Disciple of Theophan the Recluse, Hieromonk Theodosius of Karulsky and his pedagogical views

Annotation. The article is devoted to the analysis of the pedagogical principles of the ascetic and mentor of spiritual life, Hieroschemamonk Theodosius (Kharitonov) Karulsky, who lived on Mount Athos in the first third of the 20th century. It traces the formation and development of views on the education of Fr. Theodosius, formed under the significant influence of St. Theophan the Recluse. The activities of Hieromonk Theophan (this was the name of Father Theodosius before the adoption of the schema) until his retirement to the Holy Mountain were connected with the spiritual and educational department. After graduating from the Kazan Theological Academy, he served as an overseer of the Saratov Seminary, a teacher at the Tauride Seminary and the director of an exemplary parochial school attached to it, and an inspector at the Vologda Seminary. His theoretical views on education were formulated by him in two articles published in diocesan bulletins. Results of practical activities of Fr. Theophanes and their assessment by contemporaries have reached us in the form of separate statements in official documents, memoirs, letters and diaries. To attract this data, archival materials and publications in pre-revolutionary periodicals were used. Abstract. The article is devoted to the analysis of the pedagogical principles of the ascetic and mentor of spiritual life Hieroschemonk Theodosius (Kharitonov) Karulsky, who lived on Mount Athos in the first third of the XX century. It traces the formation and development of views on the upbringing of Fr. Theodosius, formed under the significant influence of Svt. Theophan the Recluse. The activity of Hieromonk Theophan (such was the name of fr. Theodosius before the adoption of the schema), up to the removal to the Holy Mountain, was associated with the spiritual and educational department. After advancing from the Kazan Theological Academy, he served as a supervisor of the Saratov Seminary, a teacher of the Tauride Seminary and director of the model parochial school at it, an inspector of the Vologda Seminary. Theoretical views on education were formulated by him in two articles published in the diocesan gazette. The results of Fr. Feofan’s practical activity and their assessment by contemporaries have come down to us in the form of separate statements in official documents, memoirs, letters and diaries. Archival materials and publications in pre-revolutionary periodicals were used to attract these data. Hieroschemamonk Theodosius (Kharitonov Vasily Vasilyevich; 1869–1937) gained greatest fame as an ascetic and ascetic mentor and confessor of the monastics of Karuli, a remote mountainous part of Athos. His advice and guidance were used by many inhabitants of Athonite monasteries of different national traditions, as well as visiting pilgrims. Among the then numerous inhabitants of the Holy Mountain, Fr. Theodosius stood out not only for his modesty and special prayerful attitude, but also for his education: against the background of the almost exclusively peasant population of Russian monasteries, candidate of the Kazan Theological Academy and seminary teacher Fr. Theodosius was a noticeable figure, no matter how much he avoided it. The biographical data of the ascetic can be found in the publications of the magazine “Russian Pilgrim” [27, pp.14–24; 8, pp.80–82; 14. pp.83–94; 5. p.21–30], in our articles, some of which will be published in the near future [24; 23; 20; 21; 22], as well as in the memoirs of Archimandrite Seraphim (Ivanov) [18, p.401–410] and articles by M.V. Shkarovsky [31, p.325–333], Abbot Euthymius (Moiseev) [4] and prot. Alexia Sorokina [26, pp.68–73]. Mentoring of the last years of his earthly journey by Fr. Theodosius was prepared by his entire life trajectory, including thorough practical experience in the field of pedagogy. Before leaving for Athos, the then hieromonk Theophan was the name of Fr. Theodosius, a monk, served for four years as an inspector at the Vologda Seminary, heading the educational process in the crowded (about 500 students) Vologda Seminary during the turbulent times of the 19th-20th centuries. Before that, for almost the entire 1896, he was the head of the exemplary parish school at the seminary in Simferopol, combining this position with teaching at the seminary; even earlier, from the autumn of 1894 to the end of 1896. he worked as an overseer of students at the Saratov Theological Seminary. The future ascetic acquired theoretical ideas about pedagogy at the Kazan Theological Academy, where this subject was taught by the priest. Alexander Vasilyevich Smirnov, later a professor at Kazan and St. Petersburg