A strange zealot for the shrine of the family hearth. [Rec. on:] Rozanov V.V. In the world of the unclear and unresolved

First of all, we consider it our duty to warn the reader that this article is not for family reading, although its title, apparently, is exactly what it claims to be. Anyone who values ​​the shrine of the family hearth will see from the very content of the article how to use it in the interests of the family, and before reading it, let him find some secret place for it. It is not with a joyful mood that we begin real work. On the contrary, we are overcome by the desire to begin it with such a statement: oh, if books like this book by V.V. Rozanov had never appeared and we would not have to write reviews like this one!... The only bright and gratifying thing that animates us in this difficult (morally) work is a ray of hope that, perhaps, our review will prevent the appearance of books like this one and - most importantly - perhaps V.V. himself. Rozanov will be so touched that when he comes to himself he will forever refuse to compose such books. This modest and exceptionally humane goal allows us at the same time to hope that the venerable editors of the Theological Bulletin will allow us to include on its pages some opinions and sayings of Mr. Rozanov - very difficult to print, the reprinting of which in the review is necessary. The named book does not represent any new work by Mr. Rozanov, but is - in its first half, a reprint of articles that appeared separately in different newspapers in 1898-99, and in the second - a collection of articles and letters from various people who had a positive and negative attitude towards the opinions of Mr. Rozanov. Our review will have in mind almost exclusively Mr. Rozanov’s own articles; The second part of the book will be meant only as a commentary on the first. These individuals, who read Mr. Rozanov’s articles included in the collection, differed extremely sharply in their assessment of them. Some found them ridiculous and blasphemous, others found them downright brilliant. Thus, a certain M. S. wrote to the author: “Under the yoke of the spirit of fornication, you wrote your last articles” (p. 127). “I am very annoyed with myself,” wrote Mr. S.O. Rozanov. Sharapov, editor of “Russian Labor” - that I decided to publish your articles... I confess - I didn’t read it to the end before submitting it to the typesetting, but your handwriting is desperate... (No matter how hard I tried) to erase, soften and put on fig leaves, I still couldn’t smoke out the fornicating spirit (from them)” (ibid. But still, I published it). Mr. Rozanov’s articles seemed different to Archpriest A. U-sky, Master of Theology (as he titles himself) “You have discovered a new America... you belong to the galaxy of prophets (V. V-ch). Yes, this is the age of the prophets. It’s not for nothing that Vl. S. Solovyov loved to use this word. Probably, the future historian of our days will begin his tale about them with these words: “At a time when the shepherds of human souls turned into shepherds of human pockets alone, the Lord God began to raise up prophets to govern human souls” 1 . Such a sharp difference in assessment involuntarily forces us to ask the question: how can we explain it? To resolve this issue, one must not lose sight of the fact that the author, readers and editors acted extremely hastily, passionately, as if it concerned their personal fate. And who knows that what was written and said so hastily would not have sunk into oblivion forever, lost in the masses of newsprint?! But Mr. Rozanov carefully collected all this writing, published it in the form of a book, and so on. arr. immortalized him forever in the history of Russian literature. This writing, now in the form of a book, should receive an objectively cold verdict from the reviewer: what type of literary work does this book belong to? There is, however, a more important reason for the difference in views on the works of Mr. Rozanov; this is his special way of writing and thinking. G. Rozanov is the enemy of ordinary clear prose presentation, coherence, and consistency; the flow of his thoughts moves outside of logical order intuitively, according to some special inspiration. These peculiarities of Mr. Rozanov’s manner of writing and thinking, combined with the haste of reading, were the reason that his supporters and opponents often did not fully, or even completely, understand him, and he was forced to correct them. He corrects one of his admirers, for example. like this: “the author misunderstood the words of my article... I do not take the text from Scripture, but I eavesdrop on the wishes of the world, the ideals of the world, the sighs of the world (p. 69). In this original manner of thinking outside of logical order, he sometimes goes so far that he puts himself in a position that is truly exceptional. “The anatomists say nonsense about this graphite bubble,” he states at one point (p. 76). “No one has yet comprehended the depths of Christianity, and this task, which the West did not shy away from, may be the original task of the Russian genius” (p. 105) he states elsewhere. And there are quite a few statements of this kind in his articles. If we add to this unexpectedly strange connections, antitheses, figurativeness, daring antics against established theological views with which his speech is equipped, then is it surprising that a serious thought arose in the mind of another gullible and close-minded reader: is this a genius before us? Has not a prophet risen among us in the person of Mr. Rozanov?!... Mr. Rozanov's articles, now presented in book form, are as follows: From the mysteries of human nature (1–20). A true "fin de siécle" (44–51). Nominalism in Christianity (44–51). Family as religion (52–68). Not connected with each other in an external way, they nevertheless have a close internal connection, and the first relates to the others as their basis, and in general they all give full grounds to characterize our writer as a philosopher, moralist and theologian. As a philosopher, Mr. Rozanov appears in his articles as the creator of an