Глава 1. Сотворение пастыря

Parish clergy and Orthodox tradition in modernizing Russia Ioann Sergiev’s childhood fell during the era of Nicholas I. By this time, the modernization reforms launched by Peter the Great had already significantly complicated the life of the parish clergy and even seriously lowered their social status. Yes, Russians continued to remain one of the most church-going and pious peoples in Europe 24 . However, popular piety did not always automatically imply veneration for the priest appointed to lead his flock. After Peter's reforms, the unshakable position of parish pastors noticeably weakened; corporal punishment could now even be applied to them 25 . The most common religious customs - be it pilgrimage, veneration of local shrines, icons and relics - were not directly related to the parish clergy. But monasticism was still highly revered and considered the most godly form of church service. Traditional veneration of monasticism inevitably led to a certain desacralization of parish priests, who were in the overwhelming majority family people and, therefore, remained in this mortal earthly world. At the same time, monastics, as well as various people of God - pilgrims, hermits, blessed ones - in the consciousness of the majority of both the laity and the clergy themselves were, as it were, closer to the Creator 26. The priests were inferior not only to the monks and similar ascetics, but also to the bishops. Only if in the first case the parish priests lacked personal charisma, then in the second they clearly lacked official influence and material wealth. Such an incongruous importance of priests - the most massive part of the clergy, which was least paid attention to - was also reflected in Russian holiness. By the 19th century, more than eight centuries after the baptism of Rus', virtually none of the representatives of the white clergy had been canonized. The main “characters” of the Menaion are monastics and bishops, secular rulers and warriors, various kinds of God’s people. In the Russian Empire in the mid-19th century. holiness was still determined either by some kind of innate “otherworldliness” or involvement in power 27 . The marginalization of the parish clergy in the Russian tradition of piety was also associated with the gradual decline in the role of the sacrament of Holy Communion, initially central in church life. Such an attitude towards this sacrament had a long prehistory both in Russia and in the Orthodox church tradition in general, dating back to the words of Cyril of Jerusalem about reverent awe and established in liturgical practice by many canonical rules 28 . In accordance with church teaching on the Eucharist, it was believed that if a communicant received the Holy Gifts without properly preparing himself, then he would inevitably face severe punishment for his careless attitude towards this key sacrament established by the Savior Himself. Therefore, it often happened that parishioners did not dare to approach the Holy Chalice, even after confessing and receiving absolution 29. As a result, established by the 16th century. the practice of receiving Holy Communion only once a year was considered the norm and lasted until the 19th century. Moreover, in Russia the Eucharistic rules were fixed at the legislative level. As a result, entire government institutions, guards regiments and gymnasium classes were obliged to receive communion on certain and strictly established days. Thus, the church sacrament became not only a religious rite, but also a loyal obligation 30. Changes in the architecture of Russian churches also stimulated the strengthening of a special attitude towards the Eucharist. Unlike the Catholic tradition, where the Holy Gifts located on the monstrance were available for people to see, the Orthodox iconostasis, which separated the altar from the rest of the church accessible to parishioners, became higher and higher over the centuries and eventually completely hid the throne from the eyes of those praying; as a result, the central part of the liturgy of the faithful, during which the transubstantiation of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Lord takes place, turned out to be inaccessible to their views. At the same time, icons and other shrines, such as holy water or prosphora (as well as Easter cakes, eggs, Easter or fruit on the holidays of the Holy Resurrection or Transfiguration, respectively), myrrh, holy relics and crosses, began to seem more accessible means of strengthening faith than the awe-inspiring Holy Communion 31 . The great reforms made inevitable (albeit moderate and cautious) modernization changes within the Church. Russian bishops found themselves faced with the difficult task of improving the spiritual education of both the clergy themselves and the entire flock in general. The education given to students of parochial schools was improved, the importance of preaching work, helping the sick and infirm was increased, and in general the active social activities of priests were emphasized 32 . Together with government departments, the Church has established the publication of periodicals designed to improve the spiritual education of the reading part of the flock. In magazines such as Soulful Reading, reports began to appear about miracles occurring in churches during the liturgy. Such publications were intended to strengthen the churchliness of the literate and, therefore, those most vulnerable to “progressive” propaganda of believers 33 . For a deeper understanding of divine services by parishioners, interpretations of the liturgy and other divine services began to be published, which, according to some church authors, remained incomprehensible to the majority of the population 34 . Particularly popular among the laity were popular expositions of the fundamentals of the faith, compiled in the form of answers from the priest to the questions of the flock. The bishops began to persuade the laity to receive communion more often. Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), for example, called for communion not once, but four times a year. Like church hierarchs, court composers who created sacred music and chants also began to pay primary attention to the semantic side of their compositions, and not to their aesthetic impact on worshipers. They convinced church singers to abandon Italian music of the 18th century: “... the combined effect of sacred music with secular music during worship should not be, because secular obscures the dignity, purpose and purpose of the first.” At the same time, “sacred melodies must inevitably be brief and constantly defined, so that they take root in the memory and do not distract the attention with either news or variety; they must be simple and enlivened by the fire of the heart, so as to warm the heart and uplift the spirit!” 36 Thus, the bishops simultaneously pursued two goals: to make meaningful participation in the liturgy the basis of Orthodox piety and to increase the role of the priest, strengthening both his preaching work with the flock and, in general, activities aimed at educating parishioners. New impulse in the 19th century. missionary activity also gained 37. At the Kazan Theological Academy, missionary activity became a separate discipline; the Holy Scriptures were translated into the languages ​​of most peoples of the Russian Empire 38 . By the time Fr. As John embarked on the path of his pastoral ministry, the transformations begun by both ecclesiastical and secular authorities were significantly synchronized. In fact, a fundamentally new spiritual experience was rapidly taking shape in Russia, based on a noticeable increase in the role of preaching and church education, more zealous personal prayer, and the transformation of pilgrimage from the lot of a few into a fairly massive phenomenon of Orthodox life. This spiritual experience became a kind of response of the generally still traditional Russian society to the challenges of “civilization” and “progress” generated by the New Age. Traditional Christian denominations experienced similar processes in Europe, in particular in France 39 . In addition, the rapid growth in the number of sectarians and Old Believers forced the Russian Orthodox Church to more competently and clearly present the dogmas of faith 40. The Kronstadt shepherd became both the product and the symbol of all these changes. His innovations should be considered in the context of both the rapidly changing realities of worldly life and the intentions of church hierarchs not only not to lose control over these processes, but also to give them the greatest possible Orthodox coloring. Fr.'s childhood years and the beginning of his pastoral ministry. Joanna John Sergiev was born on October 19, 1829 in the small village of Sura, Arkhangelsk province, in the family of a deacon of the local church, Ilya Mikhailovich Sergiev, and his wife, Fedora Vlasyevna. The newborn looked so weak that his parents immediately baptized him: if the baby did not survive, he would at least leave this world as a Christian. And subsequently John remained a weak and sickly child; one day he almost died from smallpox. In his autobiography, Fr. John describes Ilya Mikhailovich and Fedora Vlasyevna as extremely devout people - according to him, it was they who instilled in him a love of prayer and raised him in the spirit of deep religiosity 41 . Although the family was poor, the parents were able to send ten-year-old John with their modest savings to Arkhangelsk to a parochial school. Unfortunately, despite all his diligence, the boy at first did not show the slightest inclination to study and was tormented by the thought that his parents were wasting their last pennies on him. However, after persistent nightly prayers, he suddenly began to fully understand the lessons and became one of the best students. After school, he entered the theological seminary, from which he graduated in 1851, showing the most brilliant results in his group. Thanks to this, John received the opportunity to continue his education at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. However, in the same year, his father died, leaving Fedora Vlasyevna with virtually no means of support. To help his mother and sisters, John wanted to give up studying at the academy and immediately go to work as a deacon or even a sexton, but Fedora Vlasyevna resolutely insisted that her son continue his education. Then John, in parallel with his studies, got a job in the administration of the academy as a copyist of papers and sent his entire salary - ten rubles a month - home. John’s official position allowed him to have his own room, and he appreciated this rare opportunity for an academy student to retire for deep prayer and independent study. He seriously studied philosophy, history, Latin, literature, physics, mathematics, foreign languages, as well as