10) Г. Георгий Левицкий

in his "Report" on his studies in the academic year 1889–90 as a professorial fellow in the department of Moral Theology. 1134 Mr. Levitsky undertook an acquaintance with the ancient asceticism of the Christian East in the works of some of its representatives and, in general, quite successfully carried them out - in view of the undoubted and very significant dependence precisely on the ancient Eastern ascetic writing of the Russian moralist of the 15th-16th centuries. - Rev. Nil Sorsky, the study and presentation of whose moral worldview was the task of both his candidate’s essay and his planned master’s thesis, but, unfortunately, has not yet seen the light of day. According to the fair observation of Mr. Levitsky, “Nile is united with eastern moralists - ascetics by the positive dependence of the student on the teachers, the writer on the models and sources of the ideas he expounds.” 1135 On the other hand, some, more or less significant, features of the moral teaching of Nile of Sora can be highlighted in the moral teaching of Nile “only by comparing them” with Eastern asceticism. 1136 Bearing in mind that the worldview of the Nile was particularly strongly influenced by Isaac the Syrian and Gregory the Sin. and Simeon NB., Ladder and Macarius the Great, Mr. Levitsky and got acquainted with the writings of Macarius E. (according to Pritius and Floss), Ladder (according to Migne), the works of Isaac S. (according to the edition of Feotoki), Vasily V. (according to the XXXI T. Migne), I. Kaccian and some others according to Φιλοκαλία των ιερών νηπτικών ... Ί ωάννου Μανρογορδάτου. 1782. In further expounding and revealing the ascetic worldview, Mr. Levitsky often produces excerpts, sometimes quite significant in volume, from the said monuments to confirm the correctness and accuracy of his understanding of certain points of their worldview. The author of the “Report” understands his task in the sense of indicating the general typical features of the moral teaching of Nil Sorsky, on the one hand, and the designated representatives of Eastern ascetic writing, on the other. 1137 And indeed, characterizing the features of the ascetic worldview of the named ancient writers, Mr. Levitsky highlights only some general, albeit significant, features (it was difficult to do otherwise in the “Report”), and the features, as we will see, are predominantly formal. As the most characteristic, striking features of the ascetic eastern worldview, the author points out two main ones: 1) asceticism is aimed at achieving personal, individual improvement; 2) public duties are subordinated to personal ones and are only of a secondary, accidental nature. In the patristic ascetic worldview, and also, in full agreement with it, in the moral teaching of Nilus of Sora, although in the latter to a lesser extent and extent, the “psychological element” 1138 predominates, and the basis of their views is the “principle of individuality.” 1139 Ancient ascetics “always consider monasticism exclusively as a form of moral life,” 1140 and shift the center of gravity exclusively to the “personality of the ascetic,” 1141 to his internal “moral and mental content.” 1142 From this point of view, “monastic rules and laws regarding the external way of life, according to the moralists-ascetics, have importance not in themselves, but borrow it entirely from the ascetic, on the one hand, creating forms that are most suitable for the external expression of the moral and mental content already given in the monk, on the other hand, serving as one of the means of developing this content in the event of its absence.” 1143 If monastic life does not actually lead to the results for which it is intended - does not contribute to the religious and moral improvement of the ascetic, then monasticism itself is recognized as devoid of content, turns into ήσυχία άπλή ". 1144 All this confirms the position "about the deep alienness of paternal asceticism from everything formal in morality." 1145 In general, “the monastic ideal of Eastern asceticism is of an exclusively moral nature.” 1146 And organically and inextricably linked with this is the position that the ascetic way of life necessarily presupposes, as its obligatory condition and dominant factor, - consciously - the free tension of the forces of the ascetic himself. “Improvement by Eastern asceticism seems to be a process that cannot be based on mechanical influence, but on the contrary, in which the will and consciousness of the monk should act as positive factors.” 1147 Hence there is no such possibility of reducing the task of asceticism to “external performance,” 1148 even the most impeccable one. Fatherly asceticism, “setting the last goal of the monk to achieve the kingdom of heaven, always presents this goal as mediated by moral perfection. The monk is required to be diligent in relation to his duties, even the smallest, most insignificant (Isaac S. Δ. XXVII, σ, 166, etc.), but the direct connection between it and the receipt of eternal bliss is constantly broken by the introduction of a third moment - spiritual purity and holiness." 1149 This is why the negative aspect of asceticism - κάθαρσις and the positive - τελειωσις are inextricably linked. 1150 “The fathers in the matter of κάθαρσις -’ α direct the monk’s attention not to sin, but to the good opposite to sin, they demand stability in the latter.” 1151 At the same time, “purification should not be limited to the periphery of mental life; it must be directed deep into it and capture psychic evil at its root.” 1152 From all these sides it becomes clear that the general principle of ascetic life among Eastern ascetics, according to the fair observation of the author of the “Report,” is γνώσις, and this concept is central among the ancient ascetics, characterizing asceticism in essence. 1153 The progressive course of ascetic improvement is precisely “the transition from one stage, gnosis to another,” 1154 and “the force that supports the monk in this difficult training and moves him” forward in this process “is indicated in ζήλος, θέρμη, πδρ, κέντησις τής συνειδήσεως, αισθησις τής καρδίας, ηδονή, μέθη". 1155 To the author at In this case, it should be explained that this force has its source, center and support in the heart - καρδία, the closest relationship to which characterizes the γνώσις itself - in its essence and specific features. This is gnosis, as the author puts it, “experienced”, i.e. morally-practical, resolving into a continuous moral-pedagogical process of learning (. γυμνάσιά ). The main engine (αντίπαλος) of “improvement and the only guarantee of constancy in this matter and its success, according to the teachings of ancient ascetics, is νους,” 1156 and the main factor is “free will.” 1157 If ascetic improvement is a process created by “the will of the ascetic, which is directed towards known goals by the power of understanding on the part of the monk of the need to achieve these in his current state,” 1158 then this explains the concept of asceticism as a skill, an art (επιστήμη, τέχνη). 1159 Asceticism, according to the fathers, being a matter “in which the will of the monk carries out his active desire for perfection,” 1160 is very successfully characterized by the names αγών, πάλη, πύκτη, μόχθος, θλίψις, κόπος, κάματον, ιδρώτα. 1161 “Labor and sorrow are such an integral element of feats that without them the latter lose the essential features of feats, becoming ώσπερ σώμα άψυχον” (i.e., like a soulless body). 1162 Asceticism is “the result of a monk’s independent entry into asceticism: its content is the perceived tension of the will, which, placed between two possibilities and having chosen one of them, is forced to maintain its stability in it only by its own strength, without any outside support.” 1163 It turns out, therefore, that asceticism is the result of exclusively a person’s self-activity, the fruit of one’s own subjective efforts... But the question is, how then does Christian asceticism essentially differ from any asceticism that is not Christian at all? And is there such a difference at all? According to Mr. Levitsky, “the fathers recognize three moral categories: evil, good and truly good - το κυρίως αγαθόν, τό φυσικόν, τό ενάντιον (Ladder. Gr. XXVI. col. 101ZA. Makariy E. N. LXX1V. “A Christian good deed and Christian virtue contain in themselves περισσόν τι in comparison with good outside Christianity and natural virtue.” 1164 That περισσόν, in which the Christian life and Christian virtue differ from the naturally good life and good deed, is motivation by the feeling of God (διά θεόν, διά δόξαν θεού) by self-initiation.” 1165 But how then does Christian virtue differ, for example, from the Old Testament? In this case, wouldn’t Christian asceticism be self-justification (ή Ιδία δικαιοσύνη)? According to the author, “the monk, with all his bitter devotion to his work, turns out to be unable to carry out the monastic principle in all the details of his life and for this reason needs divine intercession.” 1166 That is, according to the author, grace only helps a person to bring the undertaken process of improvement to a happy end, and is not inherent in his forces in all moments of religious and moral improvement, not to penetrate these forces organically... “Self-initiation”, to which, according to the author, all the requirements of asceticism are reduced, “and only this alone is considered to condition the receipt of divine help,” 1167 “grace in the sense ενέργεια of God in man." 1168 “The will in the form of naked determination to achieve perfection,” not participating in grace, “turns out to be untenable in this matter.” 1169 That’s all that the author considered necessary to say about the significance of the grace-filled factor, divine power, in the process of asceticism. On the issue of the relationship of altruistic duties to the implementation of an individual task in monasticism, the author in his reasoning (pp. 322–332) defends two main provisions: 1) the joint implementation of these duties, subject to recognition of their equality and equivalence, is impossible; 2) such a combination is not actually necessary by the very essence and characteristics of the monastic task. The monk strives to inherit the kingdom of heaven, but on the way to achieving this task he encounters obstacles “hidden within himself.” It is necessary to eliminate them, it is necessary to produce κάθαρσις τοΰ σώματος, της ψυχής, του νοός (Isaac Δ. XVII). “Serving the interests of one’s neighbors” not only does not facilitate the achievement of this goal, but, it should be said frankly and decisively, hinders it. Hidden in the depths of the human being, evil, in order to be suppressed, requires “that it be made the subject of direct influence on the part of man with the help of means developed for this. Meanwhile, any activity that pursues interests extraneous to this goal or tries to combine the latter with the first, as not directed at psychological evil directly or affecting it only partially, results not in weakening the energy of evil, but in covering it up, thanks to which it retains the ability to be reborn under favorable conditions and declare itself with the same strength.” 1170 In general, external and internal activities do not favor each other. Social activity “is always and necessarily accompanied by what is denoted by the terms: ρεμβασμός, μετεωρισμός” and these phenomena destroy its and a wide door opens for the entry of all kinds of passions. 1171 It is in this way that “the place of social activity - the world - everywhere supplies the fragile will with dangerous temptations.” 1172 If combining social activity with personal improvement is impossible, or at least extremely difficult to achieve, then, on the other hand, it is actually unnecessary. According to the ascetic view, “the last obstacle to a person’s education for the future life, his adaptation to the objective conditions of the afterlife, lies not outside, but entirely in the inner person himself, in his nature (φυσις).” 1173 Hence, for a monk, it is only the inner mood of his personality that is important, the ordering of his inner individual world, bringing it into a normal order. Evil in essence “is an incorrect relationship between the components of a person elements." 1174 As for the “external,” in relation to a given personality, to her internal mood, it “plays the role only of what Isaac calls προσθήκη to the internal: it... excites the internal to movement”... 1175 It is important, therefore, only to restore the normal structure of internal life, created by the proper balance of mental forces. As for the monk’s activity for the benefit of his neighbors, it, of course, takes place, but this activity is devoid of consistency or systematicity: “it is all made up of a series of fragmentary, unordered and random facts of benefits.” 1176 the monk gives to the needy, but only if there is a surplus; he teaches others through the only silent virtues of his life; He admonishes with words, but only those who come to him. 1177 In general, “responsibilities towards one’s neighbors, in the minds of ascetics, never lose their two main features - passivity and chance.” 1178 Here is the logic and main provisions of Mr. Levitsky. Since some provisions, essentially common or similar between Mr. Levitsky and F. F. Gusev, have already been considered by us when analyzing the views of this latter (about the relationship between the external and the internal in asceticism, about the relationship of love for God and neighbors, about the possibility and methods of manifestation of love for neighbors by ascetics, etc.), then in this case we will limit ourselves to only a brief analysis of the traces, provisions of Mr. Levitsky. The author of the “Report” insists that the task of monasticism comes down precisely to “individual re-education,” 1179 to personal improvement, to “processing the personality as an individual.” 1180 But this actually determines only the method, so to speak, the sphere of application and influence of asceticism, asceticism, and not its positive content and not even its specific direction. Such a positive definition of the content of asceticism is also not given by the characteristics of what is called γνώσις, προαίρεσις, etc. All these are very important, essential, characteristic, but - undoubtedly - only formal principles of Eastern Christian asceticism. The author himself essentially agrees with this, admitting that he did not find or indicate the “material”, as he put it, principle of asceticism. According to Mr. Levitsky, “Eastern asceticism is so, one might say, indifferent to the material side of perfection that it has not even developed a monotonous ideal of it: Isaac highlights θεωρία, In particular, θεωρία νοητή and humility, The Ladder gives preference to love and self-mortification, Vasily V. and Nile Sinai try to combine all the elements of the ideal into such a unity that none of them, by its predominance over the others (άμετρία), would violate the harmony of the whole.” 1181 Defining more precisely what qualities were required to be cultivated by ascetics, Mr. Levitsky says: “the monk is entrusted with the duty of moralist-ascetics to take care, first of all, not of charity, not of educating others, not of preaching the Word of God, but of replacing the egoistic principle of life in oneself, again, not with an altruistic one, which in itself is insufficient, but with a sense of God, without which neither the fulfillment of altruistic duties, nor the Christian character of this fulfillment.” 1182 “Outside the love of God and the memory of Him, the very fact of a person’s fulfillment of duties in relation to his neighbors is called into question: their fulfillment cannot begin, because there is no data for this in the person’s soul.” 1183 “If activity for the benefit of one’s neighbor takes place, then, in the absence of love for God, it will inevitably (ανάγκη) take a perverted, non-Christian direction.” 1184 It is absolutely true that Christian asceticism does not separate love for neighbors from love for God, does not recognize that the first can possibly exist without the second. The basis for love for neighbors in Christianity is mystical religious. It owes its origin and existence to “non-spontaneous sympathies”, 1185 not a natural feeling of solidarity - at least this is not its specific feature. The author too generally defines the content of “love for God” as “the feeling of God” and does not understand its connection with the state of love for people. But even those few features of the latter that the author points out do not favor his assertion that external activity in favor of others among ascetics can and should only be accidental, secondary, and rare. Isaac S.’s love for people, for example, is defined as καυτης καρδίας (“burning of the heart”), “immeasurable”; from the side of content it is ελεημοσύνη. 1186 But in this case, its external manifestation is required by its very being. The ascetic “in his personal perfection, insofar as it is necessarily united with the dominance of the sense of God in his soul (more precisely, in consciousness and feeling, in the experience of communion with God), draws and motivates him to fulfill his external duties, and the strength to give this fulfillment a Christian character.” 1187 But the question in this case will not come down to the recognition of external activity in asceticism as almost unnecessary, superfluous, but only to the recognition of “the unconditional dependence of a person’s external relations in their Christian character on his perfection in himself, which, therefore, must first be given.” 1188 But the very acquisition of this religious and moral perfection, we add, is also impossible without one or another external activity. So, from the reasoning and data of the author himself, it is clear that there is a need to significantly limit his statements regarding only the accidental, secondary, almost unnecessary significance of external activity for the benefit of others. As for other features – the advantages and disadvantages of the “Report”, it should be noted that its naturally brief, concise nature, which does not clarify details, but only outlines general provisions and does not even always sufficiently substantiate their presentation in some points, arouses serious bewilderment. Here is one of the most striking places. “The teaching of the ascetics about the immediate task of monasticism is a logical conclusion from the idea of ​​​​the way in which future reward will be realized. Retribution is not weighing and measuring; in this act, God's justice will remain completely out of work; God will, so to speak, only be a spectator of what naturally, due to reasons given in advance, will happen before Him.” 1189 The presentation of the case here is very inaccurate, to say the least. Patristic theology really denies that reward after death will be something external to a person, independent of his internal content, some external, special and essentially unrelated appendage. A person will receive the closest, direct communication with God - with all the benefits of this communication with God, which a person will certainly receive - even in earthly life, even if only to a rudimentary degree - in the form of a deposit. But communion with God in no case allows passivity on the part of God, since, even according to the consciousness of Mr. Levitsky himself, the grace-filled power operating in man is understood as ενέργεια. For all its brevity and despite some significant shortcomings indicated, Mr. Levitsky’s “Report” is quite informative and serious. Some questions are explained correctly and analyzed quite deeply (for example, the meaning of γνώσις ’ α in asceticism). It is a pity that the intended master's thesis has not yet appeared: one might think it would be interesting. But, in any case, it should be noted that an analysis of the worldview of some representatives of ancient Eastern writing could lead to an understanding of only some of the characteristic features of one direction of ancient asceticism, which can be designated by the name of hesychasm and which did not express all the essential shades of the Orthodox ascetic worldview. It goes without saying that the author, by his very task, could not ask the question of the relationship of this worldview to the teaching of the New Testament revelation and other types of ancient asceticism, which is essential in fulfilling our task. See Journals of the Council of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for the 1889–90 academic year year St. Petersburg. 1894. pp. 287–345.