universities. Also, significant influence can be assumed on the part of the professor of moral theology Alexander Ivanovich Grenkov, who worked a lot on the organization of the system of parochial schools in the Kazan diocese. The Christian foundations of pedagogy were among the interests of Alexander Ivanovich; he was interested in the idea of ​​“building pedagogy on Christian theological principles, where the latter appear not as edifying applications or some reflections in the spirit of pietism, but as the main fundamental principles” [3, p. 194, 193–214, 574–595, 404–435]. The search for the foundations of “Christian pedagogy” was apparently inspired by A. I. Grenkov’s interest in the work of St. Theophan the Recluse. In any case, it was Prof. Grenkov formulated the theme of Vasily Kharitonov’s candidate’s work, which the future ascetic wrote in the last year of study at the Kazan Theological Academy: “Review of the main works of the Right Reverend Theophan (Tambov) of moral and ascetic content” [30, op. 2, d. 313]. – This was the first academic study of the theology of St. Feofana [21]. Thoughtful work with the works of the Right Reverend Theophan, accompanied by personal communication with the saint by correspondence, constituted the most important stage in the ideological development of Fr. Feodosia. The results of this internal work (including on issues of education) are presented in two articles published in 1896. 1. Thoughts of the Right Reverend Theophan of Tambov on the Christian upbringing of children [29, p.131–138]; 2. The importance of the teaching activity of a priest in a parochial school [28, p.1140–1149]. The first of the articles was submitted for publication to the Saratov Diocesan Gazette during the period of Vasily Kharitonov’s service as an overseer at the Saratov Theological Seminary. The article is signed with the initials “H.V.” and (less symbolically) in the table of contents “V.Kh.”, however, its attribution to Vasily Kharitonov is beyond doubt, since it is an excerpt from his candidate’s essay (pp. 118–128), in fact the first section of the second part of the work. Editing consisted only of shortening the text and adding the necessary connections. Even the not entirely successful expressions of the original were not corrected. Only a few phrases have been added for clarification and a few expressions have been corrected. The content of the article is an overview of the thoughts of St. Theophan the Recluse about raising a child from the first days of his life, as they were expressed in his work “The Path to Salvation.” Following St. Theophan Vasily speaks of the internal renewal of nature in Baptism, that the power of sin is not completely destroyed, but is only forced out of the heart. The task of educators, therefore, is to preserve and prepare the baptized child for a conscious and free dedication to God. The main means in this is churchliness: “The Church, churchliness and the sacraments - like a tabernacle for children, under which they must always be - can replace all means of education” [29, p.133–134]. Below are some features of Christian education for each age. At a young age, children must learn to accept the limitations of their body; as mental abilities develop, restrictions should also manifest themselves in the discipline of mental forces: “Sound Christian concepts will suppress worldly wisdom and save the child from evil and insatiable inquisitiveness” [29, p.135]. The actions of the educator, described as strict and mostly prohibitive, should be directed “towards education in a mood of conscientiousness and consciousness” [29, p.136]. Vasily gives special attention to the description of youth, like “a waterfall, into which everyone, having plunged, emerges radiant with kindness and nobility or darkened by wickedness and debauchery, or with a mixture of good and evil, like a smoking brand or a damaged watch” - these images of St. Feofana, one feels, is especially close to the author of the article. He points out the dangers of distraction, daydreaming and entertainment at this age and the special importance of strict discipline. The article ends somewhat unexpectedly: “Education is the cause of everything good and evil. The shortcomings of education consist of: non-compliance, through ignorance or neglect, with the orders, rules and laws indicated by Christianity.” However, we have already seen that writing and literary activity were not part of V. Kharitonov’s plans in this case: the article was almost a technical publication of an excerpt from a course essay. It is interesting to see how the harmonious and beautiful theory of education of St. Feofana was attached to a not very attractive reality. Just at this time, Vasily served as an overseer of the Saratov seminary. The responsibilities of his eloquent-sounding position included the strictest supervision of students: day and night, in class and in free hours, seminarians were under control. “The order in the Saratov Seminary was harsh at that time: they are probably still remembered by many priests who graduated from the Saratov Seminary in the nineties of the last century” [7, p. 30], recalled the years of rectorship of Archpriest. Pavel Izvekov, graduate of 1892. A. I. Kazansky. “Monotonous, boring, fruitless” supervisory activities weighed heavily on Vasily. Without giving internal satisfaction and without bringing visible results. “...Successes in the implementation of one or another undertaking, gratitude on the part of subordinates for the kindness shown, were puffed up, forced to prefer oneself to comrades without any reason, to be vain in front of subordinates in appearance, word, and deed (indulgence and ingratiation from them). On the contrary, failure exposed him to despondency, dissatisfaction with his position and despair in his abilities, condemnation of his superiors, severity and contempt of his subordinates, and instead of the previous gullibility towards them, it instilled painful suspicion” [23], he wrote on March 11, 1895 in his “confessional” diary. However, the absence of noticeable changes in the behavior of seminarians and the inability to shake the established relationships between teachers and students did not mean that V. Kharitonov’s efforts were pointless. We have remarkable evidence of this in the memoirs of Archbishop Seraphim (Lukyanov) 1, who studied at the Saratov Seminary during the period of Vasily’s supervision: “Fr. I have known Feodosius from a young age. I was a second-class seminarian, and he was an assistant inspector in Saratov. We are fellow countrymen, both Saratov peasants. Even then he was like an angel of God” [15, p.8]. In the 1895-1896 academic year, Alexander Lukyanov was actually a second-year student at the Saratov Seminary, and 40 years later he remembered the image of the warden Kharitonov - he was like an angel of God! It was not administrative orders, permissions or prohibitions that remained in the students’ memory, but the person’s personality, his image as a Christian continued to operate in the soul through the decades. The second article of this year was written after his monastic tonsure when Fr. Feofan as a teacher at the Tauride Seminary and director of an exemplary parochial school at the seminary. It is called “The importance of the teaching activity of a priest in a parochial school” [28, p.1140–1149]. As the author himself notes, the article was written in response to complaints about the excessive volume of the program for studying the Law of God in parochial schools “and the resulting unwanted and arbitrary cuts in the program, and sometimes, unfortunately, negligence in its implementation” [28, p.1141]. Fr starts Feofan, with a reminder of the general direction of development of the primary school, speaks of the introduction of parochial schools (the favorite brainchild of K.P. Pobedonostsev), placed “under the direct supervision of the clergy,” about the main subject of such schools – the Law of God, and that “all other subjects should be made more or less closely dependent on it” [28, p.1147]. As has already been indicated in church periodicals, the program of parochial schools is smaller in scope and lighter than the program of zemstvo and ministerial schools. The opposite impression can be produced only by the detail of the recording of this program. Further about. Feofan reminds us of the importance of teaching the law for priests. “For a long time, since the adoption of Christianity under St. Vladimir Equal to the Apostles, our clergy has looked at the school education of the people as their direct responsibility. During the harvest, the farmer loses a lot who did not fertilize the land and did not have time to sow on time: the shepherd loses the same amount in the spiritual harvest if the golden time of school education has passed without properly sowing the word of God on the young, receptive hearts of children” [28, p.1142–1143]. “The church service itself with a sermon - the most powerful means in the hands of the pastor for the religious and moral education of the people - will turn out to be more beneficial if the people are prepared by school education in the spirit of the law of God” to understand it. Contributes to teaching the law and strengthening the authority of the pastor. The shortcomings of school education lead to superstitions and rituals, “which serves as a reproach for us from the sectarians” [28, p.1142–1143]. Further about. Feofan moves on to more specific instructions for teaching in a parochial school. In the basic principles of education, he again relies on the instructions of the “Path to Salvation” by St. Theophan the Recluse, and we again find the description of the church as a tabernacle for children. Education should be educational, not scientific or purely educational in nature. Otherwise, it turns out that “when carrying out the curriculum, they mainly have in mind the preparation of senior students for the final exam to receive a preferential certificate for military service, 2 which undoubtedly should push the issue of education into the background” [28, p. 1146]. Each subject of the school course, and not just the Law of God, must have in mind, in addition to its main direction, educational tasks. Thus, in Russian language lessons “should be instilled in children” “sacred love for their fatherland, respect for the good customs and rules of peasant life, imbued for the most part with a religious spirit.” Only arithmetic remains free from serving a “direct religious-educational goal,” but it also receives recommendations “not to set oneself with extraneous and unnecessary goals” [28, p. 1147]. In conclusion, Fr. Feofan cites several excerpts from contemporary pedagogical literature. This is S.I. Miropolsky [11, p.41–42], prot. A V. Smirnov [19], F. E. Rokhov 3 is mentioned. We have already spoken about Archpriest Alexander Smirnov above; he taught V. Kharitonov’s pedagogy and was a reviewer of his candidate’s work. It is noteworthy that from the brochure about. A. Smirnov took only one paragraph from the preface; the article itself, dedicated to a discussion of the pedagogical systems of Guyot and Spencer, was hardly of much interest to Fr. Feofan. In general, in this article we encounter the first experience of a relatively independent essay by Fr. Feofan (Kharitonov). The most vividly and convincingly written fragments are about the importance of pastoral teaching ministry. Pedagogical views of Fr. Feofan (Kharitonov) are developing in the direction set by St. Theophan the Recluse (primarily in “The Path to Salvation”). Based on the anthropological system of St. Feofan, well mastered by Kharitonov when writing his candidate’s dissertation, he obtains well-founded answers to practical life questions. At the same time, one can feel the author’s understanding of the problems of peasant children in parish schools - this was an experienced path. The theoretical part, general pedagogical reasoning, looks dry and lifeless - here Fr. Feofan does not go further than reproducing generally accepted stereotyped approaches and quoting commonplaces and official explanations. We know nothing about the pedagogical practice of this period, but we can assume that it was not very intensive. Teaching at the seminary and administrative obediences, as well as the monastic and priestly life that had just begun, obviously did not leave Fr. Feofan has a lot of time to spend with his students. In contrast, after the appointment of Fr. Feofan as an inspector at the Vologda Seminary, almost all of his activities for four years were connected with the educational process. Moreover, this activity is for the prayerful and humble Fr. Feofana was extremely painful: from the very beginning he had to endure “various rude antics from students, including throwing stones at the windows of his apartment” [16, l.6], so the rector was forced to release Fr. Feofan from inspections of student dormitories and apartments [10, l.3–3v., 14]. His further inspection service did not bring much joy. The seminarians continued to drink and riot. – Of course, “bad behavior” was observed among a small part of the students, the majority of the pupils were respectable and diligent young men [2, op. 1, d. 1], but, however, this part was not so small as not to be noticeable. Father Theophan tried to influence the seminarians with humility and instruction, tried to interest them in patristic literature, and had long conversations with incoming students. Once, during one such conversation, he forgot to lock the door of the teaching room - the students, taking advantage of the moment, stole and hid the “conduit” books, notebooks in which student misconduct was recorded. It was necessary to organize an entire investigation according to all forensic canons to locate the stolen property [2, l.274 vol.]. Another time, a tipsy seminarian, for no apparent reason, attacked the assistant inspector on duty and began to choke him - he was barely saved [2, l.275 vol.]. Fr. brought especially great grief. Theophan the disrespect of the disciples at the service. There were young men who deliberately made noise in the church to show their dissatisfaction with the actions of the inspectorate; some managed to read books directly during the service [17, op. 1, d. 2773, l. 51]. All this led to moral and physical exhaustion about. inspector, and at the beginning of 1901 he submitted his resignation, supported by a medical certificate of health disorder [13, op. 182, d. 322, l. 4], and in March 1901 he went to Athos, where the rest of his life passed. So, the practical pedagogical activity of Fr. Feofana ended unsuccessfully on the external level. After painful experiences and disappointments, morally and physically exhausted, he left the spiritual and educational service. Does this mean that the educational direction that Fr. tried to follow was incorrect or unsuitable for life? Feofan and which can be associated with the name of Theophan the Recluse? It seems that such a conclusion would not be correct. All contemporaries of Hieromonk Theophan, whose evidence we have, evaluate his activities positively. Starting from the diocesan bishop Bishop Alexy (Sobolev), who recognized his activities in the seminary as “very useful” [13, l.1 volume] and the rector of the Vologda seminary, Archpriest Alexander Agronomov, who said that only through the prayers of Fr. Feofan maintains order in the school [20], and ending with the fierce critic of the seminary order, the writer Ilariy Shadrin, who portrayed Fr. Feofana with light colors - unlike the other members of the administration [25, pp. 162–189]. Some memoirists note the discrepancy between Fr. Feofan inspector position. Indeed, he did not implement the educational program that his superiors expected from the inspector. But this fact can be looked at from the other side. Was the generally accepted seminary methodology of that time, which relied almost exclusively on prohibitive and supervisory measures, consistent with its purpose and meaning? Is this where the rejection of the “too pious” inspector came from, who himself looked at his service “as a cross placed on him by the highest church authority” [6, l.273]? So, having received a thorough theological and pedagogical education at the Kazan Academy, having mastered both the theoretical and practical instructions of Saint Theophan, which we see from his articles and from his diary entries, Hieromonk Theophan was clearly disappointed with the real possibilities of educational activities in the seminary. Moreover, his initial steps in the spiritual and educational department demonstrated noticeable optimism. This may be partly explained by the personal characteristics of the character and temperament of Fr. Theophan, partly due to the inconsistency of actually operating seminary pedagogy with the principles of Christian anthropology and asceticism, expressed with particular clarity by Theophan the Recluse. For many workers in theological schools, this collision with sad reality became destructive and was resolved either by betrayal of their principles, or by degradation and passivity. For Hieromonk Theophan, it became a test that did not affect the main foundations of his personality. The firmly accepted principles of Christianity continued to guide him on the path to salvation. 1. Bulletin of PSTGU. Series II: History. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. 2021. Issue. 98. P.149. 2. Memoirs of N.A. Ilyinsky about the Vologda Seminary of this period: Ilyinsky N.A. From the distant past // GAVO. F. R-5250. Op.1. D.1. Currently, most of the memories are presented in ongoing publication on the website Bogoslov.ru. 3. Grenkov A.I. Ideas and facts of pedagogy from the point of view of a theological teacher // Orthodox interlocutor. 1888. February. P.194 (February. P.193–214. April. P.574–595. August. P.404–435). 4. Evfimy (Moiseev), abbot. On the history of contacts between St. Theophan the Recluse and the inhabitants of the Russian Panteleimon Monastery on Mount Athos // Orthodoxy in Tatarstan - information and educational website of the Tatarstan Metropolis. 01/22/2017 [Electronic resource]. URL: https://tatmitropolia.ru/all_publications/publication/?id=62850 (12/21/2022). 5. Hieroschemamonk Macarius, pet of the Karulian hesychasts // Russian pilgrim. 2002. No. 25. P.21–30. 6. Ilyinsky N.A. From the distant past // GAVO. F. R-5250. Op.1. D.1. 7. Kazansky A.I. To the readers // SEV. 1914. No. 12. P.29–35. 8. Karula ascetics // Russian pilgrim. 2001. No. 24. pp.80–82. 9 . Kostryukov A.A. Russian Church Abroad in the first half of the 1920s. Organization of church administration in exile and its relations with the Moscow Patriarchate during the life of Patriarch Tikhon. M.: PSTGU, 2007. P.380. 10. Monthly reports of the rector of the seminary for 1897 // GAVO. F.466. Op.1. D.2404. L.3–3 vol., 14. 11. Miropolsky S.I. Didactic essays: The student and educational training in the public school. St. Petersburg, 1890. P.41–42. 12. On the procedure for conducting tests and issuing preferential certificates for military service to students of exemplary schools at theological seminaries // Vologda Diocesan Gazette. 1887. No. 18. pp.223–225. 13. On the dismissal of the inspector of the Vologda Theological Seminary, Hieromonk Feofan, from the spiritual and educational service and the appointment of priest Alexei Lebedev as a teacher of the same seminary // RGIA. F.796. Op.182. D.322.L.4. 14. Father Theodosius in the memoirs of his contemporaries // Russian pilgrim. 2001. No. 24. pp.83–94. 15. Letter from the archbishop. Seraphim (Lukyanov) to the monk Iuvian // Orthodox Rus'. 2000. No. 14. P.8. 16. According to the report of the actual state councilor Nechaev on the audit of the Vologda Theological Seminary // RGIA. F.802. Op.10. 1902 D.33. L.6. 17. Report of Hieromonk Theophan. Journal of pedagogical meetings of the board of the Vologda Theological Seminary // GAVO F.466.Op. 1. D.2773. L.51. 18. Seraphim (Ivanov), archimandrite. Scientific hermit. In memory of Hieroschemamonk Theodosius // B.K. Zaitsev. To Athos. M., 2013. P.401–410. 19. Smirnov A.V., prot. Modern ideals of education. Kazan, 1896. 20. Solodov N.V., Hierarch. Hieroschemamonk Theodosius (Kharitonov) in the memoirs of the priest. Nikolai Konoplev // Bogoslov.ru [Electronic resource]. URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6172977 (access date: 11/06/2022). 21. Solodov N.V., Hierarch. Theodosius of Karulsky as the author of the first study of the moral theology of St. Theophan the Recluse // Questions of Theology. (Accepted for publication). 22. Solodov N.V., Hierarch. Hieroschemamonk Theodosius (Kharitonov) and his training in theological schools of the Saratov diocese in the 1880s // Proceedings of the Saratov Orthodox Theological Seminary (accepted for publication). 23. Solodov N.V., Hierarch. “On the way to the arms of the Father” - the diary of Theodosius of Karulsky // Bogoslov.ru [Electronic resource] URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6172271 (access date: 11/06/2022). 24. Solodov N.V., Hierarch. Context of the publication of the diary “On the way to the Father’s arms” // Bogoslov.ru [Electronic resource] URL: https://bogoslov.ru/article/6172655 (access date: 11/06/2022). 25. Solodov N.V., Hierarch. I. G. Shadrin’s story “Bursa”: sources and prototypes // Two centuries of Russian classics. 2021. No. 3. pp. 172–189. 26. Sorokin A.E., prot. From inspectors to hermits // Blagovestnik. 2015. No. 4. P.68–73. 27. Elder Theodosius of Karula Svyatogorets // Russian pilgrim. 2001. No. 23. P.14–24. 28. Theophanes, Hierom. The importance of the teaching activity of a priest in a parish school // Tauride Diocesan Gazette. 1896. No. 43. pp. 1140–1149. 29. Kharitonov V. Thoughts of the Right Reverend Theophan of Tambov on the Christian education of children // SEV. 1896. No. 3. pp.131–138. 30. Kharitonov V. Review of the main works of the Right Reverend Theophan (Tambov) of moral and ascetic content. Candidate's essay // GART. F.10. Op.2. D.313. 31. Shkarovsky M.V. Karula elders Theodosius and Nicodemus // Athonite Heritage. 2017. No. 5–6. pp. 325–333. Archbishop Seraphim (Lukyanov Alexander Ivanovich; 08/23/1879–1959). From 1889 to 1894 he studied at the Saratov Theological School, from 1894 to 1900 at the Saratov Theological Seminary, from 1900 to 1904 at the Kazan Theological Academy. In his third year at the academy, he took monastic vows. In May 1903 he was ordained hieromonk. Since 1904, teacher at the Ufa Seminary, since 1906, rector of the Tauride Seminary with elevation to the rank of archimandrite, since 1911, rector of the Saratov Seminary; in 1914 he was appointed Bishop of Serdobol, vicar of the Finnish diocese, in January 1918 he was elected to the see of the Finnish diocesan bishop, and since 1920 he has been an archbishop. In 1924 he was sent abroad by the President of Finland. Since 1926, rector of the parish in London, vicar of Metropolitan Eulogius. Since 1927 he lived in Paris. In 1927–45 headed the Western European Diocese of the ROCOR. In 1945 it was accepted into the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. Since 1946, Metropolitan, Patriarchal Exarch of Western Europe. In 1949 he was retired. For some time he again transferred to the ROCOR. In 1954 he moved to the USSR. Since 1956 he lived in the Gerbovetsky monastery in Moldova” [9, p. 380]. For graduates of parochial schools there were exams to receive benefits for military service. Discussion of the order of such examinations for exemplary schools at seminaries [12, pp.223–225]. Rochow Friedrich Eberhard (1734–1805) – German educator and philanthropist.