Philosophy of the cult

(The experience of Orthodox anthropodicy) Dedicated to the memory of my parents, Deacon Sergius Zosimovich Trubachev and Olga Pavlovna Trubacheva (Florenskaya) The history of the creation of the cycle “Philosophy of Cult (the experience of Orthodox anthropodicy)” Priest Pavel Florensky repeatedly gave descriptions and definitions of anthropodicy (from the Greek άνθρωπος - man and δίκη - justice) (“justification of man”). 1906: “Anthropodicy and Theodicy! These are the two points that make up religion, because at the heart of religion is the idea of ​​salvation, the idea of ​​the deification of the entire human being. The first of these moments is, primarily, a sacrament, a mystery, that is, the real descent of God to humanity, God’s self-abasement or kenosis, self-abasement, which justifies man in the face of God...” 1 1912: “The supposed and partly sketched 2nd part of the “Pillar”, under a different name, the 2nd half of μάφησις, i.e. anthropodicy, about secrets and sacraments, about grace and incarnation in all forms and images” 2. 1914: Anthropodycey must answer the questions “how does this system of experiences and actions become saving specifically for me, since I am convinced of its saving in general?”; “In what real environment must I move and what connection must I enter into with it in order to assimilate salvation for myself? This is in terms of phenomenology”; “In what ways does a person receive God’s salvation into himself and be saved by his Savior?” (This is in terms of ontology.) Anthropodycey describes how “we, testing ourselves, find ourselves “lies” and impurity, we see our inconsistency with the truth of God and, therefore, the need for purification.” Anthropodycey is possible “no other than by the power of God,” for “we live in God by God—not ourselves,” it is “the descent of grace into our bowels.” But “how is this possible? How can a “weak human face” come into contact with “God’s truth”? How does divine energy not incinerate the insignificance of the creature? These and other similar questions require ontological dissection. Translating into the crude and poor language of earthly comparisons, let's say: how can it be that St. the cup does not melt like wax, and so that our eyes do not become blind from the unbearable radiance of That which is in it? What would happen if a particle of the sun were placed in a chalice? But there is That, before which the sun is darkness, and... the cup is unharmed. Doesn’t it seem at moments that the priest is holding a thundercloud in his hand: one careless movement and a lightning strike will strike him. These are images. But no images will convey the power of the contrast between God and creation - a contrast that must necessarily be realized in order for the justification of the creature to be possible. Anthropodicy must clarify the ontology of this realized contrast between everything and nothing.” “To a possible question about the content of anthropodicy, perhaps one should answer: “Different types and degrees of God’s descent should constitute its main theme. In other words, we should be talking there about the categories of spiritual consciousness and about the revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures; about sacred rites and holy sacraments; about the Church and its nature; about church art and church science, etc., etc. And all this should be a frame for the central question of anthropodicy - the Christological one." Anthropodycey is the path below, the path of one who has advanced in spiritual achievement, the path is primarily practical. Defending his master's thesis in 1914, Father Pavel considered it necessary to point out that the development of anthropodicy is more complex than theodicy, and therefore he leaves it “until more mature years and more experienced experience” 3. In the broad sense of the word, questions of anthropodicy were revealed by the priest Pavel Florensky in two large cycles: “Philosophy of Cult” and “At the Watersheds of Thought” - and in a number of independent works (“Iconostasis”, “Analysis of spatiality (and time) in artistic and visual works”), written mainly in the 1920s. General overview of anthropodicy (1. The structure of man as the image of God, his will to walk the path of life in accordance with God's will, with the God-given charter, archetype 2. the sanctification of man in the sacraments of the Church, when he becomes sanctified and holy from a sinner 3. human activity, when sacred (cult), liturgical activity is primary and sanctifies the worldview (science and philosophy), economy and art); its characteristic features (philosophy of consubstantiality, ontology, theology, symbolism, antinomianism) and intuitions are traced in a special work (Andronik (Trubachev), hieromonk. Theodicy and anthropodicy in the work of priest Pavel Florensky. Tomsk, 1998). In the narrow sense of the word, by anthropodicy, Father Pavel understood the cycle “Philosophy of Cult” itself. Thus, on September 18, 1919, compiling an approximate prospectus for his Collected Works, Father Pavel Vol. IV entitled “The Experience of Orthodox Anthropodicey,” meaning specifically “Philosophy of Cult.” (The cycle “At the Watersheds of Thought” was to occupy the subsequent V-VIII volumes.) The first systematic notes, later included in the cycle “Philosophy of Cult,” appear in the works of P. A. Florensky in 1908: observations entitled “Riddles on Riddles”, topics “Religion and Culture”, “Religion, Culture, etc. worldview", "Cult, worldview, economics" "Culture and cult", "Myth and shrine", "Three types of theories", "SIN". These notes were related to the course “The First Steps of Ancient Philosophy.” From the seventh lecture of this course - “The Religious Origin of Culture” - the second lecture “Cult, Religion and Culture” of the course “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” was further developed. Most of the preliminary recordings of the “Philosophy of Cult” cycle date back to 1914–1915, and some of the topics of these recordings were included in Florensky’s lecture courses at the Moscow Academy of Arts in those years. But plans for a special course of lectures on the philosophy of cult arose from Florensky, probably only in the spring of 1918, after an offer to give lectures in Moscow. Letter from S. N. Durylin to priest Pavel Florensky “April 19 (May 2), 1918, Moscow. You were probably warned by Mokrinsky that the question of arranging your lectures in Moscow, so desired by so many, has entered the implementation phase. The premises have already been rented. It is 2 steps from Mich. Al-cha Novoselova), in the gymnasium of the Teachers' Association, accommodates 150 people. It is advisable to arrange 2 lectures per week - so that a course of 8 lectures is completed within a month. The most convenient days for lectures would be Tuesday and Friday, and the hours would be from 4 to 6. But other days are also possible. The fee will be 15 rubles. for a subscription for the entire course. Some tickets will be sold at the door. The proper composition of the audience is ensured. Tickets will not go on sale to everyone, but will be distributed among people they know and know. The duration of each lecture is at your discretion. So, everything external is done. And we are happy to expect from you only the following: 1) the exact name of the course (the topic is entirely for your consideration) and a short program for it, 2) instructions on what days and times you assign lectures and 3) when you open the course - the day of the first lecture. (It is best if the course opens on Fomina and on the days and times indicated above.) Send this answer to Sergei Iosifovich Fudel, who is in charge of the external part of the matter. We need an answer as soon as possible. Address: Arbat, 47, apt. 1. – Sergei I. Food. I kiss you. Hello Anna Mikhailovna and children. Congratulations on the upcoming holiday. May the Risen Christ make us glad. "I. SIN. Possible points of view. They are not critical. Motivate the point of view of religious realism in more detail. Irreducibility of S, I and N to each other. Critical point of view. Refusal of definitions. II 4. Method of studying religion. Religion as based on "life". Religion is the depth of life. The unconscious is a stairway from heaven to the soul. III. Two layers of life, natural) and blessed; two possible religions - natural) and grace-filled. IV. A parable about a bird flying through a room. Of particular interest is the beginning and end of life. Both are natural in religion and in grace-filled religion. VI. Reflection of aspects in each other. VII. Death is like birth and birth is like death. VIII. Mysteries. Dedications. I. Being in created things (general principles). Catholicism (Muravyov). There must be following of Christ and not imitation.” “10 lectures in Moscow “2 nrzb.” II 7. The principle of isolation and stratification. III. Praise (and prayer). The doctrine of the word, of knowledge. IV. Onomatology. Renaming. V. Sanctification of matter 8 . Types of it. VI. The meaning (vitality) of the sacraments and worship in general. VII. Symbolism and occultism in the Church. IX 10. Church and universal) religion; boundaries of the Church. X. Holy Scripture and universal tradition." Religion and culture. On the methodology of studying religion. Cult as a basis. SIN. Durkheim. My review of Bogolyubsky. 18th century icon XIX century – Talk about SIN. What is a cult? – Sacraments + rituals.” "Essays on 11 Philosophy of Cult 1) Cult, religion and culture. 5) Features of the phenomenology of the cult. 1918. IV.26. Day of the Procession to the Chernigov Mother of God with the Patriarch. Tuesday and Wednesday, from 4 to 6. Ostozhenka, 2nd Ilyinsky, gymnasium “Teachers’ Association”. May, Art. Art. 8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 29, 30 13, June 5, 6.” On the same day, Father Pavel made a sketch of the beginning of his lectures, which he then said in a slightly revised form at the end of the first lecture: “We have to deal with subjects that have either not been studied at all, or have been studied in completely different directions and angles than we have in mind, and most importantly, served as a subject for other purposes than ours. We'll have to do everything again." A message about the lectures appeared in the press, and, judging by the extremely accurate and succinct presentation, it could have belonged to Florensky himself: “The main objective of the course was to establish the greatest importance of cult (sacraments, worship, rituals) for Orthodoxy. All the sacred things of Christian life, thought and deeds go back to the cult of the Church and to its basis and center - the Divine Eucharist. From the cult comes everything that is then secularized in culture: philosophy, science, forms of society, art. The cult (and its basis - the sacrament of Communion) is the sacred and only basis for living thought, creativity, and public life. Therefore, Orthodoxy is threatened with trouble by those theological systems that shirk recognition of the central significance of the sacraments, worship and sacred symbols-rites for the Church, life and philosophy. The lectures of priest P. A. Florensky were an exceptional success and the audience was overcrowded” 14. Brief memories of the lectures of Father Pavel Florensky S.I. Fudel, who was 18 years old at the time of hearing them, also confirm the extraordinary interest of Moscow listeners. “I remember that this was the main idea of ​​the course of lectures by Fr. Paul, which he read, it seems, in the summer of 1918 in Moscow under the general title “Philosophy of Cult.” He spoke at these readings, which took place in a crowded auditorium of the “Gymnasium of the Society of Teachers” somewhere on Ostozhenka, about the reality of the penetration of the divine element of the sacraments into all pores of the earth’s fabric, about the sacraments as “foci from which divine warmth spreads throughout the world,” about how at Epiphany the consecrated Epiphany water washes away and heals the underground roots of life, about the danger that lurks in the separation of personal and public life from the cult, about the mystical degradation of the process of eating, starting from tasting the Bread of God at the sacramental meal and ending with hastily swallowing a sandwich at the railway buffet, about the fact that the goal of Christianity is to sanctify the world, to “preserve its residence through the cross”, to overcome its corruption, its “flight to Death”, to transform its life, to permeate its “existence”, its temporary with all-penetrating, coming from cult with the rays of eternity. At the same time, I remember, he repeatedly spoke in Moscow churches with extra-liturgical conversations, mainly about the name of God. “You cannot even put a razor blade between the invoked name and the Named One,” he said. This is his long-standing idea. In 1909, in “The Universal Human Roots of Idealism,” he wrote: “The name of a thing is the substance of a thing,” “names express the nature of things.” The same