Cell diary of St. Philaret (Drozdov)

The number of sources and works associated with the name of Saint Philaret is quite comparable to the volume of the general bibliography on the history of the Russian Church during the years of his ministry. There is, perhaps, no other hierarch who would stand so much at the very core of our not only church, but also national and state life. There is no other person who would be so visible to everyone, and yet - and perhaps this is precisely why - it is very difficult today to recreate the “spiritual portrait” of the saint. He seems to be dissolved in his activity and gets lost in it. Icon painters complain that they cannot grasp in his features the distinctiveness that would make his face unambiguously recognizable. His biography writer can say the same. And if Florovsky, back in the 20s, noted that “the question of the genesis and sources of M. Philaret’s worldview needs a new and very careful study” (Florovsky Georgy (prot.). Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1837. p. 543.), then we must admit that nothing new has been said about this to this day. All the more interesting to us are the sources that at least partially reveal the secret of his inner life so jealously guarded by the saint. These certainly include the diary entries he made on the pages of the calendar yearbook and better known as the “Cell Diary of Metropolitan Philaret.” This monument has a strange fate. It cannot be said that he was unknown to anyone. Even in the 19th century, commentators on the saint’s letters referred to him. In 1908, under the above title, it was published with many obvious errors in the decoding of the Moscow Church Gazette manuscript 1. 1908. pp. 68–69, 88–90, 145–147, 169–172, 226–227, 292–293, 415–416, 445–446, 463–465, 495, 533–534, 556–558, 575–577. In 1914, Bartenev Jr., apparently unaware of the publication of the ICV, published it in the Russian Archives (hereinafter referred to as RA) under the title “Notes of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow on the Calendar” (Russian Archives. M., 1914. November. pp. 299–329). The author of the latest serious, although in many ways outdated, work on the life of St. Philaret, Metropolitan. John (Snychev) places both of these publications in his list of sources as independent ones, obviously also not noticing that we are talking about the same monument. What has been said seems to be enough to conclude that the thought of a serious study of the diary has not yet entertained anyone. Meanwhile, the very nature of making entries clearly indicates that the saint experienced some long-term internal need for this. The diary, as already mentioned, is a yearbook for 1827, during which the saint regularly makes entries in it, however, in subsequent years he returns to it many times, making notes in free places. The latter gives them all the more internal importance, although it makes the researcher’s work quite difficult, since it often turns out that a later entry on the yearbook sheet turns out to be “higher” than the entry of the previous year. It is known from the literature that this is not the only notebook of the saint, however, until any serious examination of the archival funds associated with the name of the saint, it is impossible to say anything about the volume, or the nature, or the time of the records contained in them. Therefore, it does not seem to be an exaggeration to consider that the diary we are now considering is the only source available to us today, about which it is definitely known that it was not an external obligation, but only an internal need that was the reason for writing it by the saint. Unfortunately, the whereabouts of the original are still unknown. Finding the latter will allow us to finally dot the i’s in all questions related to the monument, however, the most important of them can be answered today by analyzing and comparing the publications of the ICV and RA. A brief summary of the work done is presented below. The first part of it was to carry out a chronological reconstruction of the diary, that is, to distribute the entries by year. The diary presented in this way covers the period from 1827 to 1853, with a break in entries from 1844 to 1853. It is clear that the “main” year of 1827 is most fully represented in it, including, especially in its first half, up to 15–16 entries per month. In subsequent years, the number of entries has been steadily declining - largely due, of course, to the fact that less and less space remains for this in the book. In the second half of the 30s - early 40s, the saint generally addressed her only a few times a year, but she, obviously, was still dear to him, for after nine years of silence, it was in her that he made two entries related to the death of his mother, thereby, perhaps, drawing a line under a certain period of his life. These entries are the last in the diary. The second part of the work on the diary included deciphering and commenting on the entries contained in it. The reader will find the results of these investigations in the page-by-page notes. However, both of them made sense only insofar as they would help answer the questions posed above. Therefore, without trying to impose our own opinion on the reader, we will nevertheless present here some observations that seem to bring us closer to this goal. For ease of analysis, diary entries can be divided into several main thematic groups. 