patristics and theology. Although the shepherd later wrote little about this time of his life, it largely determined his future path. He received a thorough education and fell in love with patristic literature, especially the works of St. John Chrysostom, as well as Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, and felt that his true calling was to become a priest 42. John had no close friends, and years later his classmates could only remember about their former comrade that “he talked all the time about humility.” During his last year at the academy, John fell into an inexplicable depression and, as he later admitted, was able to get out of it only through incessant prayer 43 . While still a student at the academy, John once saw in a dream how he entered the apse of a large cathedral and exited through its southern gate (laity, as a rule, move in the opposite direction). It so happened that it was in this cathedral that he saw in a dream that John later had the opportunity to serve his entire life 44 . John married the daughter of Archpriest Konstantin Nesvitsky, who served in Kronstadt in St. Andrew's Cathedral - the same one that he dreamed of and which he had never been to before. After his wedding with Elizabeth Konstantinovna, John was ordained to the rank of deacon, and at the end of 1855 - priest 45. Information about this period of Fr. John's works are very stingy and represent either later memories or a retelling from other people's words; however, after the beginning of priestly service, the opportunity arises to lift the veil over the inner world of Fr. John thanks to his diary. Just like Rev. Anthony the Great recommended that monks write down their thoughts and actions for spiritual self-improvement; seminary mentors encouraged students to keep diaries. This rule turns out to be extremely useful after accepting the priesthood, when the need arises for vigilant control over one’s own words and actions, as well as for the constant spiritual care of parishioners 46 . Diary of Fr. John is a true find for understanding his inner world. After all, the priest’s characteristic understanding of holiness is so unusual that it inevitably raises numerous questions. Was his desire for holiness conscious? If so, then to what extent was this desire integrated into the image of the shepherd that he created? After all, how to reconcile the desire of Fr. John to spiritual perfection, inseparable from an ascetic or monastic lifestyle, with the lot of a family priest? Diaries of Fr. John reveal his understanding of holiness. This unearthly quality, according to the shepherd, represents a kind of transition outward, into the world around him, of intensely and constantly developing personal spirituality. The idea of ​​two hypostases of a priest can significantly facilitate such an understanding of holiness. Like the medieval monarchs described by E. Kantorovich, the priest exists, as it were, in two forms: private, busy with his own salvation, and public, called upon to care for his flock. Many Christian authors, starting with John Chrysostom, sadly noted the inevitable internal confrontation between both hypostases of the clergy. And even more so – a clergyman striving for holiness 47 . The first impression made by the early diaries of Fr. John, lies in their obvious disciple content. Compiled in the first years after his ordination to the priesthood, they are almost entirely devoted to reflection on the Holy Scriptures. This is understandable, because first you must thoroughly study the tradition in which you will have to live your life, then make this tradition an integral part of your own worldview, and only after that step on the path of mentoring. Given the exceptional attention of Fr. John to exegesis, one might assume that he intended to seriously engage in theology 48 . However, upon closer examination of his exegetical reflections, a completely different motivation of the young priest becomes apparent. Interest about. John's approach to the Holy Scriptures was by no means exploratory or theological, but deeply personal. Like some of the desert fathers, he strove for a direct and personal perception of the Word of God, with the only difference that, unlike the ancient ascetics, he wrote down the results of his reflections 49 . In contrast to such masters of “clever work,” which can be considered, for example, the Optina elders, who relied both on their own monastic experience and on the instructions of other authoritative representatives of monasticism, Fr. John moved along his chosen path alone. His only companions and mentors were the Holy Scriptures and his own, although not rich, but already emerging experience of direct comprehension of God's will 50. The shepherd did not have a spiritual father or mentor, which, by the way, is a very unusual fact for the Orthodox tradition. The absence in the diaries of quotation marks or any other signs separating the words of Holy Scripture from those of the author shows that Fr. John perceived his text organically, as an integral part of his inner world. It is also very significant what exactly attracted him to the Bible. Each time he strove to isolate the most important and at the same time simple moral lesson contained in it, and not to move away from the text in order to evaluate or analyze it. His utilitarian approach to Scripture is somewhat reminiscent of the novice artist's approach to the work of his predecessors: he is both reverent and eager to achieve mastery. Almost all passages from the Bible that Fr. John rewrote and commented, from the Book of Genesis to the Book of the Prophet Isaiah, analyzed according to a single pattern: retelling, highlighting the main points and reflections. His comment on the story of the Tower of Babel 51 is typical: “The creature thanked you... did not know how to maintain itself in your dignity. Look at your beginning: from the earth, from the mud, from soulless matter, God created such a wondrous creature, consisting of a beautiful body and an even more beautiful soul, endowed with reason and freedom: instead of living and blessing and thanking God and obeying Him, man forgot in his beauty and in his greatness, the creature itself wanted to be Divine... so poorly, imperfectly did they understand God. They knew so little what the earth was and what the sky was.”52 Thus, a whole series of topics that were subsequently constantly present in the sermons of Fr. John, such as, for example, the original and insurmountable distance between God and man or the senseless pride and primitive arrogance of people who refused to recognize their position subordinate to the Creator, were first spoken by the Kronstadt shepherd precisely as his diary comments on the Holy Scriptures. Long reflections on biblical extracts strengthened the internal dialogue of Fr. John with inspired texts. After all, already from childhood he was simply saturated with the language and images of Orthodox worship and the New Testament 53. It is clear that within a few months after he began daily copying excerpts from the Holy Scriptures, while performing regular church services, Fr. began to think and speak in this liturgical and biblical dialect. John's organic and natural need. For example, the exclamation “O Life-giving Christ, our God, have mercy on me” is as typical of his diary as of a church litany or canon. In the same way, he easily combines liturgical language with colloquial language. When he writes “Glory to Your power, Lord!”, he can easily continue this exclamation with the phrase: “Glory to you, holy apostles, faithful servants of Christ our God!” Thanks to the familiar “and you,” canonical church expressions seem to lose their almost eschatological immutability and are introduced into everyday speech 54. Combining the church and personal was the main task of the first years of Fr. John. This task is clearly visible in his diary entries. He longed for their fusion both in his inner world and in the performance of his priestly duties. Father strove for maximum transparency of feelings and thoughts in order to become a worthy vessel for the Lord. In the first years of his service in Kronstadt, he still saw himself primarily as an inquisitive student of the Holy Scriptures, striving to comprehend and absorb the idea of ​​salvation inherent in it as deeply as possible. The shepherd did not yet consider his own spiritual quests to be unique. At the very beginning of his first diary, begun on December 14, 1856, he states: “Even after my death, this book will not be destroyed: perhaps someone will be found similar to me in thoughts and feelings and will show their deep sympathy for what is written in this book, if not for everything (which I do not dare to hope for, because there may be errors here, with strict criticism), then at least for some parts of it. I consider everything good and fair in this book not to be mine, but God’s... mine are only my mistakes and shortcomings” 55 . Thus, despite the fact that Fr. John had not yet thought about a possible readership in the first years of keeping a diary; he did not reject the possibility of spiritual kinship with some readers and, perhaps, even deliberately addressed them in his notes. This conscious orientation towards the potential reader may explain another feature of his previously established attitude towards the Holy Scriptures. The Bible was for him not just a kind of instrument for saving the soul. He used biblical events as a code for events in his own life. In early diaries dating from 1856–1860, Fr. John quoted passages of Scripture to identify parallels or similarities with his life experiences, rather than to describe these episodes directly, as he would do later. How exactly this “coding” worked in practice can be seen in the following example. Biographers of Fr. John was later noted that at the very beginning of his ministry in Kronstadt, both the church authorities and many of his parishioners sharply criticized the priest 56. Beginning in 1862, he openly mentioned the ridicule he was subjected to and wrote: “Rejoice when you are mocked and humiliated: this is a sure sign that you are on the narrow path that leads to the eternal belly.”57 However, in the earlier diaries of Fr. John hid the temptations he faced behind biblical parallels. Thus, commenting on the 22nd Psalm, he wrote: “It is so painful for a person when enemies rejoice at his misfortune, and God’s help is so needed against such enemies” 58 . Despite the fact that Fr. John clearly identified himself with the biblical author calling on heaven for help in defeating his enemies, but he avoided specific references to his own conflicts, striving for a detached tone of moral edification. However, it turned out to be difficult for the shepherd to maintain such a distance for long. Only a few weeks after he began keeping a diary, Fr. John already perceived the psalmist's anger as his own. The first hint that he thought of himself as a servant of God, who is not accepted by others precisely because he strives to be one, is visible in his comparison of himself with King David: “My tears were bread to me day and night, always saying to me every day: Where is your God? My God! And among Your chosen people there were such ungodly people who mocked Your servant every day, saying: Where is your God? Oh, how hard this is for a pious soul!” 59 Thus, already in the first diary of Fr. John shows signs that he identified himself with the biblical “servants of God,” whom he considered his predecessors. The desire to look for parallels with his own destiny prompted him to compare his temptations with the temptations of Jesus Christ. The essence of this comparison was completely different than when looking for common features with David the Psalmist. The Orthodox Church tradition rarely appeals to self-identification with Christ - as a rule, the divine essence of Christ (and, therefore, the significant distance between Him and people) is emphasized, rather than His human nature 60. Therefore, the desire of Fr. John, to draw a parallel between oneself and Christ meant a claim to some special closeness to God, completely unusual for Russian Orthodoxy of that time, and a certain “boldness” before the Almighty, permissible only for saints interceding before Him for people. “Jesus Christ, before he ministered in the world, was tempted by the devil. And every person, the greater his service, the stronger he is initially attacked by the devil; because the latter tries at the very beginning to destroy the beneficial influence that a person who takes upon himself to serve society can produce over time in society” 61. Perception o. John's own calling and place in the world is seen most clearly in this statement. The shepherd's intention to serve the community and turn it to the path of true faith met with obstacles and hostility in the very first year after accepting the priestly rank. He is concerned not so much with describing the specific circumstances and nature of such opposition, but with how to find the strength to continue moving towards the goal. Father cites the Savior as an example to encourage himself: if temptations are sent to the almighty Christ, then he himself, of course, must also be ready to face trials. Likewise, Fr. John examines what Job, Ezekiel and other biblical heroes had to endure in order to strengthen themselves in serving the Lord and close their eyes to the opposition of their enemies. From the student period of copying, when he sought to have the words of Scripture imprinted on him as on a blank slate, Fr. John quickly moved into a more personal relationship with both God and the Bible. Pages of dry text are now colored with bright lyrical digressions: “As in Psalm 23, the Lord shepherds me and deprives me of nothing... How good it is for me to think that the Lord Almighty and All-Good Himself shepherds me in a green place; that He instructs me on the paths of righteousness, me, a great sinner, for His name’s sake. I feel as if the words of David’s psalm were composed for me: they were so close to my heart, so close to my state. Oh, my kind and sweet shepherd Jesus! Feed me Yourself in the green places: eat Your sweetness, Your peace in my heart, like juicy grass to a sheep, so that through deprivation of it I turn to the bitter potion of passions and vices and do not kill my soul with it.”62 The power of faith Fr. John reveals the nature of his relationship to God. All other emotional attachments of the shepherd were immeasurably weaker. For him, God was simultaneously father, mother, and bride; he experienced the slightest alienation from the Creator as acutely as a romantic hero separated from his beloved. In such moments of loneliness, the priest gropingly makes his way back to God, reaching a special lyrical state: "God! Let me rest in the bosom of Thy love, as I once had the bliss of resting in it. Oh, I know, my God, my Father, how sweet it is to be in Your love. A little child is not so comforted in the embrace of his mother after his tears, as those worthy of Your love are comforted by Your love. Your love is soothing, peaceful, full of indescribable, sublime and holy joy... He who abides in Your love fears nothing, even if the whole world threatens him with countless disasters. Without You it is hard and sad for me, my soul is worried and confused; the heart is painfully aching and spinning; I am completely not myself, like an outcast, lost. I am then despicable in my own eyes; Your beautiful world then seems to not exist for me... I remain, as it were, alone - without You, and as if outside of Your creation, abandoned, pitiful, desperate. But when I rest in the bosom of Your Divine love, then You are with me, and together with You - the Creator of everything - and everyone is with me: the holy and shining angels, all the fathers, whom love for them makes inherent in me, as well as brothers and all creation, the whole visible world, heavenly and earthly. Then the world, as Thy single house, becomes my property; since then I am Your son, and the property of the Father is also the property of the son” 63. This passionate desire to get closer to God determined the entire further development of Fr. John. He, as a rule, shared the views of those ascetics who sought the same depth of communication with the Lord, and began to touch upon the idea of ​​​​forming a special type of asceticism in his diaries. The lists of books he compiled for purchase - Ephraim the Syrian, John Chrysostom (the priest’s favorite spiritual author from the time of his studies at the seminary and academy), Gregory of Nyssa, “Historical Teaching about the Fathers of the Church” by Archbishop Philaret - testify to his desire to thoroughly study the classics of ascetic literature, as well as to comprehend the depths of liturgics 64. A note he made in the early 1860s shows how he perceived these spiritual authors: “I want to be entirely an instrument of my God, like the prophets and apostles: I want to be the Church of God, I want my heart to be the throne of God, so that my word is the word of God living in me, so that my hands do only what is pleasing to the Master. Dignified and righteous: I am all the Lord’s, not my own; may He work through all of me” 65. The most significant milestone in Fr.'s ascetic experience. John - his intention to go through all thirty steps to ascetic perfection, which St. John Climacus outlined in the fundamental guide to monastic life the “Ladder leading to heaven by our venerable father John, abbot of Mount Sinai.” These instructions were so highly valued in the Orthodox tradition that people delayed reading them until they felt ready to fully devote themselves to the spiritual life; appeal to them about. John testifies to the utmost seriousness of his intentions 66. Despite the fact that in the late 1850s. sermons, helping the poor and, finally, church services themselves occupied almost all of his time; in the diaries of those years we talk almost exclusively about internal struggle, relationships with God and the desire for self-improvement. Here about. John seems to follow the classical ascetic model - he leaves the world in order to serve it worthily later, however, with the only obvious difference that, as a priest, he had to perform the liturgy and serve the world, while at the same time improving himself, fighting his own temptations. Precisely because in a more mature period he spent the overwhelming majority of his life with people, the significance of this early stage was great, when the spiritual foundation for future intense social activity and the volitional qualities that made it possible to engage in it were laid. Father could not even imagine then that he could limit himself exclusively to pious deeds and helping others (although later many renovationists followed exactly this path): relationships with God served him both as a measure of his frantic concern for his flock and as its main justification. Therefore, his first diaries focused on how to improve these relationships, drawing on the experience of ascetics who succeeded best 67. The people whom Fr. John reverently quotes, citing examples, are for him the embodiment of the ascetic ideal. Among them are the prophet Elijah and the Monk Savva of Solovetsky; In the first years of the pastor’s service, it was their asceticism that was most striking, and not at all other aspects of their activity - be it preaching or prophecy. For example, having made a vow not to succumb to vanity, he reminded himself of Elijah and Savva, saying: “They wore coarse vestments, but they had great souls: for there was no external charm. Keep in mind the inner garment" 68. Particular attention to asceticism and self-denial, expressed in the condemnation of excessive attention to clothing and church vestments, is all the more remarkable since it is not at all shameful for an Orthodox saint, especially one who is ordained, to remember his appearance. Saint Basil the Great usually dressed very simply, but he kept a mirror and a comb in the altar sacristy, so that, as he said, he could properly celebrate the Eucharist and glorify God. Illustrious representatives of the clergy are also depicted on icons in full vestments 69 . Therefore Fr. John, who was feeling his way, had no need to limit himself to the image of the desert fathers or their followers, the hermit monks. However, the choice made by the priest at the very beginning of his priestly path shows that they were the true examples of holiness for him. In addition, he chose the simplest ideal of asceticism: “Remember the difficult life of the wanderer Nikitushka, how he struggled for the sake of the Lord, for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, wearing heavy chains, never washing in the bathhouse, allowing many lice to eat himself, not allowing satiety, delicacy, the slightest pride, being subjected to ridicule and beatings for the truth - and imitate his life according to your strength. Compare his life with yours... you live in bliss, luxury, satiety” 70. By the way Fr. John admires wanderers; it is clear that, even getting used to the benefits inevitable for a priest, he never ceased to remind himself of true role models. Since the pastor considered the extreme (and exclusively Russian) form of mortification, such as wearing chains, the most suitable for acquiring holiness, it is obvious that theologians or less frenzied ascetics were not an example for him. It is also noteworthy that Fr. John perceived his current life as drowning in luxury compared to his former poverty; he instinctively identified himself with the poor, who served as his yardstick for evaluating all other strata of society, and not with the middle or upper class. At that time, when the shepherd likened himself to Nikitushka, he lived