resort to constructing his personal scientific hypotheses. And he persistently defends the right of scientific hypothesis in historical work (see “The Church of the Holy Spirit,” p. 208). One cannot but agree with this in principle. But at the same time, it is sometimes difficult not to argue with one or another specific hypothesis about. Nicholas, with one or another conclusion drawn by him from his basic, always correct intuition. – This, for example, refers to his assumptions regarding the early history of the rank of episcopal installation. – On the other hand, a scientific discussion with Fr. Nikolai “is never an easy matter, requiring from his interlocutors at least a small share of involvement in the same intuition and the same inspiration. In addition, we must remember that Fr. Nikolai touches on many issues that have not yet been resolved in the theological science of our days, and sometimes are passed over in silence. For this reason alone, the appearance of his book should have the significance of a certain event in the history of this science. And one can hope that it will cause lively discussions among the learned friends of Fr. Nicholas and will make him many new friends. The deepest power of the book about. Nicholas is that it again clearly testifies to his personal experience of the mystery of the Church - the Body of Christ. I see before me early Sunday services at the Sergievsky Compound twenty years ago: several students and friends are singing in the choir - among them the current priest, Fr. Georgy Drobot, who has now drawn the image of the Church meeting on the cover of the book; and in the altar of the small chapel, behind the ancient royal doors, bearing the images of Saints Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, stands Fr. Nikolai Afanasyev and offers the Eucharistic Prayer to the Church. And I hear him pronounce at the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great words of thanksgiving for the fact that Christ acquired us for himself “chosen people, royal priesthood, holy language”... S. Toad. About one Russian family 100 The most sensitive, spiritually excited part of the youth in the Soviet Union. Russia is looking for contact with Russian spiritual culture, which was forcibly suppressed after the October Revolution. In this contact there is hope for revival, for the victory of light, for a new flowering of Russian culture. There, in Russia, the works of free Russian thinkers, N.A. Berdyaev and others, are copied and read. However, it is not enough to become familiar with ideas and spiritual issues “at the highest level.” To restore the “connection of times” it is necessary to feel all the unique originality of life in pre-revolutionary Russia, to feel its special air, when, despite all the imperfections of the system, there was a special internal freedom in relations between people. What was significant was the abundance of original people, unique characters - there was no stamp imposed on top. A strong, creative personality could do a lot, even in the time of Nicholas 1, and in the 20th century, public initiative creatively transformed the country. Young people, especially in Russia, absolutely need to deeply feel all the qualitative originality of this Russia, which created its only culture. The book I am writing about provides just such an opportunity. The chronicle of the Zernov family is not only a story, but also a series of images, often artistic and always convincing - images of people of three generations of the Zernov family and families related to it. Church service with Rev. Stefan Zernov and widely public in the next generation and not only public service, but also personal influence, direct and life-giving. I can’t even list everyone who is described in the memoirs of Dr. Mikhail Stepanovich Zernov, widely known in former Russia and so memorable to the Russian emigration; in the memoirs of his wife, Sofia Alexandrovna and their children, Nikolai, Sofia, Maria and Vladimir, as well as the wife of Nikolai Mikhailovich, Militsa Vladimirovna, born. Lavrova. Parents have memories from their childhood, vivid, often masterful. The memories of their children intersect and give a fascinating picture of life and events, reflected in each in their own way. The problem of general and personal fate arises, especially in their Christian aspect. High faith, strict, exacting spirituality and wonderful kindness of Rev. Stefan, an absolutely exceptional shepherd, left a bright stamp on the spiritual structure and all the activities of the Zernovs. The social achievements of Mikhail Stepanovich (sanatoriums for the poor in the Caucasian Mineralnye Vody, orphanages, libraries and much more) are living proof of the ability to overcome all obstacles and achieve success in social work in the pre-revolutionary years, if you unselfishly put your whole soul into your business, with all the will and gift of initiative. A number of fascinating pages tell about the friendly communication of the Zernov family with the elite of the then Russia. When reading these pages, the reader will feel that all communication in those days took place without any fear or care - and the thought of this could not have occurred to him. Mikhail Stepanovich's wife, Sofya Alexandrovna, born. Kesler, was an outstanding teacher and constant assistant to M.S. I had the good fortune of being well acquainted with her, and the words of her spiritual father, Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, at the first memorial service for her, on the day of her death: “My meeting with Sofia Alexandrovna was a great event in my spiritual life.” Several chapters of the book are devoted to memories of the first years of the revolution. In contrast to the one created by several owls. writers of a kind of “romance” of the civil war, the reader will become acquainted with the “romance” of the white movement. However, political judgments about the time of the revolution, especially the February Revolution, seem to me unjustified in this book. Many Russian families have served Russia and its culture well. The grains are distinguished by their deep religiosity. Their personal and public service is animated by the Orthodox Faith and they are not alien to some mystical experience in significant moments of life. I will say in conclusion that it is impossible to talk about this book, but it can be made clear that reading it is necessary. P.S. The second volume (also edited by Nik. Mikh. Zernov) about the activities of the Zernovs in emigration will be published soon. Chronicle of Church Life 101 25th anniversary of the priesthood of the dean of St. Vladimir's Theological Academy in New York, Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann On Tuesday, November 30, the 25th anniversary of the priesthood of Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann, Dean of the Theological Academy, was celebrated in New York. The hero of the day served the early Liturgy in the academic church in the same vestments in which Metropolitan Vladimir ordained him at the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Paris, 25 years ago. In the evening at the academic church of prof. prot. I. Meyendorff served a thanksgiving