1. Extracts from books read. Their analysis gives reason to pose the problem of the saint’s reading circle, and therefore the problem of the influences he assimilated or, if you like, overcome, in other words, to come closer to resolving the question posed by Florovsky about the origins of the saint’s ideological synthesis. His knowledge of the church fathers is beyond doubt: it is known that he not only read, but also translated them for the academic series “Works of the Holy Fathers in Russian Translation.” In his sermons, however, one does not find many quoted names: first of all, St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil the Great, St. Macarius of Egypt, St. Isaac the Syrian; from the West - St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Grigory Dvoeslov. If we turn to the exegetical works of the saint, we will see that the range of sources that served him as material for drawing his own conclusions is incomparably wider. In addition to the Eastern and Western Fathers of the Church, we meet here the Calvinist Ravanel, the Lutheran Calovius, the humanist Clarius, the Jew Ibn Ezra, and even the heretic Theodotion. The historian of Russian literature Galakhov points to the closeness of the saint’s famous words on Great Friday of 1813 with the 14th chapter of Boehm’s “The Sacrament of the Cross.” (Galakhov A. Review of mystical literature during the reign of Emperor Alexander the 1st // ZHMPR. 1875. Part 182. P. 171). One might also point out direct and important theological parallels with Arndt's True Christianity. However, such, at first glance, “unscrupulousness” in funds should not confuse us. It seems to be a consequence of a fundamental position most clearly expressed by the saint in his homily on the Annunciation in 1835: “How did a person know and know God, do and do good before Christianity and without Christianity? - my answer is one: if I knew God, then I knew it with the remains of the original light in the mind" (Filaret (Metropolitan of Moscow). Creations. Words and Speeches: In 5 vols. M. 1873–1885. T. 3. P. 344) 2. The reflection of this “original light” is what the saint strives to discern in everything that his inquisitive mind encounters. This is confirmed by analysis of extracts relating mainly to the “base” year of 1827. These are, first of all, extracts from the liturgical synaxarions, the Chetiy Menaion, the Limonary, the Slavic Philokalia, but these are also extracts from Fenelon, the life of Madame Guyon, contemporary and almost thirty-year-old magazines. It is significant that a considerable part of these extracts is in one way or another connected with the question of the possibility of the action of God’s grace outside the Church and the church’s attitude towards this. From the Synaxarion, on the meat-eating week, the saint writes out a phrase about Gregory the Conversator, who “saved King Trajan by prayer, having heard from God, never to pray to him for the wicked” (5.2.1827); from the Synaxarion of the first Saturday of Lent - the words: “He sends His great passion-bearer Theodore to Bishop Eudoxius, even though he is neither right nor Orthodox” (19.3.1827); from Limonary - news about a presbyter, to whom a heretic performed a proskomedia and to whom the angels did not reveal this, for “God has deigned to correct men by man” (September 6, 1827). No less important is another extract from the Triodic Synaxarion about Chrysostom, who was wise in his wisdom “keep the scriptures together, and remain below the writing” (13.2.1827), indicating, as it seems, the tuning fork of the exegetical works of the saint. Extracts from the Fathers of the Philokalia are devoted primarily to smart work and inner spiritual life. This is a kind of small, quite characteristic swelling. Here the saint, who has already reached the heights of his hierarchical position, seeks and finds for himself, obviously, in the words of St. Theognostus, a solution to the question of monastic obedience: “He who has mentally corrected obedience, and who has subdued the flesh and spirit, has no need for human obedience. This one obeys the word of God and the law, like an intelligent novice. And in them, war and warfare are the body against the soul, you need to obey, and gain the commander” (19.5.1827). In general, all the entries reveal the practical interest of the ascetic, looking for reinforcement and advice in spiritual warfare. With the same practical interest, the saint approaches Fenelon’s book “Extracts from the Thoughts of Saints on the Inner Life.” But if in the Philokalia interest is primarily focused on internal prayer, then extracts from Fenelon are united by the theme of love (see entries 9.3.1827; 10.3.1827; 12.3.1827). To one of them it is expressively added: “This is condemned by the Pope” - added, by the way, to the words of Francis of Sales, which are not without interest for us: “The saints of all times have observed a certain kind of mystery in order to speak about strict tests and the high exercise of pure love to those souls to whom God has already imparted a grace-filled sensation, or light. They gave milk to babies, and bread to hard souls” (11.5.1827). What is important here, it seems, is the indication of “a certain kind of mystery” with which knowledge is invested for souls who have found the light. A number of extracts testify to this. The saint is particularly interested in “sleep talkers.” Sleep, as one of the diary entries explains, “is merging with the world, renouncing one’s independence” (10.6.1827). The sleeper, as if involuntarily, can draw from the world the remnants of the “original light” scattered in it, and the saint seeks to guess it in the unclear phrases of a magnetic dream (extracts for January 23, 24, 26, 1827). In general, it should be noted that the world of mysterious, extraordinary phenomena was of great interest to the saint. From the “Natural History Store,” a magazine published by I. Dvigubsky, he writes out a note about the glow of a dead firefly (January 22, 1827), and from the “Library for Reading” news “about a boiling pond on the island of St. Michael (from the Azores), from which water rushes to the cry of a person, sometimes with fire and smoke" (4.3.1835). Such an interest of the saint seems to be clarified by another extract, this time from John of Damascus: “We see in creatures images that gloomily signify to us Divine phenomena” (30.7.1827). 2. The events of the outside world do not take up much space in the diary and, for the most part, perhaps, can also be united on the basis of the mysterious, and in any case, these are phenomena that go beyond the ordinary. Therefore, for example, the story of the baptism of a certain noble Persian Yusuf is honored with several detailed records. Even before baptism, it was revealed to him in a dream that his godfather would be a man named Sergius, and Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn, a good friend of the saint, actually gives his consent to this. The saint describes in detail the grace-filled sensations experienced by the newly baptized Michael at the moment of the sacrament (27.2.1827). He does not forget to note extraordinary natural phenomena that he himself or someone around him witnessed (for example, entries 1.3.1833 and 9.6.1840). Another important detail of the diary: from the beginning of its keeping until 1842, the saint steadily entered into it notes about his trips from Moscow to St. Petersburg and back, even when he did not contact him for other reasons for several months. This seemingly not at all obligatory punctuality alone shows how difficult the move itself and the long stay in the Northern capital were for him. Famous words from a letter to his mother: “I am a stranger here (in St. Petersburg - Priest P.Kh.); and I want to remain like this, and therefore I avoid relations other than the necessary ones” (Correspondence of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow with relatives. M., 1882. P. 288), - perhaps they will help us understand what is behind one of the numerous entries like: “We are in St. Petersburg shortly after midnight, leaving M. 23” (10.28.1841), – entries in which a kind of characteristic diary theme. 3. The next layer of the diary is the actual diocesan and synodal activities of the saint. It is known that the saint sometimes worked 18 hours a day; it is known that the range of his works ranged from matters that determined the course of Russian history to the details of diocesan life. “He plunged, so to speak, to the very bottom of the trifles of spiritual administration,” a contemporary notes about him” (Zubov V.P. Russian Preachers. M., 2001. P. 129), and judging by the outer man, it is not unreasonable, but the diary testifies that the inner man barely touched this bottom. In more than 15 years of recordings, only a few cases find a place here. These are, first of all, two brief notes from the end of 1827, summing up the dramatic story with catechisms, the very dryness of which can tell a lot to someone who knows how much the saint worried about his brainchild. The following year, 1828, this entry was dated April 2: “The draft report on the structure of the Clergy was read and adopted by the S. Synod.” The sources available to us today do not answer what kind of report it was. However, it is known that in January 1828 St. Filaret forms an opinion regarding the education of spiritual youth and the structure of the parish clergy. (Complete collection of opinions and reviews of Metropolitan Philaret. M., 1885. T. 2. P. 216–238). On January 23, the opinion is received by the Synod, and according to the synodal resolution, copies of it are distributed to other synodal members for discussion and comments. Perhaps this is precisely the opinion that the saint has in mind in his letter to S.D. Nechaev dated December 19, 1829 (see notes to the diary). If we are talking about the same document, then it is quite likely that the report compiled on the basis of it and the amendments of the synodal members was read at the Synod on April 2. In the same April, another secretly mournful entry: “I signed the project of a communal spiritual and educational institution. “No success.” The project represents the charter of an ideal church school. To make it clear to the reader how the saint imagined it, we present several points from this extremely curious document. “The main reasons for this establishment can be the following: 1. To elect in one of the Dioceses located in the middle of the State one of the regular country monasteries and turn it into a communal spiritual and educational monastery. 2. Give it a decent charter following the example of the best ancient hostels. 3. Borrow capable and trustworthy people for starting a community life from the best cenobitic monasteries in Russia, and invite those capable and willing from the Clergy and existing Theological Schools to teach the doctrine, with due foresight according to the nature of this institution. [The monks should be made up of actual monastics and those accepted for training. - priest P.H. ] 19. Management in this community should be based on Christian love, and submission on Christian obedience. The younger ones should honor and call the older ones fathers, and the older ones should call them younger brothers. 20. Each of the brethren of the hostel, as appointed by the abbot, has an elder to whom he opens his conscience daily and from whom he receives spiritual instruction. With the pupils, the place of the elders is taken by the overseers, who give them moral and spiritual guidance, applying it to their age. 25. The subjects of study will be, after the native language and literature, the languages ​​Hebrew, Greek, Roman, from the philosophical sciences Logic... other parts of philosophy, since knowledge of them is necessary for the admonition of those whom the errors of reason remove from the realm of faith, Sacred and Ecclesiastical history, with the addition from the universal of that which serves to understand the ways of God's Providence in the human and Christian race, contemplative and active theology with its various applications, a guide to the knowledge of antiquity and the spirit of church orders and provisions of the law, guidance for the office of pastors and teachers, guidance for the conversion of those who have gone astray from schism or committed unbelief, exercise in church reading, singing and rules should be continuous, both occupation and consolation. returning once again to the diary entry about him to later attribute the words: Without success. Finally, an indignant mention of “the marriage of an adulterer” in connection with the well-known case of Kleinmichel and several mysterious entries (“Relations began with the Ministry in [internal] affairs about rather difficult subjects”), from the meaning and time of which, however, one can guess that we are talking about the annexation of the Uniates in 1835, complete the list of synodal affairs mentioned in the diary. Over the 15 years of its management, there are exactly five of them. The affairs of the Moscow diocese remind of themselves even less: the only brief, alarming notes from the cholera year of 1830, reminiscent of military reports. 4. The records of the meetings of St. Philaret with the Emperor deserve special mention. “Between Kresttsy and Zaitsov, at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, I met the Sovereign Emperor, traveling to Moscow, quite by accident” (10.10.1831), writes the saint, who himself was at that moment on the way from Moscow to St. Petersburg. It is easy to imagine the feelings of the saint if you know that the emperor’s trip to Moscow was undertaken in complete secret from him and the Moscow authorities. Another entry: “The Emperor deigned to say goodbye to Vladyka [Metropolitan. St. Petersburg Seraphim] and with me through the book. A. N. Golitsyn" (26.4.1829). Judging by two letters sent to the vicar on the same day, Bishop. Innocent, the Sovereign, apparently appeared in the cathedral during the service, but did not approach the saint, which aroused in him thoughts of possible disfavour, which were resolved only with the visit of Prince Golitsyn. Such misunderstandings sincerely upset the saint, but the Emperor’s favor or gratitude just as sincerely pleased him: “The Emperor says: bow to good Moscow,” he writes on April 20, 1830. And he not only writes down, but also organically introduces these words into the sermon on the text from the Epistle to the Philippians All the saints kiss you, especially those who belong to Caesar’s house (Phil. 4:22), which he pronounced upon his return to Moscow on the day of the discovery of the relics of St. Alexis the Metropolitan: “Shall I also say what you kiss to the house of Caesar? ABOUT! I can, I can say incomparably more. Beloved Caesar Himself kisses you. So! The most pious Emperor himself sends through my measure the word of His high favor, greetings, and love to good Moscow. You will immediately guess that it is not I who caress your eyes, but that the heart of the King, Who has no need to caress, the loving heart of the King opens to the good capital” (Creations. Vol. 3. P. 441). Let us note that the saint also does not at all want to caress the king here. As in general, he thinks in each case in terms of not everyday, but theological categories, in this case - the categories of sacred history (we will try to speak about this in a little more detail below): “So, Russians, in modern events we are reading the ancient book of the God-ruled Kingdoms! Sacred times pass before us in the deeds of our Kings! What a consolation for faith! What hope for the Fatherland!” (Creations. Vol. 4. pp. 113–114) - he says on the day of laying the foundation of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior. And if he writes in his diary: “Easter. The coming of age of Tsar Tsesarevich and Great Prince Alexander Nikolaevich. A touching sight at His oath. The Sovereign thanks for compiling the prayer service" (April 22, 1834), - then his tenderness is not at all reduced to sentimental loyalty, but evokes directly prophetic words: “He [the heir] stands before God as a living sacrifice made by the King - the Father for the future well-being of the kingdom, and in accordance with the will of the Parent, He presents Himself as a sacrifice" (Creations. Vol. 3. P. 266). This is how he describes this moment in a sermon on the occasion of the Emperor’s birthday, and we cannot help but remember that we are talking about the future Alexander the Liberator, on whose blood the church now stands in St. Petersburg. It is also worthy of reflection that, with the widest circle of acquaintances of the saint, on the pages of the diary there are practically only the emperor, empress, heir, that is, sacred persons - indispensable, if I may say so, characters in sacred history. The rest are mentioned only in passing, in connection with an event that for some reason aroused the interest of the saint. And again, this is not a reason to accuse the saint of sycophancy or vanity, but on the contrary, a reason to marvel at his courage in those cases when he was forced to go against the will of the Emperor, as in the well-known story of the consecration of the Triumphal Gate in Moscow. 5. If we examine the notes relating directly to the saint himself, then their theme will probably be references to the physical infirmities that often beset him. They cannot even be called complaints, but they expressively highlight the records that testify to his intense, secret spiritual life. The most remarkable of them, of course, are those who convey the sayings they heard in their sleep. And there is no doubt that over time there are more and more of them in the diary. These records obviously replace extracts about other people’s visions, thereby indicating that internal experience not only no longer seeks support and confirmation in external similarities, but moreover: it draws from itself the answers to the questions of life: “Is this a true particle of the relics of St. Vladimir? - the saint writes down the question that arose and immediately - the answer received in a dream: “Receive the prophet in the name of the prophet, he will accept the prophet’s bribe” (6.3.1834). That such a method of resolving confusion is not an accident is confirmed by one of the latest diary entries, made already in 1843: I'm sleeping, but my heart is awake. We must maintain our independence. Stay awake, be wise, be strong, pray. Although the Lord is always with you, caution is needed. Do everything as the Lord commanded, and He will help you in everything. Accept everyone, but be careful with everyone. Perhaps it is from this that, over time, the saint’s remarkable Word for the Annunciation of 1858 will grow, where he elevates caution to the rank of the highest virtues. 6. It was noted above that the saint does not mention in his diary his meetings with anyone other than members of the royal house. The exception is one single entry about the visit of the saint by the disciple of the Sven desert dweller, Fr. Arseny, who told the metropolitan about the last minutes of the elder, preceded in death by the vision of the Mother of God (7.8.1840), although here, of course, the saint’s interest is focused primarily on this mysterious side of the story. But it is impossible not to mention two more meetings, which actually complete the diary, if only because these are meetings with the deceased. The first of them dates back to 1844 and describes a meeting in a dream with Prince A. N. Golitsyn, who died 5 days earlier. After this, the saint does not turn to his diary for 9 years. But in 1853 he picks it up again to make the last entry: a note about the death of his mother: The servant of God Evdokia reposed. March 28. 9th day after the death of Mother. Someone sees: she came with a candle in her hands; the light is not earthly; says: they gave it to me for 40 days - all in white.” After this entry, the saint never returned to the diary. 1. Although diary entries often find parallels in the corresponding places from the saint’s correspondence or sermons, in comparison with the latter they point to a deeper layer of the saint’s inner life, denoting the immediate – “unadjusted” – accents of the perception of the world. 2. These accents apparently do not coincide with the image that can be formed from reading the service record or the memoirs of contemporaries of the saint, during the years of keeping his diary, he was in the prime of his life and the zenith of his glory, reached the top of the church and service ladder, was surrounded by admirers, had the most brilliant circle of acquaintances, enjoyed (at least externally) the favor of the court and was crowned with the unspoken title of “natural patriarch.” Meanwhile, from the diary it is unequivocally clear: his gaze was turned not outward, but inward. 3. Moreover, arranged chronologically, the diary unambiguously reveals the increasing loneliness of the saint, which is, obviously, at the same time the external side of his internal spiritual growth. The word mysterious, which we so often use when analyzing the diary and testifying to the mystical moods of the saint, should not confuse us. The grandiose edifice of his theology could not stand without the rock of true communion with God. Judging by the diary, it was in the 30s and 40s that the saint reached the “sunrise in vision.” This lonely inner activity constitutes the hidden core and meaning of his life. Despite all the greatness of his saintly works, this and nothing else is the most important thing in him, without which he will never become clear to us in many of his words and deeds. 4. It is clear what importance the saint attached to communication with the sovereign. It is impossible to explain this by career considerations: his undisguised dislike for St. Petersburg life and reluctance to belong in it testify to this. The king, queen, heir are, first of all, sacred persons for him. In addition to the diary, by the way, this is also evidenced by letters to the highest persons, in style even more, perhaps, sublimely biblical than sermons. The diary once again confirms: he was not a statist, in the sense of recognizing the intrinsic value of the state, as is often thought and written, but a theocrat par excellence. To subsume Russian life under the categories of sacred history probably meant for him to ultimately justify, comprehend, and—dare we dare to assume? - in a certain sense, to form it. His repeatedly attested and theologically substantiated confidence in the creative power of the word makes the latter assumption not so incredible, although it requires serious discussion. Be that as it may, the obvious and not at all “symphonic” predominance of the state over the Church could be acceptable to him insofar as it found an echo and prototype in the relationship between the king and the high priest of the heyday of the united Kingdom of Israel. It is significant in this sense that he never speaks anywhere about the Third Rome, but always about the New Israel. 5. Finally, the diary clearly shows what serious and unbiased research the question of the relationship between Russian theological thought and the spiritual heritage of the West requires. Borrowing or churching, disengagement or synthesis? - this is how, in fact, it should be posed, and it is already obvious that its resolution is impossible without taking into account and understanding the experience of St. Philaret, who organically processed and molded into the perfect and unshakable forms of “Philaret’s Orthodoxy” much of what, taken in itself, was alien and unacceptable for church consciousness and life. Below, the reader is offered a chronological reconstruction of the saint’s diary, based on the editions of the ICV and RA. The most important discrepancies and necessary explanations to the text are included in page-by-page notes. Spelling and punctuation of publications are largely unchanged. Explanations of abbreviations and necessary additions belonging to the author of the reconstruction are placed in square brackets.