original epistemological theory (the doctrine of human cognitive ability). The essence of this theory is this: the hitherto dominant opinion that the “head” of a person or the brain is the “seat of the soul” and the main organ of the highest intellectual ability is completely false. The head and brain must give this honor to the genitals. It is true that the human brain functions somewhat in cognitive activity; Maybe through the brain we are curious, guess, guess, construct something like “Aristotelian syllogisms”. Consequently, Socrates is mortal, but the highest functions of intellectual creativity belong not to him, but to the genitals. They are the “seat of the soul”, with them we reach the constructive, “noumena” of Kant, “ideas” of Plato; Man owes his religious contemplations and revelations to them. Therefore, the act of sexual intercourse (coitus), usually so despised, is in fact the moment of the greatest revelations of the mind and the divine spirit - it is the greatest religious rite. The author discovered this theory, if you believe him, not through Aristotelian syllogisms or intense brain activity, but by eavesdropping on the “sighs of the world” and listening to the frank speeches of the great poets who also acted not with their brains (for example, Lermontov), ​​but it does not contradict physiological observations. “The heaviest brain,” says Mr. Rozanov, was Cuvier’s, but the next heaviest brain was the brain of a crazy woman, whose high abilities were not attested to by anyone: the expression of the disconnect between soul and brain is quite evident. Next to this, the most beautiful face is the face of Raphael. His genius is so high that it was not a genius of a logical order at all, but a genius of images, contemplations, mysterious prayers, for which he did not find words and, as if taking colors from a flower, combined them into wondrous pictures. The only person in history; but why does it especially amaze us? One scary and slightly supernatural feature in itself: this is the face of a girl, set on a man. The presence of both sexes in one being - bisexuality in an individual - involuntarily stops him. Those. as we can guess, the face of the first person in terms of the riches of his soul, the most heavenly, testifies to the strange duality of his soul into male and female principles “and probably, accordingly, about the constant and strongest sexual arousal in him utriusque sexus” (pp. 8–9). The only people who contradict this epistemological theory of Mr. Rozanov are anatomists (?), who say that the genital organs are produced and stored only by cells, material organisms, and not “souls,” but Mr. Rozanov deals with them very quickly and victoriously: “Anatomists convey nonsense about this “Graafian bubble.” His nature, the nature of the child emerging from him, is known better by the poet (speaker). “He (the Angel) carried a young soul in his arms For a world of sadness and tears." (Page 16). Having moved the “seat of the soul” and the highest intellectual functions from the brain to the “lowest points of the floor”, to the “sexual voids” (9–10), our philosopher also transformed the hitherto dominant opinion about the meaning of the face or human physiognomy. Indeed, what is a human face? “The face is the mirror of the soul” - this is what humanity has thought so far. This is, in fact, what Mr. Rozanov thinks too. But what is the human soul? “The soul is gender,” says Mr. Rozanov; “The soul is male and female.” Hence, the following doctrine about the meaning of the human face will be more correct: the face is a mirror of gender, or - in the true words of Mr. Rozanov - “the face is the decoding of gender” (p. 4). This teaching is more often stated as follows: “Let us dwell on the particulars of deciphering gender in the face and take a flower (!), where everything becomes “more predicable” for us: its fragrance is conveyed in the face as the sense of smell (i.e. nose?), what flows from it as the sweetness of nectar is developed in the face as a taste (i.e. lips, tongue?), its coloring, design, are here transferred to vision (the role of the eyes is small). What remains is hearing (ears?), but who doesn’t understand that sex is a pulsation, the oldest rhythm in nature? (page 4). We admit, reader, we are somewhat dissatisfied with the meaning of the forehead and eyes in this teaching; Apparently, they are of no small importance in the human face, and yet Mr. Rozanov apparently does not attach any importance to them. But... let's listen, not criticize. “Let's take another look at the “sad” birch or, perhaps, at the tulip in its spring joy. Sex in a plant is only a temporary phenomenon... But the flower (plants) is divided: its corolla, petals, even stamens and pistils, the entire “visible” part, every “expression”, “story” about itself in it - retain the upper, forward position, on the contrary, everything internal is already in the flower, the cavity of fertilization and fruiting is referred back. As soon as this wonderful fact, essentially the division of the flower, has occurred, the creature begins to move, run, experience fear when it is caught, and be caught when it is hungry. We get the plan of the animal, which actually developed from the flower: the face, the little face in it - existing in the first fruit of the insect, crayfish, and the “weevil” - are the transformed outer integuments of the sex - that’s why it is male and female, and the actual internal genital parts are the fruit and the “womb” hidden inside. The connection between the features of the face—adolescent, masculine, senile, voluptuous or chaste, and between the life of the internal genital parts itself—is clear from here: just as petals obey the phases of the fruit, so unfolded and separated in animals and humans, these same petals or face express the life of the egg and seed.” (page 8). It is clear, but not entirely, and one has to regret that Mr. Romanov did not include a drawing of an ideal human face to illustrate his theory; Without such a picture, you risk falling into error. For example, looking at the portrait of Kant and applying Mr. Rozanov’s theory to it, one just wants to say: poor Kant! How stupid you are! How poorly your face deciphers the life of your gender. Correct yourself: bow your proud brow, get on all fours, throw away Aristotelian syllogisms, raise your butt, almost in it is the seat of the soul and you will be an ideal person according to the epistemological theory of Mr. Rozanov. That such a conclusion is logically correct and that the entire epistemological theory deserves nothing more than laughter - this is hardly possible, in our opinion, to argue about. But if so, then was it worth paying her as much attention as we did? outlining it in detail? In response to this, we must say something incredible, but which actually happened in the meantime: Mr. Rozanov decided to make a practical application of this theory precisely in his further articles, where he appears as a moralist and theologian. It is this epistemological theory that serves as the only key with the help of which it is only possible to explain some of the characteristic oddities of his articles, which would otherwise be completely inexplicable. Thus, Mr. Rozanov very energetically and at every opportunity expresses his contempt for science, since it is precisely a product of brain activity. In particular, he treats theological science with indignation: it is the root of great evil and has spoiled all of Christianity. “European humanity – gov. he - took the “good news” at the forefront of reasoning and took it to the academy, and not to touch the heart and did not carry it to the strings. This is the secret of the “darkness” that declared the “light” - the powerlessness of light and our sad fin de siécle” (p. 42), he repeatedly speaks in an ironic tone about Thomas Aquinas, Rev. Macarius, Tübingen people, some kind of “Moral Theology”, parochial schools. He is sincerely surprised by the history of “seven ecumenical councils and many local Western ones, many of which lasted seven, eight and even - like the Council of Trent - for thirty years. Thirty years of reasoning!” (page 43). We already know how Mr. Rozanov feels about natural science. He does not have the best opinion about the philosophy of Descartes, although, apparently, he is as little familiar with philosophy in general as he is with theology. He is generally not satisfied with all the successes of civilization achieved during the 19th century and finds the last 1/4 of it to be positive unfortunately. For what? For the fact that during this 1/4 century not a single genius appeared: “Indicate - gov. he is in history for another quarter of a century, during which nothing new, great, or at least interesting would appear anywhere. You will not find: there were no poets, there were generals; not they, but the sailors... etc. (page 40). Why is there such a poverty of reason? “The only reason is that civilized humanity of our century works with the brain and treats the functions of the genital organs with contempt.” This is unlikely, reader, but please see for yourself by reading the book we are considering. The application of this epistemological theory to the matter fully explains the characteristic feature of Mr. Rozanov’s articles that we indicated above - his contempt for the “logical order” in the arrangement of thoughts and in external presentation. The author uses “Aristotelian syllogisms,” but uses them completely despotically: they are in the service of his idea, obtained on a whim. And this is the kind of epistemology that Mr. Rozanov applied to the solution of moral and theological issues. Can you guess, reader, what will come of this? Yes, something new, unheard of will come out... As a moralist, Mr. Rozanov acts as a preacher of the new theory of “religion of marriage and family.” A special article is devoted to this sermon, but in others it is heard no less loudly. What is marriage? “Marriage is a striping, a semi-interweaving of a man and a girl” (p. 49). What are fornication and adultery? – Mr. Rozanov’s theory does not know these concepts and does not want to know them: they are the product of scholastic theology. Is there fornication and adultery in nature?! But how, then, does human marriage differ from animal marriage? - That's another matter. Striping, half-weaving of a person is a mystical act, it is deistic. In the universe there is no more attractive creature for a man than a girl 131/2 - 14 years old - “the moment of sex is now before revelation, “April plane trees” (p. 12). She is pure, chaste, beautiful, religious. The sexual attraction to her is so strong and at the same time so sacred that no libertine like Svidrigailov, all Karamazovism, even the old man, nor “Satan of the small ones,” nor the “demon” himself is able to resist it (followed by pictures of Lermontov’s sleeping living girl and Dostoevsky’s lying in a coffin, pp. 11–13). A girl should not remain long without marriage: the deadline for her is 22 years; for having reached the age of 23, she already loses the attractive power of deistically - sexual attraction (pp. 14-15). As for the groom, he can be any man; no restrictions are imposed: complete freedom, which constitutes his right, based on the divine commandment: grow and multiply and fill the earth. The highest moment of marriage, which makes it a sacrament, is coitus. This is not only a physiological or animal act, but also - this is mainly - a mystical, divine, or deistic one. The marriage bed is an altar, husband and wife are priests - “mysteries” (p. 49), with their act of Coitus making, as it were, an offering to Elohim 3. This act is theistic and mystical, because at the moment of it the union of heaven and earth occurs, the result of which is motherhood for the wife, an increase in moral and intellectual well-being for the husband, and a child, an angel, a messenger of heaven for the world. Therefore, the house where this act is performed is a “tabernacle,” “the house of God.” (See family religion). How long does a marriage last? – This is due to completely individual circumstances: marriage generally lasts as long as there is sexual attraction. Once it has ceased in a given couple, the marriage ends, and the