very modestly, on the second floor of the parish priest's house, which strongly resembled an army barracks. However, compared with the difficulties of his childhood or the hardships of the saints he most revered, the current conditions seemed simply luxurious to him. As the poverty and deprivation of his youth receded into the past, he was increasingly struck by the religious virtue generated by any manifestations of self-restraint: “Today I had a collector, a peasant from the Ryazan province. Wonderful person! Meek and humble, kind and simple-hearted and fasting; He hasn’t eaten anything fast on fasting days for 11 years. Apparently, God's grace rests on him. What devotion to God!” 71 All these examples strengthened Fr.’s own asceticism. John. His view of human nature was more pessimistic than that of many of the Desert Fathers, who taught that both good and evil are inherent in the human soul. He wrote: “The heart is a cesspool, a stinking and nasty abyss: only with tears of repentance and thoughts of the Lord is it possible to escape from that abyss and cleanse one’s heart” 72 . Zeal for the Creator and the thirst for self-improvement covered all aspects of the pastor’s life, and in much more diverse forms than those of the Church Fathers and ascetic instructions. Unlike his famous contemporary, Saint Ignatius (Brianchaninov), as well as the Desert Fathers, who rejected and despised dreams as tricks of the devil, Fr. John believed that “the life of a sinner is full of abomination in reality and in a dream: in reality - in reality, in actions, and in a dream - in unclean visions, so that every person can clearly see his shortcomings, his weaknesses in dreams. Even a person who lives as holy as possible, but has weaknesses that pride sometimes hides from him in reality, can see them clearly in a dream. Dreams should not be neglected - our life is reflected in them, like in a mirror." 73 Father analyzed his night visions much more deeply than most Orthodox saints, extracting from them information about his spiritual life. For example, when he gnawed and chewed silver coins in a dream, he interpreted this as a sign that condemned him for stinginess 74 . At the end of the 1860s, after a dream in which “the enemy threw” him “now at high-society balls, now at simple dinners,” where he “gazed and fussed and vainly ... and ate the abyss with greed,” the shepherd accused himself of unbridled desires 75 . Another time, he dreamed that a bunny, pursued by a dog, climbed a tree, and he put the dog up so that the animals could fight: “The bunny fought bravely, but the enemy grabbed him with his teeth and tore him into pieces.” Remembering this dream later, Fr. John accused himself of giving a weak creature to be torn to pieces by a strong one, staging a bloody spectacle “for fun,” and saw here an analogy with his spiritual flock, which he corrupted with his own laziness and inattention 76 . The shepherd’s interpretations of his own dreams may seem controversial, but there is no doubt that the zeal with which he exposes his unworthy deeds, committed in his dreams, catches with their help even the most insignificant flaws in nature and reproachfully encourages correction. The intense spiritual work of a deeply religious person is evident. He inquisitively examined not only conscious, but also subconscious motives. The sense of responsibility for unconscious aspirations was aggravated by how literally he perceived dreams: for him, an act committed in a dream was actually committed in reality, especially when it came to carnal temptations. Despite the fact that Fr. It was as if John did not experience conscious carnal desire in real life in the first years after taking orders, only constantly absolving others of sins and temptations; he was not free from physical desires in a dream. For example, he wrote in the mid-1860s: “In general, the time of sleep is not lost for the Christian - it is the time of attacks on his chastity” 77 . He felt directly personally responsible for such “attacks.” If he had a tempting dream, he immediately woke up and read the “Prayer against Defilement,” “for the soul, although not the body, was defiled by carnal passion” 78 . Such a harsh attitude towards the purity of actions and thoughts was almost unheard of for a clergyman. In essence, Fr. John, being a married priest living in the world, strove to live up to the same ascetic ideals that monastics followed. Ascetic submission to the Lord was key to the priest’s religiosity. In his worldview, everything is permeated with faith; He exposed every aspect of his life to the judgment of God. The shepherd analyzed everyday phrases and found them flawed if they seemed to him insufficiently righteous: “They say to each other: I wish you good night, a pleasant sleep, and do not say: fervent prayer for a good sleep, which would be much more correct (prayer as a condition for a pleasant sleep) ... our ordinary well-wishes should bear a Christian imprint, and not just a worldly or carnal one. Everywhere the spiritual must be ahead of the carnal, sensual” 79. St. John used the ambiguous word “effeminacy” to denounce too strong an attachment to basic worldly goods, striving for a complete detachment from them: “Who knows if I am pampered: if I have a bad attitude towards smells, instead of being indifferent (think about the Holy Father, who kept a stinking vessel in his cell, if I moan and moan when I am sick, if mosquito bites or ugly things are unbearable face)" 80 . Thus, Fr. John, like the ascetics, tried to subordinate all aspects of his life to God and tried to restrain any desires and thoughts that could interfere with him on this path. For example, in 1868 he wrote: “Use the system of coercion over yourself more often” 81 . Sometimes, calling on himself to “eradicate” passions and desires, he resorted to characteristic images of ascetics: “My life must be burnt as an offering to God every day as a sacrifice of selflessness... that is, I must, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, burn away all the passions that arise in me” 82. In order to completely eradicate passions, Fr. John turned to the spiritual practice of ascetics, borrowed from a wide variety of sources. Some saints concentrated their consciousness on images. Using their spiritual experience, the shepherd ordered himself to look at the crucifix and, looking at Christ, strike himself on the chest, saying: “It is for me that the Passionate One suffers and the Immortal One dies; I should suffer and perish forever according to the truth of God” 83. He also followed another Orthodox ascetic practice when he thanked the Lord for the “gift of tears of repentance.” This attitude towards tears as a gift from God has quite deep roots in the Eastern Christian tradition 84 . In some respects, his desire to suppress the personal principle exceeded the ingenuity of well-known ascetic practices. He wrote: “You like to walk in the fresh air and breathe it with pleasure; this is not enough, it’s only good for the body: while walking you need to think about God, the lives of the saints, the Gospel” 85 . The key idea of ​​asceticism is Fr. John was completely convinced that the physical side of life has a decisive influence on the spiritual. He borrowed many of the specific methods of his own bodily abstinence from the monastics. “Don’t sleep under a very warm blanket, so as not to relax the body and soul together with excessive warmth,” he wrote in 1867, “because the soul is closely connected with the body, and weakness, bliss in the body responds with weakness, bliss in the soul.” The way out of this situation was to use blankets “moderately warm, semi-cool, never down” 86 . During the first twenty years of his pastoral ministry, Father had to, like most men, and especially women leading an ascetic lifestyle, curb carnal desires associated not with sensual thoughts, but with food 87. In fact, one gets the impression that at that time all his bodily lusts were exclusively of a gastronomic nature. He admired the self-restraint of the wanderer Nikita, who ate only lean food. In the first decades of his priesthood, the priest felt that food was the most difficult obstacle to overcome on the path to self-purification. From the very beginning, he understood and interpreted fasting in the traditional Orthodox sense: “How great is the power of fasting and prayer! No wonder, during fasting the soul begins to dominate the lusts of the body, generally subjugating it to itself... how did the Lord himself defeat the devil? By fasting and prayer" 88. Nevertheless, Fr. John felt the power of food over himself and was clearly aware of the direct relationship between the food he consumed and his own sinful acts, much more strongly than was implied by the ascetic tradition itself. As someone who grew up poor, he was particularly tempted when he heard about gastronomic delights from literary works or dinner party menus 89 . The shepherd's diary contains many facts of his struggle with such temptation; Moreover, the smallest details of his diet are thoroughly spelled out: Fr. John felt the influence of food on him so strongly that he made a direct connection between what he ate and how he behaved. For example, he denounced himself for his indifference to the fire that happened in Kronstadt on October 18, 1867. The indifference lay in the fact that the priest allowed himself to eat fish that day, and not only black, but also white bread, and also drink tea 90. On another occasion, he wrote: “Due to satiety the day before (buckwheat porridge with almond milk), I was subjected to strong temptation during the service of Matins in the Assumption Church” 91 . His understanding of “temptation” included a whole range of painful spiritual states, from lethargy to irritability; Moreover, inappropriate food and drink had a simply destructive effect on him. Occasional culprits of his poor spiritual state could be pickled lampreys, green cheese (“it also causes toothache”), pies (especially with fish, rice and sunflower oil), sweet jelly (“it kindles passion worse than milk”), beer on fast days (“it’s drunkenness”), fish (“it leads to carnal temptation; it should be used with caution”), omelette with meat gravy and thick wine sauce (“the fault” of this dish was that, according to the priest, it turned him into a “dog”) and in general any other tasty food 92. This connection between food and drink and lack of spiritual alertness prompted Fr. John to develop detailed and thought out to the smallest detail rules for the “consumption” of food, rules that were reminiscent of the corresponding regulations of the desert fathers. Food combinations that he considered unacceptable (“no horseradish with vinegar!”) were excluded. The amount of food eaten and drunk was strictly regulated: “You can drink three small cups of coffee with cream three hours after lunch; four [cups] is already excessive and therefore sinful. Drinking tea and coffee together is generally unacceptable.” Different dishes were clearly ranked according to their effect on the state of mind: “Buckwheat porridge is good, cream is bad.” Finally, almost in despair, he discarded the numerous gastronomic manuals he had invented himself and tried to reduce them to one short rule, written in capital letters: “NEVER DINNER!” 93. Condemnation about. John's gourmetism is associated with his initially rigid negative attitude towards feelings in which there was no genuine religiosity. Eating food was the area where he most keenly felt the tendency to become carried away by transient things instead of turning to God. The priesthood only intensified his struggle with food temptations. It is especially interesting to observe the process of self-determination of Fr. John as a priest, and not simply as a spiritual ascetic, first recorded in his diaries in connection with physical abstinence: “It would not be appropriate for a priest to consume milk, especially butter (although due to our weakness this is not prohibited). What suits a layman does not suit a priest. It especially does not suit him to drink vodka, perhaps just a little, and to smoke or sniff tobacco. All this cherishes our flesh, which must be crucified with its lusts, and entangles it in communion with God, in union with Him. Yes, the mouths that are sanctified so often by the use of the divine Mysteries and serve as doors for them must receive food and drink with extreme caution. With what care and reverence must the entrance of the King of Glory be guarded!” 94. The relationship between food and sinlessness traced here is especially significant. Food and drink were the cause of many temptations for the shepherd, the most serious of which was their ability to awaken in him other physical manifestations and desires. For example, he wrote in 1866: “I was visiting and drank three glasses of sweet tea, a glass of vodka, two glasses of wine - sherry and malaga; ate game; bread and butter; I drank a glass of milk at home. From that night comes desecration” 95. He felt an almost anthropomorphic connection between the eater and what was eaten and described it in vivid colors: “It is better not to eat meat, which turns you into an animal” 96. The treatment of the connection between food and sensuality, while deeply rooted in the ascetic tradition, has never before been so realistic and detailed 97 . A characteristic feature of the spiritual life of Fr. John - a gradual transition from temptations, almost always associated with food, to sensual desires that are conscious and independent in nature. The awakening of carnal desire is also associated with his fame and the emergence of admirers - both phenomena date back to the period after the 1880s. and will be discussed further. For the initial stage of the ascetic path, Fr. John, it is more appropriate to touch on the topic of his refusal to have a close relationship with his wife. This side of his asceticism, like the restriction in food, also coincided with monastic institutions. However, if for monks chastity, along with non-covetousness and obedience, was a mandatory rule, then for the white clergy marriage was allowed. Moreover, in the Orthodox tradition, priests simply had to get married. The Kronstadt shepherd was married and at the same time maintained chastity. This circumstance introduces unusual dissonance into the clear canons of Orthodox religious life and requires comment. Unfortunately, there is no reliable information that could explain this decision of the priest. For many years he did not touch upon this topic in his diaries. The only convincing mention occurs on October 19, 1866, ten years after his marriage and ordination, when he allows himself to fatherly reflect on a colleague: “... what, I live as a virgin - not like you” 98. If it were not for this casual remark, one might doubt that Fr. John generally thought about this topic. He never openly stated that he consciously chose abstinence in marriage, and only allowed himself to say in a short official autobiography: “... I do not and never had children” 99. At the same time, according to the shepherd’s biographers, in fact everyone knew about his unusual choice. However, such assumptions are unproven, since they arise in the late period of his life and therefore, at best, are attempts to restore the past. What can be said about the circumstances that prompted Fr. John to abstinence? Part of the answer to this question is contained in the Orthodox interpretation of sexual desire. The Church Fathers argued that it contradicts the true nature of man. Initially, before the Fall, perfect man, created in the image and likeness of God, did not have the slightest sign of sensuality 100. Eve is mentioned only as Adam's companion and helper; their love was ethereal 101. Sexual desire came into the world because of sin and is inextricably linked with sin. Since sensuality is a sign of violation of the original harmony and perfection, the more a person approached perfection, the less he was subject to carnal desire. Slavic spiritual authors pursue this idea especially clearly, insisting that sensory impulses come only from the evil one, who is trying to alienate people from God and the path of salvation 102. For a person striving for holiness, virginity was much preferable to marriage. This point of view brings to mind the words of the Apostle Paul: “...It is good for a man not to touch a woman. But, in order to avoid fornication, each have his own wife, and each have his own husband... An unmarried woman cares about the Lord, how to please the Lord, in order to be holy in both body and spirit; but the married woman is concerned about the things of this world, how to please her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:1–2, 34). Monastic life was seen as the best state for a believer - this is how he is closest to the angels. If someone still wanted to get married, it was considered a concession to fallen human nature (“it is better to marry than to be inflamed” (1 Corinthians 7:9)). The main idea here is that close relationships between a man and a woman are inherently “unclean,” even in marriage. The Orthodox were unusually strong in this conviction. Many diaries have survived in which pious seminarians write with doubt whether it is worth “defiling” the marital bed with sexual activity; the laity confessed to Fr. John in close relationships in marriage as a “legal sin” 103. It is not surprising that the abstinence of saints from intimacy even in legal marriage (what is sometimes called “spiritual marriage”) was highly valued in both the East and the West. The attitude of the Church towards sexual life was so negative that the chastity of Fr. John could be nothing more than a natural consequence of his religious upbringing. This assumption seems especially plausible if we take into account the virtual absence in the middle of the 19th century. any notable works by Orthodox theologians on the sacrament of marriage. Here are the views about. John, more clearly than in any other issues, simultaneously reflect the internal confrontation between his two hypostases and the mentality of the era. In his public incarnation, associated with the mission of a priest, he was the spiritual shepherd of parishioners, and potentially of all Orthodox Christians. However, within the family circle he had to carry out a different spiritual task. Here, in the private incarnation of a married man, his spiritual destiny was to achieve a special mystical union with his wife 105. The separation of these two attitudes by the Church can be judged by the fact that priests were forbidden to confess their wives. That is, Fr. John had various spiritual obligations to his wife in a private capacity and to his flock in a public capacity. However, due to the lack of examples where holiness was achieved through physical intimacy in marriage, he rejected family obligations, forcing himself to treat his wife the same way as his parishioners. There were, however, practical reasons for the pastor’s abstinence. The Liturgy and celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist were for Fr. John's main task of his ministry. But according to church canons, both laity and clergy were forbidden to enter into intimacy on the eve of communion; and priests were ordered to abstain on the eve of the liturgy 107. The idea that manifestations of sensuality can desecrate the Eucharist dates back to early Christianity, when the Council of Elvira on the eve of 303 decreed that “bishops, priests, deacons, as well as other representatives of the church clergy involved in the service of the liturgy, must abstain from their wives” 108 . Despite the fact that by the middle of the 19th century. Some city priests, who served the liturgy daily, ignored this restriction; it still continued to retain its significance due to tradition 109. Considering how zealously Fr. John performed the sacrament of the Eucharist, and no matter how literally he followed the church canons, he could not violate the existing rules. Thus, chastity was a practical necessity for those who wished to serve the liturgy daily, and, undoubtedly, the main reason for the virginity of the pastor. However, since the priest did not serve every day without exception, one should look for other explanations for his purely “spiritual marriage.” Although the assumption about the influence of Orthodox dogmas and traditions on the pastor seems plausible, his silence about his life in marriage allows only conjecture. The absence of this theme from his early diaries is at least partly due to the timing of their composition. At the very beginning of his priestly service (1856–1858), that is, when one would most expect mentions of his young wife, he devoted his diaries exclusively to reflections on the Holy Scriptures. By the time something personal began to seep into the diaries, the period of getting used to his wife and her family should have already ended. Neither Elizaveta Konstantinovna nor other family members left diaries or letters that could shed light on the relationship between the spouses. The question remains a mystery. However, one thing is clear: having chosen the path of chastity, Fr. John committed an act unique in the hagiographic tradition. Cases where spouses maintain chastity or take a vow of abstinence are found in the lives of saints, but the initiative, as a rule, comes from the wife, not from the husband, and is usually expressed in the conviction of the spouse, and not in a categorical refusal 110. But oh. John made the decision to maintain his virginity even before marriage - a decision that, judging by both indirect evidence and hints contained in his diaries, his bride did not even suspect 111. How can this be interpreted? No matter how pragmatic the rationale for marriages among the clergy was, in which both parties realized that the future husband would inherit the parish of the wife's father, normal marital relations were considered an integral part of them. Given the strength of the established order of things and the justified expectations of the other half, reference to the liturgical rules associated with the sacrament is clearly insufficient. Two questions arise here. Firstly, if Fr. John did not intend to fulfill his marital duty; why did he get married at all and why didn’t he become a monk? Secondly, if he wanted to combine the daily celebration of the liturgy and service to the laity, having inherited the place of Archpriest Konstantin Nesvitsky in St. Andrew's Cathedral in Kronstadt after marrying his daughter, then he undoubtedly should have secured the consent of the bride before the wedding, and not presented her with a fact? It cannot be denied that if Fr. John wanted to serve the world, the poor and at the same time perform the liturgy, the path of a parish priest, which in Russia in the 19th century. suggested marriage, was the only option. Hieromonks in most cases served in their communities; The administrative duties of bishops minimized their ability to serve their flock - hence the desire of St. Theophan (the Recluse) to live in solitude in order to write essays and care for his spiritual children. Apart from such exceptional people as Bishop Tikhon of Zadonsk and Metropolitan Filaret (Drozdov), the official duties of bishops, as a rule, left them little time for pastoral service 112. Thus, in a purely spiritual sense, the white (parish) priest communicated much more with the laity than a bishop or other monastic. If o. John sought to be a spiritual mentor for the laity; he could inform the bride of his intention to maintain chastity in marriage even before the wedding. It is at least obvious that in his diaries in the first years after the wedding, Fr. John devoted very little space to the family. His only mention of his wife is written in illegible handwriting and literally reads like this: “In your dreams you saw the kind features of your beloved wife - as if she herself” 113. The priest noticed his wife’s affection, but Elizaveta Konstantinovna’s feelings encouraged him not so much to reciprocate, but to draw spiritual lessons from her warmth. For example, when in 1862 he wrote “my wife’s love for me is touching,” he immediately continued: “so I should love every neighbor, especially the poor, even if there were unworthy people among them” 114. The contradiction between Elizaveta Konstantinovna’s ardent affection for Fr. John and his detachment intensified. However, caution should be exercised when analyzing diary entries. Just as in evening prayers Christians list their sins - and not their merits - for the past day, so in the diaries that performed a similar function, Fr. John focused on the negative aspects of his own life. (As in the case of the diaries of Sofia Andreevna, the wife of L.N. Tolstoy, it would be rash to believe that since nothing good is written, it means that it did not exist 115.) For example, he reproached himself for noticing the slightest shortcomings of his wife, while she “does not notice my weaknesses and covers everything that I do because of her love for me” 116. However, here too, he immediately extrapolated the relationship between him and Elizaveta Konstantinovna to his striving for God: “How dearly does your wife love you, and how cold are you to her? How ardently does Christ love you, and how cold are you to Him? If you don’t love your wife, how will you love God?” 117 Father taught himself to think about the Lord every time he thought about his wife. Soon this sequence of thoughts became almost automatic: “How my wife takes care of me everywhere, with what love! But how the Lord protects me is impossible to imagine.” “Take your wife’s advice with respect, as from a friend and helper, and do not despise her or be upset by her, and in general respectfully treat every person, as the image and likeness of God and having an immortal soul.” As a result of such a mental transfer, Fr. John achieved two goals at once: he moved away from his wife and drew closer to God. It was much easier for him to cope with his ambivalent feelings for his wife, dissolving them in his own relationship with the Creator. Even when he reproached himself for his anger and impatience towards Elizaveta Konstantinovna, he said: “First of all, she loves you; secondly, she is the Lord’s creation and the image of His Church” 118. One can, of course, say that the priest took his wife with all possible seriousness, making her part of his philosophy of salvation, that, denying her a role other than that which the shepherd ascribed to every Orthodox Christian, he even indirectly praised her, but ultimately he deprived her of the feelings for which she was looking. At the same time, when describing the family life of Fr. John and Elizabeth Konstantinovna should exercise caution and utmost correctness. Could mental and spiritual intimacy sufficiently compensate for the lack of physical intimacy and the opportunity to have children? It is quite possible, since the cult of bodily pleasure was completely alien to the clergy in which Elizaveta Konstantinovna was brought up; in this closed class world, self-sacrifice and mutual responsibility meant a lot - this was especially true for girls and women 119. Here the difference between Fr. John and Elizaveta Konstantinovna. Unable to simultaneously give in to his wife’s desire to have children and maintain chastity, he could nevertheless allow her more into his life and walk hand in hand with her along the path to salvation. Sometimes it seems that Elizaveta Konstantinovna was striving for exactly this and therefore repeatedly mentioned the role that family can play in someone’s—read: his—spiritual life. ABOUT. John quotes her words spoken in the 1860s: “My wife said: we must love, caress, take care of our family, first of all, and then others. Love your neighbor first of all at home, in this small church. When you learn to love and respect your family unceasingly, then you will love and respect every person” 120. It seemed inconceivable to her that her own husband could assign her a very insignificant role in his path to salvation. However, the diaries of Fr. John show that the only kind of cooperation that was in tune with his nature concerned not any marital or personal relationships, but his zeal for the Lord; in his understanding, the spiritual path is a path along which a person moves alone. Consequently, first of all, he sought to extract from his family life some kind of moral lesson or instruction to all married men, and then - an instruction to himself, in order to strengthen his wife’s virtues through prayer: “Let the actions of a woman’s love for you be expressed and do not be upset, do not be angry with her because the actions of this love are sometimes unreasonable, bothersome, annoying; respect your wife's intention to show you love. Husbands, love your wives and do not be upset with them. Do not neglect love, do not insult it with whims and neglect. Love is jealous, vengeful, like a bear, enraged at the deprivation of her children. Thank God for your wife’s love and pray to Him that He will strengthen her and make her reasonable and pleasing to God” 121. The mention of rejected love is unusual for Fr. John is a manifestation not of religious, but of psychological vigilance. It was more typical for him to hide his comments under the guise of a moral lesson or a parable. At the very beginning of his pastoral ministry, he veiledly outlined both conflicts with parishioners and tense relationships with his wife and her relatives, resorting to analogies from the Holy Scriptures and even ancient literature. For example, he wrote in the late 1850s: “Xanthippe was the weapon of the devil, trying to shake Socrates, but God turned her into a weapon that strengthens and exalts him” 122. Father John, of course, proceeded from the biblical and patristic understanding of women. So, for example, he wrote in his diary: “For God, all women are like Eve alone: ​​therefore they are unclean before Him in their blood from their very birth.” However, the shepherd's innovation lies in the fact that he significantly expanded this view. He further writes: “And men too. In sins and iniquities and defilements we are all before You” 123. This interpretation shows that, sharing the view of women as more sinful and mundane creatures than men, he did not adhere to the traditional point of view in everything and sometimes abolished some church restrictions - for example, he was against women who were in uncleanness not being allowed to take communion; in such cases he refused to consider men less sinful. Moreover, the shepherd’s sense of duty towards his family, as well as increased attention to family Christian virtues, allowed him to resort to the metaphor of the family in diaries and sermons, equally applicable both in church practice and in family everyday life: “The mother teaches the child, and the child obeys and does not doubt her lessons, being sure that the mother knows better than him what she is teaching” 124. The Fathers of the Church saw “evil” in women as talkative creatures, predisposed to paganism and “by nature” more sensual 125. Father John testified to the relative equality of men and women, and this partly explains why so many women turned to him for spiritual support. Showing generosity towards women as such, not considering them a priori “carnal” and, therefore, unclean, he nevertheless treated his own wife much more difficult. If we recreate the entire history of Fr.’s family life. John, according to his diaries, it turns out that the relationship between the shepherd and his wife gradually deteriorated. It is possible that the situation in the family into which he was born also played a certain role. Biographers of the shepherd write a lot about the piety of his mother, citing the famous example of how she refused to bless her son to eat fasting food during Lent. However, Fr. John did not exaggerate the religiosity of both parents. In 1864, he reminded himself: “Remember that you are the son of a sexton, the son of poor parents who were not particularly pious, and now the Lord has elevated you to the rank of a city priest” 126 . It is possible that in the minds of Fr. John, his origins contrasted sharply with the environment in which he found himself when he began serving in Kronstadt. The fact that his wife's family belonged to an urban, relatively cultured environment could disturb and offend him to the same extent as the noble parishioners. The priest was outraged by his sister-in-law’s constant mentions of the high origins of their family: “If your sister Anna raves about counts and princes, don’t be angry with her for her apparent pride. For such a spirit is the fruit of her upbringing: her godfather is the Count, who lived with them; she studied with the daughters of counts and princes... how could she do otherwise? When a tree has received one direction, and not another direction, in its early youth, how can this be corrected? We must look through our fingers, condescendingly” 127. Painful for Fr. John, the problem of his origin became even more acute when, soon after his marriage, his mother settled with her son’s new family. She became a constant living reminder to the priest of what he was trying to overcome. Drawing, in keeping with the style of his diary entries, a parallel between personal experiences and spiritual practice, the pastor compared his awkwardness at his mother's lack of sophistication with the awkwardness he felt in religious matters, be it a poorly painted icon of a saint or even Christ himself: “Remember how the evil one led you by the nose and tormented you because of a painted icon of the Mother of God that was not to your taste; hatred, disgust was instilled... as if towards the incorrectly painted faces, and prayer was not given until he defeated him. Also with Mother: her rude image prevents me from adequately praising her” 128. “Mama, with her simplicity, humility, and ignorance, extremely humbles my pride. You do not love the dishonor of Christ, you do not bear His reproach in your mother in her simplicity and careless position of her hair. Remember what Christ was like at the trial and on the cross, how dishonest His appearance was... your position is the fruit of her prayers and a reward for her from God” 129. When religious images did not help Fr. To help John overcome the thought of moving away from his mother and, therefore, from his roots, he tried to appeal to simple but strong feelings of filial affection: “Look: your mother is a lonely person here; provide her with all possible affection and services; make, if possible, unnoticeable for her separation from her relatives and her homeland” 130. However, despite these attempts, Fedora Vlasyevna’s appearance, manners and speech constantly embarrassed Fr. John. Just when it seemed to him that he had gotten rid of his village past, it returned to him in the person of his own mother. Even having obliged himself to fulfill his filial duty to her, he nevertheless wanted to behave according to the city rules, which he had learned over the years of being away from his home and village. For example, when his mother once came to say goodnight to him, Fr. John could not bring himself to kiss her hand, as before, and suffered from insomnia until he overcame himself and went into her room to ask for forgiveness 131. Fedora Vlasyevna’s provincial dialect caused the priest even more noticeable inconvenience than her gestures or appearance. Father John even had to strictly order himself: “Do not disdain its rustic, rude, illiterate language, just as you do not disdain the Samoyed, animal, and Tatar languages” 132. Despite his selfless, frantic service to his flock, especially from the common people, the priest himself had a rather complicated feeling towards the poor and uneducated people among whom he grew up. The tangible distance between his new family and such people was not only extremely painful for Fr. John, but actually put him before an inevitable choice between home and parish. In this difficult situation, he made the parish the main and, in fact, the only object of his pastoral life. The family, instead of a possible support in spiritual life, turned for him into a stumbling block, if not a real obstacle, on the path to salvation. Despite the fact that in the recent past attention was deliberately focused on facts of non-compliance with church rituals (for example, a careless attitude towards confession), according to official statistics, the degree of church membership of the population was really high. See: Litvak B.G. Russian Orthodoxy in the 19th century // Russian Orthodoxy: milestones in history. M., 1989. S. 372–373; Emelyakh L.I. Historical prerequisites for overcoming religion in the Soviet village. L., 1975. S. 122–125; Freeze G. L. The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform. Princeton, 1983. P. XXIX. Cracraft J. The Church Reform of Peter the Great. Stanford, 1971, pp. 242–251. On the spiritual superiority of holy fools and wanderers, see: Flowers of Paradise from the Russian Land / Comp. P. Novgorodsky. Sergiev Posad, 1912. See: Golubinsky E. History of the canonization of saints in the Russian Church. M., 1903. pp. 109–198. However, some priests distinguished themselves by their righteousness. were revered, albeit at a local level. See: Efremov L.V., prot. The Good Shepherd: a brief description of the life of Father Ioann Borisovich, priest of the Transfiguration Church in the city of Yelets (1750–1824). Voronezh, 1893. According to Cyril, the Blessed Sacrament evokes an incomparable “awe,” or phrikodestatos, which literally means “something that makes the hair stand on end.” See: Dix D. G. The Shape of the Liturgy. L., 1975. P. 200. See: Kostomarov N. (compiled). Monuments of ancient Russian literature. M., 1862. T. 4. P. 186. Even at the beginning of the 20th century, according to Novaya Zhizn, the director of the St. Petersburg telegraph distributed a special instruction among his subordinates, “indicating to them the need to confess and partake of the Holy Mysteries during Lent.” See: New life. No. 383 (2–15 March 1906). P. 3. Bishop Alexander (Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky) cites the statements of civil servants preparing for communion: “I intend to render to the Lord what is due to Him.” See: Alexander; bishop Father John of Kronstadt: A Life. Crestwood. 1979. P. 32. See: Belting H. Likeness and Presence: A History of the Image Before the Era of Art. Chicago, 1994. P. 46, 225–260 (Chapter 12: “The Iconostasis and the Role of the Icon in Liturgy and Private Devotion”). On calls for priests to engage in charity, characteristic of the era of the Great Reforms, see: Jacob, Archimandrite. The shepherd in relation to himself and his flock. St. Petersburg, 1880. On the Church’s attempts to influence the formation of opinions among the reading community, see: Brooks J. When Russia Learned to Read: Literacy and Popular Literature, 1861–1917. Princeton, 1985, pp. 300, 302, 306–311. For a discussion of this topic, see also: Freeze G. L. “Going to the Intelligentsia”: The Church and Its Urban Mission in Post-Reform Russia // Clowes E. W., Kassow S. D., West J. L. (eds.). Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and the Quest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton, 1991; Dixon S. The Church's Social Role in St. Petersburg, 1880–1914 // Hosking G. A. (ed.). Church, Nation and State in Russia and Ukraine. London, 1991, pp. 178–192. Index of articles published in “Soulful Reading” for ten years, from the beginning of publication in 1860 to 1869. M., 1870. A similar spiritual experience is described by F. M. Dostoevsky in “The Brothers Karamazov,” when Elder Zosima tells how the shock that happened to him during the Gospel reading at the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts forced him to change his life. “The frank stories of a wanderer to his spiritual father” also begin with the fact that the words of the Apostle Paul, heard during the liturgy, “pray without ceasing” (1 Thess. 5:17), prompted the man to become a wanderer. For example, see: Preobrazhensky A., prot. About the worship of the Orthodox Church with a detailed explanation of the all-night vigil and liturgy. St. Petersburg, 1884. Bystrov N. Religious and moral interviews in the Ilyinskaya Church of the Muravein churchyard, Ostrovsky district // Pskov Diocesan Gazette. No. 22 (November 15, 1896). P. 388. Lvov F.P. About singing in Russia. St. Petersburg, 1834. pp. 41–42. Discussion about the evolution of church music in the 19th century. see: Morosan V. Choral Performance in Pre-Revolutionary Russia. Ann Arbor, 1986. Chapter 3 (“The Emergence of a National Choral Style”). For an overview of the missionary activities of that time, see: Smirnov E.K. A Short Account of the Historical Development and Present of Russian Orthodox Missions. L., 1903. See: Znamensky P. History of the Kazan Theological Academy for the first (pre-reform) period of its existence (1842–1870). Kazan, 1891–1892; separate reprint by A. Pypin from “Bulletin of Europe” [b.d.], p. 710–711, 732. Also see: Geraci R. Window on the East: Ethnography, Orthodoxy, and Russian Nationality in Kazan, 1870–1914. Ph. D. Diss. University of California at Berkeley, 1995. Kselman Th. A. Miracles and Prophecies in Nineteenth-Century France. New Brunswick, 1983, pp. 113–140. On the Old Believers, see: Robson R. Liturgy and Community Among Old Believers, 1905–1917 // Slavic Review. Vol. 52 (Winter 1993). No. 4. P. 713–724. About Protestant sects, see: Blane A. Protestant Sects in Late Imperial Russia // The Religious World of Russian Culture, Russia and Orthodoxy. Vol. 2: Essays in Honor of Georges Florovsky. The Hague and Paris, 1975, pp. 267–278. Autobiography // Holy Righteous John of Kronstadt in the memoirs of his contemporaries / Comp. A. N. Strizhev. M., 1997. P. 14. Alexander (Semyonov-Tyan-Shansky). Father John Ilyich Sergiev. New York, 1955. P. 22. Mikhail (Semyonov), hieromonk. Father John of Kronstadt. Full biography with illustrations. St. Petersburg, 1903. S. 8, 25. The shepherd and his admirers saw in this a clear sign of God; communist anti-church propagandists saw here only a cynical calculation. See: Rozhnov V. E. Prophets and miracle workers: studies on mysticism. M., 1977. pp. 78–79. The Life of Saint Righteous John, the Wonderworker of Kronstadt // Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate. No. 10 (1990). pp. 59–60. Philokalia. T. 1. Sergiev Posad, 1993. pp. 23–24; P.R. The importance of a diary for a parish priest // Guide for rural pastors. No. 16 (1876). pp. 475–488. On diaries as valuable means of spiritual observation, see: Practical and moral significance of liturgical journals, records of extra-liturgical readings, pastoral and missionary diaries in the matter of higher observation of church and parish life // St. Petersburg Spiritual Messenger. No. 42 (October 17, 1897). pp. 840–841. Kantorowicz E. The King’s Two Bodies: A Study in Medieval Political Theology. Princeton, 1957; What does holiness call us to? John of Kronstadt // Konstantin, archimandrite. Miracle of Russian history. A collection of articles revealing the providential significance of Historical Russia. Jordanville, 1970, pp. 224–225. According to the stable Orthodox idea, theologians must be ascetics or, at least, lead an impeccably righteous life, such as Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, Simeon the New Theologian, and others. For modern thoughts on this matter, see: M. Pomazansky, prot. Essay on the Orthodox worldview of Fr. John of Kronstadt // Fiftieth anniversary of the glorification of the ever-memorable Father John of Kronstadt. Anniversary collection. New York, 1958. pp. 66–82; Orthodox Tradition. Vol. 11 (1994). No. 3. P. 69. An example of a similar approach among Fr.’s contemporaries. John, see: Feofan (Govorov). Examples of recording good thoughts that come during thoughts of God and prayer... M., 1903. On the tradition of spiritual eldership in Orthodoxy, see: Smirnov S.I. Spiritual father in the ancient Eastern Church (History of spirituality in the East). Sergiev Posad, 1906; Kontsevich I. M. Optina Pustyn and its time. Jordanville, 1970. Here and further in the quotations, the spelling and punctuation of the original are partially preserved. State Archives of the Russian Federation (hereinafter GARF). F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 1 vol. Mikhail (Semyonov), hieromonk. Father John of Kronstadt... pp. 8–10, 15–16. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 28 rev. D. 3. L. 2 vol. Mikhail (Semyonov), hieromonk. Father John of Kronstadt... S. 38, 66–69; V. M. (Archbishop Evdokim (Meshchersky)). Two days in Kronstadt: from a student’s diary. Sergiev Posad, 1902. pp. 437–442; Chizhov P. M. Father John of Kronstadt. Life, activities, selected miracles. Jordanville, 1958. P. 8. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 9. D. 4. L. 10. Such self-identification takes place only during Easter. See the Paschal canon, in particular the second troparion of the third irmos: “Yesterday I was buried with You, Christ, today I stand with You in resurrection, I was crucified with You yesterday, glorify me Yourself, O Savior, in Your Kingdom.” GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 16. Right there. D. 1. L. 65 vol. For Western parallels to similar thoughts, see Whoopit S. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages. Berkeley, 1982, pp. 23–48. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 1. Right there. D. 13. L. 22 vol. See: Ladder leading to heaven our venerable father John, abbot of Mount Sinai. Sergiev Posad, 1908. S. Ill – IV. About this most important milestone on the path to eldership - removal from the world for subsequent service to it - see: Sumarokov E. N. Eldership and the first Optina elders // Elder Macarius of Optina. Harbin, 1940. pp. 10–11. Criticism of public service, not supported by personal asceticism, through a comparison of the “humanistic, philanthropic” G. Petrov and Fr. John, see: Tver Diocesan Gazette. No. 20 (May 25, 1909). pp. 404–407. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 39 vol. Icon. Secrets of the craft / Comp. A. S. Kravchenko, A. P. Utkin. M., 1993. P. 78. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 22. Right there. D. 4. L. 132. “Collectors” were a fairly common phenomenon, especially among the peasantry. This activity could be carried out either by monastics, for whom collecting donations was an obedience, or by laymen who worked on their own initiative. The bishops condemned this practice. For statements by Bishop Ioannikiy of Arkhangelsk regarding such a tradition, see: Pskov Diocesan Gazette. No. 24 (December 15, 1896). P. 445. Nekrasovsky Vlas is the most famous literary image of a collector. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 10. L. 69 vol. The harshness of judgments about. John contrasts with the more balanced opinion of Macarius of Egypt: “Bottomless depths are hidden in the human heart... This small vessel is teeming with dragons and lions, poisonous creatures and all the hosts of vices; there are insurmountable wilds and yawning abysses. However, God is there, and His angels, eternal life and the Kingdom of Heaven, the Light of the Lord and the holy apostles, the cities on high and the gifts of grace: everything abides there.” GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 67. For a different point of view, see: Ignatii (Brianchianinov), bishop. The Arena: An Offering to Contemporary Monasticism. Jordanville, 1983. P. 209ff. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 8. L. 46. Right there. D. 23. L. 169 vol. Right there. D. 8. L. 46. For a discussion of the issue of the priest’s responsibility for tempting dreams, see: Bulgakov S.V. Handbook for clergy and clergy. A collection of information relating primarily to the practical activities of the domestic clergy. Kharkov, 1900. Book. 1. P. 778. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 23. L. 36. Right there. D. 4. L. 89. Father John perhaps remembers here the Monk Arsenius the Great, who changed the water for his palm leaves only once a year. See: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection. Kalamazoo, 1984. P. 11. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 9 vol. Right there. D. 12. L. 1. This practice is borrowed from the sensory-emotional prayer tradition characteristic of Roman Catholicism and grafted onto Russian Orthodoxy in the 18th century. through the Kyiv Theological Academy. This tradition manifested itself in such spiritual genres, previously unknown in Russia, as reflections on the Passion of the Lord and “Akathist to the Sweetest Jesus,” which Fr. John. The priest’s note that he bought this akathist in the Synodal bookstore, see: GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 4. L. 2. About this relatively new craving for acquiring “sweetness” for Russian Orthodoxy, see: Florovsky G.V. Paths of Russian Theology. Paris, 1937. pp. 107–122. For a statement on this subject by St. Pimen the Great, see: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers... P. 184; Symeon the New Theologian. The Discourses. N.Y., 1980. P. 314. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 44. See: Whoopit S. Holy Feast, Holy Fast: The Religious Significance of Food for Medieval Women. Berkeley, 1987, pp. 73–149. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 1. L. 20. For all kinds of Russian cuisine, see: Molokhovets E. Classic Russian Cooking: Elena Molokhovets’ “A Gift to Young Housewives.” Bloomington, 1993. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 74. Right there. D. 13. Ll. 58, 60 vol., 68 vol., 69. D. 14. Ll. 3, 38 rev., 84. Right there. D. 23. L. 1. D. 14. L. 93. D. 8. L. 69. D. 14. L. 2 vol. See Rev. John Kolov: “He who overeats and talks to a boy has already committed adultery with him in his heart.” See: The Sayings of the Desert Fathers... P. 86. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 8. L. 53 vol. V. M. Two days in Kronstadt... P. 382. For example, John Chrysostom saw in virginity a return to the true nature of man (De virginitas. XIV [PG 48.544]), and Gregory of Nyssa believed that attraction to the opposite sex is absolutely unusual for the original human nature (De virginitas. II [PG 46.324]. XII |PG 46.369]). Similar views were characteristic of early Gnosticism. See: Jonas N. The Gnostic Religion: The Message of the Alien God and the Beginnings of Christianity. Boston, 1963. P. XVII, 31. The idea of ​​sexual desire as a fall is also present in rabbinic literature. See: Evans J. M. Paradise Lost and the Genesis Tradition. Oxford, 1968, pp. 32–33, 46–55, 60. Nevertheless, Gregory of Nyssa, like Philo and Origen, saw in Adam the embodiment of the spiritual nature of man, and in Eve the embodiment of the physical. See: De hominis opificio. XVII–XVIII |PG 44.189–196]. See: Levin E. Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900–1700. Ithaca, 1989. Especially chapters 1 and 6. See: Evlogy, Metropolitan. Memories. Paris, 1957. pp. 143–144; Manchester L. Secular Ascetics: The Mentality of Orthodox Clergymen’s Sons in Late Imperial Russia. Ph. D. Diss. Columbia University, 1995, pp. 550–560; Russian State Historical Archive (hereinafter referred to as RGIA). F. 2219. Op. 1. D. 31. L. 159. There are examples of “spiritual marriage” in early Christianity. Suffice it to recall the lives of Sts. Galaktion and Episteme, Chrysanthus and Daria, Julian and Basilissa, Marcian and Pulcheria, Valerian and Melania. See: Moses, monk. Married Saints of the Church. Wildwood, 1991, pp. 4, 25, 43, 138–139. On the phenomenon of “spiritual marriage” in the Middle Ages, see: Elliott D. Spiritual Marriage: Sexual Abstinence in Medieval Wedlock. Princeton, 1993. See the words of the Apostle Paul from the letter to the Ephesians (Eph. 5:20–33), read during the Orthodox wedding sacrament. Bulgakov S.V. Handbook... P. 1051. Quote from: Brown P. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York, 1988. P. 203. For a conversation on this matter between the city priest and his cousin from the village, see: Gilyarov-Platonov N.P. From the Experience: Autobiographical Memoirs: In 2 vols. M., 1886–1887. T. 1. pp. 45–46. See: Vauchez A. The Laity in the Middle Ages: Religious Beliefs and Devotional Practices. Notre Dame and London, 1993, pp. 185–190 (“The Virginal Marriage of Eléazar and Delphine”), 191–203 (“Conjugal Chastity: A New Ideal in the Thirteenth Century”). The life of Juliania Lazarevskaya is a typical example from Russian history. See: Zenkovsky S. Medieval Russia’s Epics, Chronicles, and Tales. N.Y., 1974. P. 391–398. The third canon of Dionysius states that marital abstinence is permissible only by mutual consent. See: Rules of the Holy Fathers with interpretations. M., 1884. pp. 17–19. See: Gorodetzky N. Saint Tikhon of Zadonsk: Inspirer of Dostoevsky. Crestwood, 1976, pp. 61–62. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 3. L. 8 vol. For M. Tsyavlovsky’s remark in the preface to the diaries of S. A. Tolstoy, see: Tolstaya S. A. Diaries of Sofia Andreevna Tolstoy, 1860–1891. L., 1928. C. VIII. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 9. L. 8 vol. Right there. D. 9. L. 14. D. 13. L. 56 vol. D. 9. L. 59. The image of the Church, as a rule, implies the marriage union as a whole, and not one of the spouses. See the words of the Apostle Paul: “This mystery is great; I speak in relation to Christ and to the Church” (Eph. 5:32). For examples of edifying stories on this topic, see: Dyachenko G. As a gift for children. Spark of God. A collection of stories and poems adapted for reading in a Christian school for middle-aged girls. M., 1903. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 9. L. 62. See: Brundage J. A. Carnal Delight: Canonistic Theories of Sexuality // Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of Medieval Canon Law. Salamanca, 21–25 September 1965. P. 375–378. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 9. L. 33 vol. A look at this side of life. John, see: Sursky I.K. Father John of Kronstadt: In 2 volumes. Belgrade, 1938–1941. T. 1. P. 9–11; Mikhail (Semyonov), hieromonk. Father John of Kronstadt... P. 30. GARF. F. 1067. Op. 1. D. 12. L. 35. Right there. L. 29 vol.–31 vol. Twelve years earlier, the priest even reminded himself: “Initially, I spoke in the same village language” (Ibid. D. 3. L. 1a).