Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov and the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery

Publication by Professor of the Department of Philosophy of Petrozavodsk State University Yuri Vladimirovich Linnik. 1. The young officer Dmitry Brianchaninov first met Fr. Leonid - the future elder Leo of Optina - at the courtyard of the Valaam Monastery in St. Petersburg. The attraction of this personality turned out to be irresistible. Everything went sideways: a diploma from the most prestigious Military Engineering School - a successful start to service in the Dinaburg fortress - a brilliant career prospect. Nicholas I will not immediately grant his resignation. And yet he will meet the spiritual impulse of his pet. Many years later - on December 24, 1863 - in the diary of Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov, who retired to the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery, the following entry will appear: “Now I should have an all-night vigil. At these hours, in 1827, I arrived at the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery to live, straight from the officer’s uniform” 1. Primary – initial – initial! Call this a kind of imprinting? The strongest impression of existence, guiding the rest of your life? The northern monastery placed a young novice on the wing. Here he became the successor of a great tradition. Holy Mount Athos – Paisiy Velichkovsky – Theodore Svirsky – Fr. Leonid - Ignatius Brianchaninov: along this straight line - from person to person - invaluable hesychast experience was passed on. There was a restoration of smart doing in Russia. The Alexander-Svirsky Monastery played a key role in this process. 2. The ways of the Lord are mysterious. When thinking about the fate of Saint Ignatius, you inevitably pose two questions: - Why did he leave the monastery he loved so quickly? – If the reason for this was the strongest spiritual connection with Fr. Leonid, then why didn’t the student immediately follow the teacher from the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage to Optina - and then, having reached it in a roundabout way, didn’t stay there? The first question is answered by Mikhail Vasilyevich Chikhachev, a friend of the saint: the decision was made “after a vision from St. Alexander of Svirsky, who himself took Dimitri Alexandrovich by the hand from the shrine of his relics, as if announcing to him the will of God to leave this place” 2. Providential Leadership! It is not difficult to imagine Dmitry Brianchaninov among the Optina elders. Perhaps he would have bore a different monastic name - he received the familiar one on June 28, 1831, when he was tonsured by Bishop Stefan of Vologda. Elders in monasteries - and abbots of monasteries: as the history of Russian monasticism shows, certain dissonances between them tend to be reproduced. It cannot be said that Leo Optina, who glorified the monastery, always found complete understanding there. Optina coldly received the young Dmitry Bryanchaninov. Nevertheless, the attraction to her was enormous - in the eyes of the saint it was the best monastery in Russia. Here he intended to end his earthly days. I became seriously concerned about this in the summer of 1856. There was a preliminary agreement. He even donated 200 rubles ahead of time to repair the cell. However, in the end - according to Leonid Sokolov - Optina’s superiors “were afraid to accept into their midst” the eminent archmandrite 3. Note that a similar collision led to the fact that Fr. Theodore and Fr. Leonid was forced to leave Valaam in 1817, directing his steps to Alexander Svirsky. There about. Theodore died in 1822. Dmitry Brianchaninov, who arrived here five years later, through the efforts of Fr. Leonida - joined the spiritual heritage of the elder. The Life of Schemamonk Theodore, the first work of Dmitry Brianchaninov, was begun in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery and completed in the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage. 3. In retrospect, the providence of what happened is clear: the Athos branch developed in 1828 - one shoot stretched to Optina Pustyn (Leonid Island), and the other - in the direction of Northern Thebaid (Dmitry Brianchaninov). In four of her monasteries, the future saint deepened the skill of mental prayer. 