About the fifth volume of “Chronicles of the life and works of St. Theophan, the Recluse of Vyshensky”

Abstract. The fifth volume of the Chronicle covers a ten-year period (1879–1888) of almost twenty-eight years spent by Saint Theophan in the Vyshenskaya hermitage, and from 1873 in complete seclusion. Like the previous IV volume, this includes mainly materials from private correspondence, supplemented by memoirs and other documents containing information about the life of the saint, and also presents a complete bibliography of his literary and spiritual creations for the indicated years. The main sources for this volume were periodicals that published letters from St. Theophan and memories of him and his circle. It also included new, first-published materials identified in domestic and foreign archives, for example, extensive correspondence with publishers from the archives of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Athos (ARPMA), as well as an array of correspondence addressed to the Burachok family from the manuscript department of the Institute of World Literature of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RO IRL RAS). The method of chronicling the material makes it possible to clarify the idea of ​​events significant for the saint and the general course of his life, and to attribute his correspondents of this period. The saint's inner feat remains hidden, but the reader of the fifth volume of the Chronicle is revealed a lot of information about the routine of his life and activities and the state of his health. For a more complete picture of the saint’s environment and the circumstances in which he lived, the “Chronicle” contains, for example, the archival “Gazette of the rector and monastics of the Shatsk Dormition Vyshensky male hermitage of the Tambov diocese for 1888.” Of particular value to this document is the news about the inhabitants of the monastery and the state of its architectural ensemble, dating back to the time of the saint’s life. On the pages of the fifth volume of the Chronicle, the literary, publishing, missionary and spiritual activities of St. Theophan are presented with new details. Published for the first time, correspondence with the publishing house of the Athos St. Panteleimon Monastery allows us to recreate the creative history and path to the readers of the Russian translation of the Philokalia, interpretations of the letters of the Apostle Paul and Psalm 118, the writing of the Gospel History, polemical and many of his other works. The reader can also learn about his theological preferences 1 and methods of interpretation 2 . As in previous volumes, at the end of each year there is a complete bibliography of the saint's published works. In addition to the publishing house of the Russian Monastery on Athos, the Vyshensky Recluse collaborated with many other publishers. The letters to them together make it possible to study the saint’s approaches to publishing his works. As an author, he made high demands on proofreading, carefully monitoring its quality, reading proofs and the first copies of books printed in the printing house. This is clearly evident from the letter, which deals with a book, the rights to publish which he transferred to the St. Panteleimon Monastery: “I ... concede to publish, and not distort. For Abba Isaiah to go on sale in a distorted form, I do not agree, and if you have sent books to bookstores for sale, hasten to notify the booksellers so that they stop selling these books due to some amendments in them, which will soon be carried out" [23, l. 452]. The saint was equally demanding in the selection of proofreaders and copyists who prepared the manuscript for publication. Requests to find a suitable candidate were sometimes not without his characteristic humor. Thus, he writes to Archpriest Vasily Nechaev about the publication of the Gospel History [2]: “Please find a proofreader—a dad. “And explain to him that it is a sin if he makes even one mistake, because everything in history is a sacred text” [30, p. 122–123]. In addition to the moral incentive, the saint also proposed using material interest, concluding a written agreement with the proofreaders with the condition: “if, for example, there are more than one or two typos in a sheet... then you won’t pay for that sheet” [5, p. 450–453]. Wishing that the principles he had developed would be respected and applied in the further publication of his works, Saint Theophan involved his beloved nephew in the publishing business. “The time has come for you to join the rank of publisher” [25, p. 196–197], - he addressed Alexey Govorov, and later mentioned the publication of books as a common matter with him: “The bookseller of spiritual books Gorbunov asks to send him 15 copies. our publications with you" [28, p. 196–197]. Bishop Theophan taught his nephew how to proofread, advised which publishers to collaborate with, how to do business with them, how to use the money received from book sales, and so on. “You and I must always remain masters. And the owners" [33, l. 186–189], - the Vyshensky Recluse wrote to his nephew about his works. As a result, he transferred full rights to his works to A. Govorov, emphasizing: “The main thing is that I, you and whoever comes after you should be the owners of the books” [1, p. 65]. Saint Theophan not only became the most prolific spiritual writer of his time, but also helped other authors with advice, necessary books, editing, and sometimes even publishing their texts at his own expense. “After reading all the articles again, I will return them to you and send you 300 rubles. Print. Let one of the gentlemen handle the editing and proofreading. [17, l. 92–95 vol]. An important area of ​​activity of the Vyshensky Recluse, presented in detail in this volume of the Chronicle, was his missionary work. Previously, when he was a teacher and administrator of theological schools, and then a diocesan bishop, he made a lot of efforts to expose Old Believer and sectarian errors. But even after leaving the episcopal see, Bishop Theophan could not indifferently observe the spread of false teachings in Russia. In letters from Vysha, he wrote a lot on this topic, explaining to his addressees the features of a particular sect, giving practical advice: how to talk with its adherents 3, which of the higher clergy should be contacted to suppress harmful preaching by administrative measures 4. So, reporting about the meeting of Pashkovites in the capital, he instructed N.V. Elagin: “Take the trouble to report this to the Lord... just say that this is information about St. Petersburg origin from a reliable eyewitness. ... Please do all this in the name of the Lord. But not a word about me” [27, p. 123–125]. Seeing that few people write against false wisdom, he not only took up the pen himself, but often instructed his correspondents to defend the Orthodox doctrine [20, p. 24–25]. The saint was worried about deviations into heresy and sectarianism, which had long been known to him from his hierarchal service. “Molokanism is around us” [10, l. 814–815; c. 644], - he reported in one of his letters - reliable information from periodicals and oral communications of his like-minded people. Having learned, for example, that the Protestant teaching was gaining popularity in St. Petersburg, he asked the Burachkovs who lived there to find out what his main preacher was teaching 5 . When Count L.N. delivered his sermon in the early 1880s. Tolstoy, the saint also sought to learn in detail his teaching: “Please convey my earnest request that he obtain and send this same Tolstoy a criticism, or an examination of the dogmas of the church” [3, p. 177; c. 133–134]. Explaining why he needed the statements of false teachers, he pointed out that successful denunciation of deviations from Orthodoxy requires missionaries to “write based on the words of the heretic, it will be right in the eye” [12, p. 407; c. 128–129]. In addition to denouncing sectarianism, Saint Theophan looked for the reasons for his contemporaries’ fascination with it. “Start a deliberate speech... and find out why they are falling behind the Church” [7, p. 178–179; c. 135–136], he repeatedly addressed his correspondents. As a result, without leaving the monastery, he was well aware of what attracted people to various sects and led them away from the path of salvation. One of the reasons for the cooling of the Orthodox towards church life, according to the ascetic bishop, was the misunderstanding by many believers and even clergy of the meaning of the liturgical texts of the Orthodox Church. The saint saw the solution to this problem in improving their translation, which he repeatedly mentioned in correspondence. “The liturgical books need to be translated again so that everything is clear” [29, p. 158–160], he suggested in a letter to N.V. Elagin. At the same time, the ascetic repeatedly emphasized that the translation should be made “not into Russian, but into the Slavic language” [4, p. 144]. The saint ardently wished to make available for perception “our liturgical books - an invaluable treasure of prayers, Orthodox dogma and moral teaching [22, l. 1–2 vol.]. He proposed publishing the translation to coincide with the 900th anniversary of the Baptism of Rus', which was celebrated in 1888. In the fifth volume of the Chronicle there is a lot of material in which Saint Theophan touches on the state of his health, especially in connection with the deterioration of his eyesight, which is why, starting in 1879, he had to leave the monastery several times. He made his first trip in March 1879 to consult with Tambov doctors, since “his right eye began to go blind, and it was necessary to find out why” [21, p. 1–2 vol.; With. 54–55]. The examination revealed a cataract that did not require urgent treatment. In addition to doctors, the saint visited the seminary, met with the Tambov bishop and people spiritually close to him. For a second consultation, the saint went to Moscow. On the eve of this trip, he was concerned about the opportunity to stay at the Athos metochion in Moscow, wanting to maintain the strictness of the monastic solitude and trying not to burden anyone. “Tell me, is it possible to find shelter with you for another day just to talk with the doctors?” [24, l. 65–69; With. 420–421] – he wrote to Hieromonk Arseny (Minin). How important it was for the ascetic to maintain inner peace and concentration can be seen from his request to his nephew Alexei Govorov not to disclose the news of his arrival: “Due to the condition of my eye, it seems that I will have to run to Moscow. But I will be there incognito... so that no one knows. Don’t tell anyone either” [26, p. 186]. While in Moscow from August 16 to 18, 1879, Bishop Feofan had a consultation with a doctor, visited Moscow shrines, met with his classmate at the Kyiv Theological Academy, Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius (Bulgakov), as well as with his nephew Alexei Govorov. A Moscow doctor admitted that the saint “has a cataract that does not allow for either treatment or surgery and should result in loss of vision in the eye” [19, p. 430–431]. Gradually, this topic in his letters loses constant tension, but alarming messages appear about the onset of blindness: “My right eye has completely refused to serve and can no longer make out anything. And the left one serves faithfully and without hypocrisy” [16, l. 52–53 vol.]. More than two years later, the saint visited Tambov again to check his second eye, which “began to become cloudy” [13, p. 553–554; c. 154–156]. He was again offered surgery with no guarantee of a successful outcome. On the pages of the Chronicle, an internal struggle can be traced: “The operation is scary, and blindness is scary... If you could rely on feelings, then you would have to refuse the operation, because feelings are against it. And not slightly, but strongly. God's will be done." In 1888, this topic appears again in the saint’s correspondence. However, this time even the appearance of an effective painkiller did not force him to leave Vysha. “I cherish the hope that it will last...” writes Bishop Theophan about his seeing eye, “until it closes forever, and that therefore there is no need to think about operations and their horrors” [9, l. 11–12 vol.]. The state of vision is mentioned throughout the volume. From the letters we see that every year the ascetic’s vision deteriorated, his right eye completely stopped seeing, and his left continued to serve him, although sometimes it disturbed him. Saint Theophan did not give up trying to recover, turning in addition to traditional medicine to various methods of supporting vision. There is evidence that he prayed for the opportunity to continue his work. He also resorted to those around him for prayerful help, of which there is written evidence. “I had a desire to ask Fr. Ivan 6 to pray to the Lord to stop the darkening of my second eye” 7, says Bishop Theophan in one of his letters to O.S. Burachok. “If you beg my eye, then it can be done” [31, l. 450–453], the saint writes about the work on the Philokalia to Archimandrite Macarius (Sushkin) on Athos. For the saint, who devoted his entire life to publishing, loss of vision would have put a limit to his literary works, including translations of patristic writings, and the spiritual care of thousands of his correspondents. He jokingly spoke about the onset of final blindness as the time “when I will finally live in peace” [8, l. 7–8 vol]. The fifth volume of the Chronicle ends with materials reporting on the tenth volume of the works of St. Theophan on Vyshe. This is its lower chronological limit. I hope that the letters of the saint and information about his life and work published in it will become the basis for a detailed study of the biography and spiritual appearance of the Vyshensky Recluse, will be instructive and inspiring reading for his modern students, and will allow a wide circle of readers to learn a lot of new things about Saint Theophan and his era. 1. Memories of the Right Reverend Theophan the Recluse of a close relative A.G. Govorov // Soulful Reading. 1894. Part 2. P. 265. 2. The Gospel story about God the Son, who became incarnate for our salvation, in sequential order, presented in the words of the holy evangelists. M., 1885. 242 p. 3. Letter from Bishop Feofan to A.A. Shishkova from April 1884 // Soulful reading. 1896. Part 1. P. 177. Issue. II. pp. 133–134. 4. Letter from Bishop Feofan to A.A. Shishkova from 1887 // Collection of letters. Vol. II. P. 144. 5. Letter from Bishop Feofan to Archimandrite Makariy (Sushkin) dated January 11, 1887 // ARPMA. Op. 24. D. 41. Unit. file 4327. L. 450–453. 6. Letter from Bishop Feofan to V.V. Shvidkovskaya dated November 23, 1886 // St. Petersburg Spiritual Gazette. 1898. No. 16. P. 303; Collection of letters. Vol. VI. c. 142–143. 7. Letter from Bishop Feofan to L.N. Shishkov from 1884 // Soulful reading. 1896. Part 1. pp. 178–179; Collection of letters. Vol. II. pp. 135–136. 8. Letter from Bishop Feofan to Leonty (Lebedinsky), Archbishop of Kholm and Warsaw, January 8, 1886 // RGIA. F. 796. Op. 205. Units hr. 612. L. 7–8 vol. 9 . Letter from Bishop Feofan to Leonty (Lebedinsky), Archbishop of Kholm and Warsaw, November 2, 1888 // RGIA. F. 796. Op. 205. Units hr. 612. L. 11–12 vol. 10. Letter from Bishop Feofan to monk Vladislav (Popov) dated March 19, 1887 // ARPMA. Op. 24. D. 41. Unit. file 4327. L. 813–814; Soulful reading. 1899. Part 2. P. 644. 11. Letter from Bishop Feofan to N.V. Elagin dated May 28, 1879 12. Letter from Bishop Feofan to N.V. Elagin dated March 20, 1880 // St. Petersburg Spiritual Gazette. 1899. No. 35. P. 407; Collection of letters. Vol. VII. pp. 128–129/ 13. Letter from Bishop Feofan to N.V. Elagin dated January 13, 1882 // St. Petersburg Spiritual Gazette. 1899. No. 47. P. 553–554.; Collection of letters. Vol. VII. pp. 154–156. 14. Letter from Bishop Feofan to an unidentified archpriest dated March 25, 1886 // Tambov Diocesan Gazette. 1897. No. 11. pp. 257–258. 15. Letter from Bishop Feofan to O. S. Burachok from March 3, 1880 // RO IRL RAS. F. 34. Unit. hr. 481. L. 40–41 vol. 16. Letter from Bishop Feofan to O. S. Burachok from September 4, 1880 // RO IRL RAS. F. 34. Unit. hr. 481. L. 52–53 vol. 17. Letter from Bishop Feofan to Olga Stepanovna Burachok dated February 14, 1884 // RO IRL RAS F. 34. Unit. hr. 481. L. 92–95 vol. 18. Letter from Bishop Feofan to Archpriest To A. Z. Krutikov dated July 2, 1879 19. Letter from Bishop Feofan to Archpriest I.G. Pereverzev from January 28, 1880 // Christian. 1910. No. 2. P. 430–431. 20. Letter from Bishop Feofan to Archpriest N.I. Florinsky dated October 9, 1883 // Collected letters Vol. II. pp. 24–25. 21. Letter from Bishop Feofan to S.A. Pervukhin dated April 24, 1879 // IR NBU F. 160. Unit. hr. 1992. L. 1–2 vol.; Korolkov. pp. 54–55. 22. Letter from Bishop Feofan to S.A. Pervukhin dated October 1, 1884 // IR NBU F. 160. Unit. hr. 1996. L. 1–2 vol. 23. Letter from Bishop Feofan to the schema. Pavel (Durnev) dated December 21, 1883 // ARPMA. St. Foundation Feofan (Govorova). Op. 24. D. 41. Unit. hr. 4327. L. 452. 24. Letter dated April 15, 1879 // ARPMA. Op. 24. D. 41. Unit. hr. 4327. L. 65–69; DC. 1894 Part 3, pp. 420–421. 25. Letter dated April 24, 1879 // Soulful reading. 1894. Part 2. P. 472; Collection of letters. Vol. I. pp. 179–180. 26. Letter dated August 4, 1879 // Soulful reading. 1894. Part 2. P. 601; Collection of letters. Vol. I. P. 186. 27. Letter dated January 7, 1880 // St. Petersburg Spiritual Gazette. 1899. No. 34. P. 399; Collection of letters. Vol. VII. pp. 123–125. 28. Letter dated January 7, 1880 // Collection of letters. Vol. I. S. 196–197. 29. Letter dated April 18, 1882 // Collection of letters. Vol. VII. pp. 158–160. 30. Letter dated December 19, 1884 // Soulful reading. 1910. Part 3. pp. 122–123. 31. Letter dated January 11, 1887 // ARPMA. Op. 24. D. 41. Unit. hr. 4327. L. 450–453. 32. Letter dated January 25, 1887 // RO IRL RAS. F. 34. Unit. hr. 482. L. 38–39. 33. Letter dated December 14, 1887 // ARPMA. Op. 24. D. 41. Unit. hr. 4327. L. 186–189. "Diadochos is translated. How lovely he is, holy lord!” (Letter from Bishop Feofan to an unidentified archpriest dated March 25, 1886 // Tambov Diocesan Gazette. 1897. No. 11. [13, pp. 257–258]). “It is often necessary to use periphrasis instead of a literal translation...” (Letter from Bishop Feofan to V.V. Shvidkovskaya dated November 23, 1886 // St. Petersburg Spiritual Gazette. 1898. No. 16. P. 303; Collected Letters. Issue VI [5, pp. 142–143]). See, for example, the letter from Bishop. Feofan to Archpriest A.Z. Krutitsky dated July 2, 1879 [17]. See the bishop's letter. Feofan to N.V. Elagin dated May 28, 1879 [10]. “I have a most humble request to Evgeniy Stepanovich, or Pavel Stepanovich, or both. There is some Pashkov there - a disciple of Redstock and a distributor of his heresy. He feels cruelty, but there is nothing to overcome him, because I don’t know his superstition. So it occurred to me to ask one of the gentlemen, or even both, to reconnoiter. It’s convenient to do this - in Pashkov’s house, it seems, on Sunday evenings there are so-called readings, where he, reading the Gospel or something else, rants in the spirit of his wisdom.” (Letters from Bishop Feofan to O.S. Burachok dated March 3, 1880) [15, l. 40–41 vol.] Right John of Kronstadt. Letter dated January 25, 1887 [31, l. 38–39]. Further in this letter to St. Feofan reported: “To o. Ivan had been meaning to apply for a long time, but that’s all: maybe, I suppose! Our present Right Reverend Vitaly of Tambov told me a lot about Elder Jonah, abbot of the Trinity Monastery in Kyiv. .. And I asked to be treated prayerfully. He did not refuse and is praying. I think that if and about. John will add his prayer... then they will not interfere with one another, but will go along the same road and to the same Throne of the Merciful Lord.”