is true in the “Pillar”: “the name of God is the mystical Church”” 15. “When Fr. Pavel read his course “Philosophy of Cult” in Moscow in 1918, recalled S.I. Fudel (pseudonym F.I. Udelov), “the left edge of the front bench of the audience was filled with Moscow occultists. I knew them by sight and saw with what greedy attention they wrote down his words in their notebooks. Occultists or people close to them were always drawn to him. He undoubtedly had a highly developed mystical talent, a heightened mystical sense” 16. The occultists really listened with interest to Father Paul, who subjected them (as well as positivists and materialists) to devastating criticism in his lectures on “Philosophy of Cult.” But the majority of the listeners represented that new generation of Moscow believing youth, from which, contrary to the spirit of the times, the clergy began to replenish, bypassing the traditional class. There were also many students of the Moscow Theological Academy who came from Sergeev Posad to listen to their beloved teacher. It can be assumed that Florensky read these lectures with the advice and blessing of Bishop Theodore, the former rector of the MDA. About the next similar series of lectures - which did not take place - Vladyka Theodore wrote c. July 27, 1918: “Dear Father Pavel! In my opinion, the proposal made to you should be taken simply: if they want to listen, let them listen. You don’t need to set yourself any special, missionary-apologetic goals; Whatever God gives, that’s fine. And try to foresee the consequences, good or bad. Maybe just present what you read in a form that is understandable for the audience, if it is only intelligent and philosophical, so that they do not draw conclusions contrary to the themes that follow. This is my simple opinion, and if it is acceptable, then God bless you." What sources underlie the volume “Philosophy of Cult. Experience of Orthodox anthropodicy"? Based on the nature of the materials (time, recording, purpose, author’s method of storage), they can be divided into three parts. The first part is the author’s recording of Florensky’s course of lectures, i.e., in fact, what was read in May–June 1918 in Moscow. The recording was made on notebook sheets bound into seven unequal “notebooks.” The original title of the course of lectures (“Essays on the philosophy of cult. Notes of lectures given in Moscow”) was slightly corrected by Florensky during the first edit: “Essays on the philosophy of cult. Notes of lectures given in Moscow in May and June 1918." The course of lectures was compiled by Florensky in a special folder, on the spine of which he himself wrote: “St. Pavel Florensky). Anthropodycey. Sketches and Mothers. P.F." Lectures I “Fear of God” (May 1 – 4, 1918, old style), II “Cult, religion and culture” (May 5, 7, 1918, old style), III “Cult and philosophy” (May 11, 12, 14, 1918, old style) have a common numbering of paragraphs (§ 1 – 46, not included further) and general numbering of pages filled with text (68 units), but for some reason the page numbering of the beginning of lecture II is missing (6 units). The serial number of the lecture “Sacraments and Rites” (May 12, 14, 1918, Old Style) has been omitted, and a blank space has been left for its insertion. Lecture IV has its own numbering of paragraphs (§ 1 – 8) and pages (23 e.). Lectures V “Seven Sacraments” (May 19 – 20, 1918, Art. Art.), VI “Features of the Phenomenology of the Cult” (May 21, 1918, Art. Art.) have independent paragraph numbers (V – § 1 – 16; VI – § 1 – 11), but a common page numbering (49 p.). To lecture V “Seven Sacraments”, on separate 12 pages, Florensky attached the text “Deduction of the Seven Sacraments” (24 – 25; 29. ​​XII. 1919 Art.), which can be considered as an appendix. After lecture VI “Features of the Phenomenology of Cult,” Florensky completed the section “Monthology” (20–21. V. 1920 art.) on 4 unnumbered pages, which can also be considered as an appendix. Lecture VII “Consecration of Reality” (May 31, June 1 – 2, 1918, Art. Art.) has its own numbering of pages (45 pp.) and paragraphs (§ 1 – 10, then the paragraph numbering is confused and broken). Lecture VIII “Prayer” (June 2, 1918, Art. Art.) has its own numbering of pages (pp. 1 – 13, then the text breaks about halfway) and paragraphs (§ 1 – 7). All this indicates that “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” was conceived by Florensky as a single work, but the technique of its design was not brought to completion and uniformity. It was these eight lectures that were given by Florensky in Moscow at the gymnasium of the “Society of Teachers” on 2nd Ilyinskaya Street (near the Cathedral of Christ the Savior on Ostozhenka) from May 8 to June 6, 1918. Art. Comparing the dates of recording of lectures and the dates of their reading, indicated in the plan on April 26, 1918 Art. Art. (8, 9, 15, 16, 22, 23, 28, 29 May, 5, 6 June), we can assume that the dates of readings are May 28 and 29 Art. Art. (Monday and Tuesday) fell out because they fell before Easter and the Ascension of the Lord. Note that already in the plan dated April 26, 1918 Art. Art. the possibility of giving lectures during this week was in doubt, and the original dates of May 29 and 30 (Tuesday and Wednesday) were corrected to May 28 and 29. The entire course of lectures was subject to minor editing by Florensky, in pencil and ink. The second part of the “Philosophy of Cult” series is related to Florensky’s further work on the original text. 1. Florensky included many inserts, extracts from literature, and bibliographic references into the notebook pages. Some of them were later, when reprinted, organically included in the typewritten text, others remained in handwritten form. 2. Florensky wrote a number of new completed texts, some of which can be considered as appendices to the main texts of the lectures (“Deduction of the Seven Sacraments” - December 24 - 29, 1919, Art. Art., “Mesyatseslov” - May 20 - 21, 1920 Art. Art.), and others as having independent significance (“Witnesses” - May 20, 22, 1920 Art. Art.). 3. Most of Florensky's lectures were retyped on a typewriter, and a special typewritten edition was formed under the title “Readings on the Cult” and with the subtitle “Essays on the Philosophy of the Cult (sketches of lectures given in Moscow in May and June 1918).” Since the text of the typewritten edition was allocated by Florensky in a separate general folder and contained additions and corrections by Florensky, the impression was that this particular edition was the last “author’s will.” But a careful comparison of the typewritten version with the author's handwritten texts forces us to abandon this initial conclusion. What and how was translated into the typewritten version? The first three lectures (I. “Fear of God”, II. “Cult, Religion and Culture”, III. “Cult and Philosophy”), which had a single numbering of pages and paragraphs, were retyped by the typist (Butyagina? S.I. Ogneva?) directly from Florensky’s handwritten text. Words that were incomprehensible to the typist were marked with a red pencil and subsequently typed out, appended, or a blank space was left for them, probably depending on how much Florensky had the opportunity to advise the typist. Lecture IV “Sacraments and Rites,” which had its own numbering of pages and paragraphs, was retyped by the typist in the same way as the previous ones, but only half; what related to the 2nd hour of the lecture, as well as the preface to the lecture, written after its completion, remained unprinted. The text of lectures I-III and IV (half) is printed with a single numbering of pages (pp. 1 – 106) and paragraphs (§ 1 – 48). Lecture V “The Seven Sacraments” and Lecture VI “Features of the Phenomenology of the Cult” were not published, but the text “Deduction of the Seven Sacraments” was published (December 24 – 29, 1919, O.S.). Starting with this text, the technique of translating Florensky's handwritten copy into typescript changed. Florensky himself directly began to dictate his text to the typist, and in some cases this led to the fact that he gave a different edition of the text “from his voice”, supplementing the text with notes and extracts from the literature made by him after writing the lecture. This is how the text “Deduction of the Seven Sacraments” (pp. 1–9) and the first part of Lecture VII “Sanctification of Reality” (pp. 1–10, § 1–9) were dictated to the typist. A characteristic external feature of Florensky’s dictation of his texts to the typist (and then S.I. Ogneva’s clerical error) is that he crossed out the pages of the handwritten copy he dictated with a pencil. It is unknown when Florensky dictated these texts to the typist, but it can be assumed that this happened at the end of 1921 - beginning of 1922. This assumption is based on the fact that in the next series of texts that Florensky dictated to Belokhshskaya S.I. Ogneva, there are dictations made by her and Florensky himself. Thus, Florensky dictated the 2nd part of lecture VII “Consecration of Reality” from April 16 to June 4, 1922 Art. Art., text “Witnesses” (May 20, 22, 1920, Art. Art.) – June 5 – 17, 1922 Art. Art., lecture VIII “Prayer” (June 2, 1918 Art.), called “Verbal Ministry” with the subtitle “Prayer”, - August 28 - September 17, 1922 Art. Art. Handwritten texts recorded by S.I. Ogneva were subsequently retyped on a typewriter (by her or by another person). And in the handwritten text of S.I. Ognevoy, and Florensky made corrections and additions to the typewritten text, which sometimes did not coincide not only with his own handwritten copy, but also with each other in different typewritten copies. As in the cycle “At the Watersheds of Thought,” the cycle “Philosophy of Cult” does not have a single and only author’s copy, therefore the most important discrepancies are noted in the notes. As mentioned earlier, the texts dictated by Florensky to the typist (“Deduction of the Seven Sacraments”, 1st part of Lecture VII “Sanctification of Reality”) and the white-writer S.I. Ogneva (2nd part of Lecture VII “Sanctification of Reality”, “Witnesses”, “Verbal Ministry. Prayer”) have some differences from his own handwritten copies. There are especially large differences between the text of the handwritten copy of the 2nd part of Lecture VII “Consecration of Reality” and the text dictated by Florensky S.I. Ogneva, which in the 1977 publication received the conventional title “Philosophy of the Cult”. The fact that the text called “Philosophy of Cult” is a continuation (2nd part) of lecture VII “Sanctification of Reality” is convincing not only by its content, but also by the design features. The typewritten copy of Part 1 of Lecture VII, “The Sanctification of Reality,” ends on p. 10 and § 9, and S.I. Ogneva’s handwritten note begins with p. 11 and § 10, and then the page numbering goes 12, 13, 14... 195, and the numbering of paragraphs - with breaks up to § 38. Florensky clearly did not expect that the 2nd part of lecture VII “Consecration of reality” would grow to such a large size, therefore, when reprinted, this part of lecture VII could begin to be considered as an independent work and received independent page numbering (p. 1 - 106, paragraph numbering is confusing). However, neither S.I. Ogneva’s handwritten note nor the typewritten copy of the 2nd part of Lecture VII received any title. All of the above texts, translated by Florensky into typescript, were first published in 1977 in the collection. “Theological Works” No. 17 (M.: Publishing House of the Moscow Patriarchate) in the following sequence: 1. Fear of God (pp. 87 – 101), 2. Cult, religion and culture (pp. 101 – 119), 3. Cult and philosophy (pp. 119 – 135), 4. Sacraments and rituals (1st part) (pp. 135 – 142), 5. Deduction of the Seven Sacraments (pp. 143 – 147), 6. Consecration of Reality (Part 1) (pp. 147 – 156), 7. Witnesses (pp. 156 – 172), 8. Verbal Ministry. Prayer (pp. 172 – 195), Philosophy of worship (i.e. part 2 of the lecture “Sanctification of Reality”) (pp. 195 – 248). According to the censorship requirements of the Council for Religious Affairs under the USSR Council of Ministers, the general title “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” was removed and the entire cycle was published under the editorial title “From the Theological Heritage.” The preface “From the Editor” was written by A. S. Trubachev with characteristic inserts by Archpriest Anatoly Prosvirnin (later Archimandrite Innocent, †l2 July 1994), which should help the reader guess the true title of the work, but also at the same time clue him in to the location of the manuscripts. “As reported by Professor Archpriest John Kozlov (09/10/1971), from whom these materials were discovered (now they are in the Moscow Theological Academy), Father Pavel Florensky already gave this name to the philosophy of cult to his lectures at the Moscow Theological Academy (1908 - 1919)” (p. 85). When one of the curious readers, O. I. Genisaretsky, turned to the Moscow Theological Academy with a request to look at the originals stored there, he was shown a modern typewritten reprint that had been submitted to the library in connection with this request. These timing touches, of course, do not excuse, but they do explain the shortcomings of the 1977 edition. The publishers (i.e., Archpriest Anatoly Prosvirnin and A.S. Trubachev) did not know Florensky’s original handwritten text at that time, so it was not possible to identify the full composition of the texts or to verify the author’s typescript with the author’s manuscript. A number of places were excluded from publication due to external censorship circumstances beyond the control of the publishers. In addition, when publishing in 1977, accompanying materials were not taken into account at all: Florensky’s individual notes, quotations written by him and bibliographic notes. Hence a fairly large number of errors and typos. The publication of “Philosophy of Cult” in 1977, like the publication of “Iconostasis” in 1972, today, of course, does not satisfy either the current knowledge of Florensky or the principles of publishing his texts that have developed over the past 10 years, but at one time it fulfilled the most important task: again, after 70 years, it introduced society to the basic philosophical ideas of Florensky. Naturally, the publishers of the current collected works of Florensky were faced with a number of questions: 1) Why did not the 2nd part of lecture IV “Sacraments and Rituals”, lecture V “Seven Sacraments”, lecture VI “Features of the phenomenology of the cult” be included in the “Readings on the Cult”? 2) What place should be occupied by the texts “Deduction of the Seven Sacraments”, “The Book of the Months”, “Witnesses”, written by Florensky after 1918? 3) Can the handwritten text “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” of 1918 and the typewritten text of “Readings on Cult” of 1922 be considered two different works, or are they a development of the same work? If the absence of lectures IV (2nd part), V and VI in the typewritten text is fundamental, and texts written after 1918 are not related to the sequence of lectures of 1918 or were written precisely to replace unprinted lectures, then the course of lectures “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” of 1918 and “Readings on Cult” of 1922 should be considered different works and published them need to be different. If the absence of lectures IV (2nd part), V and VI in the typewritten text is not fundamental, but of a technical or accidental nature, and the texts written by Florensky after 1918 develop the themes of the lectures and find a definite place among them, then the course of lectures “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” of 1918 and “Readings on Cult” of 1922 should be considered one work. Then it is necessary to determine the place of each of the parts and publish them according to the latest edition, regardless of whether it is typewritten or handwritten. they have been preserved. A careful study of Florensky’s legacy convinces us that “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult” and “Readings on Cult” are one work. In addition to the above, we add that, no matter how great the differences between the handwritten and typewritten editions (this is especially true for the 2nd part of Lecture VII “Consecration of Reality”), with the exception of minor stylistic corrections, the differences in the vast majority of cases are determined by the additional material in the typewritten edition. The typewritten version has everything that the handwritten version has, but there is much more; There is nothing in the handwritten version that is not in the typewritten version. One more example can be given from Florensky’s legacy. The monograph “Analysis of spatiality and time) in artistic and visual works” (1924) was written by Florensky following a course of lectures at Vkhutemas “Analysis of Perspective” (1923/24) and in development of this course. But these are different works, and they are united only by the topic of research, and therefore both of them were published separately. The independent publication of the text of a course of eight lectures by Florensky in 1918 may be significant in an academic collection of works from the point of view of what exactly his students heard then, but even here one cannot be sure that everything written in 1918 was spoken: the volume of notes is sometimes too large for 2 lecture hours. Since in the handwritten copy, and in Ognevaya’s manuscript, and in the typewritten copy, uniformity in the numbering of paragraphs is not observed, each chapter is numbered independently, but the division of the text is given by the author. All selections are also reduced to uniform. The dating of Florensky's dictation of the text in 1922 is noted in the notes. The third part of the materials of the series “Philosophy of Cult” was in the same folder with the author’s recording of the course of lectures by Florensky in 1918. As already mentioned, on the spine of the folder Father Pavel wrote: “St. Pavel Florensky). Anthropodycey. Sketches and Mothers. P.F." The volume of materials is about 650 handwritten pages. These are the materials that Father Pavel selected over a long time (1908 - 1924) to write the cycle “Anthropodicy. Philosophy of cult". The nature of the materials shows that reading a course of lectures in Moscow in 1918 only prompted Father Pavel to systematize and generalize his observations about the Orthodox cult, which he had accumulated and comprehended for many years. These materials include: author's dated notes, sometimes fragmentary, sometimes original completed miniature works; draft notes of thoughts on notepad sheets, some of which were subsequently completely rewritten (Florensky then crossed out the draft); bibliographic extracts, some with comments by Florensky; newspaper clippings. Florensky connected some materials with a paper clip. But the study of all materials, including those connected with paper clips, showed that in the vast majority of cases they are united not by a narrow specific topic, but by the fact that they all belong to the “Anthropodicy” cycle, which is why they were placed in this folder. It was possible to use these materials productively only by systematizing them according to specific topics of lectures, that is, by separating them. Among the materials, Florensky himself put aside the bundles in cardboard bindings indicating the theme: “SIN”, “Eucharist. Materials. P. Florensky", "Orthodoxy and Russian nationality and autocracy." Materials from these packs are published in single blocks, in places corresponding to their content (author's - in appendices, non-author's - in notes). But Florensky dated a significant part of the materials, and this made it possible to arrange all the author’s dated records in chronological order. This is how a special section of the book was formed under the title that Florensky indicated on the spine of the general folder: “Anthropodicy. Sketches and materials." The organization of this section in a cycle not only enriches its content, but is also a unique opportunity to trace the formation of Florensky’s book in time (chronology of texts) and in space (variation of texts). If the text dated by Florensky was included in the text of the “Readings on the Cult” without changes or with very minor stylistic features, then only the beginning and end of the text are given, indicating which chapter of the “Readings” it was included in and on which page of this edition it was placed. Despite the fact that “Philosophy of Cult” consists of completely independent chapters, interconnected not by the sequence of presentation, but by a common theme and subtle interweaving of subtopics, the overall content of the work represents a harmonious, well-founded whole. The theme of Orthodox cult and worship continues and develops the theme of the Church, the main one in the work “The Pillar and Ground of Truth (The Experience of Orthodox Theodicy).” This work explores the Orthodox cult as a living organism, where everything is connected to everything else, everything is reflected in another and the other is reflected in itself. The structure of the Orthodox cult is in accordance with the structure of man himself, the image of God; its goal is to connect the earthly and the heavenly, to elevate man from the earthly to the heavenly. The focus of the Orthodox cult is the sacrament of the Eucharist (communion of the holy Body and Blood of Christ). Worship is the basis and source of all other types of human activity: worldview (philosophy and science), economy, art. As they move away and separate from the cult, they become worldly, become impoverished, lose their universal significance and rebel not only against God, but also against man. A detailed objective assessment of this work of Father Paul is possible if two conditions are met. The work must be considered: 1) in the context of the historical era, 2) taking into account the peculiarities of the work of Father Paul himself. Regarding the first circumstance, it is necessary to remember that at the beginning of the 20th century. The most contradictory phenomena took place in the Church and in Russian society: there were Saints John of Kronstadt and the Optina elders, but there were also Leo Tolstoy and renovationists; there were zealots of autocracy, but there were also socialist priests; there was a generation of deeply religious philosophers, scientists, and politicians, but there were also representatives of the so-called new religious consciousness who did not accept the “historical” Church; occultism and theosophy were promoted; There were clergy and church people, most of whom were soon to embark on martyrdom, but militant atheism began to take root in the people’s consciousness, not only indifferent to the church and worship, but also ready to destroy it as soon as the opportunity presented itself. What is a church, its shrines, worship? Outdated forms of culture, needed out of habit only by “grandmothers”? Magical actions? Deception of the people, spiritual opium? An aesthetic phenomenon? Father Paul gave answers to these questions and revealed the essential necessity and saving power of the Orthodox cult for people when persecution of the Church had already begun, the blood of the first new martyrs was shed, and church property began to be plundered. It has been almost a year and a half since Russian Emperor Nicholas II abdicated the throne, and only two months remained before his martyrdom with his entire family. The heightened spiritual responsibility and extraordinary courage of Father Paul prompted him to present in the “Philosophy of Cult” the church teaching about royal power and the anointed king. And if we remember that this was not only written, but also openly spoken not far from the Moscow Kremlin, then Father Paul’s lectures can be equated to confession. Table showing the development of the lectures “Philosophy of Cult” (dates according to historical and old centuries) Regarding the second circumstance, i.e., the peculiarities of the work of Father Paul himself, it is necessary to remember that it was in line with Christian apologetics and religious philosophy, but not theology, if by theology we mean the dogmatic teaching of the Church. There is no doubt that both apologetics and religious philosophy, if they strive to reveal the Orthodox faith, must be rooted in the dogmatic teaching of the Church, but just as a portrait, in comparison with an icon, has its own artistic laws, techniques and methods of expression, so religious and philosophical creativity has its own characteristics of revealing the Truth, not reducible to dogmatic formulations. Accordingly, the terminological dictionary of religious philosophy cannot be identical to the terminological dictionary of dogmatic theology, but represents its own system, its own language. The thinking of Father Paul is a special language, the originality of which is the use of theological, philosophical, natural science, and technical terminology. In some cases the term is used in its direct and usual meaning, in some cases the term is used broadly. So, for example, after the first edition of individual chapters of “Philosophy of Cult” in 1977 (the journal “Theological Works”), a lot of controversy was caused by the place where Father Paul says: “So, the Cross is a living being, rational, conscious, spiritual, capable of hearing our prayers and responding to them” (p. 40 of this edition). Explaining this passage, Hieromonk Andronik noted: “The cross is a living being due to the presence in it of the life-giving and life-giving energy of the Lord Jesus Christ” 17 . Elsewhere, Father Paul writes: “The Honest Cross can even be identified with the Lord, according to the unity of the Divine Hypostasis of the Lord... From here it is clear why in early Christian iconography the face of the Lord was usually depicted with the Cross” (p. 34 of this edition). Obviously, in the first case, the Cross is viewed from a philosophical point of view, and in the second case, from a theological point of view. Moreover, the philosophical consideration of the Cross as a sensually contemplated mental entity is in line with naturally “magical”, mystical-mythological, theurgic and realistic symbolism. Similarly, Father Paul describes the sword as having “signs of a spiritual being with a certain ontological place, almost a rank, in the theocratic system” (p. 259 present ed.); the throne is like a “hidden cherub” (p. 257 present edition); elements (water, etc.) and substances (bread, honey, grain, etc.) - receiving grace-filled sanctification (see “Sanctification of Reality”, pp. 201 - 311 present edition); the word is “living and intelligent” 18. This type of philosophical understanding is directed primarily against the scientific-empirical, rationalistic knowledge of the Church, man and nature (the world). In the context of the thought of Father Paul, this type of philosophizing is not opposed to the grace-filled church theology, but accompanies it as an introductory step. These definitions of Father Paul are based not on rationalistic pseudo-theological constructs, but on living religious experience and the grace of the priesthood. The ability to see the heavenly in the earthly, the incorruptible in the corruptible, the eternal in the temporal, the invisible in the visible, the “animate” in the “corporeal”, the higher in the lower, participation in the mystery of the union of spirit and flesh, rooted in the dogma of the incarnation, can be defined as mysticism. It is significant that the mystical intuitions of Father Paul, captured by him as evidence in this work, find confirmation in the experience of Orthodox ascetics. Here, for example, are stories about one of our contemporary elders, Schema-Archimandrite Vitaly (1928 - December 1, 1992). “I remember his instructions about how reverently one should treat the Throne of God,” recalls Archimandrite Platon (Igumnov). “He said that this is something living, animate, and one must apply to it as to a living body. The throne in the church is the body of Christ.” 19 “Like the Monk Seraphim of Sarov, Father (Vitaly) attached special significance to the candle lit for a person in front of the holy image. Large, smooth wax candles, made by him himself, stood on special iron trays and crossbars. They never faded in his room; and even in extreme heat, when there was smoke from the fire and it was difficult to breathe, he did not allow them to be extinguished. He often wrote in letters: “Candles are praying for all of you.” And the power of the burning candle in the priest’s cell more than once saved people from mortal danger. From the candle, Father Vitaly could recognize a person’s state of mind: whether it was burning smoothly, calmly, or smoking. And sometimes the fire gets cut and goes out. Then the priest intensified his prayer for this man” 20. Following the tradition of Russian religious philosophy, Father Pavel Florensky connected the spiritual principle of femininity with the veneration of the Third Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit, who blessed the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the spiritual principle of masculinity with the veneration of the Second Hypostasis of God the Word, the Logos. The veneration of the Holy Spirit was also associated with creative inspiration and art, and the veneration of the Logos was associated with the meaningfulness and rationality of scientific activity. But much earlier, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, developed the concept of St. Gregory the Theologian that in the Old Testament the Hypostasis of God the Father primarily acts (reveals), in the incarnation - the Hypostasis of God the Son, and after Pentecost - the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit 21 . It seems that the concept of Saint Gregory the Theologian - Father Alexander Gorsky is akin to the concepts of Father Pavel Florensky, who connected Kievan Rus with the beginning of the divine receptivity of the world, the veneration of the Mother of God as the receptacle of the Holy Spirit and the artistic symbol of Sophia - Wisdom, the Heavenly Artist, and connected Moscow and St. Petersburg Rus with the beginning of the divine incarnation, design, veneration of Christ the Savior and an artistic symbol of the Holy Trinity (see the work “Trinity-Sergius Lavra and Russia” 22). One can, of course, dispute how permissible such philosophical and historiosophical concepts are, since the Consistency of the Holy Trinity is expressed in the fact that all Three Hypostases have a single will, a single action; since the Eternally Existing Pre-Mundane Supernatural God cannot appear in His Various Hypostases as the beginning of either feminine and masculine, or inspiration and rationality. It can be admitted that time has not justified such concepts; they did not bring Orthodox philosophy closer to the dogmatic teaching of the Church, but rather moved it away. But when in part V of the “Seven Sacraments” Father Paul writes: “But the degree of perception of His Person (the Holy Spirit) is different in different cases, from a vague and vague hope and joy in the Lord and to the feeling of the hypostasis of this “Feminine” Hypostasis of the Divine” (p. 155 of this ed.), it is quite obvious that he is not “revolutionizing” theology, introducing the feminine and masculine principles into the Divinity, but only unsuccessfully expresses all that the same concept of special veneration of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Second Eve, as the Grace-filled companion of the Holy Spirit. The uniqueness of Father Pavel’s work lies in the fact that for the first time he interpreted the Orthodox cult and sacraments from a religious and philosophical point of view. Usually the sacraments were considered either from the point of view of their practical implementation (practical guidance for pastors), or from the point of view of their historical composition (historical liturgics). Less frequently, the sacraments were considered from a dogmatic point of view. But any of these approaches implied an appeal to members of the Church, within the Church. The fundamental novelty of Father Paul's research lies in the fact that he addresses, to a large extent, those who are outside the Church, and sets an apologetic and missionary task. In this sense, Father Pavel Florensky’s criticism of the occult and spiritualism is extremely important. Usually occultism and spiritualism are criticized fairly and harshly, but the arguments given are those that are convincing mainly only for the members of the Church themselves who are inside it. To convert the erring, such an approach, unfortunately, often does not achieve the goal, and only bitter consequences force these people to move away from occultism and spiritualism. Father Paul criticizes the occult in such a way that he can be heard not only within the Church, but also outside it; his word, without losing its churchliness, rests on grounds that may not be so significant for the Church, but convincing for the external world for the sake of his appeal to the Church. On the other hand, for the first time in philosophical and religious-philosophical literature, issues of ontology, epistemology, psychology, psychiatry, artistic creativity, ecology, etc. were studied based on the material of the Orthodox cult, worship and sacraments. In this work of Father Paul, in contrast to the previous ones, there is a minimal number of quotations and references from philosophical literature, but what an abundance of materials from the Holy Scriptures, the Breviary (a variety of publications), the Colored Triodion, the Lenten Triodion, liturgical and four-day menias, the Service Book, the Bishop's official, the Sequence of prayer chants and various liturgical rites and liturgical studies! And all these are materials that have not been used at all before in philosophy, and are not known to most modern philosophers. The third feature that distinguishes the work of Father Paul is the question he posed about the relative knowledge of God in paganism and the relationship between paganism and Christianity. As a theologian, Father Paul follows the tradition of the holy martyr Justin the Philosopher, the Venerable Seraphim of Sarov (see p. 576 et seq. ed.), St. Theophan the Recluse, who, in particular, interpreting the words of the Apostle Paul: “For what can be known about God is obvious to them (the pagans), because God has revealed it to them” (Rom. 1:19), wrote: “The tongues knew about God and things divine not only from what is imprinted in their souls, but also from what God later especially revealed and what, according to legend, passed from generation to generation" 23 . But if in theology this is a fairly traditional point of view, then Florensky’s application of it to the field of religious studies was innovative. It is not in Christianity that one should look for elements of paganism that supposedly testify to “dual faith,” but in pre-Christian paganism one should see how the rays of the future of Christ, from the ages, from the heavenly promise to the fallen Adam, are highlighted. Unfortunately, religious studies did not follow the path outlined by Florensky, but in the opposite direction, and this is the reason for its marking time. Finally, another feature that distinguishes the work of Father Paul is the anthropological approach to the teaching of salvation. It is shown that the Church offers a person exactly what he is looking for, but does not achieve in his impulse of self-purification; the human (psychophysiological, social, historical, etc.) roots of the divine-human religious action are revealed; it is evidenced that Orthodoxy has absorbed all the best and necessary things developed by humanity on the religious path. Provisions: “Christianity is the result and outcome of the historical development of mankind and therefore the first among other religions”; “All other religions are false in comparison with the revealed truth revealed by Christ, and therefore Christianity is the only thing that deserves to be called a religion,” Florensky considers as an antinomian unity. All this created an extremely original, unique work, quite comparable in its significance to the book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth.” Like “The Pillar...”, “Philosophy of Cult” became the gateway to the Church for an entire generation. But if “The Pillar...”, first published in 1914, continued its “independent” life, then “Philosophy of Cult”, read in 1918, became a part of memories in subsequent years. This publication of the complete text of The Philosophy of Cult brings this work back to life. I express my heartfelt gratitude to the staff of the Museum of Priest Pavel Florensky and the eco-food plant OJSC Diod (General Director V.P. Tikhonov) for their assistance in preparing the book for publication. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev) Dogmatism and dogmatics C Priest Pavel Florensky. Works: In 4 vols. T. 1. M., 1994. P. 551. From a letter to V.A. Kozhevnikov July 27, 1912 // Andronik (Trubachev), hieromonk. Theodicy and anthropodicy in the works of priest Pavel Florensky. Tomsk, 1998. P. 10. Reason and dialectics. Introductory speech before the defense of the book “On Spiritual Truth” for the master’s degree. Moscow, 1912, said on May 19, 1914 // Priest Pavel Florensky. Works: In 4 vols. T. 2. M., 1996. P. 133 – 134. Between paragraphs I and II, written in pencil: “For the last chapter. (Orientation in Philosophy).” Notes with the same title have been preserved: ““Riddles on riddles.” Title of the article about Tolpygin etc. These are not moral, but ontological. Morality is ontological." “Spiritual decay and the stone of faith. "Orthodox Review", vol. 12, 1863, p. 213. [About the Eucharist! NI] for “Riddles on riddles)”. Above paragraph I there is an inscription in pencil: “Two points of view. Holy thing and back.” Above item II there is an inscription in pencil: “Time and phenomenon. Space and phenomenon." Above the word there is a pencil inscription: “reality”. Further added in pencil: “Deduction of the number seven.” Between paragraph IX and paragraph X and below paragraph X it is written in pencil: “Church and the world. 1 pages (Cosmic) I will only speak.” Originally it was: “Essays on the Philosophy of Cult.” The words “and peace” are crossed out in pencil. Crossed out and written on top in pencil: “28 and 29.” Revival. [1918]. No. 6. P. 15. Fudel S.I. About Father Pavel Florensky // Florensky. Pro et contra. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 97. Andronik (Trubachev), hieromonk. Theodicy and anthropodicy in the works of priest Pavel Florensky. Tomsk, 1998. P. 103. See: The structure of the word // Works: In 4 volumes. T. 3(1). M., 1999. P. 216. About the life of Schema-Archimandrite Vitaly. M., 2002. P. 83. See: Pillar and Ground of Truth. M., 1914. S. 134 – 136. Priest Pavel Florensky. Works: In 4 vols. T. 2. M., 1996. P. 352 – 369. Bishop Feofan. Interpretation. Message of St. Apostle Paul to the Romans. 2nd ed. M., 1890. P. 89.