Theological works (1902–1909)

Theological works and theology of P.A. Florensky: 1902–1909 The theological works included in this collection by P.A. Florensky introduces the reader to a very important, but still little-known side of the work of this remarkable Russian thinker. Today, after introducing into scientific circulation almost all the materials from his Archive, Florensky appears before the reader as a researcher who reveals in his work a picture of a “holistic” worldview. He himself combines science, theology and philosophy 1 and strives for the same combination in his works, often purposefully overcoming the boundaries that have arisen between various areas of human knowledge and human activity. But if from the side of religious philosophy the name P.A. Florensky is recognized and included in every relevant textbook and encyclopedic reference book, if in scientific and technical terms his work in the field of electrical engineering, the study of permafrost, the formation of the “iodine industry”, etc. etc., then in theology, by and large, his legacy has not yet been studied in any way, not only from a systemic-analytical, but even from a historical point of view. The most significant thing that has been said about Florensky as a theologian relates to fairly old negative references to his sophiology made in the 1930s. along with criticism of the similar teaching of Archpriest. S. Bulgakova 2. Since then, a number of works - articles and lectures by Fr. Paul, which has an important theological component, has been studied by various specialists, mainly philosophers and art historians, but not theologians. Only mainly in connection with anniversaries in the 1980s. (100 years since the birth of P.A. Florensky in 1982 and the 300th anniversary of the Moscow Theological Academy in 1986) little was said about Florensky from the pages of official theological publications 3, but in general these publications were limited to only individual publications of the works of Fr. Paul, without any critical study of them 4. It seems that this circumstance is not at all caused by the fact that Florensky did not want and does not want to be recognized as a theologian. Florensky as a theologian in Russia, apparently, was simply “lost”, not noticed, first due to the conditions of the time 5, and then, starting in the 1990s, under the “tumult” of publications of his later works, concentrated around the original philosophy of the symbol. As for the theology of Russian emigration, paying attention mainly only to Florensky’s “Pillar and Ground of Truth,” all his theological achievements were reduced to sophiology with all the ensuing consequences. On the one hand, Florensky found theological “modernism” 6 and a “subtle touch of theological charm” 7, and on the other, those who supported the development of sophiological problems believed that Archpriest. S. Bulgakov, willingly or unwillingly, but “closed”, eclipsed Florensky with his own works. And sophiology, and name-glorification, and reliance on the “theology of energies” of St. Gregory Palamas, and a number of other trends in Florensky’s theology supposedly received their logical conclusion in Bulgakov’s theology, in which, at least, Fr. Sergius was sincerely convinced 8. One way or another, Florensky, as a de facto theologian, was perceived only as the source of those ideas and “insights” that Archpriest. S. Bulgakov moved far forward. The early theological works of Florensky, the analysis of which could confirm or refute such a well-established opinion, were apparently poorly known in the Russian emigration or were not considered important for clarifying the essence of the matter. It seems that no one even raised the question of the relationship between the theology of Florensky and Bulgakov and the advisability of a special study of Florensky’s legacy itself. Of course, this can be treated with understanding, taking into account both the situation in the Russian emigration in the twentieth century and, even more so, the situation in Soviet Russia until the end of the 1980s. But now it should be recognized that for objective theological studies of the works of the priest Pavel Florensky there are no other obstacles, except for one, the most important thing - the conviction that there is no subject for research. The materials of the published collection are intended, first of all, to show the fallacy of such a belief. But, in addition, they can - with appropriate analysis - remove a certain fear, which, of course, has a right to exist, but, as it seems, is appropriate only in conditions of impotence or extreme impoverishment of theological science. This is a fear of again raising “heretical” or “inconvenient” questions that seem to have already been closed (or, perhaps, “covered”) in Russian Orthodox theology. Perhaps partly justified in relation to the teachings of Archpriest. S. Bulgakov, such a position regarding Florensky, it seems, does not find sufficient grounds for itself. Unlike Bulgakov, Florensky’s theology has not yet been discussed and has not received any official church assessments 9, and individual comments identifying his theological positions with Bulgakov’s, at a minimum, still require additional clarification. But the most important thing in this case is that by excluding Florensky from its history (no matter for what reasons), Russian theology deprives itself of what is valuable in the heritage of Fr. Paul, and ignores some of his obvious merits. In a number of cases, these merits may not even lie in the solution (or in a solution that is clearly acceptable for church theology) of any problems, but in the very fact of their posing. Later, other solutions could have been proposed, but they might not have existed if the initial impetus in this direction had not been given by Florensky. For example, it was in this way that Florensky actually actualized the legacy of St. in Russian theology. Gregory Palamas and aroused interest in the ancient patristic teaching about deification as the goal of human existence. Florensky was also one of the first theologians of the twentieth century who tried to give an ecclesiastical answer to the philosophical request of V. Solovyov, on the criticism of “abstract principles” that penetrated into his contemporary perception of church dogma, on the philosophical formulation of the problem of personality and the “justification” of man. Florensky began to deal with the same problems that in the twentieth century gave rise to various theological works - not only Fr. S. Bulgakov, but also such authors as V. N. Lossky, prot. G. Florovsky, archimandrite. Cyprian (Kern), prot. I. Meyendorff and others. All this constitutes a phenomenon of the development of Russian theology of the past century, in the study of which many questions have not been resolved (and in some cases have not even yet been posed), for example, about the primacy of ideas, influences and the significance for the theological science of the 21st century of the concepts that were formed then. In this regard, the study of theology of Fr. P. Florensky, obviously, has its own essentially important prospects and is not only of purely historical interest. Both late and early texts of Florensky, in addition to all their explicit or implicit controversial points, contain many valuable ideas that have already enriched or are capable of enriching Russian theology. This collection is published from the position that it is much better to have additional “wheat” in your treasury than, without any process of research and differentiation, to simply not notice the theology of an outstanding Russian thinker or, approaching it with a black-and-white scale, to unequivocally reject it, recognizing it by default as “black”, containing only “tares.” The collection includes works by P.A. Florensky, written by him during the period of his creative formation, when throughout his subsequent life he defined himself as a Christian thinker, connecting all his activities with the Orthodox Church. Not all of these works were published during Florensky’s lifetime, and, therefore, only many years later (mainly from the 1990s) their reader was able to fully, fairly and properly evaluate the spiritual quality of the source from which the thinker’s future theological ideas were born. The very first of these works, “On Superstition and Miracle,” seems to be the least “theological” of all. It was written at a time when Florensky, a second-year student at the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics at Moscow University, was still enduring an intellectual “struggle” with his parents who remained in the Caucasus for the right for an educated person of the early twentieth century to have a firm and clearly defined religious worldview. No one objected in principle to religion, but the father was convinced of the pure subjectivity of religious faith, and the mother brought it closer to outdated folk prejudices. At the same time, both, with all the reasons, dreamed of seeing their son as a scientist, one of the engines of universal human progress, to which religion and, in any case, the Orthodox Church have long failed to correspond 10 . It can be noted that, parrying the arguments of his father and mother and himself at times going on the offensive 11, Florensky only from a certain moment began to openly define his attitude towards the Church 12. Even at the beginning of 1903, A.V. Elchaninov conveyed to Florensky his impressions of the “Religious and Philosophical Meetings” in St. Petersburg, where the “priests,” from his point of view, clearly show that no “revival” should be expected from the Russian Church 13, and he told all this (unlike later letters) as if no serious objections were expected to these conclusions. Florensky at this time was clearly faced with the temptation in his religious searches to accept the direction common to the majority of the Russian intelligentsia: to search everywhere, but beyond the boundaries of the Russian Church, which was supposedly mired in earthly vices. The temptation increases sharply when Elchaninov introduces Florensky to the spouses D.S. Merezhkovsky and Z. Gippius, inviting him to publish in their newly founded magazine “New Way” (1902). As is known, in 1901 the Merezhkovskys initiated “Religious and Philosophical Meetings” in St. Petersburg, which, contrary to external declarations, for their organizers, apparently had the goal not to bring the intelligentsia closer to the Church, but to bring at least some “priests” to a “new religious consciousness.” In any case, the fact that the Merezhkovskys themselves were not looking for “entry” into the Church is evidenced by the secret prayer meetings and “worship services” they began, apparently in the same year, 1901, in their new “church” 14. Florensky writes an article for the Merezhkovsky magazine “On superstition and miracles,” initially perceiving “The New Way” as a tribune capable of “giving expression to newly emerging currents of thought, mainly religious and relating to general issues of worldview” 15 . And in his very first article, he uses this platform in a rather specific way, speaking on it from the position of a “pure” observer who wants to record only the facts, without any interpretation of them. He considers the facts of the presence of “consciousness of a certain direction,” when a person perceives “should” or “should not” in this or that thing or in some event. According to the author of the article, one can reject the possibility that a material thing suddenly becomes really “transparent” and through its “transparent shell” some higher power begins to operate (in the article - “the power of the Good”). But there is a fact of a person’s perception of precisely such a “miracle”, there is precisely such an attitude towards a given thing, due to the corresponding attitude of consciousness. And it is noteworthy, first of all, that through analysis (or perhaps only under the guise of analysis) of the word “superstition”, Florensky actually puts the three types of worldview he identifies - religious, scientific and occult - on the same level. It’s all about the corresponding intention of consciousness, and the scientific worldview here does not represent anything exceptional. With it, consciousness only perceives neutrally what a religious person (“believer”) perceives as due, positive, and an occultist (“superstitious”) – as undue, negative. Of course, we can say that Florensky did not remain completely consistent here in the lack of premise of his approach, identifying the “ought” with the “Divine”, and the “improper” with the “diabolical” 16. But these are also “facts of consciousness,” when a person attributes the perception of something “otherworldly” in a positive sense to the action of God, and in a negative sense to the action of the “devil.” And it is important to show that the installation of consciousness towards a scientific worldview is just a tendency to take a neutral, equidistant position between these spiritual poles. In this case, this is more than an attempt to “reconcile” science and religion, showing their mutual consistency. This is a statement of the absence of a fundamental difference between scientific experience and religious experience, both in its “positive” and in its “negative” (in occultism) aspects. In fact, with this step Florensky begins his developments in the field of theology, further concretizing (at the beginning of 1906, in the report “Dogmatism and Dogmatics”) his understanding of the experiential nature of religious dogma and revealing his conviction that, supported by the evidence of living religious experience, the theological dogmatic system is “in full accordance with all modern science, which also strives to be built on an experimental, directly given foundation” 17 . As for the “negative” side of religious experience, by connecting it with phenomena known in occult practice, Florensky, it seems, tried to reveal at least two important points for himself: firstly, the occult worldview and magic - as a practice arising from this worldview - should not be ignored and crossed out from the list of areas for research. They (as an attitude of consciousness and corresponding activity) are an addition to religion and science, obviously in the sense that without them the perception of both religion and science will be incomplete (the article uses what seems to be a deliberately impartial expression - they “broaden the horizons”). Secondly, from such positions and for such purposes, the study of occultism will be useful, but only with the correct (for Florensky - natural) attitude of consciousness, perceiving this subject of research as belonging to the negative sphere of existence. Otherwise, they engage in the occult as if it were something they should do, for the sake of occultism itself, and then these activities become “the work of the unclean.” The last point is very important, since the article actually affirms the natural reality in the human consciousness of the hierarchy of values: proper (religion) – neutral (science) – improper (occultism as a “religion” with a negative sign). The phrase: “...the position of occultism is more difficult than that of science, just as the latter’s position is more dangerous than that of religion,” actually means that it is also not (and even “dangerous”) to engage in science for its own sake. Everything must be in a single complex and subordinated to the highest - that which is the intention of consciousness as a “should”. In turn, this highest, i.e. religion, obviously also should not be closed only to itself, but should be turned to science and occultism as its “additions”. Subsequently, this position will become clearer from Florensky’s new works, primarily devoted to the disclosure of his “symbolic” worldview. Being will be presented in them as a system of concentric levels of different energy tension, where, along with the center, of course, the periphery must also exist. So, for example, if, according to Florensky, all culture “emerged” from a religious cult 18, and philosophy and science came from religion, this does not mean that they need to be “driven” back to their original sources. This “exit” is the development of life itself, and the only important thing is that the periphery does not lose its living connection with the center and continues to feed on its life-giving energy. In the theological aspect, the article “On superstition and miracles” is important for revealing Florensky’s original positions and his ability to change and combine research methods, freely moving, for example, from philosophy to theology, from theology to science. And already here, at the very first stage of his philosophical and theological creativity, it becomes clear that such freedom in the method is caused not by arbitrariness, but by a deep conviction in the reality of “all-unity,” which is partially violated by the separation from the “higher” of the peripheral areas of human activity and which needs to be restored. Theology can (and should) operate with scientific and philosophical methods; science can (and should) take into account and use the conclusions obtained in philosophy and theology, etc. Man is also a multi-layered system with different levels of existence, and any stable manifestation of the attitudes of his consciousness reflects an ontological reality that exists outside the boundaries of his psyche. Phenomenology easily turns into ontology along the “bridge” of restored “all-unity.” With the rarest exception, in all subsequent works of Florensky we will not find the use of this Solovyov term, but the worldview paradigm designated by it (“all-unity”) will accompany all his appeals to both philosophy and science and theology. In 1903, Florensky was actively involved in mathematics (he was interested in the topics of infinite numbers and discontinuous functions, which have important ideological significance), rereading Goethe and studying Masonic manuscripts in the Rumyantsev Museum, including the manuscripts of A.F. Labzina 19. In September 1903, he wrote his first letter to V.V. Rozanov, which contains an important fixation of his philosophical position at this time. “My voice,” he writes, “is heard from spheres alien to you... from the spheres of mathematics and other areas in which... the Logos-organizer is the primary aspiration” 20. And already by the beginning of 1904, the first clear evidence of Florensky’s life self-determination in relation to the Orthodox Church dates back to: in February, he announced in a letter to Elchaninov his intention to become a monk and at the same time, through the MDA student A.S. Petrovsky meets Bishop Anthony (Florensov) 21 at the Donskoy Monastery. His first visit to the MDA and conversation with the rector, Bishop Evdokim (Meshchersky), about a proposed trip to Russian monasteries 22 dates back to mid-April 1904. During this period (January - February 1904), Florensky wrote the text “Two Poems,” which the Merezhkovskys published, changing its title to “Spiritism as Anti-Christianity.” The new title emphasized the author’s main idea and actually turned what was presented as a review of A.A.’s poem into a full-fledged article. Mitropolsky (A.A. Lange) and the poem by A. Bely (B.N. Bugaev). The two poems are considered by Florensky as coming from different, essentially opposite, spiritual experiences of their authors - spiritualistic and Christian. The way they are contrasted in this case reveals, first of all, Florensky’s perception of Christianity at this stage. Christianity, according to Florensky, is an experience in which “God is real to the point of tangibility,” where a person, feeling the dominance of “dark hereditary forces” and his own sinfulness, has, however, a refuge where “dark forces” are forced to release their prey. This refuge is Christ, Who is not in the “spiritual religion”, with all the ensuing consequences that turn God only into an object of endless aspiration, not accessible, however, to experience. Because of this, God becomes only a concept that is needed only as a statement of the possibility for spirits to endlessly improve. Florensky does not compare this with the Christian “Ladder” by St. John (perhaps still unknown to him at that time), but the difference is obvious: the ascent along the “Ladder” of the Metropolitan (“gloomy cold evolution”) has no end. God, who is at its peak, is fundamentally unattainable, cannot become the reality of direct experience for spirits, and therefore he himself loses his reality. Spiritualism is a “negative” religion that does not unite, but, on the contrary, separates a person from God, and not in concepts, not in worldview, but precisely in experience. And that is precisely why spiritualism is anti-Christianity, the more dangerous the more just its claims to the character of “experimental science” turn out to be. Here Florensky for the first time gives his characterization of “spiritualist” (essentially anti-religious) experience as “improved positivism,” that is, positivism that takes into account the presence of the invisible world, but still does not know the world of the Divine. Florensky is convinced that the Divine world is revealed by Christ and only Christ; This is evidenced by the experience of those whom V. Bryusov calls “new mystics.” But they, as Florensky will soon finally understand, are in fact not “new”, but those in whom the Tradition of the Church has revealed itself over many centuries. In the meantime, in the first half of 1904, Florensky declares that the “new mystics” are those who have found Christ and realized that outside of Him man is doomed to “fall away,” “wandering in fog and darkness”: “Our entire worldview is Christology; We can derive from Christ, build on Him, trust in Him, unite in Him and live in Him” 23. Without discussing now the complex spiritual path of A. Bely 24, regarding Florensky we can say with confidence that he finds Christ in the Church, which is not divided (and is not divided) in his view into “mystical” and “historical” 25. In 1904, full of active aspirations, Florensky confidently and firmly entered the Church, finding in it a fulcrum and the center of all his future activities. It is in this mood that he leaves the university with all the prospects for a career as a mathematician that open up for him there and wants monasticism as ideal conditions for work on religious-scientific synthesis. And about a month before Bishop Anthony (Florensov) refused to bless such monasticism 26 (and in return would give advice to study at the Academy) 27, in June 1904, Florensky wrote an article-dialogue “Empyrean and Empiric” dedicated to A. Elchaninov. Here, for the first time, the theme of the symbol is substantively set and its understanding as an “organically living unity” of various “planes” or “layers” of existence is revealed. In such a concept, nothing in the visible world (empirics) can be devalued; the entire “front plane” of the universe (sensually perceived) is the bearer of other, higher worlds, up to the Divine world, which is hinted at by reference to Romans 1:20 (“His invisible things, His eternal power and Divinity, have been visible from the creation of the world through the consideration of creation”). Of course, this is the unity of V. Solovyov, but already devoid of the inherent temptation of pantheism; such a symbol in Florensky is intended to combine the seemingly incompatible - the living organic connection of God with the whole world with the radical “irreducibility” of God to the world and the world to God 28 . Explained by the example of the relationship between the sensory world and the higher, “fiery” worlds, the concept of a symbol is expressed in three complementary points: the lower reality is “transparent” to the higher reality, is its “carrier” and “mixes” with it. The latter, i.e., confusion, should lead to a new reality, which, in fact, is what Florensky emphasizes, albeit several years later 29 . But here, too, this thought is present, as can be seen from the logical connection of the conversation about the symbol with the previous conversation about the sacraments. In fact, what happens in the sacraments is explained by what takes place in the symbol, although at the same time there remains a feeling of some incompleteness of what is said. The sacrament turns out to be something other than a symbol given to us by the very fact of the structure of existence. Unlike a symbol, a sacrament is sacred and, as one might guess, represents the establishment of a direct “channel” through which the Divine world directly, bypassing all the hierarchical steps of the symbolic “layers” of existence, penetrates into the sensory world. Here, in a dialogue of 1904, Florensky points out that in the sacraments something “essentially new is found - like a new creation” 30; later (in a recording in 1908) he would say the same thing about a miracle: “A miracle is a transubstantiated, isolated part of nature from the general order - in the world, but not from the world, similar in appearance... but essentially different, a new creation” 31. And in a publication in the magazine “Christian” (“Questions of religious self-knowledge”, 1907), Florensky writes that “the sacraments, in their idea, are the beginnings of the deification of the creature, the hearths from which Divine warmth spreads. These are the points where a new, special creative force predominantly invades our reality, transforming a person, and through him, all of reality (my italics - N.P.)" 32. Thus, in the sacrament, primarily before the symbol, “above” the symbolic structure of being, the Divine transforming power manifests itself, and, it seems, it is in this moment that Florensky’s church choice finds its main basis. It is possible, at least on the theatrical stage, to reproduce the sequence of sacraments, but this “will be a simple series of purely empirical actions. Otherwise, the same series of actions is a sacrament” 33. And this “other case,” of course, is a special, special sacred rite performed in the Church. The Church knows “the whole fullness of reality,” and in this way it differs from the spiritualistic and occult variations of positivism. This completeness includes both knowledge of the Fall and knowledge of why, in fact, God needed to become a man (to “purify” humanity it was necessary to “act” from within) 34. The external “bark of mud” that surrounds the Church, especially clearly visible to the intelligentsia, cannot destroy its shrine - of course, this conclusion follows, first of all, from Florensky’s “symbolic worldview.” But Florensky’s texts from this time (1904–1905) also contain evidence of the experience that allowed him to experience this shrine. Otherwise, without the assumption of the presence of such experience, it seems impossible to explain the reasons why a young university student was not carried away by the ideas of the “symbolists” and de-churched admirers and followers of Vladimir Solovyov who surrounded and admired him 35 . He leaves the Merezhkovskys as soon as (in January 1905) he learns from an eyewitness (presumably A. Bely 36) about the “divine services” they perform in their secret “church.” Already during this period, he perceives such actions as attempts to create a new “shrine” according to his own, human taste, in the presence of a shrine, objectively given 37. “Well, let’s say,” he writes in a draft letter to the Merezhkovskys (presumably at the beginning of 1905), “you have your own Church. But do I really know anything, whether this is acceptable or unacceptable for you?.. For me, the only thing that is clear is that I must be in Orthodoxy and must fight for it. If you attack him, then maybe I will fight you” 38. Six months later, he explains to A. Bely the reason for his refusal to participate in the new “church”: “And then I saw (in the “historical” Orthodox Church in Russia - N.P.) thousands of shortcomings, I saw the thickest crust, under which for me there was nothing but exhausted symbols. But... I went inside all the shells, stood on the other side of the shortcomings. Life has opened up for me, perhaps a little pulsating, but life, an undeniably holy core has opened up. And then I realized that I would never leave the place where I saw all this” 39. The dialogue “Empyrean and Empiric” seems to have been written in a state of gaining this experience, and in this case, it is possible to concretize the two indications contained in it about the formation of Florensky as an Orthodox theologian and church minister. Firstly, by experiencing the Divine “depth” that opens behind the “flatness” of visible church life, the foundations of an “absolute worldview” are laid, revealing the meaning of life, and “justified in every detail” 40. This “absolute worldview” (which is “Catholic Christianity”), like the experience that leads to it, is not “successful” to a person, but is given by Him who said: “Ask and it will be given to you” (Matthew 7:7). Secondly, having received these fundamentals, Florensky wants to further develop and understand them “in logical forms.” This is the work of a theologian, which, according to Florensky’s plan, should contain everything else - both science and philosophy. And here, on the path of intellectual understanding of church experience, the guiding principles for Florensky remain the previously acquired (before 1904–1905) Platonism and the ideas of Vladimir Solovyov 41 . The Platonic interpretation of noumenal-phenomenal connections and Solovyov’s “all-unity” force us to interpret in a very definite way both mystical (“transmission” of other worlds in the visible world) and religious (“meeting” with Divine grace in the Church) experience. And in theological research itself, this Platonic-Soloviev foundation remains unshakable in Florensky - both in the interpretation of evidence from the Holy Scriptures, and in the interpretation of evidence from the Holy Fathers 42. At the end of August 1904, Florensky followed the advice of Bishop Anthony (Florensov), applied for admission to the Moscow Theological Academy and, having completed a full course at the university, was admitted to the academy without exams 43 . The appeal during this period, in the very first semester of study, to the legacy of Origen, of course, cannot be considered accidental: for Florensky, who set himself the goal of conceptual development of an “absolute” (“holistic”) worldview, it was important to study the example of an unsuccessful, from his point of view, attempt to “organically combine” Christianity and metaphysics. Therefore, Origen’s “mistakes” highlighted in this essay can be considered as outlined outlines of what should be avoided in one’s own work. According to Florensky, Origen became a Christian without throwing off the “fatal legacy of Greek philosophy,” and his system turned out to be bifurcated between what he wanted to achieve in his theoretical constructs “and what he felt and experienced as a Christian” 44. The ancient great teacher of the Church split himself into “two faces, mutually exclusive of each other”, revealed himself as a “Christian yearning for metaphysics” and “a metaphysician invariably attached to Christianity” 45. “Origen wanted to be and was himself a Christian in his personal life, and the center of his personal life was undoubtedly the Risen One. This, however, is not yet enough to build Christian philosophy” 46. By asserting this, Florensky directs his main attention to what, in his opinion, prevented Origen's metaphysics from becoming truly Christian. The main thing he points to is “avoluntarism” - “a worldview that reduces volitional processes to intellectual ones, and volitional acts of choosing good and evil to intellectual acts of distinguishing between good and evil.” Actually, this leads to the destruction of the very foundation of Christianity: Origen as a metaphysician (Florensky emphasizes this) does not need the Incarnation and the redemption of creation, since his system implies a completely different understanding of the Fall than in Christianity. For Origen, the Fall is a mistake, and not the result of self-assertion of an actively evil will; this is an error that does not lead to damage or distortion of the nature of spiritual beings and therefore can be voluntarily corrected. Florensky argues that the main Christian concepts (the Incarnation and atonement) were introduced into Origen’s system purely mechanically and Christ in it is not the center, “but only an accessory, and that does not fit well with the general tone of the rest of the system” 47. It can be assumed that, in essence, this is exactly what Florensky himself from the very beginning wanted to prevent in the development of his “absolute worldview.” And the question for what reasons he failed to do this, it seems, should be key in the subsequent analysis of his theology. Only to a small extent anticipating such an analysis and, accordingly, without claiming finality of judgments, within the framework of a further review of Florensky’s theological works presented in this collection, only a few considerations can be presented. In addition to the already noted experience of finding a shrine in the Orthodox Church, Florensky undoubtedly also had a personal experience of Christ, which, in addition to his early theological writings, is evidenced, in particular, by his letters, especially those addressed to V.V. Rozanov in the period from 1909 to 1913. 48 Also undoubtedly is his desire to center all his concepts on Christ 49 . However, already the first stage of the construction of his new metaphysics - “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” - caused, it seems, the most fair criticism precisely in this aspect: “In Florensky’s “theodicy,” wrote Archpriest. Georgy Florovsky, - strangely there is no Savior. The world is “justified” somehow bypassing Him” 50. Florensky, obviously, felt this himself, otherwise he would not have made special reservations and explanations, according to which he provided a place for Christology only at the second main stage of his developments - in “anthropodycey” 51, and without understanding this plan of his, readers will perceive him as “a Christian without Christ” 52. But the later “anthropodycey” - although not completed, but already quite formed metaphysics of Florensky, accepted Christology and the entire Christian teaching about the Fall and salvation of mankind, also almost only as an “accessory”. Here, apparently, it would be worth recalling the surviving indications of Florensky’s special methodology, which consists in the consistent isolation, analysis and “feeling” of individual, not always externally related topics, problems and issues. This development was carried out preliminary, with the intention of a subsequent “Christian synthesis” 53, which, however, in the life of Fr. Paul did not have enough time 54. With this reminder, in principle, it would be possible to close any “inconvenient” problem in Florensky’s theology, including removing his notorious “Christianity without Christ” from critical consideration. But if the goal of studying the theological works of a great thinker is not necessarily reduced to his “justification” (which, of course, he does not need from the side of a modern critic), then it is necessary to identify the foundations that have already manifested themselves in them, among which, in addition to the experience of Christ and the Church, the first place should be given to the original, uncritical acceptance of a number of ideas of Vladimir Solovyov, of which the idea of unity is the main and defining one both in “theodicy” and in "anthropodicea". As is known, Vladimir Solovyov repeatedly emphasized the Christocentricity of his philosophy, with which the early Florensky agreed 55. But this center, assigned to Christ in the concept of unity, turns out to be not absolute and, in any case, does not concentrate in itself all the last hope of the world and humanity. Such complete hope here is placed, first of all, on the inevitability of the reunification of the Absolute with Itself (with “Its Other” 56) and on the irreversibility of the already begun process of such a union. It is not possible to comprehend Christ as the main driving force of this process within the framework of the philosophy of unity, since (and this is the most important thing in this case), according to the idea of ​​all-unity, everything that turns out to be “created” is initially, in its very basis, divine and does not need to accept deification from God who has become Man. The goal of union with God for the “creature” is the task of returning to itself, to its ideal divine basis, and this is the true absolute center of the system, in relation to which the action of Christ is not decisive, but, so to speak, of a service nature. Everything would change if we recognized the fact of creation “out of nothing”, the fundamental extra-Divine nature of creation and the traditional Christian interpretation of the Fall and the union in the Incarnation of the realities of salvation and deification of man. But these provisions go beyond the scope of the idea of ​​unity, which can be clearly seen in the works of its staunch followers 57, to whom Pavel Florensky identified himself from the very beginning. And this choice was not influenced by the subsequent reception of Florensky’s attitude towards V. Solovyov himself, which was expressed, as in the case of Origen, only in the desire to correct detected “mistakes” that were particular to the main direction. In V. Solovyov’s “Readings on God-Humanity,” which caused a great positive resonance among his contemporaries, the Incarnation of God was presented as a natural stimulus embedded in the program of spiritual evolution in the ongoing process of uniting man and all creation with God. The latter, i.e., the process of the formation of God-manhood, according to Solovyov, took place before the Nativity and Resurrection of Christ, and therefore, in essence, the work of Christ brings into the life of the world not a qualitative, but, so to speak, only a certain “quantitative” change 58. In Vladimir Solovyov’s concept of unity, it is impossible to talk about deification as a fundamentally new, supernatural, in the true sense, supernatural gift for man. Here, in man himself, the presence of Divinity by nature is revealed, and Christ, in fact, is accepted only as an accelerator of the natural world movement towards the restoration of the broken unity. And it is important to understand that all this, of course, is not a conscious attempt to humiliate Christ or move Him from the true center to the decorative center of the system, not a private conclusion that can be drawn from certain premises, etc., but a necessary and irremovable consequence of the concept in which everything first “came” from God and, while remaining essentially Divine without Christ, must return to God again. It is no coincidence that, from the very beginning, having intellectually established himself on this concept, Florensky never subsequently raised the topic of the Christian doctrine of the creation of the world “out of nothing” and the perception by church tradition of the event of the Fall, set out in Chapter 3 of the Book of Genesis. In his student essay he highlights, and in “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” he actually directly accepts Origen’s interpretation of the “creation” of the world: this is a “falling out”, according to Florensky, the “falling out” of the creature from its former, “heavenly” home 59 . This is the theme of the “pre-existence” of creation in relation to the existence of the empirical world, which Florensky boldly introduces into theological discourse, accepting that in condemning Origen, the Church, among other things, meant “pre-existence” in time, and not in eternity” 60. The latter, in Florensky’s opinion, accurately expresses the teaching of the Church, which he said in sufficient detail in “The Pillar and Statement of the Truth” 61. But the “eternal value” of creation, as understood by Florensky, is required precisely by the idea of ​​unity, in which the “creation” of the world is a “falling away” from God with a guarantee of return precisely because everything divine in the fallen “creature” remains real and cannot change in any way. Regarding Solovyov’s all-unity, Florensky only replaces “divinity” 62 with “deification”: the creature “pre-exists” in Divine eternity with its deified foundations; This is exactly how everything that exists is “rooted” in God the Most Holy Trinity, and by the very fact of the corresponding structure of the world. Of course, this immediately determines the place of Christ in world history: if in eternity everything has already been given to man and all creation, then Christ can only be accepted as the organizer of “salvation” and deification in the empirical world. Even in empiricism, everything that Christ does in relation to man comes down only to helping ensure that the Divine energy coming from the deified foundation (according to Florensky, from the “Image of God” in man) embraces the whole man 63. Neither in the “theodicy” nor in the “anthropodicy” did Florensky go beyond the ideas of such a place of Christ in metaphysics, which, it seems, is required not by the experience of Christ, but by Platonism and the idea of ​​unity. “Dogmatism and Dogmatics” (a student “abstract” prepared in September 1905 and read in January 1906) and a large semester-long essay “The Teaching of the Church in the Holy Scriptures” (1906) most clearly reveal Florensky as a follower of Vladimir Solovyov, trying to give the main directions of his thought new life and development in church theology. In general, the idea of the first of these works could have been suggested by the distinction between church dogma and “abstract dogmatism” that V. Solovyov made in his polemical speeches on the pages of the magazine “Faith and Reason” back in 1885. 64 But Florensky goes much further than Solovyov and, emphasizing the living direct connection of church dogma with religious experience, 65 he tries to give this experience such the same objective character as scientific experience has. What is fundamentally important here is that all the spiritual treasures brought into the world by the Christian religion - the possibility of experienced knowledge of God, meeting God “face to face”, deification - are not separated from the dogmas preserved in the Church. The fact that the real spiritual life of the Russian intelligentsia has passed by the Orthodox Church is explained not by the historical “transformations” of Orthodoxy and not by the “touching” of church dogma as such (which, according to Florensky, was and remains a necessary “scheme” for the “most valuable” experiences), but by the replacement of dogma with “dead”, i.e. abstracted from the evidence of living religious experience "dogmatism". This, if you like, is Florensky’s theological response to the request of the ideologists of the “new religious consciousness” of the early twentieth century: it is possible and necessary to fight for religious renewal without modernizing the existing Church and church Christianity; you just need to return what has been lost, and lost not by the Church, but by church Christians, church theology in modern Russia. In fact, Florensky supports the call to “return” to St. that became prominent in Russian theology at the beginning of the twentieth century. Fathers, but with one very important feature, behind which stands Solovyov’s unity. Florensky’s confidence that when implementing his proposed project of “revitalizing” old dogmatic schemes, the formation of a new dogmatics will not occur should be justified by nothing other than unity. After all, we are talking about the need for freedom, not bound by any initial prerequisites, about the search for evidence of personal religious experience not only in the church tradition, among the Holy Fathers, but throughout the entire space of all ascetic and mystical (obviously, including non-Christian) literature, in works of “fine literature,” art, and music. And such freedom can be naturally “insured” from the harmful consequences of possible spiritual arbitrariness only if there is in the seeking subject himself – man – a solid ontological center, which, in addition to created free will, connects him with the Truth. It is well known with what ease in the first (and last) attempt at a large-scale implementation of this project - in “The Pillar and Establishment of Truth” - Florensky uses material completely alien to Orthodox theology, for example, from the Talmud and Kabbalah. This confused and confuses many, but one must understand that for the idea of ​​unity this is not only a normal, but also a necessary course of research 66 . All evidence of religious experience, according to the plan reflected in the 1906 project, should find its final synthesis in the experiences of Christ - the “Bearer of ideal humanity.” This means that Christ, who contains within himself all of humanity (except for its improper state, which, according to Florensky, takes place only empirically), also contains within himself all of his religious experience, regardless of whether individual bearers of this experience have positive Christian self-determination. Personal free acceptance or rejection of Christ here does not seem to have a decisive meaning, and the “border” between those who have passed and those who have not undergone the sacrament of Christian Baptism does not reach the ideal foundations of humanity, which are already with God from eternity, simply by the fact of such a dispensation of Existence. It seems that in this respect the gap between Florensky’s own personal experience and the fundamental paradigms of his metaphysics becomes especially obvious. In 1904, in the dialogue “Empyrea and Empiria”, in connection with a conversation about the sacraments, Florensky presented a wonderful image of the deep internal difference between a baptized and an unbaptized person: they are, respectively, like ice and glass, externally similar, but different in internal structure. “In a baptized person,” he says, “something has been introduced that cannot be... seen by any experience, and which, however, is essentially new” 67. In a 1914 entry, he shares his feelings: “...If we take it a posteriori, it seems that there is always some difference between the baptized and the unbaptized. The personality structure of the baptized becomes different. This does not mean that he is “better”, but he is different. Satin fabric is not the same as cambric fabric. A worthless Christian is a stained, torn piece of satin; and a good pagan is a clean, neat piece of cambric. Which is better? They are incomparable. There is something stony in the most beautiful pagan in comparison with the most worthless Christian. The pagan is a marble statue, and the Christian is alive. I am not dogmatizing, but conveying my feeling. A Christian can be a scoundrel, and a pagan can be noble. Still, a Christian is a living scoundrel, and a pagan is a dead statue. The immediate feeling from a non-Christian is that something is missing (“there is no soul” in popular parlance)” 68 . One can also give examples of how Fr. Paul had a special attitude towards the celebration of the sacrament of St. Baptism, in particular, insisted on the need to observe its full rite, including the reading of “prohibitory” prayers against the devil 69 . But his ecclesiology, built on the idea of ​​unity, practically ignores the sacrament of Baptism, in no way relating to it the sign of churchliness or the question of the “borders” of the Church. Both in “theodicy” (in “The Pillar and Ground of Truth”) and in “anthropodicy” (mainly in lectures on “Philosophy of Cult”), the “borders” of the Church turn out to be not just vague or blurred; they do not exist at all, or, more precisely, they embrace the entire universe, all creation, including even the natural elements 70. The foundations of all this late ecclesiology of Fr. Paul were laid down in his student essay “The Concept of the Church in the Holy Scriptures,” which fully presented his conviction that Solovyov’s ideas of unity and God-manhood are the very essence of the Christian church tradition 71 . Never after this work did Florensky so clearly use quotes from Vladimir Solovyov and did not use specific Solovyov terms (including, for example, the term “all-unity”) 72, but the concept remained the same, perceiving the Church not only as the “Body of Christ”, but also as the “Body of God”, and not only as the “Bride”, but also as the “Wife” of Christ 73. All these designations reflect the idea of ​​the “eternal pre-existence” of the Church, which (the Church) is thus assigned the role of the eternal ideal foundations of the whole world. All creation is initially "rooted" in God through the Church; The Church, at its core, is the originally deified (without Christ!) foundation of all creation. Personal acceptance of Christ and the very sacrament of St. Baptisms in such a concept have significance only for the empirical phenomenon of man; like the Incarnation itself, they do not determine man’s ontological (by the grace of deification) participation in God, but only contribute to the deification of his empirical component. And it is impossible not to notice that in this work all this, in fact, is not derived from Holy Scripture, but is offered as an axiom, the doctrinal truth of the Church, which does not need to be proven. Of Florensky’s student sermons prepared and delivered during this period (1905–1907), two stand out, both admitted for publication by spiritual censorship (by the same censor - the rector of the Bethany Seminary, Archpriest A. Belyaev) and equally, despite their obvious merits, subject to serious theological criticism. Thus, in the “Word for Holy Easter” of 1905, filled with Easter joy (published in 1907 under the title “The Director of Life”), the preacher proceeds from the fact that the reality of the Church, embracing the entire universe, just like the whole world, is still in captivity of “decay”. And together with the Church, the depths of all creation are gradually “secretly renewed,” obviously, as a result of the impulse given by the Resurrection of Christ, but as if “automatically,” without taking into account the conscious expression of human will 74 . And another, also spiritually solemn speech by Florensky in 1905 - “Joy forever” - contains the same, unnoticed by the preacher, derogation of the meaning of the sacrament of the Holy. Baptism as separating those who are potentially capable of renewal, becoming “children” of Christ, and those who remain “children” of the old Adam. Addressing baptized Christians with the joyful news that they have a holy, “divine” foundation, the preacher, in fact, quite unambiguously in this regard means all people 75, simply by the fact that everyone has the Image of God. And here, for the first time, Florensky clearly expresses his opinion regarding the identity of the Guardian Angel and the eternal reality of man himself, i.e., in fact, he continues to equate the baptized and unbaptized in their common possession of “deification” in eternity. As in a number of other cases, here, too, this private opinion, required by the unity and “symbolic” ontology of Florensky, is presented as a self-evident teaching of the Church. A few years later, in response to a question touching on this topic, Fr. Paul said that "this is a confusing thing" and directly referred to Plato. “The nature of spirits,” he said, “cannot be divided, like us, into separate and non-separate. Here we enter the world of Plato's ideas. Plato was the exponent of the ideas of religion in general, of all the religious ideas of the entire ancient world... But he did not invent his own” 76. Such an exceptional perception of Plato 77, its causes and consequences for Florensky’s theological views are still waiting for their researcher, just as the topic of the influence of Vladimir Solovyov’s legacy on Florensky has not yet been fully revealed. But in the theological aspect of the concept of “eternal pre-existence”, the organic combination of “all-unity” undertaken by Florensky according to Plato and Solovyov seems obvious: the empirical world from a “bad copy” of eternal ideas has turned into a phenomenon called to eternity (deification) of the ideal (noumenal, deified from eternity) foundations of creation, moving towards its goal through the stage of Incarnation. In Plato, the “truth” of the original objective rootedness in the Divine eternity of everything existing in the world was found; in Solovyov, a Christian correction of Platonic dualism was found, expressed in the idea of ​​the desire of the whole world for God-manhood. The Church's patristic tradition was included by Fr. Pavel included this synthesis almost “by default”, without any special serious research. The most significant attempt to conduct such a study can be seen in Fr. Paul only in “The Pillar and Ground of the Truth,” but even here it was reduced only to an understanding of individual quotes, mainly from St. Athanasius the Great 78. As is known, these references were subsequently (in an expanded and supplemented version) used in the sophiology of the arch. S. Bulgakov and received their critical theological understanding in works written in the process or under the influence of sophiological polemics 79. Therefore, in general, in the absence of irrefutable evidence, the belief of Fr. Paul in the organicity (or “traditionality”) for the Church of the ideas of unity and “eternal pre-existence” must be recognized as having, at a minimum, a debatable character. Historically, Florensky came to religion through Plato and Solovyov and, apparently, already on such a solid intellectual foundation, experienced the experience of the holiness of the “historical” Church. Next, as one might guess (mainly from evidence from correspondence with V.V. Rozanov), there was the experience of Christ, which, during the construction of metaphysics, did not find its expression other than through the same Platonov-Soloviev “prism.” Orientation in the patristic heritage of the Church, acquired later, while studying at the MDA, could not significantly influence the very foundations of the concept, since previous beliefs were not rethought, but on the contrary, all new knowledge and even new experience were interpreted based on previous beliefs. In the 1920s O. Paul undertook much work to interpret his personal experience on the conceptual basis of “symbolic” unity. And it is noteworthy that this work, designed as a collection of “Memoirs,” contained only that experience that can be called “mystical,” as opposed to religious experience. This is the experience of feeling the internal unity of spatially separated objects 80, a single essence in creatures of different types 81, “news” of other worlds, or even Eternity itself in visible nature, for example, in the “gifts” of the sea thrown ashore 82. Eternity in these experiences seems to be “born”, “remembered” - in the Platonic sense of the word 83. Other experiences and experiences of a different kind, not related to the “symbolic” worldview, remained outside the “Memoirs”, not collected and not presented by Fr. Pavel especially for the future reader. And, probably, this happened not only because in the 1920s. gradually it became dangerous to write on religious topics. Evidence of a personal relationship with God in prayer 84, feelings of the Divine presence in everyday life, etc. p. 85 had no significance for the metaphysics being created and, without entering into direct contradiction with it, at the same time, they did not find a place for themselves in it, did not receive their theoretical design in its concepts and categories. It is generally accepted that Fr. Paul sought to write only about what he had personally already experienced 86. But in this case we should not just talk about private, individual records, but rather about the conceptual design of experiences, about the coordination of experience with a concept or a concept with experience. And, it seems, from everything that is known about Christian life and churchliness, about the priesthood of Fr. Paul, we can talk about the presence of what he experienced, but which turned out to be unable to fit into the “symbolic” unity, obtained intellectually from the heritage of Plato and Vladimir Solovyov. Of course, such observations still require additional research to be fully substantiated. But if we talk about the debatable nature of the entire theology of priest Pavel Florensky, then the source of such perception of it in the Orthodox Church should definitely be sought not in any imaginary “Occultism” or “hereticism” of the thinker 87, but precisely in his attempt to introduce into the church tradition the above synthesis of selected ideas from Plato and V. Solovyov. And if we remember that this attempt was carried out from the position of the sincere convictions of an essentially ecclesiastical thinker, then any disagreement with him will only lead to an analysis of the circumstances of the formation of his beliefs, and not to the rejection of his theology as a whole. The early theological works of P. Florensky presented in this collection, in addition to the defining influences of the philosophy of unity, also reveal evidence of all the sincerity, unchanging church position and Christian experience of their author. And even Platonism itself, expressed in a controversial attempt at Christian theological formulation of the concept of “eternal pre-existence,” has important theological significance in Florensky’s works. Just as in his time the ancient Greek thinker, in polemics with relativism in relation to Truth, created the doctrine of eternal ideas and approved the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, so the “symbolism” of Fr. Paul was entirely aimed at affirming the objective nature of religion and religious experiences as an experience of meeting objective Truth. All his works are deeply internally connected by the same plan of combating subjectivism and “psychologism” in relation to religion, to the dogmas and doctrine of the Orthodox Church. The disclosure of dogma as the Revelation of the one Truth confirmed by experience, the experimental evidence of the imperfection of the “flat” nature of the modern scientific worldview, the affirmation of the eternal value of the Being created by God, the indication of deification as the highest goal of human life - these are only the main, but far from the only points in the theology of Fr. Paul, which remain relevant today, in the “paths” of Russian theology of the 21st century. And, adjusted for the need to take into account, at a minimum, the debatable nature of the theological formulation of the ideas of Platonism and unity, Florensky’s early works can be considered as a remarkable and, unfortunately, not yet fully appreciated contribution of the Russian thinker not only to Russian theological science, but also to the spiritual treasury of the entire Orthodox Church. Works by P.A. Florensky “On superstition and miracles”, “Spiritism as anti-Christianity”, “Empyrean and empiricism”, “Dogmatism and dogmatics”, “The concept of the Church in the Holy Scriptures”, “The Salt of the Earth, that is, the Legend of the life of the Elder of Gethsemane Hieromonk Abba Isidore, collected and in order set forth by his unworthy spiritual son Pavel Florensky” - published according to the publication: Pavel Florensky, priest. Works: in 4 T. T. 1 M.: Mysl, 1994; The work “Origen’s work “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” as an experience of metaphysics” is published by: Pavel Florensky, priest. From the history of ancient philosophy. M.: Humanitarian, 2007. pp. 482–560; works “Outline of the article “On the resurrection of the body (according to experiences)””, “Religious sentiments of the 1st Epistle to the Corinthians of Clement of Rome”, “St. Jacob, Brother of the Lord" and "Sermons" are printed based on texts provided by Abbot Andronik (Trubachev) from the Archive of the Priest. Pavel Florensky. This collection was compiled with the direct participation of Abbot Andronik (Trubachev); when compiling the comments, already existing editions of P.A.’s early works were taken into account. Florensky. In the entire text (except for the work “The Works of Origen “Περὶ ἀρχῶν” as an experience of metaphysics”) there are notes written by P.A. Florensky, are given in page footnotes. The compiler expresses gratitude to Abbot Andronik (Trubachev) for the opportunity to work with the texts of P.A. Florensky, K. M. Antonov and Archpriest Pavel Khondzinsky for valuable comments expressed during the work on the introductory article and comments. P.A. Florensky is a mathematician by first education, graduated from the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of Moscow University (1904), entered the Moscow Theological Academy and graduated from it with a candidate of theology degree (1908). From 1908 until the closure of the Academy of P.A. Florensky lectured on the history of philosophy. Since 1914, Florensky has been a Master of Theology and a professor at the Department of Philosophy at the Moscow Academy of Sciences. Seraphim (Sobolev), archbishop. New teaching about Sophia the Wisdom of God. Sofia, 1935. pp. 123–127, 142–144, 203–213, etc. The critical analysis of “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” undertaken earlier, during Florensky’s lifetime, in the “Missionary Review” in 1916 can hardly be called theological; this criticism was not constructive, and its author, with rare exceptions, did not say anything new regarding the very subjective attack against Florensky that had already been made by that time (See: Nikanor [(Kudryaviev)], Archimandrite. Review of the book: “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” // P.A. Florensky: Pro et contra. Anthology. 2nd edition. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 314–352; cf.: Berdyaev N. A. Stylized Orthodoxy (Fr. Pavel Florensky) // Ibid. 264–282). See, for example: Florensky P.A. Empyrean and Empyria / Preface. and publ. hierome Andronicus (p. 294–295) and “From the editors” (p. 295–297) // Theological works. Sat. 27. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1986. pp. 297–322; John Sviridov, St. Epistemology of priest Pavel Florensky // Moscow Theological Academy. 300 years (1685–1985). Theological works. Anniversary collection. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1986. pp. 264–292; Andronik (Trubachev), abbot. Priest Pavel Florensky is a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy and editor of the Theological Bulletin // Theological Works. Sat. 28. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1987. pp. 293–305. From publications with prefaces in other years: Pavel Florensky, priest. Iconostasis / Preface and preparation text for printing based on the manuscript of the priest. Anatoly Prosvirnin and P. V. Florensky // Theological works. Sat. 9. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1972. P. 83; Florensky P.A. The concept of the Church in the Holy Scriptures / Preface. “From the editor” S.S. Khoruzhego (p. 73–75) // Theological works. Sat. 12. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1974. pp. 75–183; Pavel Florensky, priest. From theological heritage / Prepared by. to ed. according to the manuscript by A.S. Trubachev; preface "From the editor" [A. S. Trubachev with inserts by Archpriest Anatoly Prosvirnin] (p. 85–86) // Theological works. Sat. 17. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1977. pp. 87–248. See, for example: Florensky P.A. Spirit and Flesh / Publ. Archpriest Anatoly Prosvirnin // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. 1969. No. 4. P. 72–77; Pavel Florensky, priest. Iconostasis / Preface and preparation text for printing based on the manuscript of the priest. Anatoly Prosvirnin and P.V. Florensky // Theological works. Sat. 9. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchies, 1972. P. 83; Florensky P.A. Joy Forever: The Word Spoken During the Liturgy on January 7 1907 in the church of the village of Tolpygino, Nerekhta district, Kostroma province / (Publicated by Hierom Andronik] // Theological works. Collection 23. M.: Publishing house of the Moscow Patriarchate, 1982. pp. 317–320; Pavel Florensky, priest. Christianity and culture / Preface to the published by Hierom. Andronika (p. 52) // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate 1983. No. 4. pp. 53–57. For a proper assessment, of course, a certain distance in time is required, which for Florensky coincided with years of an artificially created atmosphere of “oblivion.” Suffice it to say that in Soviet Russia, the name of Florensky was slightly “discovered” for the intelligentsia only in the 1960s, and even such a “discovery” was accompanied by acquaintance only with the linguistic and art historical aspects of Florensky’s works. See, for example: Dorogov A.A., Ivanov V.V., Uspensky B.A. P.A. Florensky and his article “Reverse Perspective” // Scientific Notes of the University of Tartu. 1967. Vol. 198. Seraphim (Sobolev), archbishop. New teaching about Sophia the Wisdom of God. P. 26. Georgy Florovsky, prot. Paths of Russian theology. Vilnius, 1991. P. 494. See: Bulgakov S.N. Priest Fr. Pavel Florensky // P.A. Florensky: Pro et soptrA.S. 396–397. Teaching about Sophia by Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov was convicted independently of each other by two parts of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1935. According to Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate No. 1651 of September 7. 1935 (and again - for No. 2267 of December 27, 1935), Bulgakov’s sophiology “changes the tenets of the Orthodox faith” and contains teachings “dangerous for spiritual life”; also, by the determination of the Bishops' Council of the ROCOR dated October 30. 1935 “On the new teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia the Wisdom of God,” sophiology Archpriest. S. Bulgakov was recognized as a heresy. There were no definitions in these documents regarding Florensky’s concepts (including the sophiology of the “Pillar and Statement of Truth”). Certain vicissitudes and nuances of this “struggle”, very important for understanding Florensky, are recorded in his correspondence with his parents, which, along with other letters from 1900–1904, was published in the publication: Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years: in 2 vols. M., 2011–2015. On the attitude towards religion in the family in which Florensky was born and raised, see, for example, his letter to Bishop Anthony (Florensov) on July 11, 1904 (Ibid. T. 1. P. 646); Wed about the same thing in the records of memoirs in the 1920s. (Pavel Florensky, priest. To my children. Memories of past days. M.., 1992. P. 115–117:126). See, for example: Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 1. P. 466; T. 2. pp. 219–220. See in Florensky’s letter to his mother on December 23, 1902 regarding the attitude towards the Christmas tree: “You want to look at our past... to look arrogantly: hence the arrogant attitude towards religion, towards customs... and in this regard our upbringing is the greatest evil... Now, for example, I consider myself Orthodox, and, meanwhile, fully recognizing theoretically the truths of the Church, I cannot fulfill and put them into practice...” (Florensky P.V. Finding path. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. P. 163). See the letter of A. Elchaninov on January 30, 1903: “I was struck by the passivity, weakness, and unpreparedness of the priests... Here I was clearly convinced that the Orthodox Church is a calf, as M[erezhkovsky says], and revival cannot and should not be expected from it” (Ibid. T. 2. P. 227; Also see: Correspondence of 1902–1903 between A.V. Elchaninov and P.A. Florensky // PSTGU 1. Philosophy. 4 (32). There is evidence of this, in particular, by A. Bely and Z. Gippius herself (see: Pavel Florensky and the Symbolists. Literary experiments. Articles. Correspondence / Compiled by E.V. Ivanova. M., 2004. P. 512). Florensky knew nothing about this, as Abbot Andronik (Trubachev) suggests, until January 1905, when A. Bely told him about his participation in secret prayers at the Merezhkovskys (see: Andronik (Trubachev), Abbot. Bibliographic reference book. Personality, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. S. Posad, 2015. P. 124). Letter from P.A. Florensky's sister Yu.A. Florenskaya at the beginning of 1903 (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. P. 236). This was already noticed by the same A. Elchaninov, pointing out that Florensky leaves a purely “critical” line and makes “dogmatic” statements (Ibid. Vol. 2. P. 212) See present. publications; Pavel Florensky, priest. Works: in 4 volumes. 1. M., 1994. P. 570. See, for example: culture is that which “is continually split off from the cult—like the sprouts of the cult, its shoots, its side stems. The shrine is the primary creativity of man, cultural values ​​are derivatives of the cult” (Pavel Florensky, priest. Works. Philosophy of the cult (Experience of Orthodox anthropodicy). M., 2004. P. 75); “a cultural definition requires that some kind of meaning be established in the concrete reality surrounding us, and the recognition of meaning in reality is rooted in the depths of the cult” (Ibid. p. 118). Andronik (Trubachev), abbot. Bibliographic reference book. Personality, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. P. 114. Florensky writes about his acquaintance with Masonic manuscripts in a letter to A. Bely (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. P. 649–650); His poem “Song of the Freemasons” is dated April 1902 (Ibid. Vol. 1, pp. 532–534). Letter September 9, 1903 – Correspondence of V.V. Rozanov and P.A. Florensky // Rozanov V.V. Literary exiles. Book two. M.; St. Petersburg, 2010. P. 9. Andronik (Trubachev), abbot. Bibliographic reference book. Personality, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. P. 118. Right there. P. 119. Florensky’s acquaintance with A. Bely occurs at the end of December 1903 (Ibid. P. 117). There are versions that it was A. Bely who introduced Florensky to Bishop Anthony (Florensov) and, at least in 1904, he, like Florensky, was looking for monasticism. But, unlike Florensky, he never gained experience of life in the Church. In any case, from Florensky’s letter in 1914, one can see that, captivated by the anthroposophy of R. Steiner, A. Bely turns out to be quite far from Orthodox churchliness (see: Pavel Florensky and the Symbolists, pp. 484–485). “Two aspects of the Church... this is not at all what modern church fighters are now accustomed to call the “Mystical Church” and the “historical Church,” and the first is extolled, and almost exclusively for the sake of the subsequent blasphemy of the second” (Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (1). Pillar and statement of Truth. M.., 1990. P. 337). See from the bishop's letter. Antonia (Florensova) to P. Florensky July 25, 1904: “You are talking about some kind of social activity. This means that you are not thinking about monasticism, but about something else. The vows of monastics contain the duty of obedience and discipleship, and not teaching and not authority” (Florensky P.V. Finding the path. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. P. 655). See: Andronik (Trubachev), abbot. Bibliographic reference book. Personality, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. P. 120. See present. editions: the layers of being “are not reducible to one another, but are interconnected by correspondences.” See in the lecture “Name-glorification as a philosophical premise” (1921–1922): “A symbol is such an essence, the energy of which is fused or, more precisely, dissolved with the energy of some other, more valuable in this respect, essence...” (Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 2. At the watersheds of thought. M.., 1990. P. 287). But such a “unification”, “intergrowth” of energies is not a mechanical interaction, but a “synergy” in which “there is no longer either one or the other energy, but there is something new” (Ibid. p. 285). Pavel Florensky, priest. Philosophy of cult A.S. 420. Pavel Florensky, priest. Questions of religious self-knowledge // Pavel Florensky, priest. Works: in 4 volumes. T.1.M., 1994. P. 529. See, for example: According to Florensky’s letter, at the beginning of 1904, at the apartment of A. Bely, his first acquaintance with “Moscow celebrities” took place (K. Balmont, V. Bryusov, possibly A. Blok, etc.) (Andronik (Trubachev), abbot. Bibliographic reference book. Personality, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. P. 117). Florensky writes that Bely’s guests were also theosophists, spiritualists and symbolists (Florensky P.V. Finding the path. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. pp. 502–503). Subsequently there were other acquaintances, in particular with Vyacheslav Ivanov. Wed. in the article “About Khomyakov” (1916): “Ontology” - “acceptance of reality from God, as given, and not created by man” // Pavel Florensky, priest. Works: in 4 volumes. T. 2. M., 1996. pp. 294–295. Pavel Florensky and the Symbolists. P. 515. Letter July 15, 1905 // Ibid. P. 470. See, for example, in Florensky’s letter to his mother on October 5, 1900: “My fascination with Plato, which began last year, is intensifying... Many problems, in my opinion, are resolved exclusively by him...” (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 1. P. 175). The fascination with Vladimir Solovyov begins around the same time; in any case, Florensky’s poem “On the Death of V. Solovyov” is dated August 1900, which contains the following lines: “You strove for the light of truth... Having noticed a particle of truth, you extracted it from lies, being able to understand the fable. And you accomplished everything through Christ” (Ibid. p. 94). Wed. from a letter from V.P. Sventsitsky to Florensky on June 30, 1904: “You very definitely defend the idea of ​​all-unity, proving that it runs like a red thread in the Holy Scriptures, and that without the idea of ​​all-unity the most basic dogmas of Christianity become absurd” (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. P. 641). Andronik (Trubachev), abbot. Bibliographic reference book. Personality, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. P. 121. Correspondence between V.V. Rozanov and P.A. Florensky // Rozanov V.V. Literary exiles. Book two. pp. 12, 22–23, 34, 41, 54–56, 127–128, 137. It is impossible not to notice that these testimonies least of all look “bookish” or formal. See especially from the letters of 1909: “In Christ we receive the sweetness of angelic existence. You don’t understand that we can rest “on the chest of Christ, at the feet of Christ” from “your” topics” (Ibid. p. 16); “I will tell the secret of my soul to One Only, but because He will only cry with me... I love Him, - Whom you hate. And I know that I, absolutely free, stand face to face with Him Alone, I value His opinion alone...” (Ibid. p. 18); “Nothing will satisfy the heart except Him. Behold, I am all before you...” (Ibid. P. 19); “The fact of the matter is that with Him I feel quiet and good...” (Ibid. p. 21); “The entire structure of my soul rests on Christ. For me He constantly turns out to be everything in everything - “it turns out” because sometimes I tried to leave Him and walk in freedom, but I came to Him” (Ibid. p. 25). Wed. from a letter to A. Bely on July 18, 1904: “What to think ahead: after all, everything depends on how much we ourselves are imbued with Christ” (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 2. P. 652). Georgy Florovsky, prot. Paths of Russian theology. P. 497. See: Florensky P. Opening address before the defense for a master's degree... // Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (2). The Pillar and Ground of Truth. M. 1990, p. 820. See in note 66 to “The Pillar and Ground of Truth”: “The question arises as to how exactly the idea of the authority of Christ arises—how the mysterious rebirth of the soul occurs. Without leaving the boundaries of my work, which has theodicy as its subject, and not anthropodicy, I could not deal with this issue. But I consider it my duty to emphasize that there is a gap here, which I propose to fill in the long-planned work “On the Increase of Types.” Without taking into account this essential gap, the reader would expose the author to the risk of being called a Christian without Christ” (Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (2). Pillar and statement of Truth. P. 638). See in the “Diary” of A.V. Elchaninov, entry on September 24, 1909: “I will write down only one part of the conversation, especially important for me, although I heard these thoughts from him a year and a half ago, last spring.” The following is a recording of the words of P.A. Florensky, who was at that time teaching the history of philosophy at the Moscow Theological Academy for the first year: “Now you and I are writing about Dionysus; After all, I must experience all this, feel it, today I did not sleep all night, from some kind of general excitement, as if I myself had participated in orgies. And so that's it. Same with lectures. I know that in subsequent lectures I will give a Christian synthesis, but while I am presenting, I cannot help but be imbued with a sympathetic attitude towards my subject” (quoted from: Seeking Cities. Chronicle of the private life of Russian religious philosophers in letters and diaries / Comp., introductory article, commentary. V. I. Keidan. M. 1997. P. 210). Wed. from a letter from Fr. Paul to his son Kirill, written in the Solovetsky camp a few months before his death (letter February 21, 1937): “What have I been doing all my life? – I looked at the world as a whole, as a single picture, but at every given moment or, more precisely, at every stage of my life, from a certain angle. I looked at world relationships across the world in a certain direction, on a certain plane, and tried to understand the structure of the world according to this feature that interested me at this stage. The planes of the cut changed, but one did not cancel the other, but only enriched it” (Pavel Florensky, priest. Works: in 4 vols. T. 4. Letters from the Far East and Solovkov. M., 1998. P. 672). “And you trusted everything in Christ” - from Florensky’s poem “On the Death of Vl. Solovyov”, 1900 (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 1. P. 94). A term widely used by V. Solovyov. See, for example: “If the absolute remained only itself, excluding its other, then this other would be its negation and, therefore, it itself would no longer be absolute... In order to be what it is, it must be... the unity of itself and its opposite” (Solovyov V.S. Philosophical principles of integral knowledge // Solovyov V.S. Works: v2 vol. T. 2. M., 1988. P. 234). See, for example: “We... cannot take the traditional doctrine of the “creation of the world” in its popular form in its literal sense... That the world and all things and beings “emerged” “out of nothing” at the command of... God is unthinkable in this form” (Frank S. Works. M., 1990. P. 519); cf.: “God as the absolute... The First Principle is the all-unity, without which nothing at all is unthinkable... Therefore, if we say that the world is something completely different from God, we must not forget that there is precisely the “other of God”” (Ibid. p. 521). See: Solovyov V.S. Readings on God-Humanity. St. Petersburg, 1994, pp. 185–187. See p. 189–190 ad. publications; cf.: Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (2). The Pillar and Ground of Truth. P. 756. Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (1). The Pillar and Ground of Truth. pp. 327–329. See, for example: “In general, man is a certain union of the Divine with material nature, which presupposes in man three constituent elements: divine, material and connecting both, the actually human...” (Solovyov V.S. Readings on God-manhood. pp. 187–188). Pavel Florensky, priest. Iconostasis // Pavel Florensky, priest. Selected works on art. M., 1996. P. 90. “But to reject abstract dogmatism does not mean to reject the dogmas themselves... In the same way, pointing out the imperfections of a well-known theological system does not in any way mean to encroach on the dogmas of our faith. These latter do not depend on any of our theological systems; their content is given in revelation and is most precisely defined in the dogmatic decrees of the universal Church, obligatory for all her children” - Remarks of Mr. Solovyov [on the articles “New Philosophers and Theologians”] // Faith and Reason. 1885. May. No. 1. P. 589). For aspects of this work that are significant for the philosophy and phenomenology of religion, see: Antonov K. M. Philosophy of religion in Russian metaphysics. XX - early XX centuries. M., 2009. P. 213. Wed. from Florensky’s letter to his sister Yulia on October 27, 1900: “Beautiful” “to a greater or lesser extent is everywhere... My principle is to draw truth from everywhere, wherever it is” (Florensky P.V. Finding the way. Pavel Florensky in his university years. T. 1. pp. 205–206). Pavel Florensky, priest. Philosophy of cult A.S. 432. See, for example. present publications From the recording of the conversation with N.Ya. Simonovich-Efimova with priest Pavel Florensky (See: Appendix // Florensky P.A. Names. Kharkov; M., 2000. P. 215). The question was asked about the Guardian Angel: if, as Fr. Paul, “Guardian Angel is a name,” then how then does everyone have a separate angel? (Ibid.). See, for example, the description of Plato as “the deepest of the pagans” (Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (1). Pillar and statement of Truth. P. 197). Florensky P.A. [Works]. T. 1 (1). The Pillar and Ground of Truth. pp. 343–349. See also, for example, references to St. Gregory the Theologian (Ibid., p. 328), on the “Shepherd” of Hermas (Ibid., pp. 336–337). See, for example: Florovsky G.V. Creature and creatureliness // Florovsky G. Dogma and history. M., 1998. P. 108–150; Florovsky G.V. The concept of creation in St. Athanasius the Great // Ibid. pp. 80–106; Seraphim (Sobolev), archbishop. New teaching about Sophia the Wisdom of God. pp. 107–123. Pavel Florensky, priest. To my children. Memories of past days. P. 33. See, for example: Ibid., pp. 42, 48. See." eg: Pavel Florensky, priest. To my children. Memories of past days. pp. 23–28. See, for example, in the letter to V.A. Kozhevnikov March 15, 1912 “God is not an idea,” he writes here, “innate or transcendental or whatever, but the Living Spirit and our Father, and He leads us; even when we deviate “on our path,” and then He does not leave us and, having allowed us to go our own way, still directs us for the better... I know this from experience, I feel this with my whole being, for, no matter how bad I was, I never lost the feeling of the Presence of God and this is ens realissimum (Latin - “the most real essence”; italics mine. - N.P.)" (Correspondence P.A. Florensky and V.A. Kozhevnikov // Questions of Philosophy. 1991. No. 6. P. 99). According to abbot Andronik (Trubachev), Fr. Pavel Florensky “was afraid to turn scientific theology into pure scholasticism. He acted on the basis of personal experience... did not want to put on paper what he had not yet experienced in his own experience” (Florensky today: three points of view // Questions of Philosophy. 1997. No. 5. P. 128). “Unfortunately, it is necessary to mention this in connection with the presence, along with constructive, also obviously tendentious and unjustified criticism, which is pronounced against Florensky supposedly from the position of Orthodox theology. See, for example: Gavryushchin N.K. Russian theology. Sketches and portraits. N. Novgorod, 2005. P. 255; Bonetskaya N. K. P. Florensky: Russian Goetheanism // Questions of Philosophy. 2003. No. 3. P. 108. Wed: “Florensky was a completely conscious occultist, although he always dissociated himself from the “official” theosophical and occult circles, belonging to which he, of course, disliked” (Lurie V.M. Afterword // John Meyendorff, Archpriest. The Life and Works of St. Gregory Palamas. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 340). You might be interested in: