23. Мнения и отзывы о публикациях

“Concern is about preserving faith, morality, public order and tranquility” (19–2:59) The Moscow Saint’s opinions and reviews of publications can begin with his reflections on one of his works. “From me,” reports the Most Reverend Author, “I was required to give my opinion on the benefits of publishing the Latin and Spanish “Conversations on the Orthodoxy of the Greek-Russian Church.” To this demand, I have the honor to respond that I do not consider it useful to publish the said translations for the following reasons. 1. The conversations were written for the use of the sons of the Greek-Russian Church in Russia, for which both the special details of the composition and indications of some books circulating in use in Russia were adapted. Therefore, if it were necessary to make this work known in other places, then it would be necessary to make some changes in it corresponding to this new purpose. 2. Latin and Spanish are currently not appropriate tools for disseminating information in Europe. 3. The Latin translation (I can’t judge the Spanish) is not quite clean, clear and accurate; in some places it is extended by the addition of colloquial formulas, weakening the connection of the argument; and even contains errors that completely obscure the meaning of the original. For example, the word “manuscript” is translated by the Latin epistola, which means “writing”” (36:31–32). The Saint also expresses certain opinions about other works by other authors, both those being prepared for publication and those published. His general judgment is this: “It is better to correct what is not printed than to bear a heavy responsibility for what is printed” (4:459). This is how his attitude towards upcoming publications and reproduction is perceived: “Do you (Archimandrite Anthony. - K.S.) know the life of Gregory the Sinaite, written by Callistus, and the life of Simeon the New Theologian, written by his disciple and shortened by someone when transposed into modern Greek? – The Optina elders want to print them, but it seems doubtful to me whether it will be useful. The Life of Gregory the Sinai is written so verbosely and heavily that it is unlikely to attract readers. And in the life of Simeon the New Theologian, the legend about his celebration of Simeon the Reverent, without church approval, and, moreover, for seven days, as Easter is celebrated, can give rise to incorrect imitation. It is also strange that the patriarch at first approves of this, then condemns it with the council, and expels the Monk Simeon; and then promises to make him a bishop if he agrees to moderate his celebration, and finally leaves everything to his will. The action of the hierarchy, whatever it may be, is presented in a too disordered and incoherent form: and it suggests whether the story has suffered from the narrator and the reteller. A letter is attributed to the Monk Simeon, which he wrote from his exile to the persecutor Metropolitan Stephen and in which he thanked him and challenged him to greater persecution. It seems to me that it is difficult to expect this from the meekness of a holy man” (9:209–210)... “My thought does not reconcile with the proposal to publish all the documents... There are letters from some respectable men who, of course, did not think that their letters would be published. And who knows if they won’t be unhappy with this? How many personal fiftieth anniversaries were celebrated in the highest social circles! And their acts were not fully published" (13:110)... "The mind's gaze on the Sacraments in a brief and vague outline of the essence and power of the Sacraments can arouse distrust, although I am sure that your mind looks at the Sacraments modestly and reverently" (15:32-33). The Saint is strict in his judgments about published works: “I began to read the history of Bethany... Having looked at some of the appendices, I cannot help but argue... Theological provisions, which rely on justification by faith, without mention of works, and the Sacraments are called rites, if the censor allows it to be published, then not only himself, but also the Academy will be criticized for unorthodoxy, and rightly so. The Bethany rector Gideon, in the simplicity of his heart, wrote about justification, looking into some foreign book, finding that it was similar to what was said in the epistles of the Apostle Paul, and not caring whether these epistles should be understood in accordance with the epistle of the Apostle James" (9:62-63)... "In the Discourse on the Fasts, I do not like the introduction. What is it that every young man sets himself up as a defender of the Church against her enemies? It is not modest for a young man, it is offensive to the Church and the purpose of the essay is not favorable. Before you edify with the teaching about fasting, you have already confused the reader with the opinion that he is rejected and that he requires your protection. Wouldn’t it be simpler to start with the fact that some, observing fasts, do not fully know the beginning and importance of this institution, while others, not fully knowing this, allow themselves to be careless about this institution, and therefore it is necessary to show the truth in order to enlighten the ignorant and arouse the careless?” (15:2–4). The saint returns some of his works for revision and revision: “I am forced to return to you, Father Rector, an essay on the Holy Spirit. The testimonies of the Apostolic Men are presented well, and I thought of reading everything completely. Hermas thought of believing the parable in the original and stating it differently from the author. But when it came to analyzing the evidence of Tertullian, Clement, Origen, some things turned out to be dark and confusing, such as, for example, what is the “inner side of the Holy Spirit?” Why are we forced to try harder to justify these people where they have misunderstood or been too clever? These are not fathers. Their good sayings testify in favor of the truth, as it was known in their times, and their errors must remain with them. The opinion about the procession of the Holy Spirit “through the Son,” declared without proof by the Orthodox, was the line at which I stopped and did not read further. Orthodoxy is expressed in this subject in the exact words of Christ: if you allow the addition of “through the Son” to them, then it will be more difficult for you to prohibit the addition of “and from the Son.” And how can we prohibit it, when “through” and “from,” instrumentale and efiiciens, do not differ in the Divine, God the Father created the world “through the Son” in the Holy Spirit, or: the world was created from the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit? It is necessary to once again reconsider the work, which in its first part promised to be good” (15:31–32)... “I am returning the article “On the superiority of Christian moral teaching over others.” The thought of such a comparison, if processed clearly and accurately, can bear fruit. But the experience made does not seem satisfactory to me. Who is this for? – Of course, for those tempted by doubts about the Divine dignity of Christianity. He who does not trust the Holy Scriptures and the Church will not trust some writer who defends Christianity, who tells from himself the opinions of peoples and philosophers. – It is necessary not only to indicate where the information was taken from, but in the most important cases to provide accurate extracts. This is the only way to influence those who doubt. - “Work worthy of more than one hand.” But if you undertake enormous labor with many hands, you will not increase, but decrease the benefit. How many people have the means to buy an expensive book, the time and the desire to read it? An essay of not a large volume in this distracted age may not intimidate the reader with difficulty, but will attract attention with its thoroughness and entertainment, and may find many readers. “Those who sin are those who present one worst side in the concepts of pagan peoples.” Let's not argue against this. But the best and worst sides must be presented very carefully, so as not to show that the mind wandered in the darkness, and then the light shone, and continues this in Christianity. The path of clarification is better and will pave a reliable path for the matter” (13:80–81)... “Concerning the life of St. Philip, I propose a question: should it be returned to the Holy Synod with comments that will not be very pleasant, or should it be sent with comments to you (the rector, later Archbishop Alexy of Tver. - K.S.) so that the author frees the work from comments? Considerable work is foreseen” (14:33)... “With hope, I began to read the discourse on Pentecost. But the stories about strangers and endless details from the liturgical books, with which, it seems to me, “Sunday Reading” has already filled everyone, did not captivate me until the end of the notebook. Scientific reasoning should not be modeled on a light magazine article written to excite the inattentive. I am returning this essay too. Also about the holiday of the Nativity of Christ. Also about Easter” (15:33). Saint Philaret admits his imprudence in some publications and explains his motives for them: “I admit imprudence in printing the apocrypha. I was prompted to indulgence by this freedom-loving family, who complain that I am restricting the freedom of thought in the underlings, and who were surprised that I agreed to the publication of new magazines. Of the apocrypha, I have previously read only the Gospel of Nicodemus; and I partially remember that, when I was still about 15 years old, I read the Gospel of Thomas. For this reason, I remember, when considering the magazine’s program, I said that it should not be published, and that I was generally afraid of apocrypha. But at the insistence, I left a mention of the apocrypha in the program, which in this form was presented to the Holy Synod, waiting to see whether it would allow this part of the publication. The Holy Synod allowed” (5:569). The saint considers certain works not sufficient for publication or simply belittling, casting a shadow on the area to which their authors are trying to relate: “The “Biblical Alphabet” (compiled by Archimandrite Makariy Glukharev. - K.S.), as far as I can see in speed, does not give a high opinion of itself. The book does not present the arrangement of objects correctly and conveniently for use and edification. The texts seem to be cobbled together from different places, rather than sorted into subjects of study and reflection. But the main problem is that the lithographed translation of the Old Testament books has hardened jealousy against any translation of the Holy Scriptures into the Russian dialect. There is not the slightest hope that this alphabet will be allowed to be printed” (18:70–71)... “Forgive me, a prosaic person. I am not always happy with what is now called poetry. You say, for example, “the fortified monasteries provided a ready-made frame for this romantic picture.” I agree that the view of the area presents a picture, but nature does not force its pictures into tight and forced frames. The metaphor of “frames” was brought from France and has already been beaten by poets and prose writers. Abodes are individual points: how to represent them as a continuous frame? Further, “so as not to disturb the freshness of impressions with bitter traces of experience.” Maybe I lack taste, but it seems to me that the traces are not bitter, because they cannot be taken into the mouth and tasted, but you can see them, but the eye sees light, dark, etc., but sees neither bitter nor sweet" (4: 256-257)... “I used to be ashamed to write, read and listen to the Lavra’s poems - that’s what the Lavra’s poetry left in me... I might add, what not to do, namely: not to write poetry and not to consume anything refined for which there was a taste, but has passed away” (19-1:72). The Saint thanks for some books, considers them necessary, but in them he finds something that could be improved, corrected: “Thank you for the Theology. Good work. But let me not hide my thought that he could have received useful improvement if you (Archbishop Filaret Gumilevsky - K.S.), having gained some time from your other scientific works, equally important, had gone over your Theology with a critical eye and managed to more accurately present the truths. Then, I think, they would change the unpleasant thing that blessed Theodoret was “tempted” by the word of St. Cyril, while there was no temptation, and one uttered the word ’ίδιος, the other noticed that this could be interpreted in two ways, and the first defined the Orthodox meaning of it. And words are not trifles when it comes to dogmas and the Saints, and especially at a time when the correctness and precision of the word must be guarded with understanding from the increase in inattention to the laws of language, logic and taste in writing” (15:50). Non-Orthodox books, and even more so anti-Orthodox, if someone mentioned them, he, according to the words of the Saint, must subject them to criticism, an example of which is the Archpastor himself: “It seems to me that if you mention a book against Orthodoxy, then it would be necessary at the same time to present, although not an extensive, but a clear denunciation against it, so that those who learn about it would feel disdain for it, and not a desire to get it and read it.” (4:506)... “The essay (of the Jesuit Prince Gagarin. - K.S.) shows with what thoroughness the writer chose Roman Catholicism. He wrote a whole chapter entitled: “Catholicism or Revolution,” that is, he thinks that where there is no Catholicism, there will be a revolution; and that Catholicism will deliver from revolution. He did not remember that the revolution was born in a Catholic country; that in 1847 the mouth of the revolution opened at the very center of Catholicism and would have swallowed up the pope if he had not managed to escape, that to this day an alien army stands in Rome over the mouth of the revolution so that it does not open up again and swallow up the pope. Wouldn't he have come closer to the truth if he had written a different chapter under the title: “Catholicism and Revolution?” That is, Catholic despotism in Rome, enslaving everything worldly within itself, managing the courts, the police and the military ministry through priests and monks, but not knowing how to govern, drives people out of patience and increases the inclination towards revolution” (16:107). The Saint is critical of secular - anti-church literature, which harms holy Orthodoxy and destroys the very foundations of human existence: “If even for one year you take all the bad things from secular magazines and combine them, then there will be such a stench against which it is difficult to find enough incense to drown it out. It is necessary to take the unhealthy thing piece by piece and offer healing. I speak about this to my brethren, but the language of the innovators moves more quickly than the language of the guardians” (10:322)... “The article from the newspaper is bad, blasphemous, but is it the same? They print even worse things. And it’s difficult, there are no means to resist. I wrote to the Holy Synod about Afanasyev’s legends, full of blasphemy and immorality; reported to the minister; he replied that the censor who missed this book had already been dismissed, and after that the Archaeological Society awarded Afanasyev an award for this book” (10:329)... “The fate of our books is strange. In some, even what is harmful is not persecuted, but in others, what is strictly persecuted is that, although not entirely right and unpleasant, is not harmful” (2:70)... “The type of literature currently suggests to the discerning authorities the question: is there a conspiracy that is trying to bring everything respected in society into contempt and shake the convictions of faith and morality, in order to more easily turn everything into democratic chaos. Not long ago in Moscow, a newspaper published an article about suicide, in which the question was asked whether it was a sin; it is said that the philosophers approved of this - in a word, the article tends to weaken the disgust from this crime, and there are barely two or three lines in it that this is not approved by Christianity" (19-2:59). Only one magazine, “Mayak,” evokes in the Saint a kind feeling towards him: “If Mayak wants to proclaim the dogma of traditions, what’s the harm? Let at least one secular magazine preach dogmas, when many idle talk against dogmas and commandments!” (2:55). Could censorship have been able to prevent and protect against the appearance of unwanted works? “I have all the disputes with censorship,” says the Saint. “You probably heard that she approved of the poems: “Prayer at the Cross,” and under this title: “arias” and “choirs.” Now it turns out that she also approved a book that proves that the Lord did not celebrate the Old Testament Passover, and this was reported to me from St. Petersburg. And Saint Chrysostom asks: why did the Savior celebrate Easter? And he answers: so as not to leave any reason to accuse him of breaking the law” (9:206-207). Apparently, the bishop’s blessing could have been more appropriate in publishing: “It is fitting that the non-monastic clergy does not publish their works, especially spiritual ones, without the blessing of the bishop, especially since it would not be superfluous for a monastic to require the blessing of the abbot” (8:385)... There is also a good remedy that is constantly present with us - not to drink from a dirty source ourselves: “Between a Christian and an atheist, the distance is like this It is great that one can encounter an innumerable number of misconceptions here. Without need, it is better not to read what is subject to doubt. It is enough to eat clean and healthy food” (19:256). For children and those who are similar to them in their knowledge, we need literature that is accessible in its simplicity and captivating in its content. “It’s time to return to us the History of the Russian Church and say what I think,” says Saint Philaret. – If a book is written for children, and especially for children of the common people, then simplicity is necessary... The effort to bring particulars under a general view and present history in the form of a discussion about events is not a childish direction in history. History for children should consist of simple, only correct and coherent stories - judgment must be thrown between them like salt, with caution so as not to over-salt... It is true that the chronicles and the Degree Book are the sources of our Church history. But whether it is necessary to point out and praise new teaching aids to children, again I doubt it” (36:11, 12)... “Again it seems to me that this story is not for children and not for schismatics. The effort to understand everything according to general views and to turn events into reasoning will not suit the minds of children; and condemnations of the schism, even if they are pronounced in general, will not be according to the thoughts of the schismatics. In order for the story to be understandable and attractive to children, it is necessary to talk about people and deeds simply, to avoid even polysyllabic forms of speech, and even more so to abstract reasoning. So that schismatics do not run away from this story, it is necessary to mention what concerns them just as simply, without reproaches and harsh denunciations, but only with undeniable reliability. But a true story will itself lead to the fact that the schism will not be right, and the schism leaders will not deserve respect” (36:17-18). Particular attention should be paid to the Saint’s opinion about sermons preached and then, as a rule, published. “Let us think, beloved brother,” the Moscow Hierarch addresses Archbishop Gabriel of Tver and Kashin, “is it clear whether we are teaching usefully, whether we are leading subordinate teachers on the path, or whether we are leading them astray if, following the example of the bishop, they begin to play with the word of the Holy Scripture as they please” (19-1:68). And he gives an example: “Mr. Ventura (one cannot say Father Ventura), it seems, fled from Rome and came to Paris and from the Christian pulpit preached the republic, and now he has found a new Orthodoxy and realized that on Easter Day it is more useful to preach the resurrection of the empire than the resurrection of Christ. What will this spiritual eloquence reach, tuned to such different tones” (16:109). Or: “I began to read a word of praise to St. Sergius. It is written good-naturedly, but it will almost be tiresome to listen to a chain of expressions, of which you can already know the following from a few” (9:285). – We need simplicity, clarity, accessibility. “The effort to present contemplation in the forms of reasoning, I don’t know if there is a reliable way of instruction in general, at least this is not a popular way of instruction. What you say (Reverend Evlampy Pyatnitsky - K.S.) about calling on the name of the Lord from the Philokalia is clearer than anything else, because it is taken from experience, and not from speculation, but even in the Philokalia it is not for everyone. It is necessary to lead the people to spiritual activity, but with simple, clear, active instruction, and not through the dark paths of fortune-telling. We - those who speak to the people - often need to remember the apostolic: “It is not the lofty who philosophize, but the humble who are led” (36:8; 29:518). It is noteworthy that Saint Philaret examines certain conversations during Holy Week and makes wise—naturally, useful—comments. “I received the Holy Week conversations... I would like a calm mind to go through the work... and clear the matter. Sermon: “The elder said to the monks: we will cry; and we will cry at the Holy Sepulcher"; - I don’t know whether my mind will like it if I don’t allow myself to be blinded by superficial shines. How small an example for the greatest subject. How carelessly, incompletely, and incorrectly the sermon of Saint Macarius was retold! There was no sermon at Calvary, you see! How easily wit kills truth! The sermon: “Daughters of Jerusalem, do not weep for Me,” etc., is not a sermon, and could it not be a closer example of what is being analyzed now than the saying of St. Macarius? A – “it’s accomplished!” is this not the greatest of sermons? And the centurion said his sermon: “Truly this is the Son of God.” This sermon is not much shorter than the one discussed; and is it not a sermon because the centurion is not a Doctor of Theology and delivered it without a lectern or pulpit” (4:22). The saint also does not allow preaching very long sermons. “What kind of sermon is 70 pages long? Who could listen to her? (19–1:67) he asks. “Our people are not yet quite disposed to intense and prolonged attention - they take a short word, close to the understanding and to the heart, and carry it away without dropping it” (19-1:189; 23:117). It must also be taken into account where, in what setting, in the presence of whom the instructive word is spoken: “It is not very convenient to lecture the Sovereign in front of the people, but you can teach the people in the presence of the Sovereign. I would also not dare to speak much in praise of the Sovereign to his face, for it is difficult to listen to such things... It’s a different matter what I say to the Sovereign in Moscow and soon afterwards in the Lavra. Here it was so established by custom that my silence would have been understood in an unpleasant way” (14:238)... “It is very fair that the Sovereign Emperor loves God and Russia - therefore you can freely approach him with your heart, but not equally freely with your words... I heard that the Sovereign Emperor had difficulty when he stood under the scorching sun with his head open, listening to your (Archbishop Alexy of Tver - K.S.) speech. Maybe fewer words - and you would have received a sign of his favor, which would have helped your affairs in St. Petersburg. Courage is good, but caution and restraint are no less good” (14:239-240). – Edification must be done with caution (9:344). Being careful, the Saint did not allow haste in his speeches and considered it necessary for the sermons of other mentors to be checked, especially if they touched upon issues of public order: “I am sending the sermon so that the censor will review it and return it to me, but I still don’t know whether I will decide to publish it; and your (Archbishop Alexy of Tver - K.S.) publication should not count on me and expect me. I have my own reasons not to rush into determination, not to hesitate after determination” (14:35)... “I regret that you (the same addressee - K.S.) allowed the inspector to speak the word that you sent me. I think you heard in Moscow how I complained about preachers who clumsily tackle political subjects, and that sometimes, having received this kind of sermon and not being able to allow it to be delivered, I was forced to write my own sermon... We have a duty with instructions to support in our subjects loyalty and devotion to the Most Pious Sovereign, for this it is proper to say in a sermon that he cares about the elevation and welfare of all classes, not excluding the lower ones, but it is not our business to go into controversial details; and it may happen that we will not guess the thoughts of the Government, which have not yet been fully revealed; and in this case we will in vain leave the church road in order to stumble into a hole on the political road” (14:193-194). “I am writing this,” the saint concludes, “without being concerned about saving my brethren from being hurt by ridicule. By the will of God, we will endure. Concern is about preserving faith, morality, public order and tranquility” (19–2:59). You might be interested in: