XI. Письмо десятое: София

...Then I had just started living on my own and settled in a small, lonely house. Alone, not only without furniture, but also without a bench to sit on: the clock was the only piece of “furnishing”. I sat on some box and worked on it. Cold, emptiness and life from hand to mouth... It was especially terrible in the evenings. It was getting dark. The rain began to fall, tapping on the iron roof. Then, suddenly, it knocked hard - drowning out the dry knock of the pendulum. And the rain came in bursts. The roof burst into tears in final melancholy and cold despair. It pounded like clods of frozen earth on the lid of a coffin. It seemed as if my chest was open and cold rain was flowing straight into me, into my tired and yearning heart. This cold autumn rain evoked gloomy melancholy and creepiness. There were only two living beings in the whole house: me and the clock; and also, from time to time, a fly buzzed powerlessly in the blackened area, like a mouth! - window. Oh, and I was glad to see the fly... Sometimes, calming myself down, I began to hum in a timid voice the sad “verse” I heard from a blind man: “Will I go up the mountain high, Will I see the deep abyss? Where in the world am I not sad, I only seek You, Eternity. Gro-o-bik, you are my gr-o-o-o-bi-i-k, you are my eternal-o-oh do-o-mi-i-k. The sands of my bed are yellow, The damp Earth is my mother. Mother, you are my Mother, Take me to eternal rest. Lord have mercy... What is this? Who was knocking on the gate?.. I took the dim wall lamp from its nail, put on my galoshes and went to unlock the bolt in the hallway. It’s dark and slushy outside. I listen... there's a knock again. "Now! I’ll open it now.” I go down to the gate along a slimy ladder. "Who's there?" Silence. Then - another knock. "Who's there?" And again silence. I pull back the bolt at the gate, I open it - no one is there. And it’s even gloomier to return to the room... How many times have I walked out to hear the knocks, how many times have I opened the gate, and... only the wind came in as a guest with me. From melancholy I could neither study nor pray. Nothing came to mind. With the last hope he looked at the Face of the Savior and at the clay lamp burning in front of him. A sudden gust of wind rumbled sadly on the iron roof! Three birch trees made an eerie noise outside the window. It was here, in this deserted hut, on these lonely evenings, that the late Elder Isidore was vividly remembered to me. All grace-filled and beautiful, he gave me the firmest, most undoubted, purest perception of a spiritual personality in my life. What had previously only trembled at times in dreams was now tangible and visible. The spiritual world was more real with one’s own eyes than the carnal world. From now on, every experience, every new impression was verified by this most reliable thing. And I wanted to understand my thoughts and feelings surrounding the image of Elder Isidore, I wanted to realize the beauty of spiritual life. A spiritual person is beautiful, and twice as beautiful. She is beautiful objectively, as an object of contemplation for others; it is also beautiful subjectively, as the focus of a new, purified contemplation of the environment. In the holy, the beautiful primordial creation is open to us for contemplation; for the contemplation of the saint, the primordial creation is stripped of its corruption: churchliness is the beauty of new life in Unconditional Beauty - in the Holy Spirit. This is a fact. 555 But this double fact cannot but lead to reflection, cannot but raise the question: How can we understand this holy, this beautiful moment of the creature? What is its objective nature? What is he metaphysically? However, before answering the question posed, it is useful to make one caveat. A single and integral object of religious perception - in the realm of reason, falls apart into many aspects, into separate facets, into fragments of the shrine, and there is no grace in them: the precious alabaster is broken, and the sacred myrrh is greedily sucked up by the dry sands of the hot desert. This has already been shown previously in the rational antinomies of dogma; Now we will talk about fragments that are not in obvious antinomy with each other, because they do not represent the opposite of each other, but simply different. Each of these logical facets of direct experience, rationally, is very different from the others and, logically, is in no way connected with the others, for only holistic experience shows each facet its place: the connection of individual aspects is synthetic, but not analytical, and it is given only a posteriori, in the form of revelation, that is, as a fact of spiritual experience. However, the latter is in experience not only a fact, not only intuition, but also a discourse, because its existence is perceived as a creative act of the Triune Truth Itself. In fact, this synthesis of individual aspects of the object of faith finds its justification, the justification of its necessity, in the ever-present Light of the Most Holy Trinity. But not only this justification of the synthesis, but also the synthesis itself is not subject to rational deduction. This can be illustrated with an example. Is it possible for someone completely ignorant of geometric bodies to form a concrete idea of ​​a body, having in their hands only planar formations - points, lines and parts of the plane, limited by certain contours (“flat patches” 556)? Can you and I imagine the formation of four-dimensional space from its three projections onto three-dimensional space? 557 Knowing only two colors separately, is it possible to imagine what will happen from mixing them? So – here too, in the area of ​​faith. This, now, leads me to great confusion. In fact, if you do not build a complete system of concepts, if you do not set out a complete scheme for experiences - and I am in exactly this position - then it is almost impossible to decide what to say and what to leave out - what to talk about first and what to talk about later. After all, this or that order of concepts is not a truly logical order, but is always only conditional, more or less convenient. Individual concepts are mechanically attached to one another: when a religious object enters the sphere of reason, then the conjunction “and” is the most relevant. After all, it is impossible to say what is given first and what comes after in the eternal existence of what is experienced: there everything is one; psychologically, one appears earlier, the other later, depending on many personal conditions. It is difficult for me to decide for another which sequence will be easier for him to observe. As I write, I still realize that I am scattering myself, because I cannot say at once everything that is crowded in my consciousness. Until now, I have tried to establish, using some specific examples, the main theme of my previous letter, namely, the perception by ascetics of the eternal roots of all creation - by which it is held in God. But the perception of the eternal, as such, is, from the cognitive side, a vision of a thing in its internal necessity - a vision of a thing in its meaning, in the reason of its existence. Contemplating the unconditional value of creatures, the holy ascetic sees the reason of their objective existence, their Λόγος. And since the secondary mind is thought of as actually existing only insofar as it is rooted in the Absolute Mind, insofar as it is nourished by the Light of Truth, then the mind of a thing is, from the point of view of the creature, that act through which the creature renounces its selfhood, comes out of itself and through which it finds its affirmation in God, as self-exhausting; in other words, the mind of a thing is, from the point of view of the creature, love for God and the resulting vision of God, a private idea of ​​Him, a conditional idea of ​​the Unconditional. From the point of view of the existence of the Divine, the mind of the creature is the unconditional idea of the conditional, the idea of God of a particular thing - that act by which God, in the ineffable self-abasement of his infinity and absoluteness, along with the Divine content of his Divine thought, deigns to think about the finite and limited, brings into the fullness of being of the Trinity the meager half-being of the creature and grants it self-existence and self-determination, i.e. puts the creature is, as it were, on a par with Itself; from God's point of view, the mind of the creature is God's self-abasing love for the creature. By an indescribable act (- in which the ineffable humility of Divine love and the incomprehensible boldness of created love come into contact with each other and contribute to each other -) entering into the life of the Divine Trinity, which stands above order (- for the number “3” has no order -), this love-idea-monad, this fourth hypostatic element in relation to itself causes a difference in order - κατὰ τάξιν – Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity, favoring this relationship between Itself and His creation and the resulting definition of Itself as a creature, and thus “draining” or “emptying” Itself of absolute attributes. Remaining omnipotent, God treats His creation as if not omnipotent: He does not force the creature, but convinces, not to force, but to ask. Remaining “one” in themselves, the hypostases make themselves “other” in relation to the creature. The latter is revealed in the nature of providential activity, both in each individual life and, especially, in three successive Testaments with the entire world. In other words, these three Testaments, revealing themselves educationally and preliminary in the personal life of the monad, - ontogenetically, - are repeated completely in the history of all creation, - phylogenetically -. But, dear, forgive me these rough and hateful tweezers and scalpels with which I have to dissect the finest fibers of the soul. Just don’t think that my cold words are metaphysical speculation, “gnosticism.” They are just pathetic schemes for what is experienced in the soul. The monad of which I speak is not a metaphysical entity given by a logical definition, but is experienced in living experience; it is a religious given, determined not a priori, but a posteriori, not by the pride of construction, but by the humility of acceptance. True, I am forced to use metaphysical terminology, but these terms in my speech have a meaning not strictly technical, but conditional or, rather, symbolic - the meaning of, as it were, colors that describe what is internally experienced. So, I said “monad”, i.e. some real unit. Logically and metaphysically, it, as such, would be opposed to other monads, would exclude them from the sphere of its Self, or, having lost its individuality, would be captured by other monads and would merge with them into an indistinguishable, elemental unity. But in the spiritual states we are talking about, nothing loses its individuality; everything is perceived as internally, organically connected with each other, as welded together by a free feat of self-sacrifice, as internally unified, internally whole - in a word, as a many-united being. Everything is one in essence and everything is different in hypostasis. It is not just a given, spontaneous, factual unity that unites it, but a unity realized by an eternal act, a mobile balance of hypostases, similar to how with the constant exchange of energy by ray-emitting bodies, a mobile balance of energy is established between them - this is motionless movement and moving rest. Love eternally “exhausts” every monad and eternally “glorifies” it—it brings the monad out of itself and establishes it in itself and for itself. Love eternally takes away in order to eternally give; eternally mortifies in order to eternally give life. Unity in love is what brings each monad out of the state of pure potentiality, i.e. e, spiritual sleep, spiritual emptiness and formless chaos, and which thus gives the monad reality, actuality, life and wakefulness. The purely subjective, isolated and blind I of a monad for the Thou of another monad exhausts itself and, through this Thou, the I becomes purely objective, i.e. proven. Perceived by the third monad, as proving itself through the second, the I of the first monad in the third monad finds itself as proven, that is, it completes the process of self-proof and is done “for itself”, at the same time receiving its “about itself”, for the proven I is objectively perceived “for another” of this “about itself”. From bare and empty self-identity - “I!” – the monad becomes an act full of content, synthetically connecting the Self with the Self (I = Self), i.e., the organ of a single Being. 558 The Love of God flowing in this Being is the creative act by which it receives: firstly, life, secondly, unity, and thirdly, being; unity, being not a fact, but an act, is a mystical derivative of life, and being is a derivative of unity: true being is a substantial relation to another and movement from itself, both giving unity and resulting from the unity of being. But each monad exists only insofar as it allows Divine love to reach itself, “for in Him [God] we live and move and exist - ἐσμέν" (Acts 17:28). This “Great Being” - but not the one to whom O. Comte prayed, but truly great - It is the realized Wisdom of God, הכְָמַה Hochma, Σοφία Sophia or Wisdom. 559 Sophia is the Great Root of the entire creation [cf. πάσα ἡ κτίσις (Rom. 8:22), i.e. the entire creation, and not just the whole], by which the creation goes into the intra-Trinity life and through which it receives Eternal Life from the One Source of Life; Sophia is the primordial nature of creation, 560 the creative Love of God, “which was poured out into our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us” (Rom. 5:5); That is why the true Self of the deified, his “heart,” is precisely the Love of God, just as the Essence of the Divine is the intra-Trinity Love. After all, everything only truly exists insofar as it partakes of the Divine-Love, the Source of being and truth. If a creature is torn from its roots, then inevitable death awaits it: “He who finds Me,” says Wisdom herself, “has found life and will receive favor from the Lord; but whoever sins against me harms his soul: all who hate me love death” (Prov. 8:35–36). In relation to the creature, Sophia is the Guardian Angel of the creature, the Ideal personality of the world. Forming the mind in relation to creation, it is the formed content of God the Mind, His “psychic content,” eternally created by the Father through the Son and completed in the Holy Spirit: God thinks with things. 561 Therefore, to exist means to be thinkable, to be remembered, or, finally, to be known by God. 562 Those whom God “knows” have reality, but those whom He “does not know” do not exist in the spiritual world, in the world of true reality, and their existence is illusory. They are empty, and in the illumination of the Triluminary Light it becomes clear that they do not exist at all, and that they only seemed to exist: in order to be, one must γινώσκεσθαι ὑπὸ θεοῦ (cf. John 10:14; Matthew 7:23, 25:31, ff.). 563 He who exists in Eternity also “knows” in Eternity; but what he “knows” in Eternity 564 appears in Time at a single, definite moment. God, the Super-temporal, for whom Time is given with all its moments, as a single “now,” does not create the world in Time; but for the world, for a creature living in time, the creation of the world is necessarily confined to certain times and periods. The question is: “Why specifically to these times and dates, and not to any others?” – This question, I believe, is based on a misunderstanding, and precisely on the confusion of cosmic Time with abstract time. Cosmic time is succession, and, being succession, it gives succession to everything that has succession. 565 In other words, it is an internal organization, each member of which is immutably located where it is. The succession of everything else that occurs through—to put it mathematically—through its “correspondence” with this, the main, succession-native, “taxogenic” series, must also be organized. The correspondence between moments of Time and phenomena occurs due to the internal affinity of each given moment of Time and each given phenomenon; The essence of a given moment also includes the fact that it is connected by correspondence with such and such phenomena. And once such a correspondence has been established, then ask: “Why did the phenomenon arise then and not then?” - asking this is as pointless as asking, “Why does 1912 come after 1911, and not after 1915?” But we have to talk about time in a completely different way, in the abstraction of the mind. After all, reason separates the external appearance of Time from its anatomical composition inside; reason takes the form of the sequence, but removes the content of the sequence from there; what emerges is an empty and indifferent scheme of succession, in which, indeed, every pair of moments can be rearranged, and yet, due to the impersonality of these moments, the result is absolutely no different from what came out of 566 When this essentially meaningless concept is passed off as Time, then, of course, an absurd question should arise: “Why did God create the world so many thousands of years ago, and not at any other time?” a mistake into which, among many others, the famous Origen fell. 567 God created - for us - the world when it was fitting for the world to be created - this is the answer to such questions. Without citing patristic evidence in favor of the understanding of Time set forth here (this would take us too far astray), I will only mention the testimony of St. Gregory the Theologian. Before the creation of the world, in addition to the being of the Most Holy Trinity, “The world-born mind also considered in His great mental representations the images He himself composed of the world, which was created later, but for God even then was real. God has everything before his eyes, what will happen, what was, and what is now. For me, such a division is established by time, that one is ahead, the other is back; but for God everything merges into one, and everything is held in the muscles of the Great Deity? 568 “From the worlds,” says the same St. Father, in another place, 569 - of the worlds, one was created first. This is another heaven, the abode of the God-bearers, contemplated by a single mind, bright: the man of God will subsequently enter into it, when, having purified his mind and flesh, he becomes a god. And the other - the corruptible world - was created for mortals, when the beauty of the luminaries should have been established, preaching “God in beauty and greatness, and a royal palace for the Image of God. But the first and last world was created by the Word of the great God.” “We,” also says Clement of Alexandria, 570, “we already existed before the creation of this world, because the creation of us was decided by God much earlier than the creation of us itself, and therefore, already before our creation, we existed in the thought of God - we, who later turned out to be rational creatures of the Divine Word; It is because of Him that we are very ancient in origin, because “in the beginning was the Word.” But let's return to the question of Sophia. The Eternal Bride of the Word of God, outside of Him and independently of Him she has no existence and crumbles into fragments of ideas about creation; in Him it receives creative power. One in God, it is plural in creation and here it is perceived in its concrete phenomena as the ideal personality of man, as his Guardian Angel, that is, as a glimpse of the eternal dignity of the individual and as the image of God in man. It is impossible to talk about this divine “spark” here, because this would require a review of almost all mystical teachings. I will limit myself to just mentioning how this divine reflection is sometimes called in the Apostolic Epistles. This, precisely, for an individual person, is his “dwelling in heaven,” “a house not made with hands, eternal” (2 Cor. 5:1), “a heavenly dwelling” (2 Cor. 5:2), in which a person will be clothed when his “earthly church” is destroyed. The latter will necessarily be destroyed - not because it is on earth, but because it is earthly, ἑπίγειος, τ. that is, perishable in its essence. And, although now that church is “in heaven - ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς” (2 Cor. 5:1), this is not essential for it, but the fact that it is “a dwelling from heaven - τὸ οἰκτήριον ἡμῶν τὸ ἐξ οὐρανοῦ" (2 Cor. 5:2), that is, its nature is important, and not its given location. The earthly church and the heavenly church are opposite in nature, and not in position. In hell there is pure flesh, although it may not be on earth (- and the Lord’s Earth will not tolerate hell on itself 571 -); in heaven there is pure spirituality, although even during life a saint can approach it. The ideal form will be revealed in an enlightened creature, in a transformed person. The earthly “shack, σκήνομα,” that is, the perishable empirical character, is also mentioned by the apostle. Peter (1 Peter 1:13–14), while the ideal character opposite this “shack” is called “an inheritance incorruptible, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven” (1 Peter 1:4). These are “eternal abodes, “αἰώνιαι σκηναί” (Luke 16:9) or types of spiritual growth that the Lord Jesus speaks of in the parable of the steward of unrighteousness. The totality of these “many mansions,” these ideal images of existence, constitutes the true “House of God” (Heb. 3:6), in which man is a “steward” (1 Cor. 4:1–2; Titus 1:7) and, moreover, often dishonest, turning the House of the Father into a “house of trade” (John 2:15). “In My Father’s House are many mansions, ἐν τῇ οἰκιᾳ τοῦ Πατρός μου μοναὶ πολλαί εἰσιν” (John 14:2), says Jesus Christ; individual monasteries, like honeycomb cells, form the House of God, the Holy Church of the Lord or, in an expanded depiction of the same image, the Great City, Heavenly Jerusalem, Heavenly and Holy Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2, 10; Heb. 12:22, etc.). The Holy Spirit lives in this City, shines on it (Rev. 22:5) and therefore the spirit-bearers, 572 who know the secrets of God, hold the keys to the City (Matt. 16:17–19; Rev. 3:7–9; Matt. 18:18, etc.). The fall of creation consisted, in ontological terms, in leaving the heavenly dwelling, in the discrepancy between the empirical revelation of the likeness of God and the heavenly image of God: “that which was fallen came out of its dwelling” (Jude 1:6). But the remaining correspondence is achieved only in the Holy Spirit, which is why this City of God or the Kingdom of God has itself only in the Source Kingdom of God - in the Holy Spirit, just as this Wisdom has itself only in the Source wisdom of God - in the Son, and this Motherhood - only in the Source Parenthood - in the Father. Permeated with Trinity Love, Sophia religiously, not rationally, almost merges with the Word and the Spirit and the Father, as with the Wisdom and the Kingdom and Parenthood of God; but rationally it is completely different from each of these Hypostases. Many mystics wrote about Sophia. But, although very self-confident, Vl. spoke rather harshly about them, but partly and fairly. Soloviev in a letter to gr. S. A. Tolstoy. “The mystics,” he wrote on April 27, 1877 from St. Petersburg, “have a lot of confirmation of my own ideas, but no new light, moreover, almost all of them are extremely subjective and, so to speak, slobbering in nature. I found three specialists in Sofia: Georg Gichtel, Gotfried Arnold and John Pardage. – All three had personal experience, almost the same as mine, and this is the most interesting thing, but actually in Theosophy, all three are rather weak, they follow Bam, but are lower than him. I think Sofia messed with them more for their innocence than anything else. As a result, only Paracelsus, Bam and Swedenborg turn out to be real people, so for me the field remains very wide. I met a little with Polish philosophers - the general tone and aspirations are very nice, but there is no positive content - a couple for our Slavophiles.” 573 In view of this and, moreover, wanting to remain within the confines of church ideas, I will allow myself to postpone the analysis of mystical works until a more specialized work and for now limit myself to just citing one passage explaining the idea of ​​Sophia. This meaningful passage is extracted from the manuscript of our wonderful mystic Count M. M. Speransky, bearing the title “Ομοούσιος. First World" and probably dates from 1812–1814. 574 The manuscript that concerns us, among many others, is kept in the Imperial Public Library; I borrowed the quoted passage from the not yet published “Materials for the Study of Mysticism M. M. Speransky”, A.V. Elchaninov. This is a meaningful passage, instructive for us all the more so since gr. M. M. Speransky received a theological and Orthodox education and has an authoritative, although perhaps hasty, testimony of his Orthodoxy from the Reverend. Bishop Theophan the Recluse. 575 “Like this woman, this first wife was neither created nor begotten; but it is arranged (aedifïcata) by the separation of a part of the Son’s own being, and this is the first and original separation, the first sacrifice of obedience offered to the Father, the first degree of that diminishment (exininationis), which was subsequently carried to death itself and the death of the cross. Wife's name is Sofia. She is the knowledge that the Father and the Son have; but it is the contemplation of their desire, the mirror in which their Glory is reflected. In relation to the Father, she is his daughter: for she forms a part of his Son. In relation to the Son, according to the law of the Father's love, she is his sister. In relation to the law in reproduction, she is his bride. In relation to future births, she is the mother of everything outside of God that exists; for she herself is the first external being. The son passed on the structure of the law of existence to his wife. He left only the law of love for himself. Just as Eve, by the distribution of the glory that was originally in Adam, received the right to be the mother of all who live on earth: so the eternal Eve, by a similar distribution of the heavenly seed, became the mother of all who are in heaven. But what are these born? – gods; for, firstly, their seed in the beginning is divine, and secondly, this very seed would have been barren if the power of the Son, like a husband, had not overshadowed their mother, like a wife. Thus, the world of primordial spirits arose - the types and images of all future creatures. And the face of the disembodied Angels cried out: “Glory to God in the highest,” when there was no earth yet.” The above passage is painted with a rather sharply pantheistic coloring; expressions: “separation of a part of the Son’s own being”, etc. are of course not Orthodox. But, these aside, the main idea of ​​the passage is not in conflict with either biblical teaching or the patristic interpretation of the latter. The idea of the Sophia-Wisdom pre-existing to the world, of the Mountainous Jerusalem, of the Church in its heavenly aspect, or of the Kingdom of God, as the Ideal Personality of the Creation or its Guardian Angel, or else, as the Hypostatic System of the world-creative thoughts of God and the True Pole and the Imperishable Moment of created existence, - this idea is scattered in abundance throughout Scripture and in the creations of our fathers. But I will not cite all this evidence, and this is for two reasons. Firstly, some of them have already been discussed in a special work on the Church; secondly, the remaining material is intended for deliberate work about Sophia. So, in this general work I will limit myself to just a few examples. Thus, in the parable of the Last Judgment, the Lord Jesus says: “Then the King will say to those on His right side: “Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world - τὴν ἡτοιμασμένην ὑμῖν βασιλείαν ἀπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου" 576 – (Matthew 25:34). This is one example; but it would be possible to cite other passages from the Gospel in which the Kingdom of God clearly has the meaning of a pre-existing world, beyond the ultimate reality. A striking example of them can be the revelation of John the Theologian, in which he “saw the holy city Jerusalem, new, coming down from God from heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:2) and the subsequent description of “the woman, the bride of the Lamb” - “the great City, holy Jerusalem, which came down from heaven from God” (Rev. 21:3, 10 et seq. 21:11), a place reminiscent of, but not identical with, the words: “then,” that is, in the last times, “the Bride will appear, and when she appears, she will appear, now hidden by the earth” (3Ezra 7:26). We will not multiply examples. 577 Suffice it to recall that there is even a special direction of biblical theology, according to which the Kingdom of God has the exceptional significance of a transcendent, premium magnitude that will descend catastrophically on the earth on the last day. And that precisely this idea was dominant in Jewish apocalypticism is hardly necessary to talk about. 578 As an echo of the same concepts, in the Eucharistic prayers of the “Teachings of the 12 Apostles” the words are heard: “Remember, O Lord, Thy Church, deliver her from all evil and perfect her in Thy love, and gather her, sanctified, from the four winds into Thy Kingdom, which Thou hast prepared for her, because Thine is the power and glory forever. May grace come and this world pass away - μνήσθηι, κύριε, τῆς ἐκκλησίας σου - καὶ σύναξον αὐτὴν ἀπὸ τῶν τεσσάρων ἀνέμων, τὴν ἁγιασθεῖσαν εἰς σὴν βασιλείαν, ἥν ἡτοίμασας αὐτῇ –.” 579 In the so-called “Second Epistle of St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,” which is in fact the teaching of an unknown preacher (in all likelihood, some charismatic), a sermon composed in Corinth earlier than the half of the 2nd century, 580 the idea of ​​​​the pre-existence of the Church sounds authoritative and dismembered. “So, brethren,” teaches the unknown Author, “doing the will of our Father God, we will be from the Church first, spiritual, before the sun and moon created - τῆς πνευματικῆς, τῆς πρὸ ἡλίου καὶ σελήνης ἐκτισαμένης; - if we do not do the will of the Lord, then we will be from the Scripture, which says: “My house has become a den of thieves” (Jer. 7:11 = Matt. 21:13). So, that means, let us choose to be from - ἀπὸ - the living Church - τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς ζωῆς - in order to be saved. But I don’t think that you don’t know that the living “Church” – ἐκκλησία ζώσα – “the body of Christ” (Eph. 1:22–23); for the Scripture says: “God created man male and female” (Gen. 1:26). Man is Christ, Woman is the Church (τὸ ἄρσεν ἐστὶν ὁ Χριστός, τὸ θῆλυ ἡ ἐκκλησία, 14:2. - Words, ἀρσεν and θῆλυ indicate precisely the sexual difference). And also - ἔτι - the Books of the Prophets and the Apostles - that the Church is not now, but from above - τὴν έκκλησίαν ὄν νῦν εἶναι, ἀλλὰ ἄνωθεν (14:2). For she was spiritual - πνευματική - like our Jesus, but she was revealed - ἐφανερώθη δὲ - for the last days to save us. The Church, being spiritual, was revealed in the flesh of Christ, becoming visible to us, so that if one of us keeps it in the flesh and does not destroy it, he will receive it back in the Holy Spirit, for the flesh itself is a symbol of the Spirit - ἡ γὰρ σάρξ αὕτη ἀντίτυπον ἐστίν τοῦ πνεύματος, (14:3). This means that no one who ruined the symbol (ἀντίτυπον; in Slavic - instead-figurative) does not participate in the real one - αὐθεντικόν. - So, does he not say the following, brethren: Keep the flesh in order to participate in the Spirit (ἵνα τοῦ πνεύματος μεταλάβητε, - in order to receive the Spirit). If we say that the flesh is the Church and the Spirit is Christ, - εἶναι τὴν σάρκα τὴν ἐκκλησίας καὶ τὸ πνεύμα Χριστόν, - then, Of course, he who dishonors the flesh will dishonor the Church. Such a one will not receive the Spirit, which is Christ. This is how much (τοσαύτην, so much) the flesh itself can receive life and immortality when the Holy Spirit is united with it [literally: “glued to it”] - no one can say, nor babble “what the Lord has prepared” (1 Cor. 2:9) for His elect.” 581 In the above excerpt, Jesus Christ, from the side of His Divinity, is identified with the Holy Spirit, so that it seems that the Divinity has two Persons, with the Third replaced by the Church. But this “bi-unitarianism,” a consequence of the insufficient verbal and logical separation of concepts in the presence of an inappropriately deep religious penetration, this “bi-unitarianism” proves only the connection by which the ideas of the Spirit, Christ, Church, Creature and some others are held together for immediate religious consciousness (more on them later). It is remarkable that in the “Epistle”, which is related in the general structure of thought to the “Shepherd” of Hermas, dating, according to Tsang, 582 to the 100th year, the Hypostasis of the Spirit, the Son of God and the Church are either clearly different, or just as clearly identified. Thus, in likeness IX, the Angel of Repentance, leading Hermas, declares to the latter: “I want to show you everything that the Holy Spirit showed you, Who spoke with you in the form of the Church: That Spirit is the Son of God - θέλω σοι δεῖξαι, ὅσα ἔδειξε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγίον τὸ λάλῆσαν μετὰ σοῦ ἐν μορφῇ τκκλησίας ἐκεῖνο γὰρ τὸ πνεῦμα ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν.” 583 But it would be an extreme misunderstanding of religious psychology to see in this identification a simple misunderstanding, confusion. Far from it. The more spontaneous and the more inspired the life of a believer flows, the more integral and united his faith is for him: individual aspects of faith are atomistically scattered only for school theology; but in living life they, each maintaining its independence, are so closely intertwined with each other that one idea imperceptibly evokes another. For a school theologian it is simple to say that the concepts of the Church, the Holy Spirit and the Son of God are different; - simply because in his consciousness these are only concepts. But for the believer, for whom all these are realities that cannot be experienced independently of one another, the realities are interpenetrating and interconnected; for the believer who perceives them in their living reality - for whom with full tangibility the Church is the body of Christ - the fullness of the Spirit sent by Christ; For such a believer, I say, making sharp divisions and distinctions is painful, because they cut into a living body. The speech of faith is not at all the same as the speech of theology, and faith dresses its knowledge of dogmatic truth in symbolic clothing, in figurative language, covering the highest truth and depth of contemplation with successive contradictions. In the already mentioned “Shepherd” Hermas the Church is presented in two of its aspects, namely, as a pre-worldly being and as a magnitude being built in the world. In the first, premium aspect, Herm saw her under the image of a woman dressed in shiny clothes; At first this Woman appeared old, then younger, and finally quite young: “She appeared to me, brothers,” says Herm; 584 – in the first vision – very old and sitting on a throne. In the second vision, she had a youthful face, but the body and hair of an old man, and she talked to me while standing; however, she was more fun than before. In the third vision, she was all much younger and with a beautiful face, only she had senile hair; she was quite cheerful and sitting on the bench.” Here is a passage worthy of attention, which verbally and literally establishes what is felt throughout the entire Monument, namely, the idea of ​​​​the pre-existence of the Church: “During sleep, brothers,” says Herm, 585, “one handsome young man appeared to me, saying: “Who do you think is the Old Woman from whom you received the book [in the second vision]?” I said, "Sibyl." “You’re mistaken,” he says, “she’s not the Sibyl.” “Who is she, sir?” And he said to me: “She is the Church of God.” I asked him: “Why is she old?” “Since,” he said, “she was created first of all, she is old; and for her the world was created” – Τίς οὖν ἐστίν; φημί. Ἡ Ἐκκλησία, φησίν Εἶπον αὐτῷ· Διατί οὖν πρεσβυτέρα; Ὅτι, φησίν, πάντων πρώτη ἐκτίσθη, διὰ τοῦτο πρεσβυτέρα; καὶ δὲ διὰ ταύτην ὁ κόσμος κατηρτίσθη –.” And in the first vision it speaks about God: 586 “He who lives in heaven, who created from non-existent all that exists and multiplied and grew for the sake of His Holy Church - κτίσας ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος (!) τὰ ὄντα καὶ πληθύνας καὶ αὐξήσας ἔνεκεν τῆς ἁγίας ἐκκλησίας αὐτοῦ.” This is the first aspect of the Church, the celestial-aeonic one. In the second, historical aspect, Hermas saw the Church under the image of a tower, built on the waters of baptism by young men depicting primordial angels, and surrounded by women supporting it [the tower]; the latter represented in a symbolic vision the fundamental virtues of Christianity. Christians were the stones for the construction of the Church. As part of the building, these stones were welded together so tightly that the entire tower seemed, as it were, carved from one solid stone. – But since it is not my task now to engage in the disclosure of the doctrine of the Church, then, without setting out further details, I will only point out that the two aspects of the Church, despite their apparent separation, have an essential connection with each other in the mind of Hermas. The two aspects are not at all what modern church fighters now commonly call the “Mystical Church” and the “historical Church,” and the first is extolled for the sake of, and almost exclusively for, the sake of the subsequent blasphemy of the second. No, this is one and the same being, but only visible from two different angles of view - namely, from the side of the heavenly and pre-existing, unifying mystical form and from the side of the united empirical, earthly and temporal content, receiving deification and eternity in the first. But the latter is not accidentally connected with the new, but grows into it and is transubstantiated in it; therefore, the separateness of symbolic images only indicates the difference between two points of view, one time, so to speak, from top to bottom, from heaven to earth, κάτω, down, and the other time - from bottom to top, from earth to heaven, ἄνω, grief. However, here is evidence of the monument itself: “Listen now to the explanation of the tower: I will reveal everything to you,” says the Church to Herma in the image of the Elder. 587 - So, the tower that you see being built is I, the Church, revealed to you now and before - ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ Ἐκκλησία, ἡ ὀφθεῖσά σοι νῦν καὶ τὸ πρότερον.” So, in the monuments that are undeniably Orthodox and, at one time, were even part of the New Testament canon, they speak in the most definite way about the Church as an eon pre-existing to the world. Likewise, from the works of St. Athanasius the Great, - this will be discussed below, - we see that, in accordance with Orthodoxy, we should talk about the “pre-image” of us in God, that is, again, about some kind of pre-existence. This is certain. But, on the other hand, it is equally indisputable that Gnostic aeonology was condemned by Orthodoxy, just as the idea of ​​​​the pre-existence of the soul, developed by the Origenists, was also condemned. 588 From here it is clear that the very concept of “pre-existence”, as having historically appeared surrounded by seductive philosophies, has become reprehensible. However, for us the thought remains in full force that if it was Orthodox from the beginning, then, in the essence of the matter, it could not cease to be so, although, according to the church’s economy, in order to avoid temptations, in the midst of the struggle it was more prudent to avoid it. But even now the Church reminds us of this idea during services. In fact, the prayer (cf. John 19): “Christ, the true light, enlighten and sanctify every person coming into the world...” - Doesn’t this touching prayer contain an indication of those who are to be born in this world, who “go” to this world, but, even before arriving here, are already enlightened and sanctified by the grace-filled light? So, even now the Church is not alien to the idea of ​​pre-existence. How, we ask ourselves, how does the Orthodox idea of ​​pre-existence differ from the Gnostic one? – For the philosophical views of all antiquity, “prescription” and “perfection” are as closely related to each other as for the views of modern times – “perfection” and “future”. If now the majority of people feel pleasantly excited by the word “forward!” , then the same significant word was then the word “back!” . Therefore, in the language of the century, when the theory of regression dominated, the word “antiquity” had a double meaning: firstly, chronological prescription and, secondly, qualitative superiority, 589 just as in the language of our time “future” (cf. expressions: “social system of the future”, “science of the future”, “technology of the future”, etc.) means, firstly, the movement of life in time, the appearance of new events and, secondly, - improvement. Consequently, when in ancient times they spoke about the “pre-existence” of the Church, soul, etc. etc., then the logical emphasis could be either on the chronological primacy of the Church before the world, or the soul - before real human life, or - on their highest value in comparison with the world, with this corruptible life. In other words, “pre-existence” was either the banner of a well-known rational theory, for which the Church, soul, etc. were nothing more than carnal givens preceding the world, or a symbol of spiritual experience that reveals in the Church, in the individual, etc. a higher reality compared to the corruptible appearance of this world. Indeed, what does it mean to “precede the world chronologically”? – This means to be in a certain temporal relationship with it, that is, to be homogeneous to the world. Those who spoke about the chronological “pre-existence” of the Church, the individual, etc., inevitably robbed them of their spirituality, their supramundaneness, their special, higher nature, brought them down from Eternity to Time, even if it was very long ago, even if it was infinitely older, they subordinated them to the laws of perishable existence and devalued that “for the sake of which the world was created.” Among the many, multi-temporal phenomena of the world, they placed several more, more ancient ones: but do years make holy things holy? Such was precisely the philosophizing of the false mind of the Gnostics, Origenists, and all those who wanted to think carnally about the spiritual, condemned by the Church. On the contrary, the Orthodox, speaking about the “pre-existence” of the Church, personality, etc., meant precisely the fullness of reality contained in them. The church, the individual, etc. were res realiores for them, and that was the whole point. If, now, in accordance with the philosophical views of the environment, it was immutably asserted that what is more valuable is more ancient, then the Orthodox, agreeing only conditionally, seemed to say: “If in philosophy it is recognized that res realior is thereby also res anterior, then we do not argue and agree, in your language, to talk about chronological primacy; however, remember: if the philosophy of the future time recognizes that res realior is necessarily res posterior, then we - and do not blame us for inconsistency - will say that the Church, personality, etc. “after-exists.” In essence, we want to say only what is in our experience and what is only important for us, namely: the Church, the Image of God, etc. are more fully existent than the world, empirical character, etc. But just as at a certain chronological moment a person is conceived in the world, in the same way at a certain moment the Church empirically appeared in the world - incarnated, born of the Lord Jesus Christ. 590 Until that moment, both the person and the Church were only in Eternity, but were not in Time, and therefore to ask whether the Church “was,” in the chronological sense, before the Nativity of Christ, whether it was, for example, 10,000 years before the Nativity of Christ, as well as whether Ivan or Peter “was” 100 years before their birth, is simply absurd. “To be,” in the sense in which the heretics were interested in this verb, means to be in Time, that is, in the environment of the world, and in the world, until a certain moment in Time, there was no Church, just as there was no known personality, just as there was no incarnate God. Here are the facts. But if philosophy nevertheless recognizes that any value, being ens realius, must inevitably be ens anterius, then we again, in the tone of philosophy, will talk about the pre-existence of the Church, personality, etc.” This is the thought contained in the Church’s condemnation of the carnal, rational concept of heretics about “pre-existence.” From here it is clear that if the Orthodox are allowed a certain amount of freedom in following philosophical trends, then from the Orthodox thoughts on pre-existence, for the modern reader, the philosophical terminology should be isolated and, transforming it into a modern philosophical equivalent, give new clothes to the spiritual experience of completeness contained there. If such freedom is not recognized, then these teachings must be taken with reservations and explanations approximately the same as those made above. 591 I will draw your attention to one more feature that significantly distinguishes the monument in question from the Gnostic writings. The entire book of Hermas is permeated with the spirit of achievement and purification. All the visions, commandments and revelations from which the fabric of the book is woven are ultimately the rationale for asceticism. But, looking carefully, one can notice that all the required virtues are shades of one, main one, which, in contrast to fragmentation and diversity, could be called integrity of the soul, chastity of the soul, simplicity - ἁπλότης, 592 allowing one to be meek, gentle and pure - giving strength to perform feats without hesitation and doubt, but also without internal self-affirmation, self-exaltation and pride. This greatest and fundamental virtue is achieved through self-deepening - μετάνοια, - or repentance, which is why the leader of Hermas is represented by the “Angel of Repentance - ὁ ἄγγελος τῆς μετανοίας 593”, - The ascetic rationale for spiritual life is clearly expressed and the image of seven women supporting a tower, each subsequent being the daughter of the previous one; these are: – Faith, Temperance, Simplicity, Innocence, Modesty, Knowledge, Love. 594 – In particular, “The Shepherd” especially insists on chastity. Here is the deepest difference between Orthodox mysticism and heretical mysticism, which is always possessed by the spirit of fornication and corruption. Let me remind you once again that the book “The Shepherd” begins with a condemnation of Hermas because he thought about one girl: “I would be happy if I had a wife with the same face and disposition. “Only this one thing,” adds the rooted Erm, “and I didn’t think of anything else.” After some time, I walked with such thoughts and glorified God’s creation [– that is, this girl? or the whole world in general, but in connection with the thought of this girl? –], thinking how majestic and beautiful it is.” But she appeared to him in a vision and began to convict him before the Lord; and in his mind he was so innocent that he did not even understand that he had done something bad, and therefore he became saddened by the accusations and began to cry. 595 The book of Hermas ends with a repeated indication that the week of virgins-virtues will live in the house - that is, in the flesh - Hermas only under the indispensable condition of purity. 596 – In the copy from the mysterious book received from the Old Lady Church, Hermas reads this: “... what saves you is that you have not departed from the living God, and your simplicity and great abstinence - καὶ ἡ ἁπλότης σου καὶ ἡ πολλὴ ἐγκρατεία: this has saved you, if you continue in it, and everyone saves those who do such things and walk in gentleness and simplicity - ἐν ἀκακία καὶ ἁπλότητι. These are kept from all wickedness and will remain for eternal life. Blessed - μακάριοι - are all who do the truth. They will not perish until a century." 597 598 What is salvation? - In entering a tower under construction as a stone - in real unity with the Church; this is indicated not only in many separate places in our monument, but is also the main theme of its entire content. Salvation is in oneness with the Church. But the highest, supra-mundane unity of creation, united through the grace-filled power of the Spirit, is accessible only to those purified in ascetic endeavor and humble. Thus, the ontological essentiality and objective significance of humility, chastity and simplicity are established as super-physical and super-moral forces that, in the Holy Spirit, make all creation consubstantial with the Church. These forces are the essence of revelations of the other world in this world, the spiritual in the temporal-spatial, the heavenly in the earthly. They are the guardian angels of creation, descending from heaven and ascending from creation to heaven, as was revealed to the forefather Jacob. And, if we continue the comparison, then in the “ladder” we need to see the Most Holy Theotokos; however, more on this later. We also find the teaching about Sophia in that ascetic of the 4th century who most powerfully defended and ascetically substantiated the idea of ​​spirituality and creature-deification; It will be enough for me to say that with his “Life of Anthony” he caused an upsurge of the monastic spirit and with it, perhaps, decisively pushed the entire stream of church history onto an ascetic channel, so that you can guess who we are talking about: Athanasius, the Holy and Great. Repeatedly returning to the interpretation of the words from Proverbs, famous in the history of Arian disputes, where Wisdom speaks of Himself: “The Lord created Me - ἕκτισε με - the beginning of His ways into His works” (Prov. 8:22), and in various ways trying to explain this, tempting for Arianists, “created, ἕκτισε”, Athanasius means very different things by Wisdom in different places of his works; namely: then – the Human Nature of Christ, then His Body, then the Church, then – the Side of the created world, facing eternity. But this difference is only an apparent difference, for all of the listed ways of understanding the word “Wisdom” are in fact the same Sophia, as the God-created unity of the ideal definitions of creation - the same Sophia, but perceived under different aspects - the integral nature of the creature. I will tell you in more detail how Afanasy understands this ideal moment of created existence. “Although the only begotten and source of God’s Wisdom,” says St. The Father creates and creates everything, however, so that what was created not only existed, but also existed worthily, God was pleased that His Wisdom would descend to creatures; - so that in all creatures in general and in each individual there was laid some imprint and likeness of Her Image - τύπον τινά καὶ φαντασίαν είκόνος αύτῆς - and that what was brought into existence turned out to be both wise and a deed worthy of God. “And since in us and in all matters [even the devil," says St. Athanasius in another place, - was “an imprint of likeness - ἀποσφράγισμα ὁμοιώσεως"], - since in us and in all matters there is such an imprint of the created Wisdom - τύπου τῆς - then true and creative Wisdom, taking upon Herself what belongs to Her Imprint - τὰ τοῦ τύπου ἑαυτῆς - says about Herself: “The Lord created Me for His works.” What the Wisdom existing in us would say - ἡ ἐν ἡμῖν σοφία - is what the Lord Himself calls, as it were, His own. And, although He, as the Creator, was not created, nevertheless, because of the created Image of His deeds - τὴν ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις εἰκόνα κτισθεῖσαν αὐτοῦ - this says as if about yourself. And as the Lord Himself said: “He who receives you receives Me” (Matthew 10:40), because we have His imprint in us - τύπον αὐτοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν εἶναι - so, although not being among those created, since His Image and Imprint is created in deeds - - as if He Himself were this Image, says: “The Lord created Me as the beginning of His ways into His works – Κύριος ἕκτισε με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ εἰς ἔργα αὐτοῦ –.” - The imprint of Wisdom is laid in deeds, as I said, so that the world would know in Wisdom its Creator - the Word, and through the Word - the Father - σοφίας τύπος ἵνα – ὀ κόσμος ἐν αὐτῇ γινώσκῃ τόν ἑαυτοῦ δημιουργὸν Λόγον καὶ δι’αὐτοῦ τὸν Πατέρα. – And this is the very thing that Paul said: “For what can be known about God is obvious to them (i.e. Gentiles), because God showed it to them: for the invisible things of Him, eternal power and Godhead, have been seen from the creation of the world by looking at the things that have been made” (Rom. 1:19-20). That is why the Word is not essentially a creature; what is said in Proverbs refers to the wisdom that exists in us and is called - περὶ τῆς ἐν ἡμῖν οὔσης καὶ λεγομένης σοφίας ἐστὶ τὸ ἐν ταῖς παρεμίαις ῥητόν. If (the Arians) do not believe this either, then let them say for themselves: is there any wisdom in creatures, or not - ἔστιν? If not, then why does the Apostle accuse, saying: “For when the world through its wisdom did not know God in the Wisdom of God” (1 Cor. 1:21)? Or, if there is no wisdom, then why are there “many wise men” in Scripture (Prov. 6:26)? After all, “the wise man, being afraid, began to turn away from evil” (Proverbs 14:16) and with “wisdom a house is built” (Proverbs 24:36). And Ecclesiastes says: “The wisdom of a man will enlighten His face” (Eccl. 8:1), and reproaches the foolish: “Do not say: What happened? For the former days were better than these” (Eccl. 7:11). And if, as the Son of Sirach speaks of Wisdom, He (God) poured it out on all His works with all flesh, according to His work, and gave it to those who love Him” (Sir. 1:10), - the same outpouring - ἡ τοιαύτη ἔκχυσις - is a sign of the essence of not the Source Wisdom and Only Begotten, but Wisdom, depicted in the world - τῆς ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ ἐξεικονισθείσης [implied: σοφίας], - what is incredible if this creative and true Wisdom, the imprint of which is the Wisdom and Knowledge poured out in the world - ἐπιστήμη, - according to what was said above, as if speaking about Himself: “The Lord created Me for His works.” For in the world there is no Wisdom that builds, but that is built up in works - ἡ ἐγκτιζομένη τοῖς ἔργοις [implied σοφία] - according to which “the heavens preach the Glory of God, and the works of His hands the firmament speaks” (Ps. 18:2). But if people embrace this Wisdom within themselves, then they will come to know the true Wisdom of God—they will know that they were truly created in the image of God.” 599 There can be no doubt that the created Wisdom about which the above excerpt speaks, according to the view of Athanasius V., is in no way limited only to the psychological or epistemological process of the inner life of the creature, but is primarily the metaphysical nature of the created nature: Wisdom in the creature is not only activity, but also substance; it has an essential, massive, material character. This is made even clearer in the expressive comparison offered by St. Father. 600 He represents creation under the image of a city, the construction of which was entrusted by a certain king to his son. In order to use the authority of his father to protect buildings from attacks on them and, at the same time, to leave a memory of himself and his father, the prince inscribes his name on each building. If now, after the completion of construction, they ask the prince how the city was built, and the prince will answer: “Reliably, because, by the will of my father, I am depicted on every building, my name was created in these buildings,” then, saying this, “he declares not his essence created, but his image - τὸν ἑαυτοῦ τόπον - because of his name." In exactly the same way, True Wisdom, that is, the Logos, answers those marveling at created Wisdom, that is, Sophia: “The Lord created Me into works, because My Image is in them; and this is the extent to which I have descended in creation.” – The comparison proposed by Afanasy is not pure fiction. Let me remind you of the world-historical custom of writing the name of the builder on a building, or of the even more striking custom of the Babylonian kings of sealing every brick of the buildings they built with a seal bearing the name of the king-builder. But in order to understand the true meaning of this custom, as well as the meaning of the comparison based on the custom of Athanasius, it is necessary to keep in mind the ancient idea of ​​a name as a real power-idea that shapes things and mysteriously controls the depths of their deepest essence. So, by putting his name on the buildings, the prince of Afanasiev’s comparisons thereby introduces, according to the understanding of the ancients, a new mysterious essence into the existence of these buildings, bestowing mystical power on the buildings. Athanasius continues to use his comparison, directly mentioning the Church. “Again, one should not be surprised,” he says, “if the Son speaks of the Image existing in us as of Himself; - and when Saul was then persecuting the Church, in which was His (the Lord’s) Image and Likeness, he said, as if being persecuted himself: “Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” (Acts 8:4).” True Wisdom, - Logos, - says “created”, so to speak, from the point of view of “Wisdom introduced in the world and in affairs - τὴν ἐν κόσμῳ καὶ τοῖς ἔργοις ἐγκτισθεῖσαν [implied: σοφίαν]”, - from the point of view of “His Likeness - τῆς εἰκόνος ἑαυτοῦ”, - as if “the very Imprint of Wisdom, the existing” said this about himself in business - αὐτός ὁ τύπος τῆς Σοφίας ὁ ὢν ἐν τοῖς ἔργοις.” – “The Source Wisdom is creative and constructive, and its Imprint is introduced into deeds, like the image of an image - ὥσπερ καὶ τῆς εἰκόνος κατ’ εἰκόνα. – The Word calls it the beginning of the ways, because such Wisdom becomes a certain beginning and, as it were, the beginnings of God-knowledge. Seeing this created Wisdom in the world and in himself, man comprehends True Wisdom, and from it he ascends to the Father (John 14:9; 1 John 2:23).” 601 Words: “When He prepared heaven, I was with him” (Prov. 8:27) Athanasius paraphrases this: “Everything came into being by Me and through Me; and since it is necessary to introduce Wisdom in deeds - ἐγκτίζεσθαι σοφίαν τοῖς ἔργοις - then, although in essence I was with the Father, however, out of condescension towards creatures, I imprinted my image in deeds in relation to them, so that the whole world would be, as it were, a single body, not in discord, but in harmony with itself. “Therefore,” continues St. The Father, all those who, according to the Wisdom given to them, look at creatures with a right mind, are able to say themselves: “According to Your determinations, everything is worth it” (Ps. 119:91). But those who neglected this will hear: (Rom. 1:19-25 is given below about the knowledge of God through penetrating contemplation of creation). “And they will be ashamed when they hear: “For while the world did not know God through its Wisdom in the Wisdom of God, it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believed” (1 Cor. 1:21).” 602 Created Sophia, the Divine imprint of the creature is “the image and shadow of Wisdom - δι’ εἰκόνος καὶ σκιᾶς τῆς Σοφίας, τῆς ἐν τοῖς κτίσμασιν οὔσης.” 603 But, realized, imprinted in the experienced world in time, it, although created, precedes the world, being a trans-mundane hypostatic collection of the divine prototype images of existence. St. Athanasius refers in this statement to the words of St. Pavla: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, since He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before Him in love, having predestined us as sons as sons through Jesus Christ” (Eph. 1:3–4). “So,” says St. Athanasius - how did He choose before we came into being, if we were not, as He Himself said, pre-depicted in Him? – πῶς οὖν ἐξελέξατο, πριν γενεσθαι ημας, εἱ μὴ, ὼς αὐτός εἴρηκεν, ἐν αὐτῷ ἡμεν προστετυπωμένοι; –?” 604 And then St. The Father finds out that it is on this pre-image of us in the Lord, on this eternal root of ours that the possibility of “eternal life” for us is based. 605 This is the view of the divine side of creation in Athanasius, who stood further than anyone else from the pantheistic confusion of creature with the Creator. He devoted his whole life to the final exposure of heretics who tried to erase the line between the Creator and the creature. That is why the testimony of Athanasius has incomparable significance for us. The dogma of the consubstantiality of the Trinity, the idea of ​​the deification of the flesh, the demands of asceticism, the aspiration of the Comforter Spirit and the recognition of creation as having a pre-mundane, incorruptible meaning - these are the leit-motifs of Athanasius’s dogmatic system, so closely intertwined with each other that it is impossible to hear one without revealing all the others in it. The entire present book is built on these same basic motives, so that it can truly be said that it comes from the ideas of St. Athanasius the Great. 606 Sophia participates in the life of the Trinitarian Divinity, enters the Trinity bosom and partakes of Divine Love. But, being the fourth, created and, therefore, not consubstantial Person, she does not “form” the Divine Unity, she does not “is” Love, but only enters into the communion of Love, and is allowed to enter into this communion through the ineffable, incomprehensible, inconceivable humility of the Divine. As the fourth Person, she, by the condescension of God (but in no case by her nature! -), makes a difference in the relation to herself of the providential activity of the Trinity Hypostases and, being one and the same for the Triune Divinity, is different in herself in her relation to the Hypostases; the idea of ​​it receives one color or another, depending on Which Hypostasis we primarily focus our contemplation on. From the point of view of the Hypostasis of the Father, Sophia is an ideal substance, the basis of creation, the power or force of its being; if we turn to the Hypostasis of the Word, then Sophia is the mind of the creature, its meaning, truth or righteousness; and, finally, from the point of view of the Hypostasis of the Spirit, we have in Sophia the spirituality of the creature, its holiness, purity and immaculateness, i.e. beauty. This triune idea of ​​basis-reason-holiness, splitting in our mind, appears to the sinful mind in three mutually exclusive aspects: basis, reason and holiness. Indeed, what does the basis of a creature have in common with its intelligence or with its holiness? For a corrupted mind, that is, for reason, these ideas are in no way united into a holistic image: according to the law of identity, they are impenetrable to each other. But - not only that; in relation to house-building, Sophia has a whole series of new aspects, dividing a single idea about it into many dogmatic concepts. First of all, Sophia is the firstfruits and center of the redeemed creation, the Body of the Lord Jesus Christ, that is, the created nature received by the Divine Word. Only by participating in Him, that is, by having our nature included, as if interspersed, into the Body of the Lord, do we receive freedom and mysterious purification from the Holy Spirit. In this sense, Sophia is the pre-existing, purified in Christ Nature of the creature, 607 or the Church, in its heavenly aspect. But, since the sanctification of the earthly side of creation, its empirical content, its “clothing,” comes from the Holy Spirit, Sophia is therefore the Church in its earthly aspect, that is, the totality of all individuals who have already begun the feat of restoration, who have already entered with their empirical side into the Body of Christ. And since cleansing occurs through the Holy Spirit, revealing Himself to creation, Sophia is the Spirit, since He deified creation. But the Holy Spirit reveals Himself in creation as virginity, as inner chastity and humble purity - in these main gifts received from Him by a Christian. In this sense, Sophia is Virginity, as a mountain power that gives virginity. The bearer of Virginity - the Virgin in the proper and exclusive sense of the word - is Mariam, the Virgin of Grace, Blessed (κεχαριτωμένη, Luke 1:28) with the Holy Spirit, Filled with His gifts, and, as such, the True Church of God, the True Body of Christ: from Her, after all, came the Body of Christ. If Sophia is the entire Creation, then the soul and conscience of the Creation - Humanity - is Sophia par excellence. If Sophia is all of Humanity, then the soul and conscience of Humanity, the Church, is Sophia par excellence. If Sophia is the Church, then the soul and conscience of the Church, the Church of the Saints, is Sophia par excellence. If Sophia is the Church of Saints, then the soul and conscience of the Church of Saints, the Intercessor and Intercessor for creation before the Word of God, who judges creation and cuts it in two, the Mother of God, “the Purgatory of the world,” is again Sophia par excellence. But the true sign of the Blessed Mary is Her Virginity, the Beauty of Her soul. This is Sofia. Sophia is “the hidden person of the heart in the imperishable beauty of a meek and silent spirit - τοῦ πραέως καὶ ἡσυχίου πνεύματος" (1 Peter 3:4), is the true adornment of a human being, penetrating through all his pores, shining in his gaze, spreading with his smile, rejoicing in his heart with indescribable joy, reflected in his every gesture, surrounding a person, at the moment of spiritual ascent, with a fragrant cloud and a radiant halo, creating him “above the mundane merging”, so that, remaining in the world, he becomes “not of the world”; becomes more peaceful. “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5) - such is the non-worldliness of the spiritually beautiful personality. Sofia is Beauty. “Let it be an adornment - κοσμος - yours,” says the apostle. Peter to the women - not outward braiding of hair, not gold jewelry or finery in clothing, but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptible beauty of a meek and quiet spirit, which is of great price in the sight of God" (1 Peter 3:3-4). Only Sophia, only Sophia, is the essential Beauty in all creation; and everything else is just tinsel and fancy clothes, and the personality of this ghostly shine will be stripped away when tested by fire. These are some of the aspects of Sophia in their relationship. Let's look at them in a little more detail. Purity of heart, virginity and chaste innocence are a necessary condition to see Sophia the Wisdom, in order to be adopted as sons into the Most High Jerusalem - “our Mother” (Gal.4:26). It is clear why this is so. The heart is the organ for perceiving the heavenly world. Through the heart, the primordial root of the personality, its Angel, is contemplated, and through this root a living connection is established with the Mother of the spiritual personality - with Sophia, understood as the Guardian Angel of all creation - all creation, consubstantial in the love received through Sophia from the Spirit. It gives the individual the contemplation of God-Love (cf. Matt. 18:10), giving bliss: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God” (Matthew 5:8), - they will see God with a purified heart and in their heart. The purity given by the Holy Spirit completely cuts off the growths of the heart, exposes its eternal roots, and clears the paths along which the ineffable Light of the Trinitarian Luminary penetrates into human consciousness. And then the entire inner being, washed with purity, is filled with the Light of absolute knowledge and the bliss of the reality of the experienced Truth. 608 “Pure in heart,” in the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa, - will not see anything in himself except God.” 609 Grace flows in wide streams into all the cleansed pores of the heart. And “what is from grace, in that there is joy, there is peace, there is love, there is truth - τὰ τῆς χάριτος χάραν ἕχει, εἰρήνην ἕχει, ἀγάπην ἕχει, ἀλήθείαν ἕχει,” says St. Macarius the Great. 610 In other words, from the subjective side, Sophia is perceived as a mediator of joy and is thereby identified with Joy. Purity of heart is bliss; virginity of the soul is joy and even some gaiety. "Ἐστιν σαοφροσύνης καί τι γαληνὸν ἕχειν" “A certain amount of gaiety also belongs to the signs of chastity,” notes St. Gregory the Theologian in his own. "Gnomic couplets". 611 But, if the virginity of the soul is a necessary condition for contemplating the Heavenly Jerusalem, then vice versa: “touching other worlds,” 612 penetrating to the spiritual roots of existence and grace-filled contemplation of oneself in God - alone can give the power of virginity. To be a virgin, it is necessary to “discern one’s nature in Jerusalem Most High,” one must see oneself as the son of the Common Mother, who is the pre-existing Virginity. “Do you want to be a virgin, brother?” - asks the Author of the First Epistle on virginity, - an Epistle previously attributed to St. Clement of Rome and dating back to the 3rd century. “Do you know,” he continues, “how much labor and difficulty there is in true virginity?.. Do you know how to fight correctly, do you fight, armed with the power of the Holy Spirit, having chosen this feat for yourself in order to receive a bright crown? Do you see – discernis – your nature in Jerusalem Most High (Gal.4:26)?” 613 One should not be surprised at this contradiction between the thesis and antithesis, that is, between the provisions: “Virginity is the source of contemplation of Sophia” and “Contemplation of Sophia is the source of virginity.” This is only a frequent case of the great antinomy between God’s grace and human achievement, which is decisively reflected in every issue of God’s economy, starting from the destinies of entire nations and ending with the most ordinary actions, not to mention the sacraments. But for me, at the present moment, it is only important to establish the continuity and indecomposability of the idea of ​​“virginity-contemplation”. This continuity explains why the more persistently purity is spoken of in the monuments of church writing, the more place is given to the idea of ​​charisma, spirituality, deification - no matter what it was called at different times - and the brighter the idea of ​​​​the unconditional value of the creature appears. I repeat again and again and will not tire of repeating that Christian asceticism and the unconditional appreciation of creation, virginity and spirituality, knowledge of the Wisdom of God and love for the body, asceticism and knowledge of absolute Truth, distance from aphids and love are antinomian sides of one and the same spiritual life, as inextricably linked as the paired opposite sides of a regular decahedron. When I spoke about the contemplation of creation in its unity and about the idea of ​​Sophia according to the reason of patristic writing, I already insistently pointed out this connection, and I don’t think that now it is necessary to give examples again. Let me only remind you of the tone of these sentiments in the words of St. Isaac the Syrian. “Pray that the Angel of your chastity does not depart from you, so that sin does not raise a fiery battle against you and separate you from him... And prepare to accept bodily temptations with all your soul, and overcome them with all your members; and fill your eyes with tears, so that your Guardian does not depart from you! 614 The divine prototype of man, his Guardian Angel, is primarily the guardian of his purity, his chastity. He is the Angel of chastity, and therefore “The stench of lustful thoughts and absurd dreams is not tolerated by the holy Angels of God.” 615 Almost every ascetic creation conveys the idea of the connection between virginity and humility and about lustful thoughts as the consequences of pride and selfish self-affirmation. Observation by Sts. Fathers is fully explained from what was established earlier, namely, that chastity, as the highest freedom over one’s thoughts, is a grace-filled power that acts only when a Christian surrenders himself to God. On the contrary, egoistic self-isolation from God leads to slavery to one’s thoughts, that is, to impurity, and makes a person a “self-image,” as they say in the Great Canon of Andrew of Crete. Here again and again we return to the basic idea of ​​​​the difference between the laws of identity - spiritual and carnal. The first makes me, whom I contemplate in God, an ideal of myself, and the second makes me an idol of myself, a statue. The type of actual purity is the Most Pure and Most Blessed Mother of the Lord, Humble in Her eternal purity, Pure in Her unchanging humility. In her, the Bride of the Holy Spirit, eternally purified by Him, there flows a living source of world purity, the “Source of ever-flowing reason.” In Her flows the spring of living water, quenching all thirst and filling the fire of hell in the soul; and therefore the Church cries out to Her: “Purification of the world, Mother of God” and “Purification of the whole world.” After all, it is She who “drives away the dark horde of our passions and lusts”; it is She who is “a pillar of fire, covering us from the temptations and seductions of the world”, “a pillar of fire, showing us all the path of salvation in the darkness of sin”; It is She who delivers from the passionate “fiery dew of her prayers.” If the Lord is the Head of the Church, then the Meek Mary, the “Giver of Divine Goodness,” is truly Her Heart, through which the Church distributes Life, Eternity and the gifts of the Spirit to its members, the true “Life-Giver,” 616 the true “Life-Giving Source.” After all, Mary is “the Lady of all immaculate”, “the only pure and blessed”, “the one with grace”, “the only incorruptible and good dove”. She is the Living Symbol and the Firstfruits of the purifying world, the “Cleanser”; She is the “Burning Bush,” engulfed in the flames of the Holy Spirit, a living preliminary manifestation of the Spirit on earth, a type of pneumatophania. Just as the Spirit is the Beauty of the Absolute, so the Mother of God is the Beauty of the Created, “glory to the world,” and all creation is adorned with Her: “The earth-born rejoice, being adorned in Your divine Glory,” i.e., “Adorned with Your divine glory, the earth-born rejoice,” because beauty perceived in the heart is joy. And the beauty of the World, contemplated by him in reverent awe, is the Joy of the World, its “Unexpected Joy,” its “Tenderness,” its “Joy and Consolation,” the “Sweet Kiss” with which the Down World kisses the High World. This is “The Joy of All Joys,” as the Venerable Seraphim commanded us to call the icon of “Tenderness,” the same icon that he alone had in his cell and before which he was saved. 617 Mother of God – Joy and “the joys of the world Intercessor.” In the contemplation of heavenly Beauty - “Satisfaction of Sorrow”, “Joy of All Who Sorrow”, “Consolation in Sorrows and Sorrows”. Theotokos - “zealous intercessor”. She is “Recovery of the Lost”, “Helper of Sinners”, “Softening of Evil Hearts”. She "Looks at Sorrow". She is “Quick to Hear”, “Hearer”, “Deliverance from the Troubles of the Suffering”, “Merciful Healer”. She is the Guardian Angel of the world. She is the “Cover” of the world “wider than the clouds”, its “Hodegetria” [or “Guide”], sometimes with a pillar of fire, sometimes of a cloud, leading the world to the Promised Land, to the “highest life”; She is the “Unbreakable Wall” that protects the world, and the “Deliverer” of it. She is “a strong intercession throughout the universe.” Through her and through her, all creation and the human race rejoice. Let's sing: “In You rejoices, O full of grace, every creature, the angelic council and the human race, consecrated in the church and verbal paradise, virgin praise... In You rejoices, O full of grace, every creation, glory to You.” The Virgin Mary is the most beautiful flower of the earth, “Unfading” and “Fragrant Flower”. She is the Bearer of Sophia, “Animated Heaven” and “Intelligent Heaven,” “Blessed Heaven,” i.e., the Heavenly World, Heavenly Jerusalem, imprinted in the Most Pure Soul of the Virgin. Doesn't the Church say: “Truly you have appeared heaven on earth, greater than the highest heaven, the brideless Virgin: from You the Sun has risen in the world, ruling by Truth”? This close connection between the idea of the Mother of God and the Jerusalem on High is also evident in the comparison of the Easter Irmos: “Rejoice now, and rejoice in Zion. about the rise of Your Nativity." About some ascetics, the Most Pure Virgin, appearing to them, said: “This one is of our kind.” 619 “This one is of our kind.” The words are deeply significant! This means that there is some special “genus”, the genus of the Mother of God, and holy ascetics are involved in this genus, in this unique nature. What kind of genus is this? - a race predisposed to the virginity of the soul. Humans, or, more precisely, earthly angels - members of this mysterious race - even from their youth shine with the gentle light of otherworldliness and purity. Even in the womb of the mother they are marked and destined for a special dispensation of the soul. They seem to have been removed from the law of sinfulness, as if they come to us straight from Eden, as children of a pristine and immaculate couple. Without effort they accomplish what others earn by the sweat of their brow; without breaks they improve and rise from strength to strength, just as a fragrant flower blooms. Without wandering, from the very conception, they walk with a firm foot “towards the honor of the highest calling.” They are the gospel “eunuchs from their mother’s womb.” Such was, for example, John the Theologian. These are the Athonite saints John Kukuzel and Athanasius. 620 Such were the monks Sergius of Radonezh and Seraphim of Sarov. An amazing example of such purity was shown to the world by the Mother of God in the person of the elder of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, Hieroschemamonk Parthenius, who from childhood did not know unclean passions and carnal struggles at all - did not even know temptations from them. Such was the Elder of the Gethsemane Skete, Isidore. So, there is a special kind of the Mother of God, although not every righteous person is of this kind, there is a higher type of spiritual organization, a holy (this does not mean sinless) personality. In a word, this is the sophia of the soul, flowing from the Source of Purity. Who is the Source of Purity? Who is the “Pillar of Virginity”? - Holy Mother of God. 621 That is why these angels in the flesh, these monks by nature, these flowers of the world recognize themselves as special chosen ones of the Most Pure Virgin, they themselves honor Her primarily and receive grace-filled help and signs from Her. And if you think about their attitude towards the Most Pure One, it will become clear that in Her for them, for their consciousness, for their love, what comes first is not Her Mother of God, that is, not Christ, but Her Ever-Virginity, She Herself. That is why such a chosen one of the Mother of God as Rev. Seraphim had only one icon in his cell. Whom? It would be natural to think that, since the only one, then the Savior. But no, not the Savior, but the Mother of God, and even without the Savior, the icon of “Tenderness.” The same can be said about other virgins. 622 They honor in the Mother of God the Bearer of Sophia, the Appearance of Sophia, and they feel that their spiritual dispensation is precisely from Sophia. The Monk Seraphim even demanded, along with the confession of the God-manhood of Jesus Christ, a special confession of the Ever-Virginity of the Mother of God. 623 – Just as there are corrupt generations and even nations, in the same way there are pure generations. In the first, the features of Edenic purity have been destroyed, in the second, something of pristine beauty remains. All creation is corrupted, but in some the corruption is deeper, in others not so deep. And there are those who are pure predominantly - so to speak, fragments of the fragmented primordial world, which have distorted their image less than other creatures. These are the honorers of the Ever-Virginity, and the first among them, the Bearer and Focus of heavenly purity, is the Ever-Virgin Mother of God. 624 The Mother of God combines the power of Sophia, that is, angelic, and human humility - “God’s favor towards mortals” and “mortals’ boldness towards God.” The Mother of God stands on the line separating the creature from the Creator, and since the mean between one and the other is completely incomprehensible, the Mother of God is also completely incomprehensible. She is “a height beyond the reach of human thoughts.” She is “inconceivable depth and angelic eyes.” She is “the highest of heaven” and “broader than heaven.” 625 She is “the Most Honest Cherub and the Most Glorious without comparison of all Seraphim.” She is the “Mistress of Angels.” 626 It is said about Her: “Thou art the Most Pure and Honest, more than the Fiery Seraphim.” The bearer of purity, the Manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the Beginning of spiritual creation, the Source of the Church, the higher-angelic “Bride of God” ceases to be One of many in the Church; even in the Church of Saints it is not prima inter pares. She is special. She is the exclusive focus of Church life. She is the heart of Jesus. She is the Church. Nicholas Kavasila, Archbishop of Thessaloniki, one of the most revered interpreters of the divine liturgy (lived in the 14th century), who experienced the mysterious depth of worship, says 627 that “if anyone could see the Church of Christ in the very form in which it is united with Christ and participates in His flesh, then he would see it as nothing other than the body of the Lord.” But if at the same time he looked at the Most Pure and Most Blessed Virgin Mary, he would see Her with nothing other than the heart of Christ. She is the center of created life, the point of contact between earth and heaven. She is the Chosen One, the Queen of Heaven and, moreover, of the Earth: “Chosen by the Eternal King, above all creation, heaven and earth, to the Queen - We resort to worthy worship with thanksgiving, with faith and tenderness.” She has cosmic power. 628 She is “the sanctification of all earthly and heavenly elements,” “the blessing of all seasons.” She is ἡ πάντων βασίλισσα, - “the Queen over everything.” She is the Lady of the world, which is why every faithful one cries out: “Isn’t I the imam of consolation for You, the Lady of the world, the Hope and Intercession of the faithful.” Here are some expressions from church writing that came to mind completely by chance. To provide a systematic summary of the vast content with which liturgical writing is rich would be the task of an entire science; but her, alas! – we don’t have one at all. I tried to convey to you how I understand this writing. Maybe I'm wrong? - It would be good if you showed me what. But, in any case, this will not change the general course of thought, because what was said about the Mother of God was said more for personal reasons than is strictly necessary in the main structure of thought. But still, I would not like to end this letter without citing some of the data on which my conviction grew. After all, the limit of my aspirations is to understand the church consciousness, and there is nothing more alien to the goals of my work than the desire to present “my” system. I will say more decisively: If here, in my work, there are any “my” views, then it is only due to my thoughtlessness, ignorance or misunderstanding. The data that I have in mind consists, in addition to the liturgical creativity of the Church, in patristic writing and iconography. I'll start with the first ones. A remarkable text has reached us in a Latin translation, bearing the inscription: “To John, the holy elder, Ignatius and the brethren who are with him,” and, according to legend, representing a private letter from Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Apostle and Evangelist John the Theologian, who, as is known, was the adopted son of the Blessed Virgin Mary. In the opening lines, the author of the document expresses his and those around him’s grief at John’s delay. It is clear from the context that John promised to come to the community of Ignatius, and, apparently, with the Mother of God, but for some reason he hesitated. It seems that for the Author of the Letter some difficulties arose in the community from here (perhaps some members of the community decided to go to Jerusalem without permission for a speedy meeting with the Apostle), and He convinces the Apostle to hurry up in fulfilling the promise. It goes on to say: “There are also many of our women here, longing to see Mary of Jesus, and every day intending - volentes - to run to you in order to touch and touch her breasts, which nursed the Lord Jesus, and to ask Her Herself about something more secret of Her. But Solome, to whom you are disposed, the daughter of Anna, has been visiting - commorans - y She has been in Jerusalem for five months, and some others, personally acquainted, convey that She is filled with all grace and all virtues - eam omnium gratiarum abundam, et omnium virtutum - like a virgin - more virginis - fruitful in virtue and grace. And, as they say, She is cheerful in persecution and sorrow, and does not complain about needs and shortcomings; I am grateful to those who insult me, I rejoice in the presence of troubles; He sympathizes with the unfortunate and oppressed, and does not hesitate to come to the rescue. But she differs - enitescit, shines - against the harmful manifestations of errors, acting as a Mediator in the battle of faith. Our new faith and repentance is the Teacher; and to all the faithful a Helper in all matters of piety. She is devoted to the humble, and for the devoted she humbles herself even more devotedly; and has long been exalted by everyone, although the scribes and Pharisees revile Her. Moreover, many say many different things about Her; however, we dare not give faith to everyone in everything, nor tell you. But, as we are told by those worthy of faith, in Mary, the Mother of Jesus, the nature of angelic holiness is combined with human nature - in Maria, matre Iesu, humanae naturae sanctitatis angelicae sociatur. – And such a rumor – haectalia – has excited our insides (actually – “insides”, viscera) and makes us really want to see – desiderare aspectum – this, so to speak, is a heavenly wonder and the most sacred miracle – hujus – coelestis prodigii et sacratissimi monstri. – You try to satisfy our desire and be healthy. Amen". 629 Another letter bears the inscription: “To John, the holy elder, his Ignatius” and is also recognized by tradition as a letter from Ignatius the God-Bearer to the Apostle John. This letter begins with the following words: “If I may, I want to go up to you, to the borders of Jerusalem, and see the faithful saints who are there, especially the Mother of Jesus, who is called wondrous for the universe and desirable for everyone - universis admirandam et cunctis desirabilem. - Who wouldn’t have the pleasure of seeing and talking with Her, Who gave birth to the True God, if only he is a friend of our faith and religion? -". 630 And then it speaks of the Apostle James, who, “as they say,” “is very similar to Christ Jesus in face, life and conversion.” Concluding the letter, the Author asks John to hurry up and visit. Although the monument that I intend to cite now has almost nothing to do with my direct task, I cannot resist conveying these infinitely sweet lines of correspondence between Ignatius the God-Bearer and the Blessed Virgin. Imagine exactly what this means: a note written “light as a dream” by the fingers of the Meek and Blessed One! The very brevity of the note says so much about the quiet silence of the One who in her home life and in everyday communication showed the ap. Peter is the example and highest embodiment of the imperishable beauty of the “meek and silent spirit,” which even now is “the silence of those who ask faith,” as the believer calls upon it. They say that “perhaps” this correspondence is apocryphal. I don’t argue, I don’t know anything... But it’s only “maybe”. And maybe the opposite is true. After all, “what if” remains, and the value of this “and if” endlessly multiplies the weight of “maybe”. Please, delve a little into the feeling that this Letter makes for me, even if it is truly unreliable, infinitely dear, dear to the inmost heart. After all, even an insignificant hope (and no one has proven the inauthenticity of the Letter! -) that She sat down at the table, straightened her clothes and wrote this fragrant letter with Her own hands, makes you almost cry with emotion, pacifies the excitement of the soul for a long time. How happy we are that we have these dear lines to our hearts! – But I’ll give you the letters themselves. This is what the God-Bearer writes to the Virgin: “To the Christ-Bearer Mary Her Ignatius. You should have strengthened and consoled me, a new convert, Your disciple John. About Your Jesus I have learned what is wonderful to say, and I am amazed at what I heard. And from You, who has always been close and connected with Him and knowledgeable in His secrets, I sincerely wish to receive notification of what I have heard. I wrote to You at another time and asked about the same thing. Be healthy; and the new converts who are with me are strengthened from You and through You and in You. Amen". 631 The Latin translation of the response letter to the Mother of God reads: “Ignatio dilecto condiscipulo, humilis ancilla Christi Iesu. De Iesu quae a Ioanne audisti et didicisti, vera sunt. Illa credas, illis inhaereas; et Christianitatis susceptae votum firmiter teneas, et mores et vitarn voto conformes. Veniam autem una cum Ioanne, te et qui tecum sunt visere. Sta in fide, et viriliter age: nec te commoveat persecutionis austeritas; Sed valeat et exsultet Spiritus tuus in Deo salutari tuo. Amen." 632 “Ignatius, beloved fellow disciple, humble servant of Christ Jesus. What I heard and learned about Jesus from John is true. Believe this, hold on to this; and keep the vow of Christianity you have taken upon yourself unshakably, and conform your habits and life to the vow. As for Me, I will come with John to visit you and those who are with you. Stand in faith and act courageously: and let not the severity of persecution trouble you; but may your spirit be strong and rejoice in your Savior God. Amen". It seems to me inappropriate to enter into a discussion of the authenticity of this letter here. I will note only about two sayings in which they saw borrowings from the Gospel of Luke and the First Epistle to the Corinthians, and the latter was written obviously after the Dormition of the Holy Virgin. This allegedly undermines the authenticity of the Letter. But there is a great misunderstanding here. The first of the suspected sayings is: “Sta in fide, et viriliter age - stand in faith and act courageously.” It was seen as borrowing from 1 Cor. 16:13: “Watch, stand firm in the faith, be courageous, be strong.” But, firstly, the compared sayings are so simple and natural that there was no need for the Virgin Mary to read the Epistle of St. Paul to write His Letter. Secondly, there are not many similarities between them. Thirdly, if we affirm the borrowing, then it is still unknown whether the Apostle relied on the authoritative words of the Mother of God. Fourthly, and finally, a similar exhortation is found in Ps.30 - especially see LXX (Ps.31:25). It is most natural to assume (if one must assume borrowing at all!) that both the Holy Virgin and the Apostle. Paul “borrowed his exhortations from the Psalms, which every Jew knew by heart, and they especially. The second suspected location is: “Exsultet spiritus tuus in Deo salutario tuo - may your spirit rejoice in your Savior God.” Here they see a parallelism with Luke 1:47: “And my spirit rejoiced in God my Savior.” Again, I repeat: Is it necessary to assume borrowing for such a simple turnover? But if we assume it, then, firstly, we must remember that the Evangelist Luke cites a hymn that poured out a long time ago from the lips of the same Virgin, so that, consequently, the Mother of God only repeated in the Letter what had already been said by Her long ago and that, probably, She remembered more than once and repeated both to Herself and to others; secondly, there is a parallel passage to the hymn to the Mother of God Luke 1:47: 1 Samuel 2:1. – One can also point to internal signs of the authenticity of the Letters or, at least, their deep antiquity. This is, precisely, the complete absence of dogmatic formulations and the absence of outwardly majestic epithets applied to the Mother of God. Also characteristic is the expression “Your” (that is, the Mother of God) Jesus (“de Iesu enim tuo ..."), which somehow sounds strange in the mouth of a person who thinks dogmatically and clearly about the Person of Jesus Christ. The brevity of the Letters, the absence of rhetorical amplifications and vital features in them also make their authenticity very likely. The powerful and indelible impression that the Virgin Mary made on eyewitnesses is depicted in vivid words in the remarkable monument known as “Letters of St. Dionysius the Areopagite to the Apostle Paul." 633 This is what is written in this “Letter”, which tells about the Areopagite’s visit to the Mother of God: “I confess before God, O glorious teacher and guide, that it seemed incredible to me that there could be another being so richly filled with divine power and wondrous grace, except the Most High God Himself. But I saw not only with my spiritual, but also with my physical eyes, something that no human mind can comprehend. Yes! Yes! I saw with my own eyes the God-shaped and above all heavenly spirits, the Most Holy One, the Mother of our Christ Jesus. I was honored with this by the special grace of God, by the blessing of the Supreme Apostle and by the inscrutable goodness and mercy of the Most Holy Virgin Herself. Again and again I confess before the omnipotence of God and before the glorious perfection of the Virgin, His Mother, that when John, the supreme apostle and supreme prophet, shining in his earthly life like the sun in heaven, brought me before the face of the God-like and Most Holy Virgin, I was illuminated not only from the outside, but also inside by such a great and immeasurable divine light, and such wondrous aromas and fragrances spread around me that neither my weak body, nor even my spirit could bear such wonderful signs and the firstfruits of eternal bliss. My heart fainted, my spirit within me fainted from Her glory and divine grace. I bear witness to God Himself, born from Her virgin womb, that if your divine instructions and laws were not still so fresh in my memory and newly enlightened mind, then I would have considered Her the true God and would have honored Her with the worship that should be given to the one True God. Man cannot comprehend bliss, honor and glory higher than the bliss that I received when I saw the Most Holy One. I was completely happy then! I thank the Most High, Merciful God, the Divine Virgin and the glorious Apostle John, and you, the Supreme Primate and Head of the Church, for showing me the highest of blessings.” But, perhaps, better than any dogmatic provisions, the Sophia of the Mother of God is visible from the descriptions of Her appearance. According to the legend preserved by the church historian Nicephorus Callistus, the Mother of God “was of average height or, as others say, slightly more than average; golden hair; eyes are fast, with pupils, as it were, the color of olives; the eyebrows are arched and moderately black, the nose is oblong; flowering lips, full of sweet speeches; the face is not round and not sharp, but somewhat oblong; the hands and fingers are long.” 634 According to the legend transmitted by St. Ambrose of Milan, “She was a Virgin not only in body, but also in soul: humble in heart, circumspect in words, prudent, reticent, a lover of reading, hardworking, chaste in speech. Her rules were not to offend anyone, to wish everyone well, to honor elders, not to envy equals, to avoid boasting, to be sensible, to love virtue. When did She, even with her facial expression, offend her parents? When did you disagree with your family? When did you become proud in front of a modest person, laugh at the weak, shy away from the poor? She had nothing stern in her eyes, nothing imprudent in her words, nothing indecent in her actions: modest body movements, quiet gait, even voice; so Her bodily appearance was an expression of the soul, the personification of purity.” 635 And according to Nicephorus Callistus, “In conversation with others she maintained decency, did not laugh, was not indignant, and was not especially angry; completely unartificial, simple. She did not think at all about herself and, far from being effeminate, was distinguished by complete humility. Regarding the clothes that She wore, She was content with their natural color, which is still proven by Her sacred head covering. In short, a special grace was revealed in all Her actions.” 636 The immeasurable grace of the Virgin Mary, Her radiant sophia, are descriptively indicated by very many holy mentors of the Church; in worship, almost half of the prayers are addressed to the Mother of God; in icon painting, again, the most significant part of the icons are the Mother of God. Both in the iconostasis and in the liturgy, the Mother of God occupies a place that is symmetrical and seemingly equivalent to the place of the Lord. We turn to Her alone with the prayer: “Save us.” 637 But if we turn from the living experience given by the Church to theology, then we feel ourselves transported to some new area. Psychologically, the impression is undeniable that school theology does not speak entirely about the One Who is magnified by the Church: the school theological teaching about the Mother of God is disproportionate to the living veneration of Her; The school-theological awareness of the dogma of ever-virginity lagged behind the experienced experience of it. But worship is the heart of church life. Therefore, it is very natural to ask yourself what this church magnification means; It is natural to seek the wisdom of that experience which is captured in the writings of the patristic people. An attempt to give an answer to our questions, a timid attempt to be sure, is found in St. Ambrose of Milan, in his writings on virginity and marriage. 638 He interprets the virginity of the Ever-Virgin as a phenomenon of a special grace peculiar to Her alone, as a derivative of the gift of chastity. And since the new thing brought into the world by Christianity, or, in other words, the essence of the Church, is precisely in chaste purity, it is clear that the Focus and Source of this gift is identified with the Church. And one more thing: the Mother of God is not only chaste, but also possesses chastity. Chastity is of heavenly nature. Therefore, in the Virgin Mary we must recognize some special connection with Heaven, some kind of heavenlyness. At the same time, despite the moral and edifying purpose of Ambrose’s creations, he always feels some kind of ontology behind moral concepts. Church, Heaven, Virgin Mary - these, although not synonyms, are, ontologically, almost interchangeable names. But here are a few excerpts from the writings of the Saint: “Beautiful is Mary,” he exclaims, “who presented the image of sacred virginity - egregia igitur Maria, quae signum sacrae virginitatis extulit - and raised to Christ the Holy banner of immaculate purity - intemeratae integritatis.” 639 The Virgin Mary is incomprehensible in Her superiority over all nature; She is above nature: “The question is, who can embrace with the human mind the One Whom even nature did not subordinate to her laws? Who can express in natural words what is above the order of nature? She called from heaven what she imitated on earth. And it was not undeservedly that she accepted the image of heavenly life, Who found Herself a Bridegroom in heaven. Having passed through the clouds, the sky, angels and constellations, She found the Word of God in the very bosom of the Father and clung to Him with all her soul.” 640 “There was so much grace in Her - gratia - that She was not only able to observe the gift of virginity in Herself - virginitatis gratiam - but could cause the discovery of chastity - integritatis - even in those whom she looked upon.” 641 And further St. Ambrose cites as an example the virgin John the Baptist, “whom the Mother of God prepared, as it were, with some oil of her presence and the incense of chastity, when he was still three months old,” and the virgin John the Theologian; “Therefore, I am not surprised,” the saint adds, “that this one, in whose face stood the chamber of heavenly mysteries, spoke more about divine mysteries than other evangelists.” 642 – “Oh, the riches of Mariina’s virginity! She heated up like a meager vessel and like a cloud, shed the grace of Christ on the earth!” 643 – exclaims Ambrose. This grace is spiritual rain, extinguishing bodily flames, moistening inner thoughts; 644 this is the gift of virgin life. From the life of Mary, “like from a mirror, the image of purity and the beauty of virtue shines—species castitatis et forma virtutis. From here you (that is, virgins) can take examples of life: here, as if on a drawing, the instructions for purity are depicted.” 645 “She is the image of virginity, imago virginitatis,” “Her life alone is a science for everyone.” 646 Meanwhile, integrity is everything, the whole essence of churchliness. “Integrity has even produced angels. In fact, whoever preserved it is an angel; whoever destroys is the devil. Even religion got its name from it. The Virgin is the one who is united with God; the harlot is the one who gave birth to the gods.” 647 – So, what makes a person a member of the Church, he receives from the Mother of God. But this grace, as they usually say, is given to us by the Church. What, then, is the attitude of the Virgin Mary to the Church? – Mary is the bearer of the Church. What was predicted by the prophet about the Church is “entirely applicable” to the Most Pure Virgin, 648 and not only “applicable,” but also directly “predicted about Mary under the image of the Church.” 649 The entire “Song of Songs” by St. Ambrose interprets this in relation to the Church, 650 now in relation to the Mother of God, now to the One and to the Other at the same time, and even, having interpreted some passages in relation to the Church, directly, without further reservations, puts “so” and makes a conclusion about the Virgin Mary. 651 The Church is the Virgin, just as the Virgin is the Church. “The Church is beautiful among virgins, for she is an immaculate virgin - virgo sine ruga.” 652 Virginity is churchliness. Even in the Old Testament, Mary (Ex. 15:20), says Ambrose, clearly playing with the name “Mary,” she was an “image,” “an example of the Church, Ecclesiae... specimen.” 653 Christ is the Bridegroom and Husband of the Church; Christ is “the bridegroom of virgin purity, sponsus virgineae castitatis”; 654 “The Fatherland of chastity is in heaven, – patria castitats in coelo.” 655 The Church is “a virgin, thanks to chastity, but a mother, thanks to her offspring - Ecclesia... virgo est castitate, mater est prole.” 656 Such is the Mother of God and “Her incomprehensible superiority over all of God’s creation.” 657 But this “incomprehensible superiority” is not and cannot be exhausted by descriptions and images. The image of the “Unbrided Bride”, as if refracted in a crystal prism in the work of an artist, even one who is highly enlightened, casts for the time being only one kind of blessed rays; The iconography provides many individual aspects of the Sophia beauty of the Virgin Mary. Each legitimate icon of the Mother of God - “revealed” - that is, marked by miracles and, so to speak, having received approval and approval from the Virgin Mother Herself, attested in its spiritual truthfulness by the Virgin Mother Herself, is an imprint of only one side, a bright spot on the earth from only one ray of the Blessed One, one of Her picturesque names. Hence the existence of many “revealed” icons; hence the quest to venerate different icons. The names of some of them partly express their spiritual essence, and I have already given several such typical names for icon-aspects. Other names are quite random, because they originate from localities or events externally associated with the icon; the meaning of such an icon is comprehended only in direct contemplation, and it would not make sense to give its name here. But I still need to dwell on one particularly important iconographic plot, known as “Sophia of the Wisdom of God.” However, the available material should be considered in a separate article; Here I am making only the most cursory overview of it, but still I hope that this brief overview can provide a body (– “apperprising mass”) for the previously noted ideas of spiritual contemplation. The Icon of Sophia of the Wisdom of God exists in many versions, and this alone proves that in Sophia icon painting there was genuine religious creativity - emanating from the soul of the people - and not the external borrowing of iconographic forms. But in order to comprehend the inner content of this creativity, it is necessary to consider these options not separately, but together, because they are private aspects of a single idea. The task of our essay is to understand the idea of ​​​​Sophia (- no matter what Sophia was called at different times -); Therefore, we have little interest in fully understanding the very term “Sophia” in its foreign ideological content. Of course, there is no doubt that Sts. fathers, the word Sophia quite often means the Word of God, the Second Hypostasis of the Most Holy Trinity; the same should be said about liturgical prayers and chants. To prove this well-known position with quotations would mean banging on an open door. But if in general, we repeat, we mean only the special idea of ​​Sophia, then now, in addition, we limit the field of our attention to the data of icon painting, because what is called “Sophia” by Sts. fathers does not always coincide with the content of this name in icon painting, moreover, it is from a much later time and, conversely, the icon painting “Sophia” is not always discussed in Sts. fathers under the same name. In any case, it is imperative to take together at least the most important, typical options. Minus a few, very rare and standing apart, 658 such variant-types should be considered three, while the others have forms adjacent to the forms of these three main ones. Three typical translations can be characterized as: 1°, the type of the Angel, 2°, the type of the Church (Sometimes it is called Sophia “Godmother”) and 3°, the type of the Virgin Mary - or, according to the cities where the best examples of the corresponding icons are located - Sophia: 1°, Novgorod, 2°, Yaroslavl 659 and 3°, Kiev. But, before moving on to conclusions regarding their religious essence, it is necessary to provide a description of the icons of these three types. The oldest and most remarkable is the Novgorod translation. The Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral was founded by the prince. Vladimir in 1045 and consecrated in 1052. His church icon, according to ancient legend, is recognized as a copy from Constantinople and is probably contemporary with the construction of the cathedral. At least, the priest of the Moscow Annunciation Cathedral, Sylvester, in his “Complaint” submitted to the Council in 1554, directly points to both traditions. “As a pious Orthodox and Grand Duke Vladimer himself was baptized in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, in Korsun,” writes Fr. Sylvester, - and having arrived in Kyiv, the commandment was for everyone to be baptized, and then the whole Russian country was baptized; and at the beginning, the Metropolitan was sent from Tsar Grad to Kyiv, and Vladyka Joachim was sent to Veliky Novgrad; and the Great Prince Vladimer ordered to erect a stone church in Novegrad, St. Sophia, the Wisdom of God, according to the Constantinople custom, and the icon of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, was then painted. Greek translation - ". 660 And from 1542 there is direct news about the icon of Sophia: “The Wisdom of God,” says the Chronicle, “forgave his wife, whose mother was ill.” 661 Thus, the icon of Sophia, if not in terms of the list, then in composition, is one of the oldest Russian icons. The content of this cherished shrine of Veliky Novgorod is as follows: The central figure of the composition is an angelic figure in a royal dalmatic, with barmas and an omophorion. Her long hair is not curly, but falls on her shoulders. Her face and hands are fiery in color, behind her back are two large fire-like wings, and on her head is a golden crown in the form of a battlement. In her right hand is a golden caduceus, in her left is a closed list, pressed to her heart; near the head there is a golden halo, above the ears there are toroki or “rumors”. This is Sofia. She is represented sitting on a double mutaka, which lies on a magnificent golden throne with four legs and supported by seven fire-shaped pillars. Sofia's feet rest on a large stone. The entire throne is in a golden eight-pointed star, located against a background of blue or greenish concentric rings dotted with golden stars. Sometimes, however, there is no eight-pointed star at all. On the sides of Sophia, on separate pedestals, stand reverently: on the right is the Mother of God, on the left is John the Baptist. Sometimes (for example, on the external altar mural of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral) they, due to the attraction of attributes, are also depicted as winged. Both of them have halos, but not gold (at least sometimes), but greenish-blue. The Mother of God supports with her hands (sometimes she has in her bosom) what appears to be a greenish sphere with stars, in which is the Infant Savior, surrounded by a hexagonal star. In his left hand the Savior holds a scroll, and with his right hand he makes an oratorical gesture - something that was previously taken for a nominal blessing. The Forerunner also makes the same movement with his right hand, while his left hand holds an unfolded scroll with the inscription: “Repent, etc.” Above Sophia is the All-Merciful Savior, waist-length, with a cross-shaped halo. And this figure is placed in a hexagonal star, surrounded by a starry background. Even higher is a star rainbow like a ribbon. In the middle of it there is a four-legged golden throne with instruments of the Lord’s passion and a book - the so-called “preparation of the throne.” On its sides are kneeling Angels, six in number, three on each side. Sometimes there are only four Angels; but then above the throne is depicted God the Father, sitting with raised hands on a throne with a semi-cylindrical back. The head of God the Father is surrounded by an octagonal halo, the corners of which are alternately red and green. On the sides of this throne there are then two more kneeling Angels. Finally, the entire composition is sometimes surrounded by a wreath (of 12) of individual compositions, mainly from the life of the Mother of God. 662 Before giving a final interpretation of the described icon, I will note some particulars that suggest an explanation. Sophia’s wings are a clear indication of some special closeness to the heavenly world. The fiery nature of the wings and body is an indication of spirituality, the fullness of spirituality. The caduceus (and not “a rod with a cross” and not “with the monogram of Christ,” at least in most cases) in the right hand is an indication of theurgic power, of psychopompia, of mysterious power over souls. A rolled up scroll in a shuitz, pressed to the organ of higher knowledge - to the heart - is an indication of the knowledge of unknown secrets. Royal decoration and throne are an indication of royal power. A crown in the form of a city wall is a common sign of Mother Earth in her various modifications, perhaps expressing her patronage of humanity as a collective whole, as a city, as civitas. A stone (- and not a “pillow”! –) under your feet is an indication of the firmness of the support, steadfastness. Toroki or “hearings” behind the ears, i.e., a ribbon that supports the hair and frees the ears for better hearing - an indication of sensitivity of perceptions, openness to suggestions from above: toroki is an iconographic symbol to designate the organ of Divine hearing. 663 The virginity of the Mother of God before, during, and after birth is indicated, according to custom, by three stars: two on Her chest and one on Her forehead. Finally, the celestial spheres surrounding Sophia, filled with stars, are an indication of the cosmic power of Sophia, of her rule over the entire universe, of her cosmocracy. 664 The turquoise-blue color of this environment symbolizes the air, then the sky, and then the spiritual sky, the heavenly world, in the center of which Sophia lives. After all, the blue color tunes the soul to contemplation, to detachment from earthly things, to quiet sadness about peace and purity. The blueness of the sky - this projection of light onto darkness, this border between light and darkness - it is a deep image of the heavenly creature, that is, the image of the border between Light, rich in being, and Darkness-Nothing, - the image of the Smart World. That is why blue is the color that naturally belongs to Sophia and, through Her, to the Bearer of Sophia, the Ever-Virgin. Further, in the composition under consideration, attention is paid to: firstly, the clear distinction between the personalities of the Savior, Sophia and the Mother of God; secondly, Sophia is under the Savior, that is, in a subordinate position, and the Mother of God is before Sophia, that is, again in a subordinate position. So, the Savior, Sophia and the Mother of God are in consistent hierarchical subordination. The same inequality between them is indicated by the difference in their halos. Sometimes, however, Sophia receives a cross-shaped halo in later iconographic monuments. Such, for example, is the external altar painting of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral, dating back to the 17th century. There is no doubt that Sophia’s cross-shaped halo is a mixture of iconographic attributes and is a phenomenon of attraction. But this confusion is highly characteristic: Sophia, although an independent figure in icon painting, is, however, obviously so closely connected with Christ and, as we will see later, with the Mother of God that she can, through attraction, assimilate their attributes and thereby, so to speak, almost merge with One or the Other. A certain affinity of the three Persons is sometimes revealed by the inspiration of all of them: such is the just mentioned Moscow painting; This is the painting on the altar wall of the Assumption Kostroma Cathedral. I turn to the second Sophia type - to the Yaroslavl translation, dating back to the 16th-18th centuries. Contents of the murals in the Yaroslavl Church of St. John Chrysostom is as follows: under the six-pillar ciborium, or canopy, there is a clothed throne, behind which, as the seventh pillar, the Crucifixion is depicted. Before the throne stands King Solomon in the royal dalmatic and crown - judging by the book he read, in which it is written: “Wisdom built her house and established seven pillars, sacrificed her sacrifice, and dissolved her wine in her cup, and prepared her meal” (Prov. 9:1) - or maybe just a priest, for this passage from Proverbs is the theme of the entire composition. On the pillars of the ciborium there are two inscriptions each: “Baptism” and “3rd Council”, “Confirmation” and “2nd Council”, “Repentance” and “4th Council”, “Priesthood” and “6th Council”, “Marriage” and “7th Council”, “Unction” and “5th Council”; and on the cross: “Communion” and “4th Council.” The entire ciborium is established on a raised foundation, and on the three steps of the latter it is written: “Old and New The foundation of the Divine Church is the blood of the martyr, the preaching of the apostles, the prophetic blood, the teaching of the apostles, the stone of faith, Christ, on this rock I will build my Church.” At the top above the colonnade it is written: “Christ is the Head of the Church,” and on the architrave: “And establish the seven pillars.” Above, above the cover of the ciborium, is the Mother of God, seated on a throne with a double mutaca, with her hands raised in prayer and surrounded by a host of dominion-bearing Angels. Above Her head is the Holy Spirit, from Whom seven rays descend on the Mother of God - seven grace-filled gifts. As can be seen from the writings, this is the essence: wisdom, reason, advice, strength, knowledge, piety, fear of God. Even higher is God the Father in the clouds, with raised hands, sitting on a throne with mutakas (- and maybe also Christ? -). In the margins of the icon there are ten groups of saints in the clouds: desert dwellers, martyrs, martyrs, saints, righteous ones with Joachim and Anna at their head, confessors, saints, kings and princes, prophets, with John the Baptist at their head, and apostles headed by the apostle. Pavel. Under these faces of the saints, below, there are six groups of ordinary people (not saints) with the inscription: “Gather all the nations”; they are no longer in the clouds, but on the ground, and kneel before the colonnade. The general appearance of the compositions is obvious. This is the Church as a whole, with all its spiritual powers and foundations. Although the entire composition is called “Wisdom created for herself a house and established seven pillars,” it would be very difficult to establish exactly which of the depicted Persons the name Wisdom refers to: God the Father, the Spirit, the Mother of God, or the Crucified Christ. If - to the Last, then precisely in His relation to the construction of salvation, i.e., again in connection with all other elements of the composition. 665 There are variants of the described type of “Godmother Sophia”. 666 The most remarkable features of one of these options, common in Novgorod, are that the Mother of God stands on the side of the ciborium, on the right; on the left is, in all likelihood, John the Baptist. Behind One and another there are three Apostles. The cover of the ciborium is crowned with a pointed point and the middle of the rays emanating from the semi-circle, which bears the spelling “Holy Spirit,” rests on it, like lightning on a lightning rod. Even higher is Christ on the throne, depicted as the All-Merciful Savior. Judging by this option, one can think that in the previously described one, Jesus Christ is located above the ciborium, and not God the Father (as N. Pokrovsky claims). Then the internal civor Crucifix, it is natural to think, is an altar crucifix, an icon, and not Christ. Without dwelling on other variations of this iconic composition, I will go straight to Sophia of Kyiv. She presents many analogies with Sophia of Yaroslavl. The content of Sophia of Kyiv is as follows: On the seven-step ambo there is a seven-pillar ciborium, under which stands the Mother of God. In Her left hand is the Child, and in Her right hand is the caduceus (I am mainly describing the icon of Optina Hermitage), and sometimes a Latin cross. Underfoot is the crescent moon lying on a cloud. On the cornice of the rotunda there is an inscription: “Wisdom created a house for herself, etc.” On each pillar there are three inscriptions: the first is the name of the spiritual gift, the second is its symbolic image, the third is a suitable text from “Revelation”. On the steps of the pulpit are the names of the seven virtues, and on the level of “faith” are the seven prophets. Above the rotunda is God the Father (?), and above Him is the Holy Spirit. Around are seven Archangels: 667 on the right - Michael with a flaming sword, Uriel with lightning, Raphael with the alabaster of peace; on the left - Gabriel with a lily, Selafiel with a rosary, Jehudiel with a crown, Barachiel with flowers on a white cloth. 668 But the most remarkable is the famous composition of the Sophia Icon in the iconostasis of the Cathedral of St. Sofia in Kyiv, “the mother of all Russian churches.” This church icon apparently originates from the late, half of the 18th century; but its composition dates back to the 16th century,” judging by the exact copy of it in the Tobolsk Cathedral, written during the construction of the church, i.e., under Patriarch Filaret. 669 The composition, like the iconography of Southern Russia in general, was formed under obvious Catholic influence (the Mother of God is uncovered; above Her head two Angels hold a crown; the cross in Her hand is Latin; behind Her there is a colonnade, etc.). The Mother of God depicted on the icon in her right hand has a flourishing staff with a serpentine handle, i.e. a caduceus, and, perhaps, a bishop’s staff; on the left there is a Latin cross. Christ is depicted in Her womb, with His right hand “blessing” and His left hand holding power. Behind the Mother of God are two spread wings, under her feet is a crescent moon lying on a seven-headed serpent. 670 – It should be noted that the icon described here is by no means identical in composition to its chasuble 671.” The composition of the Kyiv Sophia appears, therefore, to be a modification of the type of the Crowned Mother of God - a syncretic unification of the wedding of the Mother of God and the type of the apocalyptic Wife. 672 In other words, the Mother of God is illuminated here by double light: – the Earthly Church and the Heavenly Church. “In our opinion,” says A.I. Kirpichnikov, 673, “the type of the crowned Mother of God originally had the same symbolic meaning as the figure of Oranta in images of the Ascension of Christ: Oranta without a crown and on earth is the earthly church, and the female figure on the clouds with a crown on her head is the victorious heavenly church.” At the same time, it is indicated that the Byzantine symbolic image received a historical interpretation in the West and then came to us, already having a double meaning. But, in addition to these conclusions from the genesis of the composition, it is not difficult to see that it stands in close connection with “Revelation”. The sickle moon, the seven-headed serpent, apocalyptic texts and apocalyptic symbols on the pillars would in themselves be sufficient for the statement made. But it is even more justified if I remind you that in the lowest tier of the iconostasis, which seems to be contemporary with the icon, you can see four more icons on clearly apocalyptic themes. These are small medallions, very difficult to see behind bars. Particularly interesting is the one located directly under Sophia the Wisdom. Here is a complex composition, which includes the Woman clothed with the sun, the Mother of God, Archangel Michael, the Beast emerging from the abyss, etc. 674 Perhaps the question should arise: but where in the St. Sophia Cathedral is that which originally gave it its name - where is its main shrine? The answer to this, of course, is simple, or at least it seems simple. This main cathedral shrine is the Palladium of Kyiv, the glorious and miraculous “Unbreakable Wall”. But while it is easy to give this formal answer, a substantive answer is difficult. In fact, what and who does this image depict? Usually they say that she is the Mother of God. But the absence of the Child, the raised arms, the entire position of the body bring the “Unbreakable Wall” closer to the Orants of ancient Christian icon painting to such an extent that it becomes undeniable that in the “Unbreakable Wall” the Mother of God is represented as an Oranta, i.e. expresses the same idea as the ancient Orants. This idea is, I repeat, the idea of ​​the Church. 675 Researchers go further than the statement made here. Thus, according to N.P. Kondakov 676 “The Unbreakable Wall” is a monumental image of the Church, and according to Kryzhanovsky 677 it is an image of the immaterial house of Sophia the Wisdom of God. Other researchers think the same. 678 These are the three types of Sophia iconography. To interpret them means to understand that one spiritual principle common to all of them, due to which they all bore the same name and were revered as the expression of one idea. Of course, our ancestors did not know this General “responsibly”, in the words of F. M. Dostoevsky; but it is impossible to admit that it did not exist at all, that there was confusion in the very experiences: after all, the icon-painting plot being analyzed now was at one time an extensive religious phenomenon, perhaps even the most extensive and, in any case, beloved and national; 679 to allow it to arise ex nihile, from a religious void, would be absurd. – The sides of this One are noted separately by individual researchers. What are these sides? In Sophia (- this meant Sophia of Novgorod -) they saw the personification of an abstract property of God, an attribute of His wisdom, but not the Personal, not the Hypostatic Wisdom of God, but wisdom in abstracto. This interpretation is correct in the sense that Sophia, in any case, is not a Hypostasis in the strict sense of the word and that She is not identical with the Logos. That, indeed, personifications of the elements, cities and localities, moral and dogmatic concepts, etc. were quite possible in Christian iconography - this is proven by the well-known fact of the presence of personified: Sea, Mountains, Wind, Snow, Desert, Heaven and Earth, Space, Jordan, Sun and Moon, Night and Morning, Celestial Matter, Depth, Hell, Red Sea, Egypt, Nazareth, Bethlehem Jerusalem, Melody, Strength, Arrogance, Repentance, Youth, Δικαιοσύνη καὶ Ἐλεημοσύνη, Virtues, Προφητεία, Σοφία, Synagogues, Churches, etc. on many icons, miniatures, murals, etc. 680 It is known that Constantine the Great erected three churches in Tsar-grad, - in honor of: Wisdom - Ἡ ἁγία Σοφία, - Peace - Ἡ ἁγία Εἰρήνη - and Power - Ἡ ἁγία Δύναμις, - later transformed into churches of St. Sophia, St. Irene and St. Heavenly Forces. In the history of pagan Rome there are as many similar examples of temple-building in honor of abstract concepts; but one should not too hastily conclude from this that Constantine “dedicates his temples to ideas and in particular to the idea of ​​​​divine Wisdom without any relation of this concept to the Son of God.” Rather, the thought is correct † prof. A.P. Golubtsov, who saw in these neutral, so to speak, initiations between pagans and Christians a tactical measure through which the Emperor quietly introduced Christianity - while for those who wanted to be outside the church fence, the opportunity was given to see in Wisdom, Peace and Power only personified concepts. 681 One way or another, people don’t live by distractions, and what had to happen happened. Namely, they began to look for specific ideas for Sofia. Justinian's Church of Sophia is dedicated to the already Incarnate Word of God, so the feast of consecration was December 22–23, and the church feast was, apparently, the Nativity of Christ. But, at the same time, the religious connection between Sophia and the Mother of God is just as undeniable, revealed in the liturgical practice and in the religious worldview of our ancestors. 682 For the mind, a single experience even then became twofold, and the mind wavered between the Savior and the Mother of God. The liturgical ritual proves this beyond doubt. Already in the 16th century, our home-grown theologians are at a loss when trying to rationally define the idea of ​​Sophia: “They say that the Church of St. Sophia was sanctified in the name of the Most Pure Mother of God; Oviy say that there is no name here in Rus' itself, below this Wisdom there is a powerful sense of knowledge.” 683 But even Western visitors to Constantinople apparently do not know to whom the Church of Sophia is dedicated. At least in their descriptions of Sophia of Tsargradskaya, they are decidedly silent about the subject that occupies us; 684 and one of the crusaders who took part in the capture of Constantinople, Robert of Clarius, writes in his chronicle a message that is strange at first glance: “Or vous dirai du moustier Sainte Souphie comme fais il estoit (Sainte Souphie en Grieu, ch’est Sainte Trinités en franchois) - now I will tell you about the Church of St. Sophia, how it was made (St. Sophia in Greek is the same as the Holy Trinity in French).” 685 Such are the ancient disagreements on the issue of Sophia. These hesitations have also passed on to modern researchers. While for some researchers Sophia is the Word of God or even the Holy One. Trinity, 686 others see the Mother of God in Her, others see Her as the personification of Her Virginity, others see the Church, and others see the collective humanity, “Grand Être” by O. Comte. Should these interpretations be recognized as irreconcilable? – Of course, the Word of God, the Mother of God, Virginity, the Church, Humanity, as rational concepts, are incompatible with each other; but if we turn to the corresponding ideas, then this incompatibility will no longer exist; Moreover, the previous, metaphysical, analysis of the case had already shown the mutual connection of these ideas. Without dwelling on each of them in particular; 687 I will give only a few ancient Russian interpretations that provide a subtle synthesis of individual aspects of Sophia. 688 Here is the inscription on the icon of Sophia the Wisdom in the iconostasis of the Assumption Cathedral of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra: 689 “The image of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, demonstrates the purity of the Most Holy Theotokos of unspeakable virginity. To have Virginity, the face is fiery and there are crowns above the ears: a royal crown is on the head and above the head is Christ, and the heavens are stretched on high. Interpretation: The face of fire reveals how virginity is likened to God, the container of being, for fire is God who burns bodily passions and enlightens the virgin soul. And there are hedgehogs above the ears and angels have hedgehogs - as if there is a virgin with the angels. Torotsi is the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit. On the head there is a royal crown. This shows how her humble wisdom reigns over passions. Above the head is Christ, the head of the Son of Wisdom, the Word of God. Love the Virginity of the Most Holy Theotokos and the humble Wisdom and deign to be born of Her in the flesh. The outstretched heavens quickly reveal how the virgin soul ever-presently desires to be in heaven. Girding across the chest shows the rank of seniority and priesthood. To have a scepter in one's hand, it reveals the rank of king. The eagles and fiery ones cried out at the high soaring and prophecy: this bird, when it sees the catcher, flies higher; So, too, those who love virginity are inconveniently caught by the devil's catcher. 690 There is a scroll in the shuitz, in which the unknown and hidden secrets of God are inscribed: the essence of divine virginity is incomprehensible to neither angels nor humans. The robe of light and the throne sits on it, revealing the chamber of another future light. The seven pillars have been established - the seven Spirit of gifts proclaimed by the prophet Isaiah. Noses to put on the stone: Virginity, for the confession of faith in Christ, stands unshakably, crying out to God: “Set me on the stone of faith.” Those who keep their virginity will be like the Most Holy Theotokos. John the Baptist loved this: be worthy to baptize Christ our God. This is what John the Theologian loved: you were counted worthy to recline on the breasts of Christ our God. God, who is incorporeal and disembodied, rejoices in the purity and chastity of the soul. The Virgin will be brought, he said, to the king after her, and Her sparklings will be brought in joy and joy. The kings will be brought into the church, that is, virgin souls will be brought after the Most Holy Theotokos to her Son and our God. Amen". Other explanations do not differ much from the one just given and in the main points can be considered identical. But let me cite some of them because they are little known. So, in one manuscript we read (note that t means interpretation, interpretation, and b means question): “The legend is interpreted that Sophia is the wisdom of God. Church of God Sophia, the Most Pure Virgin Mary, that is, the virgin soul of unspeakable virginity. The purity of humble wisdom is true, it has Christ as its head, for the head of wisdom is the son of God, the heavens are stretched out above him, bow down for the heavens, descend, descend into a pure virgin, since they love virginity and are like the Mother of God. For this begot a son and the word of God of the Lord Jesus Christ, for those who love virginity are struck down by the words of the workers who decided to teach the foolish. The forerunner of the baptizer loved this, the crucifixion of the charter of virginity, showing the cruel life of God. And the virginity of a girl’s face is fiery, because fire is a deity, scorching the passions of perishable things, but enlightening the pure soul. And the torots are also perfumed, and the angels have a pure life; the torots are the resting place of the Holy Spirit. On her is a royal crown, that humble wisdom reigns over passion, and a girdle in the loins, that is the image of eldership and holiness. The one who holds the scepter is the one who holds the royal rank. Imat on the wing of fire, the soaring prophecy of the mind soon (?) is revealed by the brilliantly transparent bird that loves wisdom, food sees the catcher, flies higher. Such is the inconvenience of those who love virginity from the devil's catcher. Surely the scroll is written. t Here are unknown hidden secrets. Rexha, a devotee of the scriptures, sees that the divine action is incomprehensible, neither by angels nor by man. Let us sit on the robe of light and the throne. The chamber of another future light reveals. Established on the seventh pillar. t The seventh of the spirit of bestowal. That the prophecy was written in Isain. Nozi is on the stone. On these stones I will build my church. And again, establish me on the rock of faith, Sophia, the wisdom of God. t Holy congregations and apostles of the church, virginity is the image of God, for the Lord was born from a virgin, virginity is great, for the Lord is incorporeal and incorporeal; the Lord rejoices only in the purity and incorruptibility of our flesh, virginity fills the heavenly creation. In place of the hedgehog having exhausted the fallen angels, since mortal man is only the virginity of those who married more honestly, as in the image of God, it is fitting for us to live Christ's honor, the virginity of the flesh of corruption and feces escaping. It is marvelous that a man without aphids should be incorruptible by the purity of Christ incarnate. Incorruptible virgins will be brought to the king's speech by the virgins, that is, the virgin souls. Therefore, do not grieve yourself, for the promise is made to you. And when I go, I will be there and my servant will be.” 691 We find the same, but somewhat shortened, interpretation in one handwritten front Apocalypse, 692 under the inscription: “The Sophia of the Wisdom of God was copied from a local image in the great new city.” This interpretation begins with the words: “The Church of God, Sophia, the Most Pure Virgin Mother of God, etc.”; ends with the words: “On this word of stone I will build my church. And again he said, establish me on the rock of faith.” This is quite important. Obviously, the discussion about the superiority of celibacy over marriage and the sharply ascetic Manichaean tone at the end of the previous “Tale” are a later addition, if only it is permissible in this case to draw a conclusion from the antiquity of the manuscript to the antiquity of the edition. I’ll also add that on l. 72 there are apocalyptic miniatures related to Sophia themes. In the handwritten “Book of the Alphabet”, or more precisely, the Explanatory Dictionary in alphabetical order, 17th century, 693, again there is “Interpretation of the image of St. Sophia of the Wisdom of God. Sophia is the Church of God - the Most Pure Virgin Mary - that is, the active soul of unspeakable virginity, purity, etc.” There are several similar interpretations in the Library of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra. 694 So, for example, in the handwritten explanatory Apocalypse 695 it is said: “Words have been chosen from many books of various lines. Beginning A word about wisdom. The truth has indescribable virginity, the purity of humble wisdom, above the head of Christ”; on l. 150 interpretation of the three verses under the title; "In St. Sophia has a Komora, Solomon the son of David was made from another [dragago?] stone, and on it is the essence of the writings of the Stisi Trie by Jewish and Samaritan writings...” On a white sheet of paper in front of the book there is an ex-libris: “This holy Revelation of Ivan the Theologian and the Vangilist Apocalypse, and in it there is an explanatory service, and there are many other entries without number, wise without measure. Asia book of Zosima, Metropolitan of All Russia” [Zosima was Metropolitan in 1491–1494]. In another manuscript, from the 16th century, there is “The Word of St. Sophia on the Wisdom of God. Beginning Church of God Sophia the Most Pure Virgin Mary..." 696 The close connection between Sophia and the Mother of God is clearly depicted in church hymns. So, in the Moscow St. Sophia Church, which is near Lubyanka Square, there is a special service of St. Sophia, and in the icon of this service, celebrated on August 15th, it is said about the virgin Soul of the Mother of God, as about the Church and about Sophia: “I dare to sing the world’s intercessor, the most immaculate Bride, the Virgin, even as you called your virgin soul your divine church, and for the sake of your incarnation you called Sophia the Wisdom of God. “You imagined her fiery form, and from her came the fire of your Divinity, that is, your only begotten Son.” 697 Some parts of this service, such as paremias, stichera on the lithium and stichera on the stichera, are borrowed from the service of the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary; It is remarkable that this borrowing was done deliberately and is subject to the following reservation. “For this reason, Stikhovna and others were written for the feast of the Dormition of the Most Holy Theotokos, since it is a church animated by wisdom, and the Word of God, called Sophia.” 698 In other words, it is again confirmed that Sophia is the Mother of God, the church of hypostatic wisdom, the Word of God. Noteworthy is the fact that Sofia is celebrated on the day of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary (– in Kiev –) or on the day of the Assumption (– in Vologda –). This is one series of interpretations of Sophia. In others, such as in the “Collected Original of Count Stroganov,” Wisdom is directly called the Son and Word of God. 699 Likewise, in the above-mentioned “Service of Sophia,” Sophia is sometimes almost identified with God the Word. 700 “This Great, royal and feminine being, who, being neither God, nor the eternal Son of God, nor an angel, nor a holy man, receives veneration from both the consummator of the Old Testament and the ancestor of the New - who is it,” Vl. said in his speech in 1898 about Conte. S. Soloviev, 702 - who is it, if not the truest, purest and most complete humanity, the highest and all-encompassing form and living soul of nature and the universe, eternally united and in a temporary process uniting with the Divine and uniting with it everything that is. There is no doubt that this is the full meaning of the Great Being, half felt and realized by Comte, fully felt, but not at all realized by our ancestors, the pious builders of the St. Sophia churches.” In short, Sophia is the Memory of God, in the sacred depths of which there is everything that exists, and outside of which there is Death and Madness. The three main aspects of Sophia-Wisdom and the three types of understanding of Her at different times and in different souls receive their predominance in turn. The soaring of theological contemplation, the feat of inner purity and the joy of universal unity - this triple life of faith, hope and love - it is fragmented by human consciousness into separate moments of life and only in the Comforter does it receive its unity. But we must not forget that only in this unity is the strength and meaning of each of them. Only in overcoming carnal rationality does the “Pillar and affirmation of Truth” appear like a snowy peak from the gray morning mist. The question is under what exact living conditions the feat of this self-overcoming grows. – These conditions are to show your soul a preliminary, partial overcoming of carnality and thereby entice it towards achievement. Sophia - this true Creation or creature in Truth - appears first as a hint of a transformed, spiritualized world, as an invisible to others manifestation of the above in the below. This revelation takes place in the personal, sincere love of two - in friendship, when the lover is given a preliminary, without feat, violation of self-identity, removal of the facets of the Self, leaving oneself and finding one's Self in the Self of another - the Friend. Friendship, like the mysterious birth of You, is the environment in which the revelation of Truth begins. Faustum praelium. Fight happy. Specific image this dual spirituality. beauty; “Salt of the Earth,” that is, the legend about the life of the elder of the Gethsemane monastery, Jerome. Abba Isidore, collected and presented in order by his unworthy spiritual son Pavel Florensky,” Serg. Pos., 1909 (= “Christian”, 1908, Nos. 10, 11, 12 and 1909, Nos. 1 and 5). – Spirituality is the limit of created beauty; beauty approaches this limit as it penetrates from the phenomenal periphery of a being to its noumenal. root and, subsequently, as it penetrates into the divine world: beauty comes from the communion of the earthly with the heavenly, but only the beauty of the heavenly is independent. You can write such a descending rock of stages of beauty: Self-beauty, or Comforter > Spiritual > spiritual > beautiful > beautiful > comely > graceful > not bad > pretty > cute > cute > ... etc. The term introduced by N.V. Bugaev in his articles: “Geometry is arbitrary. values" and "Intermittent. geometry". B is given. example, I did not take into account, of course, the actual one. or imaginary. the possibility of changing the spatial form of contemplation, as research indicates. Hinton (S. N. Hinton, - The New Era of Thought; his, - The Tourth Dimension. For an exposition, see P. D. Uspensky, - The Fourth Dimension. St. Petersburg, 1909; his, - Tertium Organum, St. Petersburg, 1911). Kant belongs to The merit is to clarify that the “unity of apperception” is not a simple given, but is a synthetic unity, i.e., established. The integrity of the empirical personality is again a living integrity, produced by “art from the arts,” and not simply given. But the “unity of apperception” is, from a different angle, the unity of the whole world. The integrity of the individual is the integrity of the entire creature. But both this experience and this creature are conceived as something organized, as a single organism. Here epistemology and metaphysics come close to Paul’s teaching about the Church as a single organism, in which each individual person is a member. The word “σοφία”, although translated wisdom or wisdom, does not mean simple passive perception of the given, does not at all mean ours: reason, knowledge, science, etc. It contains a very definite indication of creativity: Prel. SS. 294–295, for art, for education, - so, transferring the name Σοφία to modern times. language, one should say Creator, Craftswoman, Artist, etc. The etymon of the words σοφία, σοφός, as well as the equivalent Sanskrit. dhrobhós, is clear from the oldest form, namely τ Ƒοφός, derived from √dhvobo meaning “passend machen”, “to make suitable”, “to adjust”, and therefore originally σοφός = τ Ƒοφός = faber = craftsman, master (Prel. SS. 294–295). Σοφία, in Homer and Hesiod, and other derivatives of the same root used. in the sense of technical knowledge, i.e. the ability to embody certain. the intention in reality. Thus, in Homer we read: “Like a straight cord straightens a ship’s log, if it is controlled by a skilled carpenter’s hand, who has studied his wisdom, obedient to the suggestions of Athena: so the battle lots were evenly drawn over the troops. – ἀλλ’ ὥστε στἀθμη δόρυ νήιον ἐξιθύνει τέκτονος ἐν παλἀμῃσι, δαήμονος ὅ ῥἀ τε πἀσης εὐ εἰδῆ σοφίης ὑποθημοσύνῃσιν Ἀθήνης, – (The Iliad of Homer, trans. H. M. Minsky, M., 1896, XV 410–413. – Homerica Carmina ed. A. Nauck, Vol. I., lias, pars post., XV 410–413, Berolini, 1879, p. 73). – Hebrew הָבְמָח, hokhmâ or hokmâ – a derivative word. from √חבם, which has Semitic in all. language same value - “to be reasonable, wise”, original. – “be strong in mind”; hence, hakam - wise, sage. “If in one In some places [of the Bible] wisdom is depicted as a state accessible to people, while in others it is attributed only to God, the only owner of it from eternity. The answer to this duality must be sought in the Bible. teaching about the human soul as the breath of the Divine (Gen. 2:7, cf. Eccl. 12:7). The divine property of wisdom, as perfect knowledge, is eternal and immeasurable, but since he is the image of God, he, under certain conditions, can receive this heavenly gift from the Lord. In some in places “wisdom is personified, a kind of independent power of action is attributed to it, although depending on God,” i.e. there is “the personification of wisdom as the creative and providential power of God...” (Archarch A.P. Rozhdestvensky, - The Book of the Wisdom of Jesus son of Sirach, St. Petersburg, 1911, pp. 2–3). - Old Testament the doctrine of Sophia is discussed in: Benkenstein, - Der Begriffd. Chokhma in den Hagiographen des Alten Testaments. Inaug.-Dissert., Nordhausen, 1895. In § 58 - some lit. decree. – Vl. Soloviev, – Russia and Sun. Tser., book. 3rd, pp. 303–451, esp. – chapters III-V, pp. 325–353. “How rightly in all languages ​​wisdom is distinguished from intelligence! Real wisdom consists in recognizing the rights of reason in theory, but trusting it as little as possible in practice. And from this contradiction it follows that unconditional significance belongs not to the mental, but to the moral sphere, in the cat. there is no contradiction, for the rules: “don’t cannibalize”, or “don’t steal beyond what is due” are equally good in theory and in practice” (Vl. S. Solovyov, - Letter 9 to A. A. Fet, August 21 - September 6, 1888 “Letters of Vl. S. Solovyov”, T. 3., edited by E. L. Radlova, St. Petersburg, 1911, p. 118. Fatherly, esp. characteristic Gregory Nis., the concept of the single “nature” of the creature is explained by Anthony (Khrapovitsky), Archbishop. Volynsk., in “Morals. the idea of ​​the dogma of the church” (“Poln. Sobr. soch.”, Vol. 2, 2nd edition, St. Petersburg, 1911). – V. [A.] Troitsky, – Trinity of the Divine and unity of humanity, M., 1912 (= “Voice of the Church” 1912, No. 10). - It is composed. the underlying basis in: S. [H] Bulgakov, - Philosophy of Economics, T. I, M, 1912, in the doctrine of the Church of Vl. Solovyov, etc. The entire history of the Fall, the economy, redemption and salvation, the doctrine of the sacraments, etc., receive real meaning in the light of this concept; outside of it they become empty formulas. Cp.. - This is the teaching of esp. definitely expressed in medieval philosophy: Stöckl. – A. Stöckl, – History and system of medieval philosophy, trans. N. Strelkov and I.E., ed. I. V. Popova, M, 1912. - G. Eiken, - History and system of medieval worldview, trans. with him. V. N. Linya, St. Petersburg, 1907. – Ch. Jourdain, – La Philos. de S. Thomas d'Aquin, Paris, 1858. - J. H. Loewe, - Der Kampf zwischen dem Realismus u. Nominalismus im Mittelalter, Prag. 1876 ​​(= Abh. d. k. böhm. Ges. d. His. VI F., 8 Bd). – V. Windelband, – East. philosophy, trans. with him. P. Rudina, St. Petersburg. 1898, pp. 241–323. – This idea has been expressed by the latest thinkers. So: S [S.] Glagolev, - On questions of logic, Kharkov, 1910, pp. 215–221. Ep. Feofan [Reclusive], - Interpretation. on the 1st last to Cor., 8 ch. 3 art., p. 266. – However, cf. p. 63 i. “- Unnoticed in our theologies. systems and unnoticed [V. I. Nesmelov] saying of the book. Prem. Solom.: “God made the h-ka “the image of his eternal existence” (Wis. 2:23). So. arr., not only our rationality and morals. demands represent a diminished image of God, but also eternity, that is, the property of unconditional existence, is reflected in the personality of man” (Antony, Arch. Vol., - New experience of the doctrine of the knowledge of God, “Poln. sobr. soch.”, Kazan, 1900, T. 3, p. 427). “How does the eternal manifest itself in time (and that it manifests itself, there is no doubt)? – In order to bring this closer to reason and destroy all contradictions, it is necessary to distract thought from fragmentation and imagine time as a whole: then, if it does not equal eternity, it will be a shade of it, since it is a fluctuating reflection of resting eternity. Therefore, it is not surprising that eternity manifests itself in time.” Innocent, – About God in General, p. 273. Bertr. Russel, – L’idée d’ordre et la position absolue dans ll’espace et le temps (“Bibl. du Congr. Intern.de Philos.”, Paris, 1901, T. 3, pp. 241–277). “Il faut d'abord distinguer parmi les séries cells qui sont des positions, et cells qui ont des positions. Les nombres entiers, les quantités, les instants (s’il y en a) sont des positions; les collections, les grandeurs particuliers, les evenements ont des positions” (id., p. 242). Dr. words “time” refers to “Time” in the same way as in general Cantor’s “type of order Ordnungstypus” refers to “set”; “time” is the type of order of Time. – About types of order. [1, 844, 855, 856]. Orig., - About the beginning. III, 5, 3, (Mi gr., T. 11, col. 327, etc.) Gregory God. , – Word 4, about peace (Russian translation, T. 4, p. 229). Clement Alex. , – Exhortation to the Hellenes, 1. Trans. Korsunsky, p. 64. Flood; the death of Sodom and Gomorrah; the death of Atlantis; events in Martinique and Mexico, etc. - these are some examples of how the earth shakes off blasphemers and opponents of God. These are in contact. issues are discussed in detail in the handwritten work: P. Florensky, - The Idea of ​​the Church, 1906, esp. Ch. 5th, § III. See in part Sohm, – Kirchenrecht, Bd. I, Erst. Kap., § 4, SS. 36–38. - Rud. Zom, - Church system in the first centuries of Christianity, trans. A. Petrovsky and P. Florensky, pp. 64–66. – Smirnov, – Spirit. from., esp. pp. 165–171. V. [A.] Troitsky, - Essay from the source. dogma of the Church, Serg. Pos., 1912, see in decree. “the power of the keys,” “charismatics,” etc. With certain limitations, this view is characteristic of the Eastern Church, while the legal understanding of confession arose in the West and only there received its full force. Simeon N.B. expresses this view of confession especially clearly. Letters from Vl. S. Solovyova, T. 2 = “Vest. Heb.", 1908, book. 1, p. 212. This manuscript is not dated, but it has a watermark of 1812, and according to the observation of manuscript researcher M. M. Speransky, water. signs on paper “usually coincide quite accurately with the actual year of writing, lagging behind only a year or two” (A.V. Elchaninov, - Mysticism of M.M. Speransky, “God. West.” 1906, No. 1, p. 99). He'll approve. reviews about mysticism Μ. M Speransky: “He depicts the matter of spiritual life and very sensibly.” (Bishop Theophan, - Letters on spiritual life, 4th ed., M., 1903, pp. 7–8, 10). “He was a man who developed a full Christian life” (id., p. 10), etc. But since they are based on ten letters from Speransky, it is placed. in "Rus. Arch." for 1870, then such an assessment cannot but be considered hasty and insufficiently substantiated (Elchaninov, pp. 109–110). The phrase “from creation” is transferred to the decree. place the saying “ἀπὸ καταβολῆς”. In words. lane stands “from addition”, in it . Luther – “Von Anbeginn”, in English. "from the fondation", in Italian. "dalla fundazione", in French. Osterwald "dès la création", in Lat. We find the bez unique. transmission: “a jacto mundi fundamento.” The word καταβολή, actual, is explained through synonyms: “τὸ καταβάλλειν κατάθεσις Πληρωμὴ (ἐπὶ χεῖρας) θεμελίωμα ἔναρξις ἀρχή, καταγωγή”, etc. Εκ – or ἀπὸ καταβολῆς means “ἀπὸ καινουργῆς, ἀπὸ θεμελίου, ἐξ ἀρχῆς, ἀπὸ μιᾶς ἀρχῆς" (Λεξικόν της Ελληνικης Χλωσσης συντεθεν μεν υπὸ Σκαρλάτου δ. Βυζαντίου, εχδοθεν δὲ… υπο Ανδρεου κορομηλα, ἐν Αθηναις, 1852, σ. But, contrary to this agreement of translators, Origen claims that the word “constitutio”, i.e. “addition” or “creation”, which already in his time denoted the act of organizing this world, is an unsuccessful translation of the Greek. καταβολή. In my opinion. Origen, καταβολὴ should have been translated with the word “overthrow” or “cast down” rather than “addition” or “creation” - because. the word καταβολὴ, apparently, indicates the overthrow of all beings in general from a higher state to a lower one: “per καταβολήν, a superioribus ad inferiora videtur judicari, deductio...” (Origen, - On the Principles III, 5, 4, - Mi gr., T. 11, col. 329, 328), and: “καταβολή, quod Latine inproprie translatum constitutionem mundi dixerunt; καταβολή vero in graeco magis dejicere significat, id est deorsum jacere...” (id., col. 328). Such a translation would work in any way. case the exact etymological equivalent of κατα-βάλλω, i.e. “I throw from top to bottom.” An attempt to give an artistic-rel. synthesis of these ideas about the Kingdom of God as pre-beings. the world beyond reality, represents Easter. word: P. Florensky, - Chief of Life, Serg. Pos., 1907 (= “Christian”, 1907, No. 4). Partly here: A. Bukharev, - Research on the dignity, integrity and origin of the 3rd book. Ezra, M., 1864. For orientation in various understandings of the Gospel. “The Kingdom of God” see:, [N. G. Gorodensky], – New Testament. teaching about the Kingdom of God in modern theology. lit. Western (“Read in Ob. lyub. spirit. pr.”, g. 31, 1894, 2, pp. 747–814). - Prot. P. Ya. Svetlov, - The idea of ​​the Kingdom of God in its meaning for Christ. worldview, Holy Tr. Serg. Lavra, 1906. – M. M. Tareev, – Fundamentals of the Church, Serg. Pos., 1908, T. 2. – Schmoller, – Die Lehre von Reiche Gottes in den Schriften Neues Testaments, 1891. – Weiss, – Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, 1892. – Issel, – Die Lehre von Reiche Gottes im Neuen Test., 1891. J. Bovon, – Théologie du Nouveau Testament, Lausanne, 1893–1894. – Bern. Weiss, – Lehrbuch d. Bibl. Theol. des Neuen Test., Berlin, 1868. – J. Holtzmann, – Lerbuch der neutest. Theol., Freiburg i/B u. Lpz., 1897. - G. B. Stevens, - The Theology of The New Test., Edinburgh, 1901. - J. M. King, - The Theologie of Christ's Teaching, London, 1902. - On the question of the Jewish apocalypticism: Prot. Al. Smirnov, – Messiansk. expectations and beliefs of the Jews around the time of I. X., Kazan, 1889. - Book. S. N. Trubetskoy, - The Doctrine of Logos, T. I, M., 1900 (= “Collected works,” T. 4). – H. [H.] Glubokovsky, – The Good News of St. Ap. Paul, book. 1st, St. Petersburg, 1905, tract. 2nd. – Tareev, – id. – S. N. Bulgakov, – Apocalypticism and Socialism, “Two Cities”, T. 2, (= “Russian M.”, 1910, books 6–7). – F. Weber, – Jüdische Theologie auf Grund d. talmud und verwandter Schriften – her. von Fr. Delitzsch u. Schnedermann, 2-te Auff., Lpz., 1897. id., S. XX. – Wed: I. Popov, – Consp. lectures on patrolology 1911–12, M., p. 13. 2nd Seq. Clement to Cor. 14. – Funk, id., SS. 75–76. Th. Zahn, – Der Hirt der Hermas, Gotha, 1868. Friend. research this one is memorable. refers to the year 140. Wed. Funk, id., S. XXXII. – Popov, pp. 19–20. Herm., – Shepherd., Under. IX, 1 1. Funk, S. 211. id. View. III, 10 3–5, S. 158–159. id., View. II, 4 1, S. 149. id. View. III, 33, S. 125. – On the concepts of “mystical church.” and "church" historical." and about the unfoundedness of the separation of one and the other among Protestants and among people “new.” religious consciousness." see Ern, - Historical. church, pp. 321–328. – Affirmation (and even excessive Catholicism) of the moment of visibility in the Church on the basis of sir. words צדתא ’edta (etta, ’edta), resp. euro עֵדָה eda, cat. probably used by the Savior, see: V.V. Bolotov, - Lek., Ι, Introduction to the Church. ist., St. Petersburg, 1907, 1 2, pp. 10–13. 1st right 6th all. personal (or, more precisely, local, because according to Aristina, neither the 5th nor the 6th edition issued rules) very accurately indicates that the persons who were condemned were “σωμάτων τινῶν καὶ ψυχῶν ἡμἶν περιόδους καὶ ἀλλοιώσεις ἀναπεμπάδαντας τάῖς τοῦ νοῦ παραφοραἶς τε καὶ ὀνειρώξεσι” or, according to the Slavs. transl., “the passage and transformation of some bodies and souls presented to us again for shame, in the sleepy dreams of a wandering mind” (“Right,” p. 439). In other words, what is being condemned here is not the teaching about the super-temporal nature of the human personality, but about metempsychosis and metemsomatosis. This one is condemned. the idea of ​​the pre-existence of the soul in time is undoubtedly outside of Christ. origin and is most pronounced in India. V. Miloslavsky, - Ancient pagan teaching about wanderings and migrations of souls, Kazan, 1873. - V. A. Kozhevnikov, - Tales of rebirth. Gotamo Buddha, “God. V.”, 1912, Nov. and Dec., – required. according to era. and penetrating chapter from iss. "Buddhism on Wed. with the archive”, part 2. – More: F. Laudowicz, – Wesen u. Urspr. d. Lehre vond. Präexistonz d. seele - in. d. grich. Philos. Berlin. – His, – De doctrinis ad animarum praexist butiam – spectantibus, Lipsiae, 1898. – In both books there is a decree. lit. opposite the words of the author of the Book. Prem. Solom: “I was a gifted youth and received a good soul; Moreover, being good, I entered into a clean body” (Wisdom 8:19–20), undoubtedly confirm the doctrine of the pre-existence of the soul. In what sense? See N. N. Glubokovsky, Tr. III 2, pp. 478 ff., here lit. That's why Jude. theology spoke of the highest spiritual values, as pre-existing to the world or even as eternal. “Six things precede peacemaking; among them are those that were actually created, and those that were decided before creation; The Torah and the Throne of Lordship were truly created” (Bereishit Rabbah, 1. - Weber, S. 16). (- Let us note by the way that this idea of ​​​​the pre-existence of the Throne of Dominion was somehow reflected in Christian iconography, creating here a very common, but no less mysterious plot of “preparing the throne”, which, among other things, is part of the Sophia composition. See page 374). In other Talmud. treatises, namely in Pesachim 54 a, in Nedarim 39 b, in Yalkut Shimeoni and in Bereshit Rabba 20, such things are named by a more round number, and by them. seven: Torah, Repentance, Garden of Eden, Gehenna, Seat of Lordship, Sanctuary and Messiah. At the same time, according to Beresh. Rabba, Torah and Throne of God. are recognized as truly created before time, and the Fathers, that is, the forefathers - Israel, the Sanctuary and the Name of the Messiah - pre-existent to the world in the thought of God (Weber, S. 198). Souls are also recognized in other places as pre-existing (id., SS. 212, 225). – The most significant and influential among these teachings seems to be the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Torah, which is quite close to the doctrine of the Premundane Wisdom of God. The Torah is a reflection of the Being of God, exists forever and is called, for example. in Vayikra Rabbah 20, “daughter of God” (detailed in Weber, SS. 14–18); she is the law not only of the world, but also of the Divine. existence, so that God Himself creates media. Torah (id., S. 17). Through it the world was created, and in it is the plan for its creation, so the purpose of the world is to realize this plan. In connection with this ontology stands the most decisive ontological Jewish Zionist-centrism. theology. The holy place is considered here as the central and starting point for creation, in relation to. to which everything else lies ontologically. periphery. According to Yoma 54 b the world was created from Zion; Zion is the center of creation, and the Church is called in Pesikta 25b the heart of the world. The land of Israel is the first land that was created, and unites in itself everything that is separately contained in the rest of creation, says Sifre 76 b, etc. In the same way, the language of Israel has ontological primacy over all other languages. The creative word was spoken at the sacred. language, - in the language of Zion, - testifies Bereshit Rabba 18 31 and Yalkut Shimeoni 52. The very time of peacemaking is in connection with the history of the emergence of the sacred. people. Rabbi Eliezer says, according to Rosh Hashanah 10 b, that the world was created in the month of Tishri, for in Tishri the forefathers were born and died; a r. Joshua, id. 11 a, thought that the creation of peace took place in the month of Nisan, for in Nisan the forefathers were born and died. Other Jewish authorities spoke differently, but the nature of the argument is the same for all (Web., SS. 198–199). M. b., in connection with this Zion-centrism. - the opinion that “Adam spoke in the Syrian language” (Genealogy from the creation of the world, article from the RKP. Athos-Iveron mon. Great Panfect. Bishop Porfiry Uspensky, - First travel to Athos. mon. and sc., part 1, department 2, Kyiv, 1877, p. 204) (cf. Vas. V., - Bes. on six. 26, – Mi gr., T. 29, col. 44 B: the Syrian language is very expressive. suitable for understanding the Holy Scripture). - Same philosophy. The first Christians also spoke the language of their age. apologists; and in their minds, antiquity is a synonym for superiority, i.e., ontological ancestry, and that is why the reproach for innovation is that “they have existed since yesterday. day,” followed the answer: “We’re just looking. new people; We existed secretly from the beginning and preceded all peoples; We are the first people of God! The main provisions of the Judeo-centric. understandings of history are transferred to themselves; this is to them: 10, our people are more ancient than the world; 20, the world was created for our sake; 30, for our sake he continues to exist; we delay the judgment of the world; 4 0, everything in the world - the beginning, the middle and the end - is open to us and clear to us; 5 0, we will participate in the judgment of the world and enjoy forever. bliss. These beliefs are scattered in various ways. other-khr. memorable., appearing even earlier. 2nd century, in prop., apocalypses, last. both Apol., and Celsus himself, their furious contempt for the shameless. and the Christian’s ridiculous claims are nowhere expressed so clearly as in this point (Origen, – Against Celsus, IV, 28) (Harnack, VI 1, p. 144) (cf. Tertullian, – Against the Jews, 2, – Mi lat. pr., T. 2, coll. 637 B, C, 638 B, C, 639 A, etc.) Method. Olymp., Andrey Kes. etc. About the Hypostases Ave. Origen argues about the Trinity: “When we say: “always”, “was”, or admit some. another designation of time, then this must be taken simply and figuratively. meaning, because all these expressions have a temporary meaning, and the objects we are talking about only in words admit of times. designations, by their nature, surpass any thought about time” (On the beginning, I, 3, § 4. - Mi gr., T. 11, col. 150). So, should we say about God: “He was,” or “He is,” or “He will be”? - In essence - neither this, nor the other, nor the third. But it is also impossible to say the opposite, i.e., that “He was not,” or that “He is not,” or that “He will not be.” God is neither “was” nor “was not”; neither “is” nor “is not”; neither “will be” nor “will not be.” After all, all these words express different relationships between Time and what is in Time - they determine the relationship of moments of Time to “now”. God is not in Time (for to be in Time means to belong to the world), so He cannot be correlated with “now,” and therefore, neither “was,” nor “is,” nor “will be” is applicable to Him. But, being part of the world, He does not leave the world without Himself and appears to the world; His appearance is in Time, and therefore it is incorrect to say about God “was not,” and “is not,” and “will not be.” He is neither “was” nor “was not,” but He is also “was” and “was not”; He neither “is” nor “is not,” but He also “is” and “is not”; He neither “will” nor “will not,” but He also “will” and “will not.” In short, He, although not in Time, - for Eternity is not in Time, - however, is not outside of Time, for Time is in Eternity. Of all the verbal forms of the word “to be,” which at the same time have tenses (such as: the perfect form, indicating the completeness of an action or state, the imperfect form, indicating their incompleteness, the multiple form, indicating their indefinite repetition), not one should be said about God. But those - conceivable - types that take the verbal theme abstractly from Time, that is, without distinguishing tenses, should not be said about Him. Only a special verb aspect is applicable to God - the eternal aspect, indicating an action or state no longer in Time, but in Eternity. The Russian language is richer than others. languages ​​in that it generally preserved the idea of ​​verbal aspect, so inherent in the most ancient languages, and retained some of the types. But we do not find this eternal type of verb in our native language, just as we do not find it in Western languages. To find this species, we must turn to the East, namely to the Assyrian language. There were three verbal types, and they are: perfect form, to denote a completed action, that is, associated with a certain time; imperfect view, to denote an unfinished action, i.e., relating to an indefinite time and, finally, eternal view, to denote a timeless or super-temporal action. Western scientists who do not and cannot have a sense and habit of appearance, due to the lack of it in all verbs except Slavic. and, partly in Greek, they try to equate these types with times and call them perfectum, imperfectum, or aoristum and finally, permansivum. But they themselves characterize them in such a way that for us, accustomed to species, it becomes obvious that these are not times at all, but species. And in general, since verb tenses are alien to Semitic languages ​​(and all Hebraists admit this, although they still stubbornly talk about praesens or futurum, about imperfectum or aoristum -), then there is little reason to hope to find them in the Assyrian language. As for the permanent that occupies us, “in form it corresponds to the perfect of other Semitic. languages; in meaning it corresponds. participle, used as a predicate, alone or accompanied by a pronoun, in the Aramaic languages... It means states, without specifying the time of the present, past or future. In permanent, distinctions between persons, genders, and numbers are marked by means of endings, which are nothing more than abbreviated personal pronouns" (V. Scheil et C. Fossey, - Grammaire Assyrienne, Paris, 1901, 2-re part. Chp. V, §§ 107–108 - Cp: Joachim Ménant, - Exposé des éléments de la Grammaire Assyrienne, Paris, 1868, 1-re part., Ch. V, § 1 c, pp. 138–141). This eternal form of the verb is applied to the designation of the actions of the heavenly world. “The word “simple” has in our language. there are so many meanings that it must be used very carefully if you want to be clear: simple means: 1 – stupid; 2 – generous; 3 – frank; 4 – trusting; 5 – uneducated; 6 – straight; 7 – naive; 8 – rough; 9 – not proud; 10 – although smart, but not cunning. Please understand this word exactly! That’s why I don’t love him” (K. [N.] Leontyev, - About Vl. Solovyov and the aesthetics of life, M., 1912. Letter 1, dated January 24, 1891, p. 8). In view of this suggestiveness of the word “simplicity” it is useful to be specific. outline it in its highest, ascetic meaning. – So, who is characterized by simplicity? “There is humility from the fear of God, and there is humility out of love for God: some humble themselves out of fear of God, others out of joy. And the humble through the fear of God is accompanied at all times by modesty in all members, decorum of feelings and a contrite heart, and the humble by joy is accompanied by great simplicity, a growing and uncontrollable heart” (Isaac the Syrian, - Sl. 89th, and according to the ed. Theot. - 58th. “Tvor.”, ed. 3, Serg. Pos., 1911, p. 421). Simplicity is the source and root of purity. “Purity is oblivion of the ways of leading through nature, borrowed from nature in the world. And in order to free yourself from them and become outside of them, this is the limit: to come to the original simplicity and original gentleness of your nature and become like a baby, only without infantile shortcomings. ... Abba Sisoes came to this measure in such a way that he asked the disciple: “Did I eat or not?” And another one of the Fathers came to such simplicity and almost infantile innocence that he completely forgot everything here, so that he would have eaten before Communion if his disciples had not prevented him from doing so; and how his disciples brought the baby to Communion. So, for the world he was a baby, but for God he was a perfect soul” (id., cl. 21st, according to Theot. - 85th, “Creative”, p. 97). Erm, – Past., View V 7, Funk, S. 164. id., View III 8, SS. 156–157. id., View I 1–2, SS. 144–146. id., Under X 3, SS. 237–238. Athanasius V., - To Bishop Serapion. message to Tmuy 126. S. Athanasii Arich. Alexandr. Opera Omnia … opera et studio Monachorum Ordinis s. Benedicti, Parisiis, 1798, T. 12, p. 675. His is the 2nd word in Arian. 78–79,. T. I 1, pp. 545–547. Wed. I. V. Popov, – Religious. ideal of St. Afan. V. Serg. Pos., 1904 (= “B.V.”, 1903–1904). – His own, – Notes, pp. 153–168. There is no such footnote in the original. P. Florensky, – Joy forever, Serg. Pos., 1907. Grieg. Nis. , – Mi gr., T. 46, col. 245. Makariy V., – Bes. 7 3. – Mi gr., T. 46, col. 245. Grieg. God. , – Gnomic couplets, art. 44. – Mi gr., T. 37, col. 914. Two circles last St. Clement Rimsk. About virginity or To virgins and virgins. Last 1st, ch. 5 (“Tr. Kyiv. Spirit. Ak.”, 1869, T. II, p. 205). However, in Latin. translation Cardinal Villecourt, made from Sirsk. text, the end of this passage has a different meaning, and to them: “Nunc quae te sors beata in coelesti Jerusalem maneat, perpendisti?” (Mi gr., T. 1, col. 390). Isaac Sir. , – Sl. 5, in r. p., ed. 2nd, 1893, p. 37 (Theot. - 44th, σσ. 275–276). Wed: Sl. 9, p. 54 (Theot. - Sl. 7, 656); Sl. 34, pp. 154, 155–156 (Theot. – Sl. 37, σσ. 235–236, 238–239); Sl. 57, p. 294 (Theot. - Sl. 57, σ. 77). id., Sl. 68. p. 347 (Theot. - Sl. 2, σσ. 12–13). Printed in italics represents the names of the various revealed icons of the Mother of God. Other magnifications of Her are taken from church hymns. – The icons of B.M. are described in many ways. work. Let's call it some. from them, borrowing some of the instructions from the article: Sergius, Archbishop. Vladimirsky, – Russian lit. about the icons of St. Mother of God (“The Wanderer”, 1900, June-July). - Archim. Ioannikiy Golyatovsky, - New heaven, created with new stars, that is, blessed. Virgin Mary with her miracles. It was published many times - in 1662, 1667, 1699. – Gr. Sveshnikov, - Description of the appearances of the miraculous icons of the Most Holy. Mother of God, 1838. – Jer. Sergius, Treasury. Tr.-Ser. Laurel, – Image of icons of the Most Holy. Mother of God, 1848, 2nd ed., 1853 [continued. previous]. – S.I. Ponomarev, – Alphabetical list of icons of the Mother of God, ed. in "Pilgrim", 1889 - Archbishop. Demetrius, - Mesyatseslov, 1893 et ​​seq. gg. – Tales of the earthly life of St. Mother of God, 1897, ed. 7th, Pantel. Athos. mon. Appl here. “Church.-Slav. and Russian lit. about B. M.”, since 1611. This list was replenished in: P. S. Kazansky, - Greatness of the Most Rev. Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary, 1845. – His own, – Glory to the Most Holy. Vlad. our Bogor. and Prisnod. Mary, 1853 [cont. prev]. - His, - The benefits of the Mother of God to the Christian family through Her holy icons, 1891 [cont. prev]. – Sofia Snessoreva, – Earthly life of the Most Rev. Our Lady, 1891. – Rohault de Fleury, – La sainte Vierge, Paris, 1878, 2 vol. The icon of “Tenderness” is remarkable in that on it B.M. is depicted without the Child and even before His conception - at the moment of the “Archangel joy”, i.e. as the Most Pure Vessel of the Holy Spirit. Before her, the Venerable Seraphim had seven lamps lit, occupying almost the entire cell - and this again signifies the Holy Spirit in His seven gifts - the seven highest spirits. Here is a significant plan of the Reverend’s cell, as drawn by N. A. Motovilov (S. Nilus, - Great in Small, 2nd ed., Tsarsk Selo, 1905. “Servant of the Mother of God and the Seraphim”, IV, p. 110): A – Entrance door to the cell, B and C – windows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – large candlesticks with lit candles; 8 – table and on it an icon of the Mother of God of the Joy of all Joys; 9 – bench on which Father slept; 10 – stone that served as his head; 11 – tiled bed; 12 – canopy, cat. subsequently the coffin of the Reverend stood. “Motovilov’s mother, when he was still a child, took him with her to this cell. One day, a child, amazed by the abundance of candles, began to run and frolic in his cell. His mother stopped him with reproach, but Father objected: “The Angel of God is playing with the little one, mother! How can I stop the child in his careless games!.. Play, play, baby! Christ is with you! (id., pp. 110–111). - About the fact that Rev. commanded that the icon of “Tenderness” be called “the Joy of all Joys” [here – B.M.’s rapprochement with the Comforter, id., “Trip to the Sarov Hermitage”, XVII, p. 80. Ἐπὶ σοὶ χαίρει, Κεχαριτωμένη, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις, Ἀγγέλων τὸ σύστημα, καὶ ἀνθρώπων τὸ γένος … Ἐπὶ σοὶ χαίρει, Κεχαριτωμένη, πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις δόξα σοι» (Εἰρμολόγιον, ἔκδοσις Ἰωάν. ἐν Ἀθήναις, 1906, σ. Ἐπὶ σοὶ χαίρει, i.e. He rejoices in You, You are the source and subject of joy: χαίρειν ἐπί τινι or ἐν τινι - to rejoice over something or whom. It is remarkable, further, the convergence of “joy” and “blessing” - this is one verb, χαίρω. Therefore, the meaning can be conveyed as follows: “By You, the creature that has received the Comforter receives Him...”. Πασά ή κτίσις – a whole creature, a creature as a single organism, but not “every one”. Ἀγγέλων τὸ σύστημα - in a word, “cathedral” is poorly conveyed, because “σὸύστημα – ὁλὸτης ἥ σῶμα ἐκ πολλὼν μερῶν-μελῶν ἤ πρωσόπων συνισταμένον ἤ συντιθεμένον, “κόσμος” (Anthim Gazi, T. 3, στ. 529), is again a wholeness, not a sum. Ανθρώπων τὸ γένος - the human race, as something unified, the prius of each person. So, all created being, as a single Being, spiritualized by the Bearer of the Spirit. – Wed. image “He rejoices in You”: Dionysius Furnoagrafiot, - Erminia or instruction in the art of painting, 1701–1733. Trans. Porphyria, Bp. Chigirinsk., Kyiv, 1868, pp. 155–156. Part 3, V 11. When in 1780 the young man Prokhor, later. Rev. Seraphim, during an illness, B.M. appeared, then she said, pointing her finger at Prokhor, to John the Theologian: “This one is of our kind.” These same words were spoken by Her about another ascetic, namely, about 80 years old. elder archimandrite Paisii, in Tr.-Ser. Lavre." Talk about this. hierome Joasaph in anonymous. book: “The Life of Elder Seraphim, Sarov Monastery of Hierom., Desert Dweller and Recluse”, St. Petersburg, 1863, p. 25 and approx. – However, these cases cannot be ruled out; others could also be indicated. Athos. Paterik, Part I, pp. 78–135, 171–178. The exclamation: “Rejoice at the pillar of virginity - χαῖρε ή στήλη τῆς παρθενίας” (Εἰρ., σ. 205) is in Akathist B.M., ik. 10, and there it was added from the Word on the Annunciation of John Chrysostom (Makaryevsk. Chetya Menaion, fol. 602, 604, 616. - In the Russian paragraph “Creations” Ioan. Zl., St. Petersburg, 1896, T. II 2, pp. 854–857 this saying is not found. However, no trace. this is spiritual. warehouse to look for the basis is certainly physiological. Nilus, – id, Servant B.M., IX [need X], pp. 125–128. This is the truth about B.M., which the Catholics crudely and rationally expressed with their dogma immaculatae conceptionis. See: Prot. A. Lebedev, – Differences in Eastern churches. and Zap. in school about Pr. To the Virgin Mary Bog., T. I: On the Immaculate Conception, St. Petersburg, 1903, ed. 2nd. Kan. Hodegetria, item 8, Theotokos. Among the faces of the angels, depict “The Mother of God with outstretched arms and write above her: Mother of God, Lady of the Angels” (Dion. Furnoagraph., Part 4 1, p. 233). Nikolai Kavasila, – Explanation of the deities. Liturgy, 38 (“Writings of the Holy. oo.”, T. 3, p. 385). Ignatius Bogon. , – Letter to Ap. and Ev. John the Theologian, – Mi gr., T. 5, coll. 941–944. His, - Letter to St. Virgin Mary – id., coll. 943–944. Rev. Virgin Mary, – Response letter to Ignatius Bogon., id., coll. 945–946. Dionysius Areops., - On the Divine Names (Quoted from: R. de Fleury, T. I, p. X, § 12, pp. 237–238. Nikifor Callistus borrowed. Epiphanius has his description, - Letter to Theophilus: about icons. Transl. Epiphanius's text is placed in Vel. Thu-Min. Macaria, ed. 1868, Sept., pp. 363ff. Ambr. Honey , – About virgins, II, 67. That is why recognition or non-recognition of the cry: “Most Holy Theotokos, save us!” determines the Orthodoxy or non-Orthodox state of mind (p. 358, cf. The famous N.N. Neplyuev, who was long suspected of being a Protestant, spoke out quite sincerely, indignant that “this exclamation of “save us” addressed to a simple woman seems blasphemy to him.” Yes, it was, is and will be inevitable when B.M. is recognized as a “simple woman.” But She is the Church, and The Church rejects Protestantism; this is the whole point. Ambr. Honey , – About virgins. About widows. About virginity. About raising a virgin. An exhortation to virginity. On the Fall of the Virgin (Mi lat. pr., T. 16. - “Creations of St. Ambros. Med. on the issue of virginity and marriage, in Russian translation,” translated from Latin by A. Voznesensky, edited by L. Pisarev, Kazan, 1901). Him, - O vosp. virgins V 35. – Mi, col. 314 A. – P. n. page 178. His, - About virgins, 1, 3 11. – Mi, col. 191 S. – R. n. page 6. Him, - O vosp. virgins, VII 50. Mi, col. 319 A. – R. n. page 184 id., VII 50, col. 319 A, B. – pp. 184–185. id., XIII 81, col. 325 A, page 193. id., XIII 81, id., cf. Ch. XIII, col. 324 C – 326 A, pp. 193–194. His, - About virgins, II, 2 6, col. 268 C, pp. 31–32 (II, 1, 6) id., II, 2, 15, col. 210 D, p. 35 (II, 11, 15). id., I, 8 52, coll. 202 C – 203 A, p. 52. Him, - O vosp. virgins XIV 87, col. 326 B page 194. id., XIV 89, Mi 326 C – 327 A, p. 195. Eg. him, - Admonition. to the maiden X 66, pp. 234–235. id., XV 93–94, coll. 327 C – 328 A, pp. 196–197. His, - About virgins, I, 3 12, col. 192 A, p. 7. id., I, 5 22, col. 195A, page 10. id., I, 6 31, col. 197 C, pp. 14, 15. A. S. Khomyakov, – Experience of catechetical teaching about the Church, § 9 (“Collected works”, Prague, 1867, T. 2, p. 18). I mean the application of the name Sophia-Wisdom to the twelve-year-old Jesus Christ, teaching in the Jerusalem temple (Ipatiev fold. “Vestn. archaeological and historical publishing. Archaeological. Inst.” 1885, issue IV, p. 22, table V, 2) and to Jesus Christ distributing St. bread and cup (icon of Pinsk prince Theodore Iv. Yaroslavich 1499–1522, “Archaeol. Bulletin”, T. I, p. 193. M. 1867). See N. Pokrovsky, - “The Gospel in Iconographic Monuments”, St. Petersburg, 1892, p. 375. - Among the exceptional options is a miniature from the 12th or perhaps 11th century manuscript of “Psychomachy” by Prudentius, stored in the palace library of St. Peter in Lyon. The image that interests us is placed among a number of allegorical miniatures. It represents Jesus Christ with a cross-shaped halo seated in a segment; the face of the Lord, approximately thirty years old, with a beard. Stretching out both hands, He seems to be handing over: with his right hand a book, and with his hand a scroll. Next to Him there is an inscription in large letters: “SANCTA SOPHIA.” According to Didron's explanation, this symbol expresses the fullness of understanding given by Wisdom, for here are represented the two most common types of manuscript - Her instruments - namely the scroll and the book. According to the instructions of Guyom Durand (G. Durand, - Rat. div. offi. lib. I, cap. III), a scroll is placed in the hand of the Old Testament prophets in images, while in the hand of the evangelists, as those who possessed complete knowledge of God, and not figurative, a book is placed, since a book, larger in volume and capable of containing greater content, is an attribute of perfect wisdom. However, this instruction of the Western symbolist is only partly true, for there are cases when prophets were depicted with books and, conversely, apostles with a scroll. For an image of the miniature we are examining, see the book: M. Didron. – Iconographie chrétienne. Histoire de Dieu. Paris, 1843, pp. 160–161; Fig. 50. Ep. Vissarion [Nechaev], – Icons and other priests. images in Russian Church (in the collection “Spiritual Food”, 2nd ed., M., 1891, p. 284) calls this Sophia of Kholmogory. “Complaint of the Annunciation priest Selivester” ([Bodyansky]. Moscow cathedrals against heretics of the 16th century in the reign of Ivan Vasilyevich the Terrible, M., 1847, p. 20. Acts of the Archaeographer. Expeditions, T. I, p. 248). Novgorod. III chronicle, under the year 7050. Tolstoy, p. 241. – Arsenyev, pp. 263–264. – Filimonov, pp. 5–6. – Nikolsky, p. 291. The icon on the Novgorod binding is described here. Synod of the 17th century – [Muravyev], – pp. 553–554. I also used some icons of Sophia of Novgorod: in the Assumption Cathedral of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra (1st tier of the iconostasis, 2nd icon to the right of the Royal Doors); in the Kostroma Assumption Cathedral (the murals of the vestibule, at the entrance, on the right and on the outer altar wall - northern, which is a remarkable feature of this church); in the Church Museum at Moscow. Spirit. Academies; in the side porch of the Trinity Cathedral of the Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra; in the Moscow Tretyakov Gallery (No. 54); – murals of the Moscow Assumption Cathedral: in the Church Museum at the Kyiv Spirituality. Academician (No. 2570, folded), etc. Dahl (St. Petersburg, 1866, part I, p. 384 = 3rd ed., vol. 4, column 606) gives a different explanation. He connects the word toroki or torotsi not with toroka or toroko - straps behind the saddle, for fastening - but with toroki, which in the Arkhangelsk dialect means a gust, a blow of the wind, a squall. From here Dahl says that “toroki and torotsi, iknpsn. - the current of Divine hearing, depicted on icons in the form of a radiant stream, current, rays,” although the usual meaning for toroki is also given below - ribbon, ribbon. You can also point out that the word torn or sticking out (from sticking out?) means raised to the top, twisted (for example, “torched mustache”). (I.F. Naumov, - Additions and notes to Dahl's Explanatory Dictionary. Appendix to XXIV T. Zap. Imp. Ak. N. No. 1, St. Petersburg. 1874, p. 37). There is another understanding of these circles. According to him, “concentric circles, or cross-sectional spheres, with which the Savior is always surrounded on the most ancient icons, symbolized the concentration of all Divine properties in the First-born, such as: wisdom, omnipotence, justice, mercy, royal power, strength, glory, etc., presented in the form of circles from one center described. And such properties were also signified by three rays near His head, with the name of God: “He who exists (ὁ Ὤν).” (Vas. Arsenyev, p. 261). N. Pokrovsky, - The Gospel in monuments of iconography and art, ed. 2nd, St. Petersburg, 1892, pp. 374–375 – His own, – Essays on monuments of Christian iconography and art, ed. 2nd, St. Petersburg, 1900, pp. 426–427, 433. Details. see Filimonov, pp. 15–18. This is the icon of Sophia, located in Optina Pustyn in the cell of Fr. Abbot M. This icon is of fine, Italian, apparently, work (judging by the writing technique and by the inscriptions - Greek and Slavic, which were made so illiterately that they show the icon painter’s complete ignorance of these languages). – I saw something like this icon back in Tiflis. Church Music at Sionsk. Collection, in Metropolitan. pok. St.-Tr. Serg. Love. and some other places. So - on the Kyiv icon; On the one described, not everything can be made out due to the smallness of the images. [Priest. Al. Sulotsky], – A short description of all the churches existing in Tobolsk, and a lengthy description of the Tobolsk St. Sophia Cathedral, M., 1852. In Tobolsk. personal There are two icons of Sophia, one local, the other small. Details. from: Filimonova, p. 20; Lebedintseva, pp. 556 ff.; Orlovsky, pp. 50–52; Bolkhovitinova, pp. 16 ff.; Tolstoy, pp. 458–460; Muravyova, p. 553. Riza origin. later. F. I. Buslaev, – Person. Apoc.. A.I. Kirpichnikov, - The Dormition of the Mother of God in legend and in art (“Proceedings of the VI Archaeological Congress in Odessa; 1884”, Odessa, 1888, p. 227). From the attached. diagrams you can see this permeation of the entire iconostasis of Kiev-Sof. Sob. apocalyptic spirit and, from here, be convinced of the apocalyptic moment of the idea and icon of Sophia. The icons are arranged like this: A – ik. Savior. B – ik. Mother of God, with the inscription: “The Queen appears at my right hand,” so that B.M. is identified with the “Bride” of Ps.44 (according to Hebrew accounts - 45:11). V – ik. Sophia of Wisdom. D – Emmaus group and the inscription: “There I am in the midst of them,” that is, again the mysterious glow of transfigured flesh. But the iconostasis is given a special tone. medallions located under the icons listed above. and, unfortunately, inconveniently visible from behind bars. and depicts eight angels near the altar with a blazing flame. One of them pours out flame from an amphora on a chain, and the chain is wrapped around the angel’s hand; two other angels receive trumpets from hands reaching out from behind a cloud; finally, the five others blow the trumpets; under the icon is the signature: “And incense smoke came out through the prayers of the saints from the hand of an Angel before God. Apocalypse I." b them. caption: “And the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, so that God could soar into the desert. Apoc. DB." At the top of the icon is a standing Woman with a Child. Both of them extend their hands upward, towards the left corner of the composition, where a light-raying triangle is depicted. The Wife turned her head to the right, as if praying for the Wife standing to her right, standing on the moon. This one, the second one, has a female one. the figure on the head is a crown, and on the back is an angel. wings. Her hands are folded in prayer, and her face is turned to the left, either to the Woman and Child, or to the Triangle. At the bottom of the icon are the Archangel, armed. shield and knightly a helmet covered in ostrich feathers; in his right hand there is something like fiery feathers, with which he strikes the Seven-Headed Beast located to his right, emerging from the abyss. Under the Archangel there is a space filled with fire, and on the right, that is, under the beast, there are dark waves. Finally, under the shining Triangle, the Symbol of the Trinity, above the Archangel there is some kind of yellow (golden?) image with a vertical. in writing; but I could not make out either the image or the writing, because the lattice in front of the icon was in the way. M. b., it is permissible to make the assumption that this is the Jerusalem of Heaven. – By the way, I note that in the St. Sophia Cathedral there is another Sophia image - a mural above the gates of the fence. And in the Church of the Tithes, in the left - northern - limit on the royal doors of the time of Peter the Mogila - the same Sophia icon of the Mother of God, but without such writing and without the surrounding figures; this is a simplified composition of Sophia of Kyiv. “The figure of the Mother of God, depicted in colossal proportions at the end of our apse, stands on the foot with her arms raised upward, in the type that is known in Christian iconography under the name of oranta, and in scenes of the Ascension as an image of the church on earth. This double characteristic of the female figure in the scenes of the Ascension is also stated in the monuments. Starting with the scene on the doors of the Church of St. Sabina, where each figure in the form of an oranta is crowned with a diadem by the Apostles Peter and Paul, in the monuments of subsequent times, for example. in the Syriac Gospel, we see the same figure of Oranta. On a vessel from the city of Monza (VI century), a dove is depicted above the head of the oranta, symbolically merging the scene of the Ascension with the Descent of St. Spirit, for a more complete expression of the triumph of the church left on earth... In monuments from IX to XI centuries. on the sides of the oranta we sometimes meet only two Apostles Peter and Paul, as representatives of the church ex gentibus and ex circumcisione, standing on its sides as a symbol of the church in general (for example, on a stone chair in the Novgorod church). As a symbol of the church, the oranta is noted in other ways: in the miniatures of the Armenian Gospel of the 10th century. monastery of St. Lazarus, Peter and Paul reverently stretch out their hands, covered with cloaks, to the oranta, as if to receive consecration. Often it also stands on a raised platform, as with us and as we find in the Greek manuscript Imper. Publ. Bible No. 105, in the fresco scene of the Ascension of the Old Ladoga Church, our Cathedral, etc. Along with scenes where this figure is characterized as a church on earth, we have examples where she is characterized as Mary. “Hence, therefore, in general in the scenes of the Ascension the central figure, given in one way or another, contains the meaning of both the church on earth and the Mother of God, or better: the image of the church, specifically given in the image of Mary” (D. Ainalov and E. Redin, - Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral. Study of ancient mosaic and fresco painting. St. Petersburg, 1889, VII, pp. 39–40; discharge mine). This image of Mary Oranta has been revived and spread since the year 431, that is, from the Council of Ephesus, “due to the growth of veneration of the Mother of God.” “The Mother of God praying is actually the Virgin Mary, while Mary and the Child is the image of the Mother of God. The Most Pure Virgin was revered as the intercessor of kings - and in general as “The Virgin who raised her most pure hands for us” (id., pp. 40 ff.). So, the general conclusion is this: “the image of Mary in the Ascension scene among the 12 apostles indicates the historical fact of the founding of the church, and Mary, therefore, appears here with a hidden symbolic meaning of the image of the earthly church. Isolated as a separate and independent image from the Ascension scene, it acquires a more special character, like the Intercessor, while retaining its original meaning. In this relation to the domed composition, as an intercessor before the face of Christ the Pantocrator, she is depicted at the end of the altar apse; in this regard she was depicted in the altar apse of the New Basilica. The general inscription, taken from Psalm 45:6 of David and made in mosaic over the image of the Most Pure Virgin of our cathedral, according to the literal understanding of the Greek text, is attributed to Mary. The inscription likens it to the Heavenly City, from which Christ came to save the world, and reads like this: βοηθήσει αὐτῇ θεὸς ἡμέρᾳ καὶ ἡμέρᾳ, i.e. God is in the midst of Her (him) and does not move; God will help her (him) day and day. This inscription establishes the constant presence of God in the midst of Her as an earthly church, and expresses unceasing help to the members of the Church, whose intercessor she is. The Virgin Mary is depicted on a golden background. The lilac purple maforium falls luxuriantly from the shoulders; The blue purple table is belted and split into many folds. We see these clothes on the Mother of God very early: she is already dressed like this on the doors of the church. St. Sabina. The maforium is colored in gold, trimmed with gold braid and fringe; on the forehead and on the shoulders there are three white crosses, on the arms there is a golden cross. – On the feet of the Mother of God are red boots, adopted by her as a queen, according to the custom accepted in Byzantium, which allowed people of royal origin to wear rich red shoes. The footstool on which the Mother of God stands (σκάμνιον) is a feature of religious reverence: through it the image is secluded and elevated above other images” (id., pp. 41–42). N.P. Kondakov, - Byzantine churches, Odessa, 1886, p. 28. Writer of the 14th century, Const. Patriarch Philotheus, in the spirit of the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas interprets Wisdom as “the general action of the consubstantial and indivisible Trinity.” “Σοφία ... ἡ κοινὴ τῆς ὁμοουσίου καὶ ἀδιαιρέτου Τριάδος, τῆς μιᾶς "" (Bishop Arseny, - Philotheus, Patr. Const. three speeches to Bishop Ignatius: with an explanation of the saying in parables: Wisdom created a house for herself, etc. Greek text and Russian translation, Novgorod, 1898, p. 103, ff. III 3). This interpretation, in essence, is very close to the understanding of Wisdom as the Church. Zap. Imp. Arch. Islands, VIII, 254. The Russian people had the rare good fortune to receive a blessing at a time when the features of national self-determination had hardly yet had time to be expressed. The Church here does not collide with either the established teaching or the rich cult of any other religion; does not find ingrained moral habits or state aspirations. The tongue itself, still unsullied and flexible, trustingly allows itself to be transformed into a vessel of grace. In a word, the church enters the souls of infants, and all their further growth, all their internal dispensation took place under the direct guidance of the Church. It is quite clear that the national spirit, so formed, could not help but be essentially Orthodox. If we add here the natural gentleness of the Russian character, it will become quite clear that Orthodoxy should have been imprinted on this wax with all the features of the transmission to which Providence destined the first teacher of the Slavs, the spiritual parent of the Russian people, St. Equal to the Apostles Constantine, in mon. Kirill. – What is the peculiarity of his spiritual make-up? - His entire life is permeated with Sophia tones. This is not an Egyptian or Palestinian Abba, who in his exhaustion found his salvation, but a man of royal wealth and splendor, who with his life blesses not the cutting off, but the transformation of the fullness of being. Not a sharp turn from sin to purity is characteristic of the feat of St. Constantine, but a blessed continuity in his growth. His parent, a noble and rich nobleman named Leo, and his mother Mary lived piously, fulfilling all the commandments of God. Constantine, a royal name, was the seventh son (7 is the number of Sophia). When his mother, upon birth, gave him to a nurse to feed him, he did not want to feed on someone else’s milk, but only on his mother’s milk (the blessing of nepotism). With the birth of Constantine, his parents made a vow to live like brother and sister, and so they lived for fourteen (14 = 7 × 2) years until their death. At the age of seven, Konstantin had a dream (mystical sensitivity) and told it to his father and mother, namely in the following. words: “The voivode, the strategist of our city, gathered all the girls of our city and said to me: “Choose from among them whomever you want to help you and be your peer.” I looked around, looked at them all and noticed one, the most beautiful of all, with a luminous face, decorated with many golden monists and pearls and ornaments; her name was Sophia. I chose her." The parents realized that the Lord was giving the child the Virgin Sophia, i.e. Wisdom, they rejoiced in spirit and with diligence began to teach Constantine not only book reading, but also godly good morals - spiritual wisdom. “Son,” they said to Constantine in the words of Solomon, “honor the Lord and you will be strengthened; keep the commandments and you will live; write the words of God on the tablet of your heart; Nartsy Wisdom will be your sister, but we know Reason [i.e. i.e. close ones, relatives] do for you (Prov. 7:1–4). Wisdom shines brighter than the sun, and if you have it as your assistant, it will save you from much evil.” It is known what successes this youth showed in his studies, especially in the study of St. Gregory the Theologian. He studied Homer, geometry, dialectics and philosophy under the guidance of Leo and Photius, of whom the second was the Patriarch of Constantinople. In addition, he studied rhetoric, arithmetic, astronomy, the art of music and in general all secular sciences and knew, in addition to Greek, Latin, Syriac, etc. He was nicknamed the Philosopher. Although he was brought up at the royal court, under the personal supervision of the emperor, he remembered his girlfriend. Having refused a noble, rich and beautiful bride, he was elevated to the rank of priest and made a librarian at the Church of St. Sofia. It was from this chosen one of Sophia that Russian Orthodoxy began. Is it surprising that She who chose Constantine to enlighten the Russian people and encouraged him to this feat, became, especially at first, the special Patroness of the newly enlightened infant people and that her icon first appeared here and became a national shrine? It is also not surprising that the churches of the Assumption, Annunciation, etc. initially they were Sophia and only later - as A.P. Golubtsov repeatedly conveyed his conviction to me - were they dedicated to moments in the life of the Mother of God. - Oh St. Constantine, see: O. Bodyansky, - Extensive or Pannonian Lives of Constantine the Philosopher (“Read in the Imp. General History and Other Ros”, 1863, book 2, pp. 1–224; 1864, book 2, pp. 225–398; 1873, book 1, pp. 399–534). Pokrovsky, F. [I.] Buslaev, – Histor. essays, St. Petersburg, 1861, T. 2, About min. Uglich. psalt. – E. [K.] – Redin, – Ancient gods (planets) in the front manuscripts of the work of Kozma Indikoplov (“Zap. class. department. Imperial Russian. Arch. Islands”, T. 1, St. Petersburg, 1904, pp. 33–43). There are still some names here. personifications (Galgal, Jericho, Guy, Gevol, Source, Mount Gemskahor, Εὕρεσις, Φρόνησις, Μεγαλοψυχία, etc.) and then the personifications of the planets are studied: the Moon, the Sun, Kron, Aphrodite, Zeus, Arris and Hermis. A. P. Golubtsov, - Cathedral officials, 1st half. research, M., 1907, p. 23, note. - In “Sl. Sof.”, page 9, pes. 4, trop. 2: “The wisdom of God is a mystery for all man to see.” In the 9th Epistle, Dion. Areop. also interprets Wisdom as Providence. Other: Golubtsov, – id., pp. 21–24. Wed. “Sl. Sof.”, p. 11, can., pes. 6, cond.: “We see the miraculous icon of the Wisdom of God, His Most Pure Mother of God.” “The Legend Knows” Ch. 14, page 1. They are silent about the meaning of St. Sophia, a question so natural when describing the church, and the 7th century bishop Arculf, whose legend was preserved in the notes of Adamnan, and the writer of the half of the 9th century Bernard the Wise, and the highly educated Bishop Liutprand, who visited Constantinople twice, in 948-950 in the 968-969s, and the entire extensive series of writers stretching to end of the 12th century. Those Westerners who came with the troops that conquered Constantinople, in particular, the most prominent of them, who described in detail the capture of Constantinople by the Latins, Villegarduin, do not say anything in their notes about the issue that concerns us. Northern travelers, in whose notes there are interesting testimonies about Constantinople, also do not report anything about the main religious idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthis city. Thus, Abbot Nicholas, in his Itinerary, gets off with the remark: “In Maclagard there is a church called Agiosophia, and by northern people Aegisit, and this church in structure and size is superior to all the churches on earth” (Werlauff, - Symbolae, 10) - and nothing more. There is nothing added to his notes either. These are facts before which a historian cannot help but stop in amazement! I borrow this information from the abstract: I. I. Sreznevsky, - St. Sophia of Constantinople according to the description. rus. pilgrim at the end of the 12th century. - “Tr. third arch. Congress in Russia, former in Kyiv in Aug. 1874”, Kyiv, 1878, T. 1, pp. 105–106). Sreznevsky says that he reviewed all the descriptions “that he could get his hands on” (id., p. 104). Robert de Clary, – Li prologues de Constantinoble comment ele fu prise (according to the editor of Gr. de Rian, – Li estoires de chians qui conquisent Constantinoble de Robert de Clari en Aminois, chevalier, s.a. p. 67 – according to the editor of K. Hopf, – Chroniques Gréco-Romanes inedites ou peu connues, Berlin, 1873, p. 67. Picard’s description of Soph. Translation from Sreznevsky, pp. 107–108. According to the teachings of Vl. Solovyov (“Ros. and all. Ts.” book 3, ch. III-V, pp. 325–353, esp. see pp. 326–327, 328, 331–332, 349), Sophia is not only the ideal personality of the Creature, but also the “Substance of the Most Holy. Trinity" (-did S. want to say: "common energy" or "common grace"? -). There is no need to explain how far apart this teaching about the Essence of God separate from the Hypostases is from the Orthodox teaching of Athanasius V., who firmly stands on the formula ἐκ Πατρός, ἐκ οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός. The rationalism of the S-va reveals itself precisely in the fact that for the S-va it is not a living Personality, not a Hypostasis and not a self-founding Living Trinity that is the beginning and foundation of everything, but a substance from which the Hypostases are already revealed. But this substance is like that. case cannot but be recognized as non-personal, and therefore – material. The philosophy of St., subtly rationalistic in its form, is inevitably a philosophy of things in its content. What S-ev teaches is undoubtedly related to Sabellianism, to Spinozism, to Schellingism, at least in its first phase. – The teaching of the Holy One about Sophia and about the World Soul (these two Persons are sometimes identified and sometimes distinguished by him) is set out in: Volzhsky [A. S. Glinka], – The problem of evil in Vl. S-va (“Issue of Religion”, M., 1906, issue 1, pp. 221–297). Lit. see... You need to add here. also: Book. E. [N.] Trubetskoy, – World Outlook Vl. S. S-eva, M., 1913; E. L. Radlov, Vl. St. Petersburg, St. Petersburg, 1913 – St. calls J. Pordage (1625–1698) “a specialist in Sofia.” Valid, not only by incident. to his theosophist. the system is sophian, but in terms of content it is chap. arr. dedicated to Sophia, if not directly, then indirectly. The revelation that happened to him on June 21, 22 and 23, 1675, is described by him in a small way. op., rus. hands translation cat., kept by me, is entitled: “Sophia the Eternal Virgin of Eternal Wisdom, revealed to John Pordech.” Theosophical teaching about Sophia is developed in particular. in "God" and ist. metaf.”, T. 2, book. 2, ch. 5, dept. 3, §§ 44–58, pp. 202–213. For details, see Sophia-iconographic literature. For the sake of convenience, I present its bibliography, although incomplete (those books or articles that contain drawings on Sofia iconography are marked with asterisks): A. I. Nikolsky, - Article in “Vestn. Archaeol. and ist., publish. Imp. Archaeol. Inst.”, 1906, Issue. 17. (I didn’t manage to see her). – A.I. Uspensky, – Iconography in Russia until the second half of the 17th century (“Golden Fleece”, 1906 No. 7–8-9). – E.K. Redin, – Materials for Byzantine and Old Russian iconography. I. Sophia, Wisdom of God. (“Archaeological News and Notes.” T. I, M., 1893). – Gr. M. [V.] Tolstoy, - Icons of Sophia, - The Wisdom of God (“Soul. Read.” 1890, Part I, pp. 240–241, 458–460). – V. Arsenyev, – About Church icon painting (“Soul. Reading.” 1890, Part I, pp. 263–265). - Priest Theological, - St. Sophia in Veliky Novgorod (“Christ. Read.” 1877, Part I, pp. 188–189, 191, 201). – Gr. M. [V.] Tolstoy, - Letters from Kyiv (“Soul. Reading.” 1870, Part II. “Izvestia Notes,” pp. 69–71). - Prot. Peter Orlovsky, - St. Sophia of Kiev, now the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral, ed. 2nd, 1901 - Sakharov, - Studies on Russian icon painting, book. 2, pp. 30–34. – P. G. Lebedintsev, – About St. Sofia of Kyiv. (“Proceedings of the III Archaeological Congress in Kyiv in 1874”, T. I. Kyiv, 1878). – [Prot.] P. L[ebedintsev], – Sophia the Wisdom of God in the iconography of the North and South of Russia (“Kievsk. Starina”, T. 10, 1884, September, pp. 555–567). – G. D. Filimonov, – Essays on Russian Christian iconography. Sophia the Wisdom of God (“Vest. General. Old Russian Art at the Moscow. Publ. Museum.” No. 1–3, 1874, M., pp. 1–20). - “The legend is known that Sophia is the wisdom of God” and the Legend of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople (ibid., “Materials”, pp. 1–17). - A. [P.] Golubtsov, - Cathedral Officials and features of service according to them, M., 1907, pp. 13–32 ff. – *N. [V.] Pokrovsky, - The Gospel in iconographic monuments mainly Byzantine and Russian, St. Petersburg, 1892. pp. 374 ff. XXXV-XXXVI, 207, etc. – *Metropolitan. Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov, – Description of the Kiev Sophia Council and the Kyiv Hierarchy, Kyiv 1825, pp. 16 ff. – F. [I.] Buslaev, – Historical Essays Russian. adv. literature and art, St. Petersburg, 1861, T. 2, pp. 294–298. - Priest Konstantin Nikolsky, - Anathematization performed in the first week of Great Lent, St. Petersburg, 1879, appendix, p. 291 ff. – Vl. WITH. Soloviev, - The Idea of ​​Humanity in August Comte, IX (“Collected Works” Vol. 8, St. Petersburg, pp. 240–241). – *E. M. Kuzmin, – Icon of St. Sophia and her explanations. "Bulletin of Theosophy" 1909, I, pp. 1–3 [an attempt to interpret Sophia in the spirit of Theosophy]. – Ave. F. I. Titov, - Sermon on the Day of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary. (About the true Wisdom of God - St. Sophia and about the errors of modern theosophy) (“Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, 1910, October, 10, pp. I-VII) [against the previous article]. - Bishop. Vissarion, - “Icons and other sacred images in the Russian Church” (in the collection “Spiritual Food”, ed. 2, Moscow, 1891, pp. 284–286). - [A. N. Muravyov], – Antiquities and symbolism of the Kiev-Sophia Cathedral (“Additions and published works of the holy fathers”, part 18, M., 1859, pp. 553–554). – M. Didron, – Iconographie chrétienne. Histoire de Dieu. Paris; 1843, pp. 160–161. An indication of further bibliography can be found in the sources listed here. I quote only part of the material, some. - by hand Published: “Tale. known,” pp. 1–5; “About the image of Sofia Prem. God., copied from a local image in Vel. Novgorod" (from the RKP. Synod. Bible, containing the Interpretation of Ps. Athan. Alex., No. 238). See: Buslaev, - Essays, pp. 297–298; [A. V. Gorsky and K. I. Novostruev]. Description Hand. Syn. Bibl., dept. 2, p. 74; Nikolsky, - Anaf.; Priest P. Florensky, – Service of Sofia; M. Smentsovsky, – Cer.-ist. mat.. Iconostasis of Tr.-Sergius Usp. Sob.. The Cathedral itself was consecrated. Aug 15 1585 Cited. The text was copied by me several times. years ago. But during the last During the restoration of the Cathedral, the icon was updated and covered with a chasuble, covering the inscription, almost the entire ancient image and, as far as I remember, not completely corresponding to this image. I introduced punctuation in the text. Here what is written to the left of Sophia ends (for the viewer) and begins. written on the right. “Collection. field., canon. and history articles", stored in the Bible. Moscow Spirit. Ak. for No. 10 (175) per ll. 199 rev. – 201 total volumes, or pp. 82 rev. – 84 dan. RKP., written. cursive. “Apokal. intelligent in persons, interpretation of Andrew, Archbishop. Kesar.", written. semi-charter of the XVI century, transferable. in cursive, stored in the same place, under No. 11 (16), - named after. on l. 96 "Add." "Book Alphabet" written. small semi-charter of the 17th century. and storing in the same place, under No. 36 (230), pp. 232–251. Far mixed. – from “Description. Slav. handwritten Bible St.-Tr. Serg. Love.”, M., 1878, part I, pp. 89–90, part III, p. 214. “Apoc. sense Andrea Kes. from approx.", l. 147 "Approx.", RKP. ex. semi-mouth XV century and storage in the Bible St.-Tr. Serg. Love. for No. 122 (1829). "Collection", writing. semi-mouth XVI century, in the same place Bibl., No. 788 (1649); on l. 220 “The Word of St. Sofia." "Service of Sophia the Wisdom of God." Published [according to RKP., accessory. Moscow Sofiysk church on Lubyanka] priest. P. Florensky. St.-Tr. Serg. Lavra, summer , p. 42 (= “God. V.”, 1912, No. 2). – See also: Bp. Vissarion, - Icons, p. 286, pr. 1. - Who compiled the service to Sophia is unknown. At the beginning of the 18th century it already existed. And around November 1707, the brothers Ioannikiy and Sophrony Likhud corrected this service and again wrote the prologue, stichera and canon in honor of Sophia. Metropolitan Job sent this work to the Moscow printing house reference Fyodor Polikarpov “to look and correct, as if he was babbling” (Stroev, - Biblical dictionary, pp. 190, 191; “Stran.” 1861, book I, p. 125). Corrected by the Likhuds, “the troparion and kontakion of Sophia, with a statement about the images and about the cathedral church in Nova Grad and about its creators” are shown in the inventory of the books of Metropolitan. Job (Description of the Arch. St. Syn., T. I, pr. VIII, p. XCV). Meanwhile, not everyone liked the new service, and Ioannikis Likhud wrote a response “about the censure of the newly composed service of Sophia, the Wisdom of God” (Description of the Arch. Holy Syn., Vol. I, pr. VIII, pp. XCIII, XCIV). (I borrow this information from the book: M. Smentsovsky, - Likhud Brothers, St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 349–350). In September 1708, Ioannikiy Likhud completed a new work - “A Solemn Homily about Sophia, the Wisdom of God.” It is partly a historical-archaeological, partly dogmatic treatise. The author’s goal is to explain who and when built the “great and notorious and well-heard church of Constantinople, which exists in the name of Sophia, Prem. God, - and whoever assigned the calico... name to it, and why, for the sake of the Wisdom of God and the Father, it is fiery, in the wings of eagles and in a crown and scepter and in church clothes and in other various signs - on the throne it is beautifully presented to us and is written on the icon.” Judging by the conclusion of the Word, one might think that it was spoken from the church pulpit as a teaching. (M. Smentsovsky, - Likhud Brothers, St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 364–367. An exposition of the Word is also given here. The original text, according to the hand of Moscow. Ruman. Muz. for No. 244, is published in the book: M. Smentsovsky, - Church Historical Materials. St. Petersburg, 1899, pp. 5–32). – I take this opportunity to express my gratitude. N. L. Tunitsky for his pointer to br. Likhudov, as the authors of Sofia's service. Nikolsky, - Anaf., p. 292. - Buslaev, - East. och., T. 2, p. 297. “Sl. Sof.”, can. canto 1, tr. 3: “With all our hearts let us seek the Wisdom of God from the Most Pure Virgin who came into the flesh,” etc. Here, more than anyone else, but completely apart, we must remember the mysterious figure A. N. Schmid. Vl. Soloviev, The Idea of ​​Humanity in Aug. Comta, IX (“Collected works”, T. 8, St. Petersburg, pp. 240–241). – In addition to what was said earlier, we note that the inspiration of the Forerunner signifies that “this is an enlightened face, ascended to the heavenly face of the Angel and, therefore, detached from his earthly life. The Mother of God with wings is in the same way a person ascended to the heavenly world, standing outside the earthly circle of historical deeds” (Buslaev, p. 295).