service with the proclamation of many years. Present in the church were His Beatitude, Metropolitan Irenaeus, with his vicar, His Eminence Bishop Demetrius of Washington, professors and students of the academy. After the prayer service, Fr. I. Meyendorff announced an address of gratitude from admirers, professors and students of the academy, as well as welcoming telegrams. Honoring the hero of the day among the closest academic staff and members of the church administration was unexpected for the hero of the day. In the evening, at a gala dinner in the academic auditorium of Prof. S. S. Verkhovskoy greeted the hero of the day with a short word, in which he noted the achievements of Fr. Alexandra in the implementation of higher theological education in America, with the receipt of academic degrees for students. It was felt in the speeches that the hero of the day enjoyed sincere respect, love and gratitude for his tireless work, spiritual leadership and devotion to the Holy Church. Metropolitan Irenei blessed Fr. Alexander with an updated image of the Dormition of the Mother of God, which he received from Harbin in gratitude for the fact that he had discharged 240 families of Russian refugees from there. Protopresbyter A. Schmemann in his answer emphasized his gratitude to the Lord God for His mercies for 25 years, saying that if he had to start the path of life again, he would undoubtedly follow the same path. This celebration left a bright and joyful feeling. II All-American Council of the Autocephalous Orthodox Church At the invitation of the Metropolitan Council, I had the good fortune to attend, as an official guest, the Second Council of the American Orthodox Church, which took place from October 19 to 21 at St. Tikhon's Seminary (Pennsylvania). I went to the Council not out of curiosity, but to test on the spot my conviction in the correctness of the path chosen by the former Russian Metropolis in America. Readers of the "Vestnik" remember how unconditionally the entire editorial board supported the decision of the Metropolis to become an autocephalous Church and, without waiting for the general consent of all Churches, to receive this autocephaly on a canonical basis from the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate. All my observations at the three-day congress only confirmed my double conviction that 1) the Metropolis has grown to autocephaly and that 2) receiving this autocephaly from the hands of the Moscow Patriarchate did not cause the slightest damage to the new Church. I. – The size of the new autocephalous Church is impressive. 300 delegates from clergy and laity equally represented about 200 parishes. There are very few Russian emigrants among the delegates: the vast majority are second-generation Americans. The average age of priests is approximately 45 years. Particularly noteworthy are the priests - students of St. Vladimir's Seminary, theologically educated, purposeful and spiritual. There are also excellent students of the Tikhon Seminary (for example, Priest Harris, a missionary in Alaska). The Council was of a business nature: it was to discuss and adopt the Charter. A competent commission (chaired by Bishop Demetrius Royster, a natural American) drew up an excellent project in the spirit of the decrees of the 1917 Council with applications to the American situation. Many points caused heated, lengthy debate. More recently, in many parishes, in contrast to the authoritarianism of the former “Uniate” priests, the laity treated the priest as a hired pastor. This “congregationalism” is gradually being eliminated, and the Charter specifically stated that “the parish is headed by a priest.” During the debate, some priests of the old formation, as well as the liberal laity opposing them, expressed extreme views. However, during the voting, the correct, middle point of view always triumphed, preserving the leadership of the priest with great responsibility of the laity. Only on one minor point did the conservatism of the delegates show itself: the vast majority refused to allow women to be delegates to the Councils. But basically the Council showed that the former Metropolis had grown to autocephaly not only in its numbers, not only in the degree of its Americanization, but also because of its ecclesiastical maturity. 2. – However, autocephaly is usually challenged (by R. Gul, Fr. A. Kiselyov and others) not for church reasons, but for political ones. They say that to receive autocephaly from Moscow meant to submit to Moscow. The Council showed the complete inconsistency of this point of view. Suffice it to say that there was not even an observer or guest from the Moscow Patriarchate at the Council. And the appeal to Christians, adopted by the Council at the proposal of the episcopate, testifies that the American Autocephalous Church does not cease to fight for freedom of conscience and religion wherever this freedom is violated, and, first of all, in Russia (see Bulletin No. 100, p. 324). So, the Council finally convinced me of the correctness of the chosen path. But there I felt how much more time and effort would be required to spread autocephaly to other Orthodox groups in America. So far, in addition to the American Russian Metropolis, the Autocephalous Church includes the Romanian diocese and, since October 14, 1971, the Albanian one. The Primates of these two Churches are full members of the Episcopal Council. But outside the autocephaly remain the Arabs (though the latter are inclined to join), Serbs, Bulgarians, Ukrainians, and, most importantly, the Greeks. The latter did not even send observers to the Council... But the American Orthodox Church, headed by Met. Irenaeus, paved the way and set an example. Sooner or later, perhaps in one generation, all Orthodox will unite into one local Orthodox Church in America. N. Struve. The writer is a righteous man. In memory of B.K. Zaitsev The last prominent participant in the brilliant Russian Renaissance, the last major name of the surviving Russian emigration, its universally recognized literary glory, and, most importantly, its conscience, has gone. It always seemed that rare longevity, with unimpaired health, was given to Boris Konstantinovich from above for a reason, not only as a personal gift, but as a consolation for emigration. As long as Boris Konstantinovich is with her, she has something to be proud of, someone to resort to, someone to defend herself with. And so Boris Konstantinovich lived to see the time when emigration not only approached the last line, but also, in a sense, lost its separate raison d'être. Writers living in Russia began to publish abroad, just as they did at home, and among them A. Solzhenitsyn became the conscience and glory of not only the Russian people, but the whole world. B.K. Zaitsev's voice was quiet, but clear. Once upon one of his anniversaries, P. K. Pascal called him “the quietest.” Boris Konstantinovich could not thunder throughout the world. But to embody the best qualities of a Russian person and writer, to become a symbol for the Russian emigration, this more modest, but not small calling, was fulfilled by Boris Konstantinovich. He was an example of honesty and truthfulness: throughout his half-century emigrant life, Boris Konstantinovich never made any social compromises. But despite all the firmness of his convictions, he was dispassionate and did not stain himself with any unnecessary attacks or party quarrels, so characteristic of emigration. Dispassion was in his character, but it was rooted deeper in his constant striving for spiritual values. Boris Konstantinovich was religious without strain or pathos, fundamentally, earnestly, and this calm religiosity gave his quiet speeches taste and weight. Blessed old age... (except for the long and painful illness of his wife, which Boris Konstantinovich endured as an ascetic, without the slightest murmur): his gray hair almost did not touch him, his memory did not fail, and his talent did not fade away. At eighty years old, he wrote a beautiful story, perhaps his best, The River of Times, worthy of becoming one of the ten most successful Russian stories of the twentieth century. Not long ago, he read by heart N. Gumilyov’s dying poem (published in Vestnik No. 98), about which he wrote his last article, a few weeks ago he celebrated Christmas in the movement’s Vvedensky Church, and very close to the fateful day, he led (until twelve at night) the celebration of F. Dostoevsky... He no longer had the strength for a big speech. He spoke a few words in simplicity, but, as he wrote to me in a letter, “kneel.” Thus, at the feet of the “giant,” the literary path of the righteous writer, who faithfully and honestly served the Russian word for no less than seven decades, ended. 102 Bishop Alexander (Semyonov Tian-Shansky). In loving memory of B.K. Zaitsev What is a funeral march? This is a procession, solemn, this is a celebration. But is this really a celebration of death? Of course not. This is a procession towards the light, and death is darkness. People understand this light towards which they are moving in different ways. For some, this is the Pantheon of long, but of course ephemeral human memory, for others, more sighted, this light is the immortality of the soul, for others who have already seen, it is a procession towards a bright resurrection. There are many funeral marches. They all begin with a slow, heavy, triumphant step, in which the step of death is also felt. In music one can hear their sound, their progress. Further, often, as, for example, in the funeral march of Beethoven's 3rd symphony, there are sobs - fugal sobs, then often a painfully sweet memory of the life of a beloved deceased person, and sometimes all this ends in apotheosis, glorification, jubilation. Even Beethoven does not always succeed in this; for example, Egmont’s finale is too bravura (although Egmont is not a funeral march). To rejoice, to glorify this direct work of the angels, their occupation, they are called to this; They are the true musicians, and we are given the gift of eavesdropping on these heavenly sounds. No wonder one fourteen-year-old boy suddenly wrote: “Across the sky of midnight...”. Such eavesdropping works better not in funeral marches, but in requiems - this is already liturgical music. It seems to me, only an amateur, and not a music connoisseur, that Brahms succeeded in this jubilation in his requiem. There, in our way, in the Orthodox way, the triumph of the resurrection shines through. And in his church music this joy, perhaps, is sometimes too hidden. It’s in Hallelujah, after “funeral lament,” but doesn’t “eternal memory” sound too minor? Is this why many understand this as a call to us, people, not to forget the deceased, and not as his affirmation in the eternal memory of God, which is eternal life? Easter funeral services, where everything ends with the singing of “Christ is Risen,” more fully express what funeral music should embody. These services are rare, but the Church, of course, is right that it reserves the fullness of Easter joy for a long time. But the music of funeral marches sometimes sounds in so-called prosaic works of art. If art is genuine, then it cannot do without music. Not only poetry and prose sound and sing, but also paintings and sculpture and architecture. Music is the basis, the soul of all art. It is, of course, abstract to some extent, but it cannot be separated or extracted from any work of art, which is always an embodiment. This is why modern attempts to turn everything in art into one abstraction are so boring and powerless. Among recent literary works, music is especially heard in two stories: by B.K. Zaitsev and A.I. Solzhenitsyn. This is the story of the first “Avdotya-Death” and “Matryonin’s Dvor” of the second. In these stories, Russian old literature and new - post-revolutionary literature, as it were, shake hands with each other. There is a handshake and, as it were, a transfer of inheritance. In essence, every human life is a funeral march, but its music is not always heard. But both stories in question are so similar to funeral marches. Poor Avdotya is destined to outlive herself in tireless worries, in rushing here and there, so that finally, without realizing it, she will fall exhausted and ascend to where their crowns are ready for the martyrs. But she is not a righteous woman, like Solzhenitsyn’s Matryona, she is only a martyr. There is cruelty and rudeness in Matryona, but there is also light. The real light in this story shines through in the Russian young lady Liza, one of the last spiritual heirs of Turgenev's girls. Solzhenitsyn’s Matryona also rushes about all the time, but sacrificially, unselfishly. She is a righteous woman and a martyr. Like Zaitsev, this story is not an idyll; selfishness and cruelty surround Matryona. This is the difference between the two stories. For Zaitsev, there is more good outside and around his heroine; in Solzhenitsyn, on the contrary, evil is outside and around her. And yet both have similarities. Both Avdotya and Matryona are similar in that they each live their own lives, one that neither revolutions, nor wars, nor anything external can change. Therefore, both images seem to complement each other. Yes, both live their true lives, which would be approximately the same under any regime. Therefore, it is not difficult to imagine that Avdotya Zaitseva and Matryona Solzhenitsyn are an image of Russia, one that can be maimed, tortured, but cannot be killed spiritually. This Russia, sometimes cruel, sometimes selfless, is always alive in its concerns, sometimes purely sacrificial, sometimes filled with a heroic, but hidden struggle for its existence. Like all living things, Russia is doomed to death, but behind its death the Resurrection is seen. In Zaitsev’s work, the soul of the tormented, although not disinterested, Avdotya is picked up to bring into the bright world (in Lisa’s dream) by her son Misha and her old mother, partially tormented by her, but not abandoned by her. In Solzhenitsyn, Matryona’s feat is crowned with the grief of her pupil Kira and the prophetic silence of a nameless, ancient old woman sitting on the stove (an image of some kind of supermundane wisdom) and, finally, the words of her tenant - the narrator - Ignatich. If it was said above that every human life is essentially a funeral march, then both stories - by Zaitsev and Solzhenitsyn - one cannot help but feel this, they describe the life of their heroes in a form very similar to a funeral march. From the first words of these stories, the step of death is heard; In Zaitsev, for example, in the threats of cold and winter, in the story “Matryonin’s Dvor” in the fuss of mice. These leitmotifs are repeated and intensified towards the end. The reminiscence part about Avdotya’s former life is almost absent, but in Solzhenitsyn it is very developed. Then there are feigned and sincere crying and tears. This is real futa. In Zaitsev, all this is only outlined, but the presence of a certain apotheosis, quiet, not bravura, is present in both. Which has already been discussed in more detail above. When you read both stories, you involuntarily recall the legend about the holy hermit who succumbed to momentary temptation, imagining that there was no one higher than him. But the angel, or the voice of God, pointed out to him two women in Alexandria who were superior to him in the eyes of God. These were two women who, day after day, were immersed in their household chores, accepting them simply as the fate sent to them by God. By their humility they pleased God. Matryona - Solzhenitsyn and even Zaitsevskaya Avdotya-death are similar to them. Similar to them, in some innermost essence, is Russia, which could not be overcome by neither princely civil strife, nor the evil Tatars, nor serfdom, nor wars, nor riots, nor the revolution, which is still trying to ferociously strangle it. Many of our writers are also similar to these Alexandrian righteous women, especially Boris Konstantinovich Zaitsev and Alexander Isaevich Solzhenitsyn. They are both the same way - one devoted himself, and the other still devotes himself to his writing, without claiming to be prophets and teachers, but simply knowing that their work was given to them by God. Therefore, their works reflect the image of Russia so purely and clearly and forget (as Fr. A. Shmeman noted in relation to Solzhenitsyn) various Russian messianisms that were not good for the Russian soul. Now that the Lord called Boris Konstantinovich to Himself, the nature of his creations became clearer to everyone who knew him. His literary works shine with the light of Christ. Prot. S. Shchukin. V.F. Martsinkovsky. 1884–1971 With great delay, news came from Israel that Vladimir Filimonovich Martsinkovsky died there on September 9, 1971, at the age of 87. For the current generation of members of the Russian Student Movement, this name means nothing, but it is well known to people of older generations as belonging to a prominent figure in the Movement in pre-revolutionary Russia. While a student at St. Petersburg University, the deceased participated in meetings of the student circle under the leadership of P. N. Nikolai, the founder of the Russian Movement. It was not easy for a philology student to come to a living faith in Christ, but under the influence of Pavel Nikolaevich he overcame his doubts, both intellectual and volitional. But this was already at the end of the university course, after which V.F. left for Grodno to become a literature teacher. In his pedagogical work, V.F. did not hide his religious beliefs, especially when teaching Russian literature. In addition to lessons, he gave introductory lectures at morning performances for students, emphasizing the Christian and ideological meaning of the works of Russian classics. The result of such reports was the collection “Matinees”, published in 1910. In addition, V.F. joined the “Society for the Dissemination of the Holy Scriptures” and in the summer he walked around cities and villages as a book carrier. Meanwhile, P.N. Nikolai, trying to strengthen the Russian Movement with younger forces, suggested that V.F. go completely to work among the students. Although such a transition worsened his financial and social situation, V.F. agreed and from 1913 became secretary of the Student Christian Circle in Moscow. There he devoted himself entirely to spiritual work: he read reports, gave public lectures, led groups to study the Gospel, and was keenly interested in the religious movements of the pre-revolutionary period. After the revolution of 1917, V.F.’s activities took on a wider scope. The revival of religious and political life gave him the opportunity to speak publicly more often. Although he always spoke on behalf of the Russian Christ. Student Union, its speeches touched upon broad social topics. With the Bolsheviks coming to power, V.F. began giving lectures of an apologetic nature and accepted challenges from atheistic lecturers to public debates. These performances attracted not only students, but also numerous audiences of intellectuals and workers, such as. during his dispute with Lunacharsky, the then commissar of public education. At the same time, V.F. traveled with lectures to other cities and universities, as he interestingly described in his book “Notes of a Believer,” published in Prague in 1929. Such intensive activity of V.F. led to the fact that in 1921 he was arrested by the Extraordinary Commission and spent 6 months. in Taganskaya prison. In those years, the Soviet government had not yet persecuted “all” religious activities, and therefore, after making sure that V.F. was not associated with any political group, he was released. But since he continued his performances in the future, the government decided to send him abroad. At the beginning of 1923 he left for Czechoslovakia. The foreign period of V.F.’s life was only partially connected with the Russian Movement abroad. His main activity consisted of lectures and publications of a general Christian nature. He traveled widely throughout Europe, took part in various religious organizations, but never held any official position. He had long been interested in the issue of preaching Christ among Jews; even in Russia, he spoke in Jewish Christian communities. In 1930 he moved to Palestine, where he spent the remaining 40 years. Having studied the ancient Hebrew and Arabic languages ​​in a short time, V.F. gradually became involved in the work of preaching the Gospel among the local population and took part in small free Christian communities consisting of Jews and Arabs. There he married the daughter of a German-American archaeologist who carried out long-term excavations in Palestine. After the formation of the State of Israel, V.F. accepted his citizenship and continued his preaching work, living in Haifa, but traveling throughout the country. In recent years, he even took part in broadcasts in Russian on a radio station in Monte Carlo, addressing his sermon to the Russian people. V.F. was especially pleased that despite the Arab-Israeli war of 1967, Christian communities consisting of Arabs and Jews continued their work, realizing the peaceful coexistence of these two nationalities. On September 9, 1971, after a short illness, V.F. died. He was buried in a Christian cemetery at the foot of Mount Carmel. We must hope that his friends and admirers in the USSR will also learn about his peaceful death. Prot. B. Bobrinsky. CM. Zernova “How strange it is to think that someday I will not be on this earth, that I am writing these lines and, perhaps, someone will read them and thereby touch my life, but I will not be there... ...And now this unchanging path of mine will soon end, and I will soon stand before the gates of a mysterious and unknown eternity...” 103 This focus on eternity of Sofia Mikhailovna is so characteristic of her entire life, and the first thing she finds to say about herself, the first thing she remembers about her early childhood, is the memory of prayer “which penetrated our children’s souls and followed us through our entire lives” 104. When you look back through this whole life of service of love in the circles of R.S.H.D. in Belgrade and Paris, or in the Commonwealth of Sts. Albania and Sergius, or in helping the Russian unemployed, or, of course, in tirelessly caring for children - the spiritual image of a woman who loved God, who sought and found Him alone, in people, among the disadvantaged, of course in the cup of suffering that she was destined to drink in the last years of her life, invariably appears. From personal communication with Sofia Mikhailovna, what remains in my memory, perhaps most of all, is her questioning, sometimes silent, sometimes expressed, asking about the main thing, about the meaning of life, about faith, about Orthodoxy, about Russia, about people: her bright and burning heart evokes an answer, strengthens faith, inspires sacrifice. This unconditional faith in the best, which sometimes lies dormant in our hearts, is the secret of the inspiration and enthusiasm that formed around Sofia Mikhailovna and which made it possible to raise so many homeless children. Her whole life is now concentrated in prayerful burning before the throne of the Lamb, and the words of the Seer of Mysteries are remembered: “Blessed are those who die in the Lord from now on; yea, saith the Spirit, they shall rest from their labors, and their works shall follow them” (Rev. 14:13). Prot. A. Schmeman. Saying goodbye to G.V. Adamovich I met him personally late, only in the last years of his life. But I always knew about it, literally – from childhood. While still a schoolboy in Paris, I was waiting for Thursday and two “basements” in two Russian newspapers: feuilletons by Adamovich and Khodasevich. I waited with impatience and joy, as if it were something vital. However, he seemed unattainable to me, living on some inaccessible Olympus. Only very shortly before leaving for America I met him in I. V. Chinnov’s “attic” in Paris. The real meeting took place later and I saw him only a few times, but somehow immediately, despite the difference in generations and, in all likelihood, “attitudes,” the relationship became close, I will say with gratitude – friendly. And there was nothing “Olympic” or general about him at all; he did not broadcast anything, did not preach. And the conversation was not always about important and deep things. But it was as good with him as rarely with anyone. ...Several meetings. Several conversations, one - the most memorable - was under his roof, in the very last hours of the seventieth year. And just recently, just a few weeks ago, here in New York, with me. And now there will be no more meetings. One more interlocutor, just an interlocutor, and not a co-worker, like-minded person, acquaintance, has become less, and what a truly great gift of God this is... Over the years, they have written many times that with the passing of such and such, “an entire era ended.” But, I think, about no one now these words are as true as about G.V. Adamovich. It’s not my place to explain the role that he played in emigrant literature. Much will be written about this and, as expected, this role will be assessed differently. For he was at the center of many literary, and not only literary, storms, and was an active participant in emigrant literary “politics.” All this is outside the field of my personal memory. And I met G.V. himself when he considered emigration, so to speak, “complete” and was summing up the results. For me, the main thing, however, is that he was - on some very high level, not political, of course, and not topical - one of the bearers of conscience, as the final measure and justification of literature. Without regard to conscience, literature seemed unnecessary to him, not worthy - no matter what its brilliance, its success - of attention... (He, a Russian writer and critic, reminded us of the impossibility for Russian literature, without changing itself, without ceasing to be itself, to abandon this highest moral standard.) You can have different attitudes towards the notorious “Parisian note”, you can love or dislike the works generated by it, but since it existed as a kind of plan, as an internal requirement addressed to creativity, since, finally, it is associated with the name of Adamovich, its essence was precisely this and nothing else. As a critic, as a “writer,” G.V. could not always be consistent. I guess I was often wrong. He was biased, loved some, disliked others. He may have “indulged” his friends and like-minded people; he “underestimated” his enemies. He did and, it seems, loved to do literary “politics.” And yet, in the main thing he was both firm and true to himself, and only this main thing was important to him. I remember that on that memorable New Year’s Eve we accidentally started talking about a book by a French journalist that had caused a lot of noise, in which he described his religious conversion, described how he saw God... “But how can he,” said Adamovich, “if he really saw God, write about trifles...” This journalist writes a daily satirical article in a large Parisian newspaper. It is difficult, and probably not necessary, to talk about the religious secret of another person. From just what Adamovich wrote on this topic, it is clear that this question was painful, unclear, and difficult for him. He didn’t see or hear something in Christianity, in Orthodoxy; he seemed to distance himself from the latest decisions and elections, sometimes somehow unnecessary, almost superficially, “polemicized” with the Gospel. But, behold, there was some kind of constant and high “sadness for God” in him, something that is so often not felt in the prosperous, confident that they possess the whole truth, believers, who do not doubt their closeness to the shrine and with a light conscience distribute certificates of orthodoxy and piety around them. You can love or not love Adamovich’s poems, you can, comparing him with other poets of his era, not recognize him as a great, out-of-the-ordinary poet. But it seems to me that what he himself dreamed of, he himself demanded from the poet - that he would finally agree on five or six “as if random lines... And so that they would pass with muffled music - through the countries and seas of the yearning land” - that he wrote these five or six lines and that their sound, their “muffled music” will not die in Russian poetry. It is hardly possible to argue about the fact that his criticism, his “comments” and “draft notes” will remain forever in Russian literature. They will not remain as “dogma” - because, probably, people will always argue about everything. And they will remain as an example of how to approach what true criticism should be and what it so obviously ceases to be in our age of “literary criticism,” cold, scientific, objective, but incapable of the final penetration into the final secret of creativity. Each generation is, of course, destined to accompany its fathers and predecessors on the “path of all the earth.” But the sad, tragic feature and fate of my generation is that, parting with our predecessors, we, each time, with ever more acute pain, realize that a certain wonderful “Russian era” is coming, has come to an end. Adamovich was not only one of her last witnesses. He himself still shone with her light, he himself was still her presence among us. Adamovich once wrote about Merezhkovsky and these words of his, parting with him, and remembering everything that Adamovich was and what he meant to us, I turn to him. Why are we grateful to him? “For an example of organic and musical perception of literature and life. For your steadfastness in defending music. For the constant silent reproach to everyday life and philistinism... For attention to what alone is worthy of attention, for interest in what alone is worth being interested in. For being distracted by trifles... For sadness, finally, which is purer and more beautiful than joy and ennobles everything.” V. Krylatov. On the emergence of the Movement (additions and clarifications) 105 ...The origin of the Movement should be considered not even in Psherov, but in the Conference of the World Christian Student Federation, which took place in Lekin in 1922 in April. About 1,000 delegates from all over the world attended that conference. There were about 400 Chinese, 70 Americans, 15 Indians, 11 of us Russians, etc. My professor and friend L.A. Zander and I from Vladivostok, Lev Nick, met there. Liperovsky from Shanghai, A.I. Nikitin from Sofia (he represented Bulgarian students at that time), one delegate was even from Moscow, and there were also from Harbin. Our group, especially the four named, met every day and discussed the possibility of the birth of a Russian movement, or rather renewal, since Liperovsky and Nikitin were old members of the movement in Moscow and St. Petersburg under the leadership of Nikolai. We decided first of all to draw the attention of the conference to the tragic situation of the Russian Church, and then to turn to the chairman of the conference, Dr. Mott, for help. A short, rich report was drawn up, since they only gave us 4 minutes, and Lev Aleksandrovich literally blurted it out in English. This report made an amazing impression. Groups of different people approached us, a hitherto unknown group, shook hands, asked additional questions, clicked Kodaks endlessly, and in general this, by the way, the last day of the conference became some kind of Russian day. After lunch there was a general trip to the Great Wall of China, during which an address was given to Dr. Mott. He reacted favorably to our projects and expressed a desire to look for funds to move L. N. Liperovsky to Europe and support him and his wife for some time to work for the benefit of a possible movement. Also in the fall of 1922, Liperovsky moved to Prague. Zander and I still remained in Vladivostok, although we were already preparing to go there, which we did in September 1923. But even before leaving, through Ivan Robertovich Mozh-Bdaket, secretary of the YMSA, we learned that Liperovsky’s mission was succeeding perfectly, the soil was favorable and developing, and a congress was being prepared. We arrived at the 1st Psherov, which took place in 1923, but only one Zander got there. These are the origins of the "Movement". Russian Student Christian Movement The Russian Student Christian Movement Abroad has as its main goal the unification of believing youth to serve the Orthodox Church and attracting those who are indifferent to the faith and non-believers to faith in Christ. It strives to help its members develop a Christian worldview and aims to prepare defenders of the Church and faith, capable of fighting modern atheism and materialism. R.S.H.D. asserts its inextricable connection with Russia. Our belonging to the Russian people and to the Russian Orthodox Church imposes spiritual obligations on us, regardless of whether we consider ourselves temporary emigrant exiles or decide to connect our lives with another country. True Russian culture is inseparable from Orthodoxy: therefore, we see our duty in preserving and continuing it. We also see our duty in testifying to the world about the true face of Russia, in reminding us of the suffering of the Russian people. This outline was compiled by L.A. Zander and printed by him in a small brochure in memory of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, published in 1945. Here are the years of publication of only the most important books about. Sergius. For articles and less important works, see bibliography. The dates of the countless lectures and other appearances by Fr. Sergius. This lecture is cited as having special significance in his spiritual biography. Since 1923, Fr. Sergius participates in numerous congresses of the R.S.H.D., the Anglo-Russian Commonwealth, the League of Orthodox Culture, etc. Of these, only those that had any special significance in the life of Fr. Sergius. Originally published in 1964. The Russian text is awaiting a publisher. see e.g. in Russian-America. Church Vestnik”, 1971, 7–8, letter to the editor of Archbishop Sylvester about a book in which, among various other slanderous tales about Fr. Sergius, it is alleged, allegedly from the words of an “eyewitness”, that Fr. S. “had the foggiest idea about Rev. Seraphim of Sarov." This lie, purely Bolshevik in spirit, is being spread by a person who obviously has not read a single line from Fr. S.B. and comes from the depths of the church group that claims a monopoly in the matter of “saving Russia from Bolshevism.” And if only this were a single fact! It becomes scary at the mere thought of such “salvation.” “As is known,” unfortunately, not to many: the huge mass of Orthodox people knows nothing either about the greatest of the Church Fathers or about his teaching; and some even think that his doctrine of apokatastasis is “heretical” and was condemned by the Church. I don’t know whether it is necessary to say here that the teaching about the general restoration of all people in God, that just as everything is from God and by God, so everything will come to Him (Rom. 11:36) and that in the end “God will be all in all” (1 Cor. 15:28), was never collectively condemned by the Church, that even before the Third Ecumenical Council (431) St. Gregory of Nyssa was recognized by the Church saint, and at the VII Ecumenical Council he was called “Father of Fathers.” M. b., to the chagrin of those who enjoyed (healthy or painful) finding in the titanic theological work of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov has special, strange, unusually new, and thoughts that disagree with everyone. Note: - to a dualism even more hopeless than Persian dualism, where Aura Mazda (Ormuzd) - the bright beginning, in the end, must defeat Ahriman. (G.S.). As for the word “eternal,” which in the New Testament is sometimes used as an adjective to the word hell or Gehenna, it must be said that in the Bible “eternal” is not always equivalent to “infinite.” For example, God gives the Jews the land of Canaan as an “everlasting possession” (Gen. 17:8), but we know from history that this “eternity” lasted only until the Diaspora!.. Do we think that the Word of God was mistaken? – No, I was not mistaken, but “eternal” in this case should not mean “infinite.” Another example: Circumcision was prescribed to Israel as an “everlasting” covenant. However, in the New Israel, circumcision was replaced by baptism. So, was the Lord mistaken? No, I was not mistaken, but the word “eternal” should not have been understood here in the sense of “infinite”! The same can be said about other institutions and regulations, holidays and dedications of the Old Testament (Exod. 12:14, 40:15, Lev. 7:22, 10:9, 17:7, Num. 10:8, 1 Chron. 17:14, 23:13...), given, according to the Bible, “for an everlasting decree,” however, they have become dilapidated and stopped. Saint Gregory of Nyssa said that the empty plans of life burn in fire, that in hellish healing the sovereign freedom of man is observed. “Fire awakens repentance. Beyond the threshold of death, the sinful form dissipates and the tenacity of the evil will weakens and becomes exhausted... Sooner or later over a long period of time, the destructive power of fire will destroy all impurity and evil. This healing with fire and bitter medicines can be very long, “commensurate with eternity” or “eternal time.” But the cleansing cannot fail to end!” The editors of the Bulletin sent a number of theologians who personally knew Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, please write a few words testifying to the influence that the personality and work of the great theologian had on them. Ed. Alcan, Paris 1932. Reimpression Ed. Balzon, d'Allonnes & C°. Paris 1958. See about this: “The Incarnation and the virgin birth.” in a collection of Bulgakov's articles, recently published by the Commonwealth of St. Albania and Rev. Sergius in London. E. Behr-Sigel, La sophiologie du père Serge Boulgakoff, Revue d'Histoire et de Philosophie Religieuse, No. 2, 1939. By the way - and this is all we can say “by the way”, “by the way”, without highlighting, without emphasizing pars pro toto, without making mountains out of molehills - that there is an objective Orthodox sophiology, and there is, and quite legitimately (from the Orthodox point of view) there can be a subjective “Sophianism”, which should not be confused with one another. While sophiology is an inseparable part of objective Orthodox theology, “Sophianism” is one of the theologumens acceptable for Orthodox theologians. Unfortunately, both due to their own literary temperament, which did not sufficiently separate subjective thoughts from objective ones, and, mainly due to the ignorance, hostility and inertia of thinking of some contemporaries, this distinction between the objective and the subjective was not always made by Bulgakov’s readers! But let us ask ourselves: in order to avoid temptation for “these little ones,” does the Orthodox Church need to take an example from the Catholics, who, fearing that simple, ignorant readers would not mistake the theologumene for the official, Catholic theology, created the famous index?! “From Marxism to Idealism”, “Two Cities”, “Non-Evening Light”... Prot. Sergius Bulgakov. Autobiographical notes. (posthumous edition). Preface and notes by L. A. Zander. YMCA-Press, Paris 1946. In the same 1923 and in the same church, my father (Fr. Alexander Kalashnikov) served on Spiritual Day after his ordination. Commonwealth of St. Sergius and St. Albania hosted (and still hosts) annual conventions in England, which included Anglicans, Presbyterians, Catholics and Orthodox Christians. At this time Fr. Sergius wrote his autobiography about the sophiology of war and gave us something to read. O. Sergius this time did not catch my thought about the “terrible transparency” that I told him about before leaving. This did not concern the fear of bombing, but the spiritual trembling that is felt while immersed in prayer, when you lose the sense of earthly reality and your own physicality and stand in front of a transparent abyss. But the words of Fr. Sergius about “hey come” has already given an answer to this. Now Prot. Ilya Melia is a professor of pastoral theology at the Theological Institute of Paris. Now Prot. Alexey Knyazev, dean of the Paris Theological Institute. Written in French, the book by V. A. Zander about Rev. Seraphim has not yet been published. These four were: Elena Nikolaevna Osorgina (died in 1968), mother Blandina (Obolenskaya), Yulia Nikolaevna Reitlinger (sister of John), mother Feodosia, the author of this note. Similar notes were compiled by the first three witnesses, but the fate of these notes is unknown to us. (Ed.) This great work remained unpublished in Russian after the Prague Publishing House Plamya did not consider it possible to publish it “due to a change in plan.” Wed my “Non-Evening Light”, introduction. The basic provisions about the word that relate here are developed by me in “The Philosophy of the Name” (YMCA-Press, Paris 1953). Taken from the magazine Kyrlos, 2, 1936. Translation by L. Zander, verified by Fr. Sergius Bulgakov. Theology of John the Theologian, one of the last courses of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov, still remains unpublished. Wed. Bernard's comparison: 1.76 The letter is being published for the first time. The news of the death of Fr. Pavel Florensky turned out to be premature: According to the official report, the reliability of which there is always reason to doubt, Fr. Pavel Florensky died on Solovki on December 15, 1943. Ed. – I deliberately begin the continuation of my article in this way to show that what follows will be understandable only to the reader who reads what was said before: See Bulletin of the RSHD for 1970, No. 98, pp. 32–37, for 1971, No. 99, pp. 26–34, and for 1971, No. 100, pp. 55–63. However, the closure of these parishes is an inevitable consequence of sociological changes. Until now, in the 15th arrondissement of Paris, in addition to the closed Pokrovsky, there are as many as three parishes. There are no longer, as at the beginning of emigration, areas densely populated by Russians. Children or grandchildren of emigrants settle at their place of work, in new neighborhoods or suburbs of Paris. They rather visit large parishes or communities that have switched to French. Note Ed. Everyone knows that in post-Stalin times, one of the methods to suppress dissent was to imprison healthy people in psychiatric hospitals. The victims of this arbitrariness were M. Grigorenko, I. Gorbanevskaya and many others. A printed essay written in Sov. Russia, shows how such a terrible distortion of the psychiatric case became possible. Note Ed. Philippe Nickel's removal of chains from the mentally ill in Sal-Petriere during the Great French Revolution was not only an act of humanity, but also the greatest impetus for the development of psychiatric science: the patients freed from chains had to be known better - if only in order to achieve something from them. the myth about the insight of psychiatrists is of much more recent origin, although the mystical overtones of the activities of “healers of the soul” go back centuries. But in the 19th century, psychiatrists did not consider themselves “experts of the soul”; they treated the patient like today’s experimenters treat a “black box” - that is, they only objectively observed the behavior of patients and drew conclusions. one can only refer to Bayle, who described progressive paralysis, and Korsakov with his Korsakov (alcoholic) psychosis. revered by the brother-in-law of the accountant Berlagi, “Jarbuch für psychoanalyst,” invented by Ilf and Petrov, is a satirical transcription of the reasoning (in the usual sense) that has engulfed science. sensations, by the way, from time to time also fall on “serious” Western science - such, for example, as a “schizophrenic substance” in the blood, allegedly discovered by the Americans, and then “trumpeted” by Soviet popular science magazines. Zakel also followed the “theory of schizophrenia” - he believed that he had found a way to treat only this disease, “achieved” fantastic results that no one could subsequently surpass, because, as it turned out, Zakel’s patients were not at all sick with “schizophrenia,” but rather other patients. Professors are complex creatures, often they really not only know more than mere mortals, but in any case they doubt more. It has long been known that going “with the century” is easier and simpler than going against the century or, moreover, ahead of it. in the spheres of political, economic, artistic, one can “find dozens of examples when the “introduction of the new” was accompanied, as in psychiatry, first of all by a “change of leadership” - as if any leadership of ideas was possible... Consider, for example, the very fashionable “proof” in the 50s that schizophrenia was first described not by Krepilin or Bleuler, but was “foreseen” not only by Korsakov and Kadinsky (the second half of the 19th century), but also by Dyadkovsky and Malinovsky, who lived in the first half of the last century... Walter Kolarz. "Religion in the Soviet Union". London 1962. Macmillan and Company, Ltd. In 1939, only about 100 churches remained open in the USSR. By the beginning of the war, the number of open churches increased to 4425 due to the churches that were annexed in 1939–40. territories of Prabltika, Western Ukraine, Western Belarus and Bessarabia. During the war and especially in the post-war period, many churches were opened in the USSR and by 1957 their number reached 22,000. In 1950, the number of members of the Knowledge Society was only 130,000 people, and by 1960 it had risen to 900,000 people. (TSB Yearbook). For example, in 1954, 120,679 lectures on atheistic topics were given in the USSR (“Science and Religion” No. 5/1957, p. 10). “The CPSU in resolutions and decisions of congresses, conferences and plenums”, part IV, p. 46. Moscow, 1960, edition 7. “Handbook of party workers” 1961, Gosizdat polit. literature. Moscow, 1961. Pp. 470. “Questions of Philosophy” 3/62 – L. M. Mitrokhin. "Atheistic education and methodology for studying religious survivals." Speech by N. S. Khrushchev at the XXII Party Congress. See “Materials of the XXII Congress of the CPSU”. "Science and Religion", No. 11/1970, p. 25. Ibid., No. 9/1970, p. 8. "Science and Religion", No. 9/1970, p. 8. "Science and Religion", No. 7/1970, p. 34. Ibid., No. 12/1970, p. 8 and No. 12/1980, p. 9. "Science and Religion" No. 12/1970, p. 6. "Science and Religion" No. 12/1970, p. 11. Quoted in Science and Religion, No. 9/1970, p. 5. "Science and Religion" No. 12/1970, p. 10. For example, speaking at the All-Union Scientific and Theoretical Conference “Socialism and Youth,” held on May 16–18, 1967, Secretary of the Komsomol Central Committee Torsuev openly admitted that modern Soviet youth “is characterized by an increased interest in ideological issues,” and special attention of Soviet teachers should be paid “to two philosophical movements that have aroused special interest among a certain part of our youth in recent years: neopositivism and existentialism" (Komsomolskaya Pravda, May 17, 1967). "Science and Religion" No. 11/1969, p. 23. There is also “Science and Religion” No. 1/1970, p. 15. “Science and Religion” No. 3/1967. "Science and Religion" No. 8/1969, p. 31. "Science and Religion" No. 9/1970, p. 26. "Science and Religion" No. 4/1970, p. 24. "Science and Religion" No. 1/1971, p. 96. "Party Life" No. 5/1970, p. 55. "Party Life" No. 22/1968, pp. 57–58. "Science and Religion" No. 19/1970, p. 15. "Agitator" No. 8/1970, p. 48. "Science and Religion" No. 4/1970. "Science and Religion" No. 2/1970, p. 25. "Science and Religion" No. 4/1970, p. 25. “Kazakhstanskaya Pravda”, March 3, 1967 “Science and Religion” No. 8/1970, p. 93 and “Party Life” No. 22/1968, p. 58. "Party Life" No. 23/1963, p. 24. Of this, 45 studies were carried out in pedagogical institutes, 18 in scientific research institutions and 3 in universities (“Science and Religion” No. 9/1970, p. 2). For example, at Moscow State University D. Ugryumov wrote a study on the topic “Study of the religious consciousness of believers in a socialist society and the tasks of atheistic education.” An employee of the Orenburg Pedagogical Institute V. Olisova conducted a study entitled “Pedagogical analysis of the scientific-atheistic orientation of high school graduates.” At the Voronezh Pedagogical Institute, a study was conducted on the topic “Theory and practice of scientific-atheistic education in Soviet schools,” etc. (“Science and Religion” No. 9/1970). According to a scientific expedition that worked in the Penza region, only 9.4% of Baptists consider it possible for themselves to attend cinema, theaters, museums, etc. The rest consider it a sin. Of the Orthodox believers, 40.5% go to the movies, 21.6% to concerts and 17% to plays (“Science and Religion” No. 9/1970). Written in the early 30s, the main novel of the famous writer, Chevengur, has remained banned for more than forty years. In April, it will finally be released in Paris by the YMCA-PRESSS publishing house. The French translation is prepared by Stock, the Italian by Mondadori. Chevengur talks about the impossibility of realizing socialism and how this dream cripples the souls of people. For the beginning of this work, see Bulletin No. 99, p. 48, No. 100, p. 230. The entire “Memoirs” will be published as a separate book. By a strange misunderstanding, in K.V. Mochulsky’s book about Blok (Paris, 1948), p. 419, the poem “Soul! When will you tire of believing?”, written on March 26, 1908, dated 1918. "At the Turning Point." Three generations of one Moscow family YMCA-Press, Paris, 1970, 478 pp. The editors of the Bulletin send its congratulations to its members and active employees on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the priesthood. The first story appeared in 1901 in the Courier newspaper. Memoirs of S. M. Zernova from the book “At the Turning Point”, Paris, 1970, p. 167. Similar clarifications to the article by Prof. We received A. Knyazev from A. F. Shumkina (Paris) and from V. Liperovsky (Argentina). Note Ed. Translation from Latin was made according to the publication: Marii Victorini Opera. Pars I. Opera theologica // Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vol. 83.1/Ed. P. Henry, P. Hadot. Vindobonae, 1971. P. 285‒305. Translation, notes - A. R. Fokin.