1. Kirillov White Novoezersky Monastery 2. Semigorodnaya Assumption Hermitage 3. Glushitsky Dionysian Monastery 4. Lopotov Gregory-Pelshemsky Monastery The first of these monasteries was once visited by Nikifor Vazheozersky, the envoy of Alexander Svirsky. The most significant parallel! In the latter we no longer find Dmitry, but Ignatius - here he is a zealous abbot. Metropolitan Philaret pays attention to him. A decision is made: to place Ignatius at the head of the Nikolo-Ugreshsky Monastery - this is Moscow. And suddenly - the fateful intervention of Nicholas - to instruct Ignatius to restore the Trinity-Sergius Monastery near St. Petersburg, which had fallen into disrepair. The most fruitful period in the life of the saint begins. As a dean, he takes care of the following kin: 1. Valaam Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery 2. Vvedensky Ostrovsky Monastery 3. Konevsky Nativity Monastery 4. Staraya Ladoga Nikolaevsky Monastery 5. Staraya Ladoga Assumption Monastery 6. Trinity Zelenetsky Monastery 7. Cheremenetsky St. John the Theologian Monastery We see: one person overshadows a huge space - giving the Northern Thebaid a new scale. Expands it! Today, this concept - in addition to the original Vologda region - covers Pomorie, Kola, Karelia, Obonezhye, and Ladoga region. Before us - in the aspect of monastic life - is a single area: a spiritually homogeneous territory, where hesychast practice acts as an integrating principle. There are no analogues of this phenomenon in Russia. The disciples of Sergius of Radonezh lit a special halo over the Russian North. Ignatius Brianchaninov supported and intensified the unverbal radiance. 4. Here is the fundamental thing - the main thing for us: in hesychasm, for Ignatius Brianchaninov, the aesthetic moment is very, very important - the way out through mental prayer to the eternal foundations of beauty. In the “Sermon on the Jesus Prayer” we read: “The artistic practice of mental prayer is set forth with particular clarity and completeness by Blessed Nicephorus, a monk who remained silent in the holy Mount Athos. He rightly calls the work of prayer an art of art.”4 We are talking about Nikephoros the Solitary, the direct predecessor of Gregory Palamas - the monk labored on Mount Athos during the time of Emperor Michael VIII. The “Word on sobriety and guarding the heart, which is multi-useful”, compiled by him, sets before the silent person the task of “perceiving with heart the heavenly fire” 5 . It was: outside of you (it illuminated eternity) - it became: in you (it illuminated your heart). The sought-after beauty - the goal of inner art - is seen as fiery. Let us remember the flaming icons of Sofia. Let us remember the wonderful definition given by Pavel Florensky: “Sophia is Beauty” 6. Vladimir Solovyov, a classic of Russian sophiology, foresees: And under the guise of impassive substance Everywhere the divine fire burns. This is in tune with hesychast insights. The appearance of the Holy Trinity to Alexander of Svirsky took place against the backdrop of heavenly fire - more precisely, in this very fire, which engulfed both the soul of the ascetic and his entourage. The relativity - or ambivalence - of the external and internal was revealed. Ignatius Brianchaninov quotes Isaac the Syrian: “Try to enter the cage that is inside you, and you will see the heavenly cage. Both are one: you can enter both with one entrance. The ladder to the Kingdom of Heaven is within you: it is arranged mysteriously in your soul” 7. Two cages - the one in you and the one in the sky - can coincide. Isn’t this what happened on the shore of Lake Roshchenskoye? In “An Offering to Modern Monasticism,” Ignatius Brianchaninov quotes the words that Maxim Kapsokalivit once addressed to Gregory of Sinai: “The human mind, by itself, not being united with the Lord, reasons according to its strength. When we unite with the fire of the Divine and the Holy Spirit, then we all possess the Divine Light, we all become light, and burn in the flame of the All-Holy Spirit” 8 . This is about synergy at its maximum. However, for a true hesychast there are no gradations here - he initially sets himself an extreme goal: complete and perfect reunification with God. It is seen as a peculiar ignition. We have the right to attribute the words of the Apostle Paul to Alexander Svirsky: “you will be burning in spirit.” Probably, in the degree of this burning, the saint reached that qualitative level when its overcoming resembles the Transfiguration - it becomes comparable to the Tabor outbreak. The theophany on Lake Roshchenskoe can only be adequately understood in a hesychast context. How can we get by without Palamite intentions? In 1508, on the Svir River, God appeared to man in flashes of uncreated energy. This event is correlated not only with what happened under the shade of the Mamre oak, but also with the mystery of Tabor. In the Philokalia, Gregory Palamas sympathetically quotes Nile of Sinai: “the present state of mind is a mental height, similar to the flower of heaven, into which during prayer the light of the Holy Trinity is present” 9 . The hesychasts, long before the great theophany that Alexander Svirsky was honored with, knew how to go to the Holy Trinity - they saw it in the depths of their spirit. Of course, they brought the uncreated light revealed to them outside, saturating the entire surrounding area with grace. It’s not for nothing that we talk about holy places, richly prayed to by our elders. The charge will last for many generations. Maybe until the end of time. However, there is still no qualitative transition that marked the experience of Alexander Svirsky - when, in the fullness of synergy, the Trinity God decisively removes the boundaries between endo- and exo-: what is in man and what is outside man. Life testifies: the Holy Trinity appeared to Alexander of Svirsky within the confines of his fragile cell. Does the iconography ignore this detail, bringing the miracle out into the open - right into the Olonets forest? Rather, masters intuitively guess the imaginary nature of all spatial representations in conditions of miracle. On the icon from the collection of the Kolomenskoye State Museum-Reserve we see a completely unusual lighting. What is impressive is not only its intensity, but also the impossibility of localizing the source - where is it? I would like to say: everywhere! However, in our context they are the same thing. The roof of the cell, unusual in color, seems to anticipate the red houses of the Russian avant-garde (A.G. Yavlensky, O.V. Rozanova, K.S. Malevich, etc.). Did the light fall on the roof from outside? Or penetrated her from the inside? The original of the life contains an aesthetic assessment of the event: the sculpture is brilliant - and testifies to the power of illumination: the inscrutable glory of heaven. The beauty of theophany – and its overwhelming brightness: this correlates with the perception of a miracle. 5. The appearance of the Holy Trinity to Alexander Svirsky was prepared by his enormous internal work on himself. Truly, the art of art was performed! A proven tool has become mental prayer. Alexander Svirsky perfected his personality according to the laws of beauty. This self-creativity - seemingly hidden from view - manifests itself externally in various ways. It is enough to remember how the face of the saint is transformed - it becomes a unique icon of Sophia: it radiates with grace. But here is an equally significant projection of this deep work: the very spirit of the monastery - the organization of its environment - the completely material, objective beauty created in it. The creations of Andrei Rublev are also such a projection. Transformed people look at us from the artist’s icons and frescoes. Ultimate refinement of our material nature! God's plan for man, distorted by the Fall, is restored to its purity. The gift of love contributes in every possible way to this illumination. He expresses himself very beautifully in the bonds of brotherhood that bind saints - the phenomenon of sacred duals is very significant for Orthodoxy: when one saint is inseparable from the other. That is why they are revered together. Peter and Paul, Cosmas and Damian, Cyril and Methodius, Boris and Gleb, Anthony and Theodosius, Sergius and Nikon, Zosima and Savvatiy: no matter what the example is, there is a wonderful consonance. Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov) believes that one more couple should be introduced into this series: St. Alexander of Svir and St. Macarius of Moscow 10. In 1526 - 1542 Macarius was the Archbishop of Novgorod and Pskov. The Alexander-Svirsky Monastery is under his subordination. The Bishop favors the abbot. A cordial understanding is established between them. 1526: the archbishop, who had just been enthroned, consecrates the new Trinity Cathedral in the monastery under his charge - now it is not a wooden, but a stone structure. 1560: Macarius, already a metropolitan, consecrates the Church of Alexander of Svirsky, which is part of the Cathedral of the Intercession on the Moat. Let's compare these two dates - these two consecrations: there is a very short period of time between them. How rapidly the glory of the Svir miracle worker is growing! The saint reposed in 1533. In 1545, at the initiative of Macarius, abbot Herodion Kochnev wrote his life. In the same year, in the Joseph-Volotsk Monastery - Macarius was a faithful follower of its founder - the first iconographic image of the saint appears. 1547 - Alexander Svirsky is canonized. In the period from 1547 to 1555, a large - 1313 × 1768 - image of Alexander Svirsky was created for the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral. It contains 129 stamps. Three of them are dedicated to the appearance of the Trinity. A new subject is introduced into iconography - with its stable centuries-old traditions. When would this have happened in the time of Theophanes the Greek! The golden age of Russian icon painting was already behind us. Crisis phenomena were brewing in it, caused primarily by the fact that Western influences began to seep through Pskov and Novgorod, shaking the canonical institutions. The miracle of Alexander Svirsky - in its refraction by icon painting - did not lead to the appearance of masterpieces. Nevertheless, the development of this topic is extremely interesting in the aspect of the emerging evolutionary turning point, which split isographers into two camps - zealots of antiquity and supporters of modernization. Two apparitions of the Holy Trinity: to Abraham and Alexander. The difference between them is striking: the first is everyday, the second is extreme. It must be admitted that our iconography essentially neutralizes the emotional levels of these events. In practice, we do not notice a sharp difference between them. Yes, Alexander fell to his knees - and the first angel proactively helps him get up: now everything will go back to normal. Let's ask a purely speculative question: how would the Baroque rework this plot? You can try to imagine the expression of a letter corresponding to a miracle - with a lot of external effects, exaltation in poses, etc. However, in Russia we do not observe even the most timid searches in this direction. How boldly Russian icon painting developed the theme of the fiery ascent of the prophet Elijah! There's nothing like it here. We will find a partial answer in the debate between Metropolitan Macarius and clerk Ivan Viskovaty at the council of 1553–1554. – the warring parties touched upon the most intimate, truly essential problems of icon painting. Here are clear dichotomies that go back to John of Damascus - Ivan Viskovaty starts from them in his philosophizing: “the created and the uncreated, the visible and the invisible, the suffering and the unsuffering, the described and the undescribed” 11 . The subject of icon painting should be only the first parts of these oppositions. Antitheses to them are taboo. Hosts, Sophia, the Holy Trinity, the angelic world: in the eyes of the clerk, all this topic was dubious. Metropolitan Macarius sharply objected to such restrictions on icon painting. Unlike Archbishop Gennady, a Muscovite who once occupied the Novgorod see and imposed metropolitan conservatism on it, he was more tolerant of advances in the development of icon painting, which were predetermined by no means servile, but still undoubted assimilation of the lessons of the West. This happened under Macarius: Moscow icon painters were sometimes left without work - the Metropolitan patronized Pskov and Novgorod. The masters invited from there painted icons for the Annunciation Cathedral in the Kremlin, which was damaged by fire in 1547 - the old and the new were very different. It was: icon-prayer. It became: an icon-reflection. Major transformation! The very nature of icon painting is changing - now it no longer appeals to the primary religious feeling, but rather to ratio. The task of faithfully following the prototype loses the force of an imperative. On the contrary: symbolism is expanding and enriching - in its language, isographers are increasingly bolder in talking about the uncreated, the invisible, the unsuffering, the indescribable. Metropolitan Macarius generally supports these changes. Although one cannot suspect him of radicalism. It is clear that the patron of Alexander of Svirsky does not remember the appearance of the Holy Trinity on Svir when he gives the icon painter a completely ordinary instruction: “it is invisible by a divine being, and is not described, and is not imagined, but just as it appeared to Saint Abraham with a male form, in three faces according to humanity, so painters on holy icons in three faces with wings write according to the Anguillian image.” 12. Having a confident skill in icon painting himself, Macarius is unlikely to have left without his advice the painting of the image of Alexander of Svirsky for the Assumption Cathedral - maybe somewhere he personally had a trained hand. But here is the life - and here is the image: when broadcasting from the first to the second, the luminosity of the event is lost. Where are the white robes of the angels? Where is the superiority of the Sun in their faces? There was a visual arsenal for conveying higher realities. But church painting more and more clearly entered a stage of specific grounding - naturalism began to take precedence over mysticism. The conventionally planar transformed into the real volumetric. Did you think then about the possibility of revealing and conveying the hesychast connotation of the Svir theophany? The stamps dedicated to the appearance of the Holy Trinity stand out from the general background coloristically: bright cinnabar catches the eye. In hindsight, somehow you expect more. For all its subjectivity, our observations reflect serious metamorphoses in the spiritual development of Russia. Soon the paradigm of Simon Ushakov will be established among icon painters. And the hesychast line will be interrupted right up to Paisius (Velichkovsky). Here is the classic hesychasm - what was confessed by Alexander Svirsky: “if at the same time your mind were not embraced by spiritual contemplations of enlightening knowledge and knowledge of existence, by which, inspired and enlightened, it would rapidly rise up, in true, entirely love-breathing prayer, to the kindred lights of the highest immaterial ranks, and from them, as much as is available, it would ascend to the great light, to the three-solar God-originating Trinity" 13. We find something very close to these words of St. Theognostus - almost their paraphrase - in the akathist to Alexander of Svirsky: “Rejoice, partaker of the fiery Trisolar radiance” 14. Three Suns over Lake Roshchenskoye! Their rays spread far. In 1518, Alexander Svirsky, following an inspiration from above, sent the monk Nikifor to the Novozersky monastery to meet with Elder Kirill. This is how their communication ended: “I led the elder to the boats in Mala and sent him away in peace, and in that place the Monk Kirill put up a cross, where they saw the great light” 15. This great light retained its power even after the death of the saint. Hegumen Herodion Kochnev, the author of his first life, also left the following text: “The legend of the appearance of our venerable father Alexander of Svir, the Wonderworker, and like him in the saints, our father Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Russia, when the church came to consecrate St. Nicholas.” This is how the author describes his vision: “Abiy, a great shining light suddenly appeared at the window of the cell. “I rose up and bowed to the window, although I saw: and I saw a certain great ray shining throughout the entire monastery, and from the Church of the Holy Mother of God of Her Venerable Protection I saw the Reverend Father Alexander coming around the monastery, the circle of the Church of the Holy Trinity” 16. We are strongly impressed by the fact that the deceased Alexander Svirsky appears in an unverbal light together with the living Metropolitan Macarius - the space-time of vision does not in any way correlate with physical reality. The sacred binary – we borrow this term from Archimandrite Macarius (Veretennikov) – declares itself above all divisions of the lower world. 6. Ivan Viskovaty was confused by the depiction of the Holy Spirit “in the unknown form of a bird” 17. We find it in the New Testament Trinity. The plot is also known as Co-Throne. It is first found in the famous four-part icon from the Annunciation Cathedral (“And God rests on the seventh day”, “Come, let us worship the Tripartite Divinity”, “In the carnal tomb”, “The Only Begotten Son and Word of God”). By order of Archpriest Sylvester - and this was the closest collaborator of Metropolitan Macarius - it was written by Pskov masters. The westernmost city of Rus' was not shielded from the cultural life of Europe. Ivan Viskovaty saw this openness as a threat to the purity of Orthodox thinking. Here is the assessment given by the clerk to the Pskov icon: “Latin heresies, wisdom” 18. Three centuries later, K.P. would hear absolutely similar reproaches. Bryullov. The same L.A. Uspensky will directly call him a “Roman Catholic” 19. In 1840, Karl Pavlovich created a church image for the Trinity Cathedral in the Trinity-Sergius Desert. The customer will be Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. This will be the New Testament Trinity - the heir to the icon that was at the center of discussions at the council of 1553–1554. Metropolitan Macarius and Ignatius Brianchaninov are brought together by a certain tolerance towards new trends in art. Both loved the ancient, canonical icon. However, they seemed to feel: it was impossible to prevent the determined development of art from within by the force of a ban. Even if I would like to direct this development in a different direction! If you don’t stop it at all, it’s at the peak of achieved perfection. Ignatius Brianchaninov writes to K.P. Bryullov that ill health had its positive side for him: “religion at the same time turned into poetry for me and keeps me in continuous wonderful inspiration, in conversation with the visible and invisible worlds, in unspeakable pleasure” 20. You can only write to a great friend in such a confidential manner. The ascetic monk and the hedonistic artist had a warm relationship. Paying tribute to the enormous talent of K.P. Bryulova, the rector of the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage impartially speaks about the secular nature of his religious painting - while treating it tolerantly, he nevertheless rejects it with his heart: “A painting that would decisively satisfy you must be a painting from eternity.” And again: “All beauty, both visible and invisible, must be anointed with the Spirit, without this anointing it bears the mark of corruption” 21. Let us pay attention: in our quotes from Ignatius Brianchaninov the opposition visible - invisible is twice present. She also appears in Ivan Viskovaty. Around this opposition arises the most intense antinomy of icon painting, which has not yet lost its sharpness. Does an isographer have the right to paint the ethereal? Or is it only God incarnate—as Ivan Viskovaty was sure of—that is accessible to depiction? Metropolitan Macarius reproached the learned clerk for the Galatian heresy. This is a figure of eloquence - such heresy is unknown. Starting from the Epistle to the Galatians by the Apostle Paul, Macarius brings Ivan Viskovaty closer to the Judeo-Christians, who categorically refused to recognize the possibility of both figurative and symbolic representation of God. It looks like apophatic art in its aesthetic dimension! Insubstantial, invisible, indescribable. The problem is solved in various ways: from complete agnostic capitulation, denying icon painting as a delusion, to the major conviction that it is still possible, albeit with a certain amount of convention, to bring out the most intimate things on the visual plane. A.F. interestingly discussed the totality of visual perception, characteristic of Platonism. Losev. Let us recall his typical expressions: the face of meaning – the picture of meaning – the sculpture of meaning. This is a mistake: turning ideas into abstract concepts - taking them beyond the line of perception. The Hellenic eye sees ideas. They are species. Therefore, they are the subject of aesthetic contemplation. Since ancient times, Orthodox thought has gravitated toward Platonism. It also flourished on Russian soil. Let us recall Raphael’s “School of Athens”. Metropolitan Macarius argues in the spirit of Tsaregrad preference. The invisible world can be manifested. And in two ways: both through direct revelation and through the mediation of a symbol. It seems that the teaching of Ignatius Brianchaninov about the subtle ethereality of souls and angels, which caused fundamental objections from Theophan the Recluse, carries within itself the intentions of Platonism, deeply organic for Russian culture. The dispute between the two saints, in some ways isomorphic to the dispute between Metropolitan Macarius and clerk Ivan Viskovaty, captivates with its delicacy - despite the severity of the disagreement. Ignatiy Brianchaninov wants to bring the implicit as close as possible to the explicit. Theophan the Recluse is trying to moderate his impulse. Here is a summary of their significant dialogue. Theophan the Recluse – letter dated 28.05. 1865: “with matter, no matter how you refine it, spiritual phenomena do not fit in at all” 22. Ignatius Brianchaninov – response from 4.06. 1865: “in its own way – immaterial One, unencompassed by space – God” 23 . It seems that this is an example of complementarity - two positions reflect opposite facets of a single truth. In a letter to N.I. Florinsky (1869) Theophan the Recluse makes some compromise, attributing the considerations of Ignatius Brianchaninov to the phenomenal expression of nature: “having allowed a shell - a subtle ethereal one, he will receive a form and will be satisfied” 24. However, this interpretation only strengthens him in his main conviction: “If immaterial Beauty arranged the soul in Her image, then, of course, the soul is immaterial: for otherwise how will it be in Her image?” 25. Note that form is an Aristotelian concept. But we know: it is close to Plato’s idea - here the philosophical systems of the teacher and the student essentially converge. 7. All three iconographic types of the Holy Trinity - Old Testament, Co-Throne, Fatherland - speak about God in the language of symbolism. The fundamental idea of ​​the inseparability and non-fusion of hypostases is conveyed very convincingly. Which composition has priority? Formally dissimilar, they are the same in content. An ancient lithograph shows: among the images that appeared in the sky above the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery, the Co-Throne takes precedence. Was this picture revealed to Dmitry Brianchaninov? He perceived existence on two levels: in the combination of the visible and the invisible. A predisposition to a symbolic worldview is revealed in the young man’s spiritual response to the northern spring. The impressions were intensified the next year - Dmitry celebrated Easter already in the Ploshchanskaya Hermitage. He perceived the renewal of nature symbolically - as a harbinger of the inevitable overcoming of death Dmitry consolidated his impressions in two essays - “Garden in Winter” and “Tree in Winter in front of the Cell Window.” We read in the first of them: “What teaching did I read in the garden? – The doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, a strong doctrine, a teaching depicting an action similar to the resurrection. If we were not accustomed to seeing the revival of nature in spring, then it would seem to us quite wonderful, incredible” 26. The Alexander-Svirsky Monastery itself is full of deep symbolism. Its two complexes - Preobrazhensky and Trinity - are like a paired consonance: they fully rhyme with each other two ignitions, separated in time: what happened on Tabor - and the one that glorified Svir. The three-tent belfry of the monastery is naturally included in the circle of Trinitarian associations. Built in 1646–1648, it had a different ending, which was lost during the devastation. This came about as a result of the 1969–1976 restoration. Let's reproach the architect A.I. Miloradovich at liberty? But here are the arguments in support of it: – the wooden belfry, which preceded the stone one, was indeed multi-tented – the proposed solution seems to restore continuity between different stages in the evolution of the ensemble; – for the time when the belfry was erected, three-tent churches were a widespread phenomenon – N.F. Gulyanitsky rightfully sees in them an architectural symbolization of the Trinity 27. Belfry of the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery Such a symbol is quite appropriate in the Alexander-Svirsky Monastery. The beauty of the monastery has always been a special concern in Russia. The inner world of the abbot - and its reflection in the images of architecture: this is a big topic. Ignatius Malyshev, a pupil and successor of Ignatius Brianchaninov, was inspired in his vision of the Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood by the creation of Barma and Postnik. Church of the Savior on Spilled Blood in the original design of Ignatius Malyshev To these legendary names it is right to add the name of Metropolitan Macarius. He had the initiative - he exercised strict supervision - his aesthetics were brought to life. Architectural style and literary style: a one-to-one correspondence is impossible here. But associative convergences can have heuristic value. Macarius created a special school of writing - when analyzing it, experts combine two epithets: solemn and ornate. They write: solemnly ornate 28. Actually an oxymoron! But he very well captures the character of the Intercession on the Moat: its monumentality - and intricacy, grandeur - and whimsicality. Both churches - Moscow and St. Petersburg - echo the mountainous Jerusalem. But they give it Russian content. The architectural appearance of Valaam - in its most important and significant features - is entirely predetermined by the aesthetic taste of Ignatius Brianchaninov. A.M. Gornostaev. Nikolsky Skete True, it was not fully realized during his lifetime, but it developed after the death of the saint in the spirit of the ideal accepted by him. The archipelago left an indelible mark on the soul of Ignatius Brianchaninov. In a letter to the abbot of the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Valaam Monastery, Damascene, dated September 25, 1855, the saint admits: “I would like to spend the rest of my days in the Valaam monastery; only if it is impossible to fit in it, I mean Optina Pustyn” 29. And here’s what on July 12, 1847, from the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery, Ignatius Bryanchaninov wrote to his native Sergius Monastery, Archimandrite Ignatius Vasiliev: “From the bell tower I looked at Novgorod and its surroundings. Here the soul and body rest quietly; but nothing resonated with poetic inspiration in me, as it did on Valaam” 30. The saint’s essay “Valaam Monastery” (1847) is poetic and philosophical. I would like to draw your attention to the following details: – it is said that Alexander Svirsky was silent on the Holy Island – the reader is reminded of his connection with hesychasm; – the listing of handwritten books in the monastery library opens with the name of Gregory Palamas; - Valaam’s universalism is emphasized - he combines all types of monastic life: desert life - hermitage - community life. To implement his architectural plans on Valaam, the saint attracted Alexei Maksimovich Gornostaev (1808–1862). Then the architect designed for the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage. Thanks to his talent, two sacred topoi acquired very special, immediately recognizable overtones. I.I. Gornostaev. Cross on the grave of A.M. Gornostaeva. Trinity-Sergius Hermitage This ability to bring the heavenly and the earthly into close interaction is the gift of turning them into communicating vessels. The version of the Russian style created by the master is marked by a deep mastery of national archetypes - the architect was inspired by northern embroidery, wood carving, and book ornaments. Grave A.M. Gornostaev in the Trinity-Sergius Hermitage is crowned with a beautiful white stone cross. It depicts the main buildings of the architect. The author of the monument is Alexei Maksimovich’s nephew: Ivan Ivanovich Gornostaev (1821–1874). This is someone who knew Russian antiquity thoroughly! His artistic and historical research bears the stamp of the highest professionalism. Ignatiy Brianchaninov proposed to I.I. Gornostaev to design a cathedral in honor of the Iveron Icon of the Mother of God (1865–1877) for the Nikolo-Babaevsky Monastery. Of course, the architect sensitively echoed - and at the same time did not sacrifice his originality - the eidos of the church, which was outlined in the soul of the saint. Perhaps similar to the one that once united Metropolitan Macarius with Barma and Fastnik - art was inspired by faith. The Intercession on the Moat - and the Church of St. Sergius, the Savior on Spilled Blood - and the Iveron Cathedral: these are very different buildings, but still one gets the feeling that they are in the same formative field. Universal Russianness - with its adherence to Plato’s gesture: to ascend to the highest - the mountainous - the eternal - the perfect - the beautiful. Quote by: Leonid Sokolov. Saint Ignatius. M., 2003. P.215. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Essays. II. Ascetic experiences. M., 1993. P. 284. Philokalia. M., 1900. T. V. P. 239. P.A. Florensky. The pillar and ground of truth. M., 1914. P. 351. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Essays. II. Ascetic experiences. pp. 264–265. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Essays. V. Offering to modern monasticism. M., 1993. P. 65. Philokalia. T.V.S. 277. Macarius (Veretennikov), archimandrite. Venerable Alexander of Svirsky and Saint Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow // Alpha and Omega: Scientific notes of the Society for the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures in Russia. M., 1995. No. 1 (4). pp. 135–144. Search or list about blasphemous lines and doubt about the holy honest icons of Diak Ivan Mikhailov, son of Viskovaty, in the summer of 7062 // “Slavic Materials”, Readings in the imp. Society of Russian History and Antiquities 1858 vol. II. S. 4. Philokalia. M., 1900. T. III. P. 389. Akathist to the venerable and God-bearing abbot Alexander, the wonderworker of Svir. St. Petersburg, 1876. P. 29. Hegumen Macarius (Veretennikov)/Reverend Alexander Svirsky “new miracle worker”, Russian ascetic of the 16th century. Theological works. T.23. M..1982. P. 324. The life, miracles and service of our venerable and God-bearing father Alexander, the Wonderworker of Svir. Ed. 3. M., 1888, p. 152–153. Quote by: Uspensky L.A. Theology of the icon of the Orthodox Church. M., 1996. P. 254. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Complete collection of letters. Volume I. M., 2011. P. 594. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Complete collection of letters. T. I. P. 159. Saint Theophan the Recluse. Soul and angel. M. 1997. P. 94. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Essays. I. Ascetic experiences. M., 1993. P. 177. Gulyanitsky N.F. Liberation ideas of Rus' in the images of architectural monuments of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries // AN. No. 32.M., 1984. P. 46. Droblenkova N.F. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and All Rus'. In the book: Dictionary of scribes and bookishness of Ancient Rus'. Vol. 2. Part 2. L., 1989. P. 85. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Complete collection of letters. Volume I. P. 196. Saint Ignatius Brianchaninov. Complete collection of letters. Volume I I. M., 2011. P. 298.