spouses enter into new streaks. That's the whole theory of marriage. It's amazingly simple. We read Mr. Rozanov’s articles for a long time and intently precisely with the goal of finding, at least, something else to complicate it, but our searches were in vain... On this basis the religion of the family will be built over time. At present, there has never been such a Rozanov family in humanity. Only the beginnings have appeared, here in Russia: L.N. Tolstoy, in his novels War and Peace and Anna Karenina, was the first to give rise to this new religion of the family. Here are the original words of Mr. Rozanov, expressing this discovery: “He (L.N. Tolstoy) gave poetry and almost the beginning of the religion of the family in quiet and beautiful pictures. Anna is delivered from her pregnancy; Kitty screams in the throes of birth; Natasha looks at the baby’s diapers and, interrupting her husband’s political speeches, says: “there’s no need for a doctor, yellow again”... Everything here is new, and the boldness of the drawing has never been included in literature, but most importantly the author himself is new... He made it felt, having himself comprehended the “old” tabernacle that everyone wears near him, fulfilling some “old testament”... He spoke of something old-old and something new-new.” (pp. 54–56). That’s the whole structure of the Rozanov family - for now, what will follow in the future is not known even to him. I would like to ask the reader to read a little more closely into the above tirade of Mr. Rozanov. What strikes me about it, first of all, is the following strangeness: after all, the “quiet” paintings of L.N. Tolstoy depicts the life of an Orthodox noble family, which was built over centuries under the influence of exclusively one religion - the Orthodox Church, and for the first time I heard that in these works of L.N. Tolstoy pursued Judophile tendencies. Therefore, is Mr. Rozanov in good faith to indicate the justification of his theory in these works? Is it logical? I attach great importance to this remark: for such illogicality is very often found in Mr. Rozanov’s articles; This is one of his favorite techniques. I just can’t decide the question: what are these – sophisms or paralogisms? Those. to put it more simply, is he deliberately fooling his readers, working well with his head and “Aristotelian syllogisms”; or does he really apply his epistemological theory to the matter in such cases? In the above tirade of Mr. Rozanov, I would ask the reader to pay attention to the following phenomenon. The Russian noble family, under the artistic pen of L.N. Tolstoy, truly appears as a quiet and beautiful picture. Who hasn't admired her? And look what this “quiet” picture under the pen of V.V. Rozanov has turned into - into a maternity hospital: here Anna and Kitty and Natasha do nothing but give birth - scream in the throes of birth. Yes, three noble houses are connected into one... and... they scream. But this really is the “quiet picture” of that “tabernacle”, that “house of God” into which the human family will be transformed if the theory of marriage promoted by Mr. Rozanov comes into play and finds followers in word and deed. In the era of the triumph of such a religion, “clans” and “surnames” will completely disappear from cities and villages, and there will only be maternity institutes No. 1, 2, 3, etc. That the amazingly simple theory of marriage preached by Mr. Rozanov logically inevitably leads to such a simplification of the family - I consider it completely unnecessary to prove this. – Mr. Rozanov often calls his theory of marriage and family briefly: “gender worship.” However, the question arises: if these are indeed Mr. Rozanov’s positive moral views on marriage and family, then how can we explain the success that his articles had and are having? Can moral, serious people not only get carried away, but even be at all interested in such absurdity? In response to this, I can offer the following explanation. Apparently, Mr. Rozanov’s task included not so much a positive and clear disclosure of his moral theory of marriage and family, as preparing the ground for it with the strongest possible attack on church teaching on marriage and family, which, in his conviction, is the only reason for the debauchery of family morals, which, in his opinion, characterizes the Christian culture of the late 19th century - Western European and Russian. Lamenting this state of modern morals, burning, so to speak, with the desire of the “prophet” to heal all humanity, to make it chaste, he, first of all, set himself the task of destroying the mercilessly established “church teaching on marriage” 5 and the family - this only cause of evil. And he actually did this terrible work of destruction, without even noticing in the heat of this terrible work how absurd his own positive theory was. Is it surprising that his readers, carried away by the passionate struggle of destruction of this fighter against evil and for a good idea, neglected to take a closer look: what is actually the positive side of this work, what is behind the destruction? This is my probable explanation of this astonishing phenomenon, although quite possible 6 . Let's move on to characterize Mr. Rozanov's theological views. This is morally the hardest work for us; We will allow ourselves to make it easier by focusing not so much on revealing the content of Mr. Rozanov’s teaching, but on the formal side—the methodology of his theology. For the content of his teaching is unbearable for us - blasphemous... The most suitable article for us in this regard by Mr. Rozanov is “Herod’s Legend.” We will allow ourselves to deal with this article a little more than others. It begins with an attack, ending with a precise formulation of the theme. “Are there any legends,” Gov. Mr. Rozanov - whether facts in history are unique, unique. They do not repeat themselves... This is the story or legend about Herod’s massacre of infants. Josephus does not have this fact and he stands only as a vestibule in the Gospel in some strange proximity, almost in proximity to the birth of Christ. The continuation and, as it were, the conclusion of the thought contained in this story is given at the end of the Gospel: already going to death, Christ asked “fruit from the fig tree”; she did not bear fruit, and He cursed her. Between these two legends or facts stands the ethereal gospel, which in its teaching, school part is filled with mysterious silence about the essence of the fruit of the “fruitful” fig tree. These two stories are not a prototype? Isn't it a warning? “And he led them to seek Christ... and he led them to kill the infants, i.e. many will seek Christ, seek to fulfill “Christ’s”, but “stumbling over the incorporeality of His teaching, His heavenly school, they will fall into Herod’s thought of “finding Christ by beating up babies” and through this life, ethereal in aspirations, will become fruitless. The type was not understood”… (pp. 21–22). It was only now that Mr. Rozanov understood this “prototype” and revealed its full meaning and significance in the history of mankind. Let's delve into the logical structure of the topic and its disclosure in the article. It is nothing more than a flat pun consisting of a playful combination of Russian words: “flesh” - “fruit”, sterile - incorporeal and the antithesis: birth - massacre of babies, Herod's beating - Christ's death. Mr. Rozanov called this pun a “prototype” and is surprised that such a prototype has not been understood before - i.e. for 2000 years. We believe the sincerity of such surprise, but for our part we are no less sincerely surprised that Mr. Rozanov did not at this moment come up with the simple consideration that for such logical operations it is extremely dangerous for a writer to use the Gospel, at least for his own reputation: The Holy (and not “incorporeal”) Gospel is a book before which all thinking humanity - believers and non-believers - have always treated and always treated with deep respect. We are confident that fans of L.N.’s artistic talent will Tolstoy was very unpleasantly impressed by Mr. Rozanov’s above-mentioned disfigurement of the types Natasha, Kitty, and others. What should you think about Mr. Rozanov the reader, having before his eyes the experience of public disrespect for the Gospel? Doesn’t he have the right to say: yes, this is a writer from whom everyone who understands the value of the beautiful, the ideal, the lofty, the sacred should stay as far away as possible... But let's move on to consider the logical structure of the entire article, which makes up the disclosure of the topic - pun. A superficial reading of the article gives an impression favorable to the author: apparently, he has extensive knowledge of the history of human culture. What doesn't he know? He walks freely in the world of mythology of Greece, Egypt - in the field of Western and Russian church history, apparently knows the Bible, Chinese history, scholastic theology, Western European poetry, philosophy very well... But it is worth delving into the logical articulation of this vinaigrette of knowledge in order to easily replace that this is not a scientific work, not the work of a thinker-philosopher, and not the cunning chry of a scholastic, with examples and antitheses trying to prove the position that Christianity and the Gospel lead to death and degeneration of humanity, where they were and act - only horrors, and where they are not - only cheerfulness - “worship of the sex”. In the Christian world, he points out Hildebrandt, Selivanov, Thomas Aquinas, the Spanish Inquisition, the philosophy of Descartes, Béranger: all of these are child beaters who do this while seeking Christ. With true pleasure he fixes his gaze on the extra-Christian East, ancient and new. Here “Zeus is forever giving birth, Hera is jealous (p. 27) “A girl ascends to the top of the church in Babylon, but no one comes there yet”; in Thebes, in the church of Ammon, a girl spends the night, and there are no images, nothing but an empty room” (ibid.). In China, “I heard sweet girls laughing and when I saw them, they were sitting on cane chairs” (p. 25). With great pleasure he savors the biblical story that Solomon applied the first experience of wisdom received from God to the controversial case of two mothers - harlots and reproaches Christ the Savior for the fact that when he was married in Cana of Galilee, He did not even look at the couple... The “Fatherly” Hypostasis “ever giving birth” was revealed in the Old Testament with its “circumcision” and unquenchable blessing birth. The “Eternal Word,” the “Second Hypostasis” (in the New Testament) “is eternally born,” but no longer “gives birth.” Not realizing this and mistaking the silence for denial, Christianity in large parts of it from Hildebrandt to Selivanov introduced some secret antagonism within the very Hypostases of the Divine, to oppose the Fatherly Person in it to the filial” (p. 30). This is Mr. Rozanov’s attitude. Khriya is a student exercise that necessarily presupposes a completely passive attitude of the author to the topic. The latter was given to him as a position that his critic was not subject to; The student’s task is to prove its truth and it is possible that the teacher, being satisfied with the completed task, the next day will give a topic for a new chria, the content of which is directly opposite: the student is obliged to try to prove this topic with the same zeal. Such mental gymnastics, if abused or inexperienced by the teacher, can lead to very harmful consequences - teaching sophistry. But in the hands of an experienced teacher, such gymnastics will undoubtedly lead to a good goal - it will develop the skill of criticizing evidence and being careful in choosing, for example. facts or examples presented as arguments. Let us now imagine for a moment that Mr. Rozanov did not compose the theme himself, but received it in finished form; it fell to his lot only to compose the attack and gather evidence. So what? How did he complete this student work? What is his hria? As we know, the starting point of his attack is the following proposition: Herod’s legend (or historical fact) is unique: there are no repetitions in history for it. This is the basis of the whole attack and the whole pun. What is this position (thesis)? In Exodus II, 16 we read: “And (Pharaoh) said to them (the midwives): When you midwife the Hebrew women, then watch during childbirth: if there is a son, then kill him, and if (there is) a daughter, then let him live.” Page 22: “Then Pharaoh commanded all the people, saying: Every newborn son (of the Jews) you shall throw into the river, but every daughter you shall let live.” Exodus XI, 4-6: “And Moses said, Thus saith the Lord: At midnight I will pass through the midst of Egypt. And every firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on the throne, to the firstborn of the bondwoman who is at the millstone, and all the firstborn of the livestock. And there will be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as has never been and such as will never be again.” This indication is enough for Rozanov’s entire attitude to scatter: his teacher would undoubtedly have given him a 1 or 0 and, in addition, would have given him a proper fatherly reprimand for ignorance of sacred history. But that’s the question: what is it? Is it ignorance, momentary oblivion, or deliberate concealment of the truth? We do not dare to admit the first - the reason for this strange phenomenon - because in the articles of Mr. Rozanov there is very convincing evidence of his excellent knowledge of the Bible: we do not dare to recognize the last of these assumptions as such a reason: for it seems incredible that, deliberately concealing the truth, our author would dare to publish his work in the capital's organ: after all, to expose him in a lie, knowledge of Sacred History is enough....... The second assumption remains the most probable: instant oblivion, lapsus memoriae, which also finds confirmation in the epistemological theory of our philosopher. He undoubtedly worked with his head, composing his chria, but under the yoke of strong pressure from his “seat of the soul.” Turning to the very idea of ​​the article (otherwise, the topic of chria), we are struck by the hatred of Christianity and the Gospel with which this article is imbued, and, on the other hand, by the sympathies with which it is imbued in the author’s relationship to the pagan East and the Old Testament. How can we explain this mood of the author? It is easier for someone who has studied the author’s way of thinking and writing to answer this question. He hates Christianity and the Gospel only because he finds in them a decisive denial of “gender worship” in its own sense, i.e. half fourteen-year-old girls: on the other hand, he is enthusiastic about the paganism of the East and the Old Testament just because he sees in them a recognition of his terrible moral theory. And he expresses these antipathies and sympathies openly, directly, passionately - without noticing at all that his praise of the Old Testament produces on the reader an even more, perhaps, depressing impression than his slander against Christianity and the Gospel... “The antagonism of the Hypostases” and the enmity between the Old Testament and the New is the second of our Theologian’s theses, which he openly proclaimed in his book. Of course, there is no need to prove that this “antagonism” and “enmity” is only in the consciousness or head of our theologian. Our interest, therefore, does not consist in refuting the truth of such a thesis and proving the opposite - the relation of agreement: for who refutes something that in reality does not exist? Our interest in this case is exclusively psychological: to explain how such antagonism was formed in the mind of Mr. Rozanov? The reader cannot imagine how simply such a sad mental phenomenon can be explained... In the Old Testament, Mr. Rozanov found the Commandment of God: grow and multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28); in the Old Testament he found “circumcision” as a Divine institution: and so he rushes everywhere with the glorification of these two commandments. There is, of course, nothing bad in this: on the contrary, the proclamation of these commandments is commendable, as is the proclamation of the entire Old Testament Law: but the bad thing is that in these two commandments Mr. Rozanov found an irrefutable basis for his theory of “sex worship.” In the Gospel, Mr. Rozanov did not find either the commandment: “grow and multiply,” or circumcision, but he found here the antithesis: “it is better not to marry.” “Whoever does not leave his mother and his father for My sake is worthy to bear Me.” (page 53). And these are the words in which he expresses the attitude of the Gospel to the Old Testament on the issue of marriage: “It’s better not to get married”... Mysterious words in spirit, in position, in the fate of history. Just one line, an elusively gentle indication; but while the thousand-fold repeated words about love “even for enemies” did not receive any development in the Christian world, did not grow into a catechism, did not form a theology, did not dress in canon law and did not create any special institution, except for rifled cannons and needle guns “for enemies” 7 - this gentle instruction actually clothed all of Christianity, gave color and timbre to everything. It is so multiple, so unusual, so new in relation to the Old Testament that, taking into account the words: “I did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfill,” it could be considered an interpolation of the text if some other words in the Gospel did not constitute a distant preparation for it. “Who are your mother and your brothers? - “Those who hear My word are My brothers and My Mother.” This is a heavenly school without blood ties and even with an elusively subtle denial of them. “Whoever does not leave his mother and his father for My sake is worthy to bear Me.” Again, there was no special need to mention precisely family, blood ties as the subject of rupture; and one might think that the center of gravity here is precisely in these bonds, and “he is worthy not to bear Me” is only an incident and a reason to point out the opposition between Christ and the carnal. “You are Peter, and on this rock (desert) I will build my church” - there is, as it were, a pre-preparation that the entire church, almost all of it, will be built on the character of a deserted, desert-dwelling existence. Calvary! All these secret instructions are the essence of Golgotha, and Christianity did not make a mistake in comprehending the Gospel, having grown into the spirit, into the depth, into the philosophy and poetry of Golgotha. “Let us be crucified with Christ,” “we crucify the passions”... “What is man? – rural grass; “Today it is and tomorrow it is not,” sings one church verse. And is there only one? The religion of “Wednesday” and “Heels”, it is entwined, entwined with funeral veils. How short is baptism, how pale is the wedding, short and hasty are confession and communion! But a man dies, and suddenly Christianity grows in full force: what singing, what words! What a thought and, we repeat, poetry!” 8 We brought such a long tirade for the purpose of clearly proving our assurance, expressed earlier, that Mr. Rozanov worked excellently with his “head,” but under strong pressure from his “seat of the soul” on it. What's the matter? The fact is that during his theological works, “memory” completely betrayed him in the 1st regarding the existence of commandments VII and X in the Old Testament; secondly, regarding the operation in the history of the people of God of a formidable guarantee of the fulfillment of the first of these commandments - stoning for violating it. The silence about these commandments of God's law in Mr. Rozanov's articles attracts attention. What does this silence mean? Why his admirers did not pay attention to this is of no interest to us. But this circumstance, not important at a superficial glance, perfectly explains that mental phenomenon in the mind of Mr. Rozanov, which he himself called the enmity of the two Testaments, “the secret antagonism of the Hypostases of the Divine.” One cannot doubt for a minute the holiness and greatness of the Lord’s commandment: “grow and multiply.” In it, Christian lawyers see the Divine foundation of all private or civil law: family, matrimonial; movable and immovable property rights (Pukhta). But how did humanity fulfill this commandment? G. Rozanov is right when he finds an indication of his theory of “gender worship” in all paganism. Yes, practical admirers of his theory acted then: the horrors of debauchery are what greeted Christianity in the morals of the Greco-Roman world and in the peoples of the East. This commandment was fulfilled somewhat better among the people of God under the influence of the moral (on conscience) influence of the commandments of the Decalogue and under the fear of cruel retribution for their violation. But the lot of the people of God also suffered a significant distortion in the interpretation of these commandments and their application to judicial practice. Jewish jurisprudence obscured their clear meaning by the “tradition of the elders”, which was significantly strengthened by the time of the coming of Christ the Savior, which is one-sided - i.e. in relation only to a criminal woman, she applied cruel punishment for adultery, almost completely freeing male criminals from criminal and moral responsibility (remember the famous elders of the judges of Susanna), and humiliated the position of the wife - mother in the family to the level of a slave of the master - husband. The “Eternal Word”, the Second Hypostasis, according to the exact depiction of the Gospel, acts as the Interpreter of the original meaning of the law on marriage (from the beginning there was no such thing), given by the Lawgiver; as the Redeemer and Intercessor before the Righteous Judge for his transgressors - adulterers and adulteresses - those who repent and so on. arr. establishes agreement between the Old and New Testaments. The relationship of consent between the Hypostases of the Father - Lawgiver and Judge and the Son - Interpreter, Redeemer and Mediator is not shaken by any antagonism, either obvious or secret. The original norm of fulfillment of the commandment, as explained by Christ: “grow and multiply”, consisting in the equal and endless mutual obligation of one husband and one wife (let God unite, let not man separate) is the eternal divine norm of marriage, constituting the same property of both the New and Old Testaments. Its effect is revealed with equal force in the bitter repentant tears of David, denounced by Nephan (Ps. 50) and in the harlot “tearing green” at the feet of Christ the Savior. To this day, it acts as a color of shame on the face of husband and wife, who are convicted by their conscience only of “desire,” only “of looking at lust (of someone else’s husband or someone else’s wife), unless their conscience is killed by the theory of “sex worship,” the brilliant herald of which was Mr. Rozanov in our fatherland. This eternal divine norm lies at the basis of Christian moral teaching, according to which the banding of husband and wife is an honest marriage and the bed is not filthy, a great mystery in the image of the union of Christ and the Church; and the striping of an adulterer and a fornicator, be it a simple layman, a monk or a celibate Catholic priest, is sin, uncleanness, swinishness. G. Rozanov is perplexed how it turns out that the same act of striping is a great secret in one case, and a great abomination in another. - Great bewilderment, which, however, every Christian woman would not have difficulty dispelling Mr. Rozanov, if only he had not forgotten that in the Old Testament, in addition to the commandments “grow up” and “circumcision,” there are also commandments of “decalogues” and with this forgetting he had not dropped, so to speak, the key to understanding the agreement of both Testaments in the doctrine of marriage, equally hostile to the theory of “worship” semi." As for Mr. Rozanov’s comparison of the commandment: grow and multiply and the words of the Gospel, so absurdly and tendentiously interpreted by him in the above tirade, this antithesis is an oratorical device of the same dignity, (qui pro quo), as the antithesis of the legends about the beating of infants by Herod and about the disembodied fig tree. It seems unnecessary to prove this. It remains for us to consider another characteristic feature in Mr. Rozanov’s theology - his sharp and persistently defended difference in Christianity and the Gospel itself between two cults: the cult of Bethlehem and the cult of Golgotha ​​and the Cross. We refuse, however, a detailed description of this point in the theology of Mr. Rozanov precisely for two reasons: 1) In formal or methodological terms, this point does not represent anything particularly characteristic. The basis for the distinction, for contrasting them as hostile cults is the same that served as the basis for the invention of antagonism between the Fatherland and the Son Hypostases and between the Old and New Testaments - i.e. the cult of Bethlehem supposedly favors the theory of “gender worship,” while the cult of Golgotha ​​and the Cross resolutely denies this “gender worship.” 2) This point seems characteristic in its content. But this content is so unbearable—blasphemous—that we resolutely refuse to include even one phrase from this theology on the pages of the Theological Bulletin. This point is fully developed in the article “Family as Religion”: here we refer the reader. For our part, we limit the entire description of the content of this paragraph to the following words: Here vile praises are given to the cult of Bethlehem, vile rapprochements with pagan mythology, and desecrations of Golgotha and the Cross, hitherto unheard of in literature, are expressed: for Mr. Rozanov this cult is terrible... At the end of his book, Mr. Rozanov predicts the imminent fall of Christianity and the triumph of his theories in the following speech: The “Jericho wall” of ignorance and atheism (i.e. Christianity) will collapse in front of these trumpets of “fathers”, trumpets of “mothers”. Those. “heavenly Jerusalem” will directly descend onto St. Isaac’s Square, and the merchants of “Shchukin’s Court” will take “palm branches” and “put on white clothes” (one?), without waiting for either death or trial, and exclaiming: no death! no trial!” (p. 270). Here is a beautiful and quiet painting by Mr. Rozanov himself, depicting the future family life created by the “Russian genius.” It is a conclusion worthy of an entire book and the best self-description of the author. What is he? – isn’t he a genius, isn’t he a prophet? - Neither one nor the other: this is a clown, or a seriously ill person. Having heard this strict but truthful verdict: for anyone else would have been untrue, the reader has the right to ask us: was this ill-fated book worth the trouble, was such an extensive review worth it? The question is not unexpected for us and here is the answer to it: It would not have deserved attention if the author had published it only under his own name, but he recommends himself as a publicist who has been honored, if not with complete solidarity, then, in any case, with deep attention by the following organs of the capital's press: Exchange Gazette, Citizen, New Time, Russian Labor, St. Petersburg Gazette (see preface). Silent contempt for such a patented publicist can hardly find sufficient justification. “But - another persistent reader may notice - you, Mr. reviewer, were only engaged in clarifying the absurdity of Mr. Rozanov’s views, and for your part you expressed almost nothing positive about marriage, at least according to the teachings of the church and the Gospel.” - Is it true; but I only wrote a review of the book; and on the other hand, it is undoubtedly clear from this book that Mr. Rozanov does not recognize the dignity of the human mind, does not attach any value to science, especially theology, disposes of the Old Testament at his own discretion and demands an ideological or significant transformation of the New Testament - after all, all this is printed in his book: so judge, persistent reader, is it possible to agree on anything with such a thinker? But he calls for explanations on a subject of such importance as the shrine of the family hearth. Now, if Mr. Rozanov renounces his epistemological theory, “breaks it - in the language of cheerful Jewish poetry - on a stone, like the baby of the accursed daughter of Babylon,” gives his word to respect the “logical order,” the authority of science, the authority of both Testaments: then I will give an obligation to answer all his requests with complete thoroughness. Page 121. Letter Pr. A. U-skago. It is unknown whether this letter was intended for publication or not. The question is important though. only to the extent that it determines the solution to another question: did Fr. The archpriest, or - having abused his trust - flogged him V.V. Rozanov? Brainiacs, these are Wundt and others, but by no means poets and philosophers (Page 8). Elohim is interpreted by Mr. Rozanov in a unique way. God is generally an “animal” - a “beast” (p. 6), maybe a sexual animal (p. 116). All geniuses are voluptuous - from Solomon to Goethe, pp. 17–19. Here is the connection between the theory of marriage and epistemological theory. But Mr. Rozanov did not hesitate to convey his own psychophysical impression of coitus. Page 216. Yes, to preach his theories, Mr. Rozanov does not spare either himself or his readers. But Mr. Rozanov is completely unaware of the church teaching on marriage: he guesses about it from sources that paint unsightly pictures of unhappy marriages - from newspaper correspondence and from articles and letters from his admirers and opponents. True, these latter said a lot about marriage, but surprisingly little that was truly valuable. See Part 2 of the book: polemical materials. The deep comedy of Gogol’s “The Inspector General” lies in the fact that some scoundrel, a sucker, a scoundrel, has deceived a whole gang of experienced swindlers. I don’t want to say anything offensive to Mr. Rozanov and his admirers with this comparison: for what is possible here is not comedy, but deep tragedy….. Pay attention, reader, to the oratorical technique in the combination of sentences, each of which is a lie and slander. You might be interested in: