St. Theophan the Recluse and the anthropology of the Kyiv theological school

Annotation. The emergence of the first theological and philosophical school of Christian anthropology in Russian theology dates back to the Kyiv Theological Academy, its rector St. Innokeny (Borisov) and Professor Pyotr Semenovich Avsenev. St. also came from here. Feofan (Govorov), who combined a good acquaintance with the ideas of modern philosophy and psychology with a deep knowledge of the heritage of the holy fathers: already for his younger contemporaries the works of the Vyshensky Recluse had almost patristic authority. In this regard, the question arises: to what extent are the anthropological views of Vyshensky the Recluse determined by the ideas of P.S. Avsenev and St. Innocent? The first comparative analysis of the anthropological ideas of the listed authors shows the following. St. Innocent made an attempt to build a doctrine about man on the basis of the Holy Scriptures and patristic works, as well as mental constructions using the concepts of secular philosophy and psychology. Some difficulties arose along this path, including the idea of ​​a “double” human consciousness and the philosophical dualism of the spiritual-physical. P.S. Avsenev managed to rethink and correct the anthropology of the saint, overcoming these problems. In particular, viewing the spirit as a certain organ that receives the voice of God and exceeds our “I” allowed him to overcome the problem of double consciousness. Finally, St. Feofan successfully connects the concept of Peter Semenovich with the patristic teaching about the heart and expresses it in the language of tradition. Thus, the Vyshensky Recluse turns out to be a completely consistent heir to the Kyiv school of Christian anthropology. And if P.S. Avsenev managed to solve the problems of a dogmatic nature that confronted the founder of this school, St. Theophan managed to bridge the gap with the patristic tradition. St. Theophan the Recluse is a representative of spiritual-academic science and at the same time belongs to the “horizon” of monastic theology 1 . He is so deeply rooted in the patristic tradition that his works already had practically patristic authority for his younger contemporaries. The activity of the Vyshensky Recluse fell at a time when the process of assimilation and processing of modern philosophy and psychology was taking place, and the first personalistic concepts were emerging in Russian theology 3 . St. Feofan, being well acquainted with these ideas, nevertheless managed, in the words of Archpriest. Pavel Khondzinsky, “to maintain a balance between tradition and the anthropological discoveries of modern times” 4. Meanwhile, the emergence of the first theological and philosophical school of Christian anthropology in Russian theology dates back to the Kyiv Theological Academy, its rector St. Innokenia (Borisov) and prof. P.S. Avsenev (future Archimandrite Feofan) 5. St. also came from here. Feofan: in particular, he listened to Pyotr Semenovich’s lectures on psychology. In connection with the above, the question arises: to what extent are the anthropological views of the Vyshensky Recluse determined by the ideas of P.S. Avsenev and St. Innocent? For St. Innocent's teaching about man is of particular importance, since through it “one can more conveniently acquire knowledge of God and creatures” 6. So, for example, the saint derives his theses about religion from the doctrine of man 7 . The theologian formulates this teaching itself on the basis of Holy Scripture and patristic teaching, combining them with mental constructs using the concepts of secular philosophy and psychology 8 . St. Innocent adheres to a dichotomous scheme of the structure of human nature. The word "spirit" of St. Innocent is often used to designate the highest part of the soul, which is the image of God: “God is like our spirit,” which is gifted with mind and will 9. Here, attention is drawn to the absence of the sensual side, which the saint attributes to the lower part. In this regard, it seems quite natural that the heart in the patristic sense, as a certain center of spiritual life 10, St. Innocent often connects not with the lower feeling force 11, but with the higher part of the soul: with conscience 12, will 13 or the face of a person 14. In the cognitive power of St. Innocent distinguishes between reason and mind, and reduces the desired force to will, which gives direction to everything in the soul and, being the “main spring of the soul,” turns out to be more important than other forces. The will has the quality of freedom 15, and also carries out “trials, court” 16, which is the function of conscience. On the other hand, conscience is “consciousness, our participation in divine knowledge”: it is “conscious of the law,” thoughts and actions, as well as their mutual relationship. Thus, the mind “as if gives something to the will”: “applied to activity,” it “becomes conscience.” Finally, feeling also “gives something,” since conscience is not only consciousness, but also “co-feeling” 17 . Thus, although conscience belongs to the realm of the will, in some way the activity of the mind and feelings is present in it. Conscience has freedom: being the “receiver” of the action of rebirth, it also makes the decision “to reject or not to reject the actions of the Spirit” 18. Self-consciousness (i.e., consciousness conscious of moral laws 19) is not something permanent. When our spirit is “purely conscious of itself” (that is, “separate from the body”), it recognizes itself as immortal. But the “pure” consciousness “mixes with flesh” and interferes with it. Accordingly, the path to purify consciousness lies through ascetic life and “refinement of the flesh almost to the spirit” 20. The emergence of the consciousness of St. Innocent refers to Ficht's “dark representation” of the opposites “I” and “not-I,” when the “I” recognizes itself through the limitation of “something opposite,” i.e., God 21 . It is not surprising that the image of God St. Innocent sees it precisely in the face of a person 22. A person is a subject, it is “a being that thinks and has arbitrariness and unity of consciousness” 23. This definition has an important Christological consequence: in Christ there were “as if two persons” 24, since in Him there are two wills and two minds with unity of consciousness. This unity is not caused by the absence of human consciousness, but by the fact that it was “imbued with the divine” 25. Thus, in Christ there was a union of man with God, “extending to the loss of selfhood” 26. From Christ St. Innocent returns to man again: “moral beings have a double personality” 27, being members of “one head - Jesus Christ” 28. In conclusion, we note that St. Innocent associates with the subject the highest part of the human soul - the spirit, which is characterized by mind, will and consciousness. This active subject turns out to be the opposite of passive corporeality: as we have seen, it “interferes with pure consciousness.” Apparently, it is in this opposition that lies the reason why passive, “mute” feeling has no place in the human spirit and why the patristic heart seems to “move” from feeling to conscience, will, face. According to the teachings of P.S. Avsenev, a person consists of three parts: 1) “our material composition,” which is inseparably connected with our “I”, but is not it; 2) “I” itself – “the internal beginning of our life and activity” (the professor calls it “in connection with the body with the soul, and in its pure and own nature – with spirit”); 3) there is a certain “receiving organ” that accepts suggestions from the outside, coming from God - “His own... voice about Himself in our spirit” 29. How should we understand the relationship between “I”, soul and spirit? This is not quite the same thing: the spirit gives a person “self-awareness, a sense of the infinite and freedom” 30, and “the earthly inclinations and abilities of his soul are shared with him by animals” 31. The fact is that P.S. Avsenev considers the human soul as a single substance, as the identity of spirit, animal soul and life principle, but they are considered as “degrees of development of the same indivisible spiritual essence” 32. Our souls-“I” come through birth from parents under the action of the “birth-giving” power of God, but “what is in us above our self is not born, but comes from outside, from God.” This god-like spirit makes “I” a “real, rationally free, god-like soul” 33. Thus, although in man the spirit, “I,” the animal soul and the plant soul coincide, the “I” still belongs to the level of the animal soul and “elevates from time to eternity” 34 only thanks to the spirit accepting suggestions from God. Like St. Innokenty, P.S. Avsenev looks at conscience as a manifestation of the “spiritual” level of desirable strength 35, but he associates consciousness with cognitive power, calling rationality the ability to be aware of oneself and one’s relationship to another 36. Moreover, by associating personality with self-awareness and freedom, reason and will 37, Pyotr Semenovich transfers it to the level of the soul, since he considers will as the spiritual level of desiring power 38. This is quite expected, since the professor attributes the “I” to the level of the animal soul. Note that his concept does not imply a second, “higher” consciousness, since in it the participation of the human “I” in the Divine consciousness is realized by considering the spirit as an organ that receives the voice of God. According to P.S. Avsenev, personality is “established” not only at the mental level of a person, but also at the physical level (“the head with the nerves and muscles subject to it” 39). At first glance, we see here a contradiction with the fact that “the true image of the spirit takes on spiritual nature only when it renounces the bonds of matter” 40. But the professor’s idea is not at all that the flesh “interferes with pure consciousness,” as was the case with St. Innocent. The Spirit, being the image of God, has a direct desire for Him, and under its dominion all the abilities and inclinations of the soul “accept the direction of the dominant desire for God” 41 - this is the kind of renunciation we are talking about. In this regard, the contrast between the higher, active “side” of a person (personality, mind and will) and the lower, “passive” (heart), in P.S. Avseneva takes on a special shade. If St. Innocent felt, so to speak, a philosophical dualism of physicality and spirit, then in Pyotr Semenovich we see the dualism of passivity and conscious striving for God. Apparently, this is why the “focus, deepest root and source of life” of the soul of P.S. Avsenev calls the ability to strive for God at will 42. St. Theophan the Recluse adheres to the classic tripartite division of spiritual forces, which manifest themselves on three “tiers”, see table below 43. Although the saint himself calls the distinction between trichotomy/dichotomy terminological 44 , in his works there are arguments in favor of the first: the triplicity of the manifestation of each mental force 45 , as well as the view of the spirit as a part fundamentally different from animals 46 , having a special origin (direct creation by God, as opposed to the soul) 47 and the property of incorruptibility 48 . Expressions of St. Theophan is led to believe that he was giving an answer precisely to the position of St. Innocent. For example, if the latter emphasized that the Lord first created the human body without a soul, 49 then the Vyshensky Recluse writes: “What was this body? Clay grouse or living body? It was a living body, it was an animal in the form of a man with an animal soul” 50. In the concept of “spirit” St. Feofan puts a meaning similar to the content of the “receiving organ” according to P.S. Avsenev: it is “an organ of communication with God, a God-conscious, God-seeking and God-living force” 51, its goal and purpose is “communication with God and the spiritual world” 52. The soul is “the lowest force... assigned to conduct the affairs of earthly life” 53, it is the beginning of “conscious phenomena” 54. In combination with the spirit, it also possesses a spiritual “tier” of forces, surprisingly reminiscent of the soul-spirit of P.S. Avseneva 55. The teaching of St. Feofan about mental powers is described in sufficient detail in the work of E.N. Nikulina 56, so we will only give clarifications regarding the doctrine of the heart. In the works of St. Theophanes can be seen identifying the term heart with feeling power. For example, in his “Inscription” there is a section that is devoted to the state of “sensing forces, or the heart.” On the other hand, the heart is something more: it “is considered the root of the human being, the focus of all its spiritual, mental and animal-physical powers.” The basis for this conclusion lies in two observations: firstly, the heart “lies deeper” than rational and desirable forces and “forms for them, as it were, a lining or foundation”; secondly, other forces are reflected “by their activity in the heart, and, conversely, the heart reflects itself in them” 57. In addition, everything that “enters the soul from the outside” and that “is discovered by the soul outside” is “precipitated” in the heart 58 . Thus, the heart actually plays three roles: as a feeling force in itself; as a “center of power”; as “the point of contact with everything that exists outside of us” 59. The center of power of St. Theophanes calls not only the heart, but also the face, which is “the fusion and indivisible unity of all forces” that are “concentrated” in our face and “emanate from it as from a focus” 60. Thus, in the teaching of St. Feofan's feeling power receives a full-fledged “role” in the face; Moreover, the very concept of person turns out to be very close to the patristic heart. The most important property of a face is consciousness 61, that is, the ability to “distinguish itself as itself in the circle where [it] exists” 62. By this circle we can mean the surrounding world. This consciousness is possessed not only by humans, but also by higher animals that are capable of responding to their name. Consciousness as the difference between oneself and non-self can be directed towards the inner world and ensure the difference between oneself and one’s actions. Then it becomes moral consciousness, or self-consciousness: “consciousness ... must also be a strictly moral consciousness, called self-consciousness, in which a person recognizes himself as a person obligated to ... responsible deeds, subject to reporting” 63. Self-awareness is possible thanks to conscience - the power that a person has thanks to the spirit and which makes it possible to see oneself from the outside, to “rise, as it were,” 64 above oneself 65 . Accordingly, self-awareness is at the highest degree of perfection in a true Christian, who clearly knows and distinguishes himself from his actions 66. On the contrary, in a sinful person the spirit is in a subordinate position, therefore “there cannot be a clear consciousness,” since there is no “distinction between oneself and one’s actions” 67 . It turns out that clarity of consciousness corresponds to whether the face - the unity of all mental forces - is on the side of the spirit, soul or flesh 68. Thus, the opposition of the passive sentient force to the active forces (cognitive and desiring) is here replaced by the hierarchical subordination of the body and soul to the spirit. So, St. Innocent acted as a pioneer, making an attempt to combine church teaching with modern philosophical and psychological ideas. His colleague Prof. P.S. Avsenev manages to correct the anthropology of the saint and overcome its problems: in particular, the idea of ​​​​a “double” human consciousness and the philosophical dualism of the spiritual-physical. Finally, St. Feofan successfully connects the concept of the professor with the patristic teaching about the heart and expresses it in the language of tradition. Thus, the Vyshensky Recluse turns out to be a completely consistent heir to the Kyiv school of Christian anthropology. And if P.S. Avsenev managed to solve the problems facing St. Innocent problems of a dogmatic nature, then St. Theophan managed to bridge the gap with the patristic ascetic tradition. 1. Avsenev P.S. From notes on psychology // Collection of lectures by former professors of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Kyiv, 1869. XVI, 263 p. [3rd count]. 2. Avsenev P.S. Works / ed. A.G. Volkov, author. entry Art. N.G. Brain. Kyiv: NPU im. M. Dragomanova; Melitopol: MPGU im. B. Khmelnitsky, 2016. (Series “Anthology of Ukrainian Thought”). 3. Bronzov A.A. Moral theology in Russia during the 19th century // Christian Reading. 1901. No. 11. pp. 721–764. 4. Georgy (Tertyshnikov), priest. Theological legacy of Bishop Theophan the Recluse (1815–1894) // Theological works. 1976. No. 16. pp. 202–222. 5. Egorov G., prot. The problem of dichotomy - the trichotomy of human nature and the paradox of personality in the anthropology of St. Theophan // St. Theophan the Recluse - the founder of Christian psychology: Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference dedicated to the 200th anniversary of St. Theophan the Recluse. St. Petersburg, 2015. pp. 17–22. 6. Nikulina E.N. The concept of personality in the anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse // Bulletin of PSTGU. Series IV: Pedagogy. Psychology. 2007. Vol. 2. pp. 165–176. 7. Works of Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride. St. Petersburg, 1909. T. 6. 8. Theophan the Recluse St. Outline of Christian moral teaching. M.: Rule of Faith, 2010. 9. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collected letters: in 5 volumes. M.: Rule of Faith, 2012. Vol. 2, 4, 5. 10. Theophan the Recluse, St. Interpretation of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans (chapters 1–8). M.: Rule of Faith, 2006. 11. Theophan the Recluse, St. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to it. Klin: Christian Life, 2004. 12. Khondzinsky P., prot. “The Church is not an academy”: Russian non-academic theology of the 19th century. M.: PSTGU, 2016. 13. Khondzinsky P., prot. Anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse and the emergence of the first personalistic concepts in Russian theology // Bulletin of PSTGU. Series I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies. 2017. Vol. 70. pp. 11–27. 14. Khondzinsky P., prot. Kyiv Theological School: St. Theophan the Recluse and P.D. Yurkevich // Official website for the project to publish the complete collection of works of St. Theophan the Recluse of Vyshensky. URL: http://theophanica. ru/221014/03_Hodzinskii.php (access date: 03/01/2019). Khondzinsky P., prot. “The Church is not an academy”: Russian non-academic theology of the 19th century. M.: PSTGU, 2016. pp. 6–7. Bronzov A.A. Moral theology in Russia during the 19th century // Kh. 1901. No. 11. P. 724; Georgy (Tertyshnikov), priest. Theological legacy of Bishop Theophan the Recluse (1815–1894) // Theological works. 1967. No. 16. P. 202, 204. Khondzinsky P.V., prot. Anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse and the emergence of the first personalistic concepts in Russian theology // Bulletin of PSTGU. Ser. I: Theology. Philosophy. Religious Studies. 2017. Vol. 70. P. 11. Khondzinsky P.V., prot. Kyiv Theological School: St. Theophan the Recluse and P.D. Yurkevich // Official website for the project to publish the complete collection of works of St. Theophan the Recluse of Vyshensky. URL: http://theophanica.ru/221014/03_Hodzinskii.php (access date: 03/01/2019). Innocent (Borisov), St. About man // Works of Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride. St. Petersburg, 1909. T. 6. pp. 78–79. Innocent (Borisov), St. About religion in general // Ibid. S. 8. In particular, the saint resorts to the idea of I.G. Fichte about the emergence of consciousness, which will be discussed below. A holistic consideration of the connections between the anthropological views of St. Innocent and the concepts of secular philosophy and psychology are worth separate consideration and are beyond the scope of this work. Innocent (Borisov), St. About God in general, as the founder of the moral and heavenly kingdom // Works of Innocent... P. 666. Innocent (Borisov), St. Introduction to Moral Theology // Ibid. P. 201. Although identification with the feeling force also occurs: “... the seat [of soul change. – P.K.] in the heart, in feeling” (Ibid. P. 199). “God changes a person’s heart - acts on conscience” (Innocent (Borisov), St. Jesus Christ - Redeemer of the human race // Ibid. p. 923). See also: Same. Reading the Gospel stories about the circumstances of the earthly life of Jesus Christ, before His entry into open service for the salvation of the human race // Ibid. P. 477. Innocent (Borisov), St. About a person. P. 122; It's him. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the human race. pp. 895, 896. Innocent (Borisov), St. Introduction to Moral Theology. pp. 201–202. Here the saint, at the beginning of his discussion, speaks of the heart as the seat of spiritual change, and at the end - that restoration takes place in the image of God, that is, the face. Innocent (Borisov), St. Introductory lecture on moral theology // Ibid. pp. 176–178, 182. Innocent (Borisov), St. Introduction to Moral Theology. P. 205. Innocent (Borisov), St. About religion in general. P. 15. Innocent (Borisov), St. About religion in general. pp. 47–48. “What is the image of God? He is the face. Man is... a certain character of the hypostasis of God” (Innokenty (Borisov), St. Introduction to Moral Theology. P. 202). Innocent (Borisov), St. Jesus Christ is the Redeemer of the human race. pp. 812, 816. Avsenev P.S. From notes on psychology of Archimandrite Feofan Avsenev // He. Works / ed. A.G. Volkov, author. entry Art. N. G. Mozgovaya. Kyiv: NPU im. M. Dragomanova; Melitopol: MPGU im. B. Khmelnitsky, 2016. pp. 63–64. (Ser.: “Anthology of Ukrainian Thought”). Avsenev P.S. From notes on psychology // Collection of lectures by former professors of the Kyiv Theological Academy. Kiev, 1869. Table No. 3. Avsenev P.S. From notes on psychology of Archimandrite Feofan Avsenev // Aka. Works... P. 65. Avsenev P.S. From notes on psychology... Table No. 3. Avsenev P.S. From notes on psychology of Archimandrite Feofan Avsenev // Aka. Works... P. 92. Egorov G., prot. The problem of dichotomy - the trichotomy of human nature and the paradox of personality in the anthropology of St. Theophan // St. Theophan the Recluse - the founder of Christian psychology: All-Russian Materials. scientific-practical conference dedicated to the 200th anniversary of St. Feofan Zavtornik. St. Petersburg, 2015. P. 18. Theophan the Recluse, St. Outline of Christian moral teaching. M.: Rule of Faith, 2010. P. 254. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. M.: Rule of Faith, 2012. T. 2. P. 367. Theophan the Recluse, St. Interpretation of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans (chapters 1–8). M.: Rule of Faith, 2006. P. 588. Innocent (Borisov), St. About a person. pp. 80–82. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. T. 5. P. 45. Theophan the Recluse, St. Inscription... P. 255. Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. T. 2. P. 367. See, for example: Theophan the Recluse, St. Collection of letters. T. 2. P. 367; Theophan the Recluse, St. What is spiritual life and how to tune in to it. Klin: Christian Life, 2004. P. 38, 43, 67. Nikulina E. N. The concept of personality in the anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse // Bulletin of PSTGU. Ser. IV: Pedagogy. Psychology. 2007. Vol. 2. pp. 165–176. Theophan the Recluse, St. Inscription... P. 408–409. Theophan the Recluse, St. What is spiritual life... P. 27. Theophan the Recluse, St. Inscription... P. 409. For more details, see: Khondzinsky P., prot. Anthropology of St. Theophan the Recluse... P. 15–17. Theophan the Recluse, St. Inscription... P. 100. Theophan the Recluse, St. Interpretation... P. 588.