Priest Konstantin Aggeev. Christianity and its attitude to the improvement of earthly life. Experience of critical study and theological assessment of the understanding of Christianity revealed by K. N. Leontiev

The just published book by St. K. Aggeeva is interesting in presentation and deeply instructive in the theological conclusions to which she leads. The author draws the reader's attention to Leontyev as a religious type, as an exponent of a certain understanding of Christianity, and by criticizing his religious worldview, he substantiates the true understanding of Christianity. The breadth and possibility of the positive side of this theological work are directly dependent on the religious significance of Leontiev and his fate. “Leontyev is a huge and difficult question for every Christian and especially for a son of the Orthodox Church.” “This religious thinker is important, scary and seductive.” Leontyev's religious character is composed of the following features: 1) extreme aestheticism, 2) aesthetic admiration for state absolutism, 3) a combination of state absolutism with Orthodoxy as its support, and 4) an ascetic-monastic understanding of Christianity. If we, omitting the intermediate links, combine the aestheticism with which Leontyev began, which he apparently sacrificed to Christianity and which he actually retained until the end of his days - if we combine this aestheticism with the monasticism with which Leontyev ended, then we will get the following formula: “in Leontyev’s soul, a pagan atheist lived together with a sincere monk of the Orthodox Church.” Leontiev wore in 503 a tragic break in your soul. And Leontyev’s own attempt to ultimately reduce his “unbearably complex needs” to one - religious not only does not destroy this gap, but strengthens it. Leontyev's faith in the Orthodox Church had no roots in his nature: his religion was a deeply violent act. And having sacrificed to faith everything in which he saw the truth, Leontyev, according to the laws of psychology (spontaneous-natural is stronger than artificial...) should have and actually turned the winner into a loser: the Christian religion in the form adopted by Leontyev bears the stamp of his spiritual contradictory experiences... In this form, Leontyev, of course, deserves the full attention of Orthodox theologians. Leontyev was the most extreme esthete - in the spirit of Nietzsche. “The idea of ​​the universal good, the religion of universal benefit, is the coldest, most prosaic and, in addition, the most incredible, unfounded of all religions.” “Progressive ideas are crude, simple and accessible to everyone. These ideas seemed smart and deep while they were the property of a few selected minds. People of high intelligence ennobled them with their brilliant talents; the ideas themselves are not only erroneous in their essence, they are rude and disgusting. Earthly prosperity is nonsense and impossibility; the kingdom of uniform and universal human truth on earth is nonsense and even an offensive untruth, an insult to the best.” “It would be a shame for humanity if this vile ideal of universal benefit, petty labor and shameful prose triumphed forever.” “For anyone who does not consider bliss and absolute truth to be the destiny of humanity on earth, there is nothing terrible in the idea that millions of Russian people had to live entire centuries under the pressure of three atmospheres - bureaucratic, landowner and church, if only so that Pushkin could write Onegin and Godunov, so that the Kremlin and its cathedrals could be built, so that Suvorov and Kutuzov could win their national victories. For glory... for military glory... yes, the military glory of the kingdom and the people, its art and poetry are facts. These are real phenomena of actual nature; These goals are achievable and at the same time high. And that godless-righteous and shallowly blissful humanity, to which you gradually and with various modern antics want to strive, such a humanity would be disgusting if it were possible.” “European thought worships man simply because he is man. She wants to worship not because he is a hero or a prophet, a king or a genius. No, she worships not such a special and high development of personality, but simply the individuality of every person, and she wants to make every person happy, equal, calm, arrogantly honest and free. This fulfillment of all-human equality and all-human truth, emanating not from a positive religion, but from what philosophers call autonomous morality, this is poison, the subtlest and most powerful of all such heterogeneous infections, corrupting all European societies with its gradual action.” “A zoologist should not assure that there are no longer golden pheasants, no eagles, no panthers and beautiful striped zebras in the world, because he does not know how to draw them, or consider them inelegant and, in fact, unnecessary only because the temporary errors of utilitarianism have recognized only peaceful and rough animals as useful for humanity: horses, cows, donkeys, sheep and pigs.” “Everything is good, whatever is beautiful and strong: be it holiness, be it depravity, be it revolution, it’s all the same. People haven't understood this yet. Once the majority acquires good taste, an aesthetic view of life and listens to his sermons, then life will be filled with a new, unheard of variety of good and evil, all sorts of antitheses and all kinds of poetry, starting from the idyll of “old-world landowners” and ending with the tragedy of popular uprisings.” “The beautiful is the goal of life, and good morality and self-sacrifice are valuable only as one of the manifestations of the beautiful.”... From these excerpts Leontiev’s aestheticism emerges with complete clarity. But if consistent aestheticism was a natural-spontaneous principle in Leontyev, then how could Leontyev come to Christianity? What did he see in Christianity? When answering this question, it is necessary to distinguish between two sides in his concept of Christianity - aesthetic and religious. Leontyev, first of all, perceived Christianity aesthetically. And at the same time, it must be borne in mind that Leontyev stubbornly did not know and did not recognize Evangelical Christianity. “Christianity of the first centuries is a too young tree that does not yet bloom and bear fruit.” Leontyev knew and recognized Christianity, which developed and improved in Byzantine Orthodoxy. And so - for him, the ideal of Byzantine Orthodoxy coincided with the aesthetic worldview, with his aversion to the egalitarian process, to egalitarian Europeanism. Assessing aesthetically Russian history and Russian identity, Leontyev approached Orthodoxy. “Only three things are strong and powerful for us: Byzantine Orthodoxy, tribal and limitless autocracy and, perhaps, our rural land life.” From this (aesthetic) side, Orthodoxy seemed to Leontyev to be a certain value. “Imagining Byzantium in our minds, we see before us, as it were, a strict, clear plan of a vast and capacious building. We know that Byzantium in the State means autocracy. In religion, it means Christianity with certain features that distinguish it from Western churches, from heresies and schisms. In the moral world, we know that the Byzantine ideal does not have that high and in many cases exaggerated concept of the earthly human personality, which was introduced into history by German feudalism; We know the tendency of the Byzantine moral ideal towards disappointment in everything earthly, in happiness, in the stability of our own purity, and in our ability for complete moral perfection here, below. We know that Byzantium (like Christianity in general) rejects all hope for the general welfare of peoples, that it is the strongest antithesis to the idea of ​​all-humanity in the sense of earthly all-equality, earthly all-freedom, earthly all-perfection and all-contentment.” From the same side, Leontyev approached monasticism, assessing it as the most perfect form of Byzantine Orthodoxy. “The monk is good for one thing - Leontyev likes to repeat - that he does not believe in truth on earth and in progress. The monks are all pessimists about Europeanism, freedom, equality and, in general, about the earthly life of humanity.” But in Leontyev we see another attitude towards Christianity - a religious one. It is obvious that Byzantine Orthodoxy, as Leontyev understood and valued it, does not exhaust Christianity, that in its depth behind aesthetic Byzantism, Christianity is hostile to aestheticism. And this hostility of Christianity to aestheticism, dear to Leontyev, forms the only basis for his religious attitude towards Christianity. This concept of Christianity was expressed in the following “aphorisms” of Leontiev. 1) “If the visible diversity and felt intensity of life (i.e., its aesthetics) are signs of inner vitality, of humanity, then their decrease should be a sign of the obsolescence of humanity and its imminent death (on earth). 2) A more or less successful universal preaching of Christianity must inevitably and significantly reduce this diversity (progress, which is so hostile to Christianity in its fundamentals, strongly echoes it in this in appearance, partly imitating it. 3) So, both Christian preaching and European progress, through their combined efforts, strive to kill the aesthetics of life on earth, that is, life itself. 4) And the Church says: the end will come when the Gospel is preached everywhere. 5) What to do? We must help Christianity, even to the detriment of our beloved aesthetics, out of transcendental egoism, out of fear of judgment after the grave, for the salvation of our own souls, but we must resist progress where we can, for it harms both Christianity and aesthetics equally.” It is necessary now to note the internal contradiction that we encounter in these aphorisms and which is indicated by the author of the book we are reviewing. Aesthetics life. Christianity harms aesthetics. Igitur... we must help him to save our souls. Aesthetics life. Progress harms aesthetics. Igitur... we must resist him. This contradiction, however, expresses the very essence of Leontiev’s religious life. He experienced a religious turning point, as a result of which he theoretically abandoned his aestheticism and adopted a Christian worldview, and practically, he abandoned his diplomatic career and became a (secret) monk. Outwardly, it was a complete revolution, which testifies to Leontyev as a “complete personality.” But we are interested in the internal side of the matter. And it turns out that he did not experience internal rebirth, since beauty still remained the highest good for him, and now, having become a Christian, he felt it as the highest good. Nothing has changed in his feelings. He sacrificed beauty to Christianity for purely external reasons, so that Christianity did not replace this internal good for him and was an extreme compulsion for him. It is worth re-reading Leontyev’s aphorisms – Fr. rightly writes. K. M. Aggeev - to make sure that, according to the spirit of the teachings contained in them, the whole truth for earthly life is on the side of aesthetics. Christianity harms aesthetics. Hence... We will and must help Christianity contrary to the truth, but only to “transcendent egoism.” But this is a crucifixion, a crucifixion not of “your flesh with its passions and lusts,” but of that side of your being in which - it’s scary to say! the truth?!.. At ease, “you never know! Christian teaching is sometimes very harsh and scary, what to do! But once fearlessly and unconditionally accepted in the simple and old catechism (approved by the Holy Synod - yes! yes!), it provides such powerful support, such amazing consolation (sometimes indirectly even for our poor, long-suffering self-love), which no other philosophy can give.” In this regard, Leontyev’s fate resembles “the picture of Gogol’s last days, when Gogol, under the influence of his own understood religious duty, burns in a dark room, illuminated only by the ominous flame of the fireplace, his immortal work and, with it, all his artistic activity, moreover, himself, the creator of brilliant works.” Leontyev's aestheticism was inferior to Christianity, without being degenerated, inferior only to strength. The clarity with which Leontyev realized this is amazing. “Julius Caesar was much more immoral than Akaky Akakievich, and even Skobelev was incomparably more depraved than many of our “honest workers” today, and if someone who remembers these facts has an aesthetic sense, then what should he do if it is impossible to deny that in Caesar and Skobelev there is a thousand times more poetry than in Akaky Akakievich and in the kindest and most honest village teacher. What should I do? Hate the aesthetics? Pretend, for moral reasons, that you don’t see her? Despise morality? Neither one, nor the other, nor the third is possible.” Only positive faith saves. “She doesn’t need lies and pretense: yes, it’s elegant, strong. aesthetically pleasing, but not soul-saving... When passionate aesthetics is overcome by a spiritual (mystical) feeling, I am in awe, I bow, I honor and I love...” This is what Leontyev wrote in his old age. Religion and religiosity seemed to Leontyev to be coercion, the most extreme coercion based on “transcendental egoism”, salvation from beyond the grave. Complete compulsion, complete self-denial of the mind, self-denial of the will. In relation to religious and theoretical matters, Leontyev tirelessly repeats the principle: credo, quia absurdum. And in terms of practical Christianity for him is a complete renunciation of one’s will, complete obedience. From this side, he again evaluates monasticism as the brightest “color of Christianity.” The whole essence of Christianity is obedience, reaching the point of complete renunciation of one’s will, one’s mind; Greek monasteries, in which the entire organization is based on obedience, are the ideal for the organization of earthly “life.” Leontyev imagined the life of mankind as a cooperation of monastic communities. All other forms of life - not organized monasticism - are from a Christian point of view only preparatory steps. If the monastery serves as the “flower of Christianity,” then in the monastery itself the highest expression is the institution of eldership. The elder is the unlimited driver of a person’s conscience, and “his bad advice should be preferred to his kinder and better, but self-willed act.” Leontyev saw Catholicism as the ideal of the church system, and in this respect his thoughts coincided with the theological tendencies of Solovyov. His sympathies were not on the side of Elder Zosima, but on the side of the Grand Inquisitor. For Leontyev, all religious ideas were grouped according to the bias of jurisprudence... It is easy to understand from here the entire religious system of Leontyev, who placed fear and coercion at the head of religious life and did not give a place for love in it. It is easy to understand what Leontyev lacked in his diligent practice: he lacked Christian mysticism, the inner experience of Christian bliss. To fully highlight this idea, we must emphasize a circumstance already noted earlier. Knowing about the conflict between Christianity and aestheticism and apparently sacrificing the former to the latter, Leontyev in fact remained an esthete until the last days of his life. Comparing his fate with the fate of Gogol, the author we are reviewing correctly notes: “There is a difference. Gogol brought his artistic soul to the altar of a misunderstood faith. Leontyev – without knowing it – was burning Christianity, to which he wanted to give himself completely.” Aestheticism, remaining in Leontyev’s soul, created a religious emptiness in it and prevented him from comprehending the inner side of Christianity. In particular, until his last days he maintained an aesthetic and political view of Christianity as the support of autocracy. This, then, also included his aesthetic ritual belief. “And he knew,” writes Leontyev, “non-believers or half-believers who were delighted with the “poetry” of Athos, with its unique structure, with the monks themselves – Greek, Bulgarian, and Russian.” These aspects exhausted Leontyev’s positive impressions of Christianity, and they only emphasize the lack of specific content in the religion of this “non-believer monk.” I will not expound Leontiev’s religious system and the rather thorough criticism to which its author subjects it. I will provide a final summary of this criticism. O. K. M. Aggeev writes: – K. I. Leontyev, with his system, leads to the circle of Christian ideas, but does not introduce him into it; The most central thing in our religion - the God-man Jesus Christ, who united God and Man in His person and thereby redeemed him from eternal death, remained unknown to our religious thinker. The limited religious worldview of K. N. Leontyev becomes a direct religious crime when he persistently presents his religious doctrine to the point of fanaticism as genuine Christianity, condemning in the most harsh manner other understandings of it. “It is not so much atheists who are the enemies of Christ, but people like you who, by misinterpreting His words, compromise Christianity,” said wife II. S. Aksakov to K. N. Leontiev... We have another fact from Russian life that suggests the same idea. “I earnestly pray to God,” wrote K. N. Leontiev to V. V. Rozanov from Optina Pustyn, that you quickly outgrow Dostoevsky with his “harmonies,” which will never exist, and are not necessary. His monasticism composed, and the teaching of Fr. Zosima is false and the whole style of his conversations is false. Help you, the merciful Lord, to quickly delve into the spirit of really existing monasticism and become imbued with it.” In 1903, V.V. Rozanov wrote his answer to this prayer. “All of Russia,” he says, was surprised and touched by the goodness of Zosima. “He’s not ours, he’s not ours!” exclaims Leontyev on behalf of the Orthodox monastery. “And it’s really not yours,” I answer and take Zosima in my arms and carry him, and with him all his wealth, behind the walls of quiet monasteries.” Everything today is not anti-church, even the anti-Christianity of V.V. Rozanov passed through K.N. Leontiev, and the first cannot be understood without the second in his literary activity of the last decade... And of course, if K. N. Leontiev is right in his understanding of Christianity, then V. V. Rozanov is also understandable in his reproaches of that religion, from which, in his expression, “the world has gone rancid.” K. N. Leontyev with his religious system is a clear warning for everyone who teaches about Christ in his understanding. And don’t say that K. N. Leontiev is alone in his religious delusion. No, unfortunately, he is too typical. And let those who profess his faith know that they serve whatever you want: Old Testament religion or simple aestheticism of form, but not the Lord Jesus Christ... The reviewer fully agrees with these last conclusions. And having briefly outlined the interesting and important content of the book of St. K. M. Aggeeva, he hopes that he gave her the best and undisputed recommendation. You might be interested in: