Первая часть. История и историческая критика

I. Saint Seraphim and history. Problems and methods The appearance of St. Seraphim of Sarov is deeply reflected in his spiritual testament - anyone can find a living image, even without more reliable information. He can be compared with such personalities as Socrates, St. John the Baptist or to some extent St. Francis of Assisi. In order for the memory of them to remain alive, even if not entirely accurate, no historical criticism is needed. If we could study the documents or memoirs of contemporaries, their image would be significantly enriched, but would change little. However, historical evidence about St. Seraphim, who died in 1833, are quite abundant, although until today no one has attempted to critically examine them. There are three reasons for this. 1. In the last twenty-five years of his life, Rev. Seraphim was oppressed by the Sarov community, which tried to extinguish the memory of him by organizing a conspiracy of silence. The surviving evidence comes mainly from the depths of the female monastic community, which he cared for in the last twelve years of his life. This community, which at the beginning of the 19th century numbered a thousand sisters, within thirty years after the death of Rev. Seraphim was persecuted by his false disciple. This often happens with the biographies of many saints; they prefer to leave many ambiguities in them, so as not to discredit the spiritual and civil authorities of that time. Fortunately, not all Russian hagiography remains in this pharisaical position: in this case, its main source sets out the truth quite clearly. 2. During his lifetime, Rev. Seraphim was known throughout Russia. In the second half of the 19th century, his numerous lives were published, subject to severe censorship. But even in 1901, two years before his canonization, the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, when publishing the two-volume “History of the Christian Church in the 19th Century” (edited by A.P. Lopukhin), the first of the volumes of which was dedicated to the Russian Church, did not even mention the Venerable. Seraphim. When, under pressure from the people and by decision of Tsar Nicholas II, they began to canonize him, they only managed to publish a review of the evidence collected by the nuns, and not the originals themselves. This voluminous work, which is a fundamental source on the biography of St. Seraphim, needs scrupulous critical study, which frightens off hagiographers, especially since there is a very large share of the miraculous in it. 3. A few months before canonization, one publicist published a manuscript, now universally known as “The Conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov with N. A. Motovilov about the Purpose of Christian Life.” The text, not without reason, has been regarded as a pearl of Russian theology, and yet, before historical criticism, it appears in the most unfavorable light. It is enough to note that this publicist, Sergei Nilus, gained worldwide fame by “discovering” in the same year “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which he published a few months later in the same collection as “Conversation.” Somewhat later, he was forced to reissue the Conversation, removing from it part of the text that echoed concepts drawn from German romantic philosophy. It was this re-edition of “Conversations” that was regarded, for example, by P. Evdokimov as a classic of Russian theology. At the same time, acquaintance with other sources confirms the authenticity of Motovilov’s conversation with Rev. Seraphim and encourages us to believe in the teaching about the Holy Spirit set forth in it. The only scientifically created life of St. Seraphim, written by V. Ilyin, was published in Russian in Paris in 1930. It does not contain attempts at critical research, which, “however, is impossible until the critical publication of archival and manuscript sources about it” 21 . Manuscript sources located in the USSR remain inaccessible as long as the Soviet regime exists. We tried to do similar work on the basis of pre-revolutionary publications on these sources, because we are convinced that the publications reproduce the main content, and we are making public the first results of our assessments of the reliability of the sources and each witness separately. Miracles occupy the life of the Rev. Seraphim has such a large place, and the work of the critic seems at first glance so delicate that another historian, G.P. Fedotov, suggests using a suprarational, intuitive criterion. He himself did not undertake such a study, but included the “Conversation” in his book “Treasury of Russian Spirituality” (L.: Sheed and Ward, 1952) (he gives a censored version, without critical verification) and prefaced it with notes? about St. Seraphim, where we can read the following (p. z 42): “The sources of the saint's life… are documents of unequal value as historical evidence, some of them are testimonies of first order, others belong to the category of legend. A judicious critical sifting has still to be made, and the general impression conveyed is so much that of the miraculous, the “medieval”, that there is some danger of their being received with skepticism by modern readers. Yet it must be borne in mind that in Seraphim we are presented with a persona lity of extraordinary spiritual endowments, with gifts of a higher order than can be tested by the religious historian with purely rational methods.” 22 Such a diacritic would not be without some meaning if we were lucky enough to suddenly discover new Logies or the acts of Socrates, St. John the Baptist or St. Francis of Assisi; just reading them would allow us to unravel the legendary element and what might be historical. We do the same thing involuntarily when looking through some apocryphal gospel for the first time. But this, of course, is an unreliable and dangerous method 23. As for Rev. Seraphim, then there is no need at all to resort to the help of intuition: it is enough to place the evidence in a historical framework, in other words, to take into account the resistance that the personality of the monk and his cause encountered from the very persons from whom he had the right to expect patronage 24 . But persecution is what gives testimony value. The Rev. himself chose the witnesses. Seraphim, so that they would testify to the truth in the days of persecution, all the details of which he foresaw thanks to his foresight. One of the sisters claims that Rev. Seraphim instructed her to write down all his words and tell about the mercies that he was awarded; others did this on their own impulse. And these witnesses are the most valuable. We said: “Rev. Seraphim chose himself,” however, it is well known that he did not choose anyone of his own free will and did not undertake anything, receiving detailed instructions on this matter from the Blessed Virgin Mary. One of the most attractive aspects of this critical study is that the instructions received by Rev. Seraphim by revelation did not in any way bind his human abilities of prudent judgment. The command proposed to him and subject to fulfillment often turned out to be already fulfilled. He deliberates and consults in the choice of an abbess, while the matter has already been decided by revelation. He announces to everyone that his decision is dictated by the instructions of the Mother of God, but he also trusts the most open souls with the arguments of human wisdom. The gift of clairvoyance is a mystery. “Wonderful”, “medieval” aroma of biographies of the Rev. Seraphim arises not so much from the miracles he performed, but from the hagiographers’ suppression of his sound judgments. So, assessing the reliability of various testimonies is tantamount to studying the entire history of persecution and how Rev. Seraphim opposed them. Blessed persecution! For the Church triumphed over them. They were allowed - to the extent that the plans of Providence can be comprehended - so that they could serve as an admonition for us and as a prototype of modern trials. From the book about “Seraphim of Sarov” by Irina Goryaynova 25 we learn about some miracles and revelations that are not related to the topic of our presentation, although our goal is to establish their reliability. As for the legendary elements mentioned by Fedotov, we are apparently talking mainly about genuine prophecies of the Venerable, but taken out of context by incompetent witnesses. Seraphim, which resulted in the emergence of myths. Sarov Monastery and Diveyevo community At the time of the accession of Rev. Seraphim in the Sarov Monastery was a school of spiritual teachers and ascetics, but gradually other trends prevailed there. Ascetics who did not have a calling to retreat left it, becoming abbots of other monasteries. Such was Gury, whom the monk convinced to take care of the sisters after his death and who became one of the witnesses. Those who were held back by their duties carried their burdens like a cross. Having refused the position of abbot in 1806, Rev. Seraphim, having become a hermit, avoided meeting with monks. Mutilated as a result of a robbery attempt, it was difficult for him to return to the monastery every Saturday; under this pretext, the abbot forced him to return to the shelter of the monastery in 1810, but the monk went into seclusion there too. The devout widow Agafya Melgunova donated her fortune to the monastery, and in 1788 she founded a sister community in the village of Diveyevo, twelve kilometers from the monastery. She secretly became a monk under the name of Mother Alexandra. Adhering to the extremely strict monastic charter, this monastery, without legal status, was until 1842 only a pious community. The sisters prayed and ministered in the parish church built by their mother. They also worked for the monks, who until 1806 provided them with spiritual, material and administrative support (after all, they were illiterate peasant women;. Soon the new abbot completely stopped supporting him. St. Seraphim, for his part, highly valued the sisters and sent converts to them from among the laity, who came to him constantly, with the exception of the period of stylite life and seclusion 26. Saying goodbye to the sisters, Rev. Seraphim gave them the following instructions: “In addition to Mikhail Vasilyevich Manturov, Nikolai Alexandrovich Motovilov and the priest Fr. Vasily Nikitich Sadovsky, not to listen to anyone and to govern ourselves, not trusting anyone, not allowing outsiders to interfere in the affairs of the monastery.” This was a warning against a certain Ivan Tikhonov 27, a novice of the Sarov Monastery, better known under the name Joasaph, which he adopted in 1848, becoming a monk in another monastery. Despite the fact that throughout his life he was subject to disciplinary action many times by his bishop and three times by the Holy Synod, adherents published his biography, but it could not be discovered. He was apparently born in 1801, and became a novice in 1820. In 1848 he became a monk and priest in the monastery of the same diocese, which included Diveevo. After being removed from Diveyevo in 1858, he continued to weave intrigues through a figurehead. Transferred by the Decree of the Holy Synod to a distant diocese, Joasaph still did not leave intrigues and even visited Diveevo in 1861. In the same year, he came under the special supervision of his bishop, which did not prevent him, with the patronage of Nektary, from founding another monastery forty kilometers from Diveyevo. Having become a schema-monk, he himself - undoubtedly, to add to the confusion - takes the name Seraphim. He died in 1884. He often visited Rev. During his lifetime, Seraphim interfered in the affairs of the mill with deceit, so that many, and at first Motovilov himself, trusted him, seeing him as a close venerable. Seraphim of man. Rev. Seraphim warned the sisters from the mill, Manturov and Father Vasily against him. He told them: “You will not live to see the Antichrist, but you will survive the times of the Antichrist!”, that is, he saw in Joasaph a prototype of the Antichrist. Why, one wonders, did he endure his intrigues, while he knew how to repel other hypocrites? But why then did our Lord Jesus Christ tolerate Judas and even choose him Himself, trying to convert him until the last minute? The fact that the Sarov monks gave Joasaph complete freedom of action is, of course, scandalous. Moreover, they understood who they were dealing with and did not at all want to accept him into the ranks of the brethren. But what happened in Diveyevo, as well as everything that had to do with St. Seraphim, they didn’t want to know. Ultimately, Joasaph was unable to clean up the matter of the Rev. Seraphim's hands only because he underestimated the talent of the one in whom he saw only an uneducated and childish monk, as well as the selfless affection for him of the young peasant women to whom he entrusted his work. They are the true witnesses - let's look at how they managed to defeat Joasaph. The struggle of the heirs of St. Seraphim After the death of the saint, Joasaph easily subjugated Diveevo, with the exception of that closed circle that was the Mill community, despite the fact that the sisters united in the church and often in field work. At the insistence of Rev. Seraphim's sisters dug a huge ditch, fencing off three hectares of land on which they settled. Thus, he ensured their safety from robbers, but even more pointed out that the mill would remain a protected place even after his death: “And when the Antichrist comes, he will pass everywhere, and will not jump over this groove!” - he said. In 1841 or 1842, Joasaph wanted to intimidate these peasant women. Having gathered the community, he tried to force everyone in turn to admit before the cross and the Gospel that Rev. Seraphim entrusted him with taking care of them. When two senior nuns, one after another, said the exact opposite, he left, cursing them. In 1842, he achieved the merger of the two communities - they were officially recognized by the church authorities, thereby ending the autonomy of the mill. But after ten years of independent life, the community became so unanimous that it ultimately defeated the Antichrist. Wanting to live out the memory of Rev. Seraphim, Joasaph systematically eradicated the order he had established and demolished the buildings he had erected. Unable to destroy the stone church built by Manturov with funds from the sale of the estate, he sealed it and built another, wooden one. In 1858, he had to build a cathedral, as the number of sisters had increased to 400. Manturov managed to convince the bishop, who arrived to bless the construction, that only the plot of land that the Venerable himself had acquired for this purpose was suitable for these purposes. Seraphim, for the rest of the area was dug up with mines and pits. Having suffered defeat and realizing that he will be able to gain power only by becoming a monastery confessor (instead of Father Vasily), and therefore, first of all, a monk and priest, he decides to leave the Sarov Monastery (although earlier he himself liked to tell how St. Seraphim warned him that leaving Sarov would lead him to death). Gradually, Joasaph acquired a narrow circle of sisters devoted to him. He proclaimed one of them, an educated woman, as the abbess of the monastery in 1850. Accepted in 1842, she remained loyal to him, but in 1858 she suddenly rebelled against him. In 1859, she fled, unable to cope with the situation in which she had placed herself by changing her position, and, in addition, without the slightest administrative ability. She was not bound by monastic vows, since the Diveyevo community did not yet have canonical status. Since Joasaph was exiled to a distant diocese, the sisters chose an abbess of their own choosing, and this time they succeeded in getting her confirmed by the bishop. This abbess, known as Mother Mary, was to remain in her position until her death, which occurred a year after the canonization of St. Seraphim. In 1861, Joasaph, wanting to proclaim a sister from his circle as abbess, convinced the successor of the bishop who approved the election of Mother Mary to achieve the assignment of the status of a monastery to the community and on this occasion to depose it, which was illegal. At that time, the community numbered about 500 sisters, of whom only forty wanted a change of abbess. Of these forty sisters, only one was accepted during the life of the Rev. Seraphim, and he predicted that she would betray. One of the founding sisters urged the bishop to first consult with the six sisters, “on whom Fr. Seraphim,” but he did not listen to her. One of them was an assistant to the abbess, the other was famous for her balanced character. Another founder publicly called on the sisters to remain faithful to Rev. Seraphim on the day of testing, the coming of which he predicted, and, having fulfilled his mission, died nine days later. And finally, one of the accepted St. Seraphim of the sisters spoke to the bishop so harshly that he expelled her. Motovilov, who was traveling to Moscow at that time, was stopped in Diveyevo by a providential and perhaps even miraculous traffic accident. Upon arrival in Moscow, he presented a report on what he witnessed to Metropolitan Philaret, and he, turning directly to Tsar Alexander II, got the Holy Synod to initiate an investigation. Six months later, complete order was restored in Diveevo and Joasaph was finally expelled. The personality of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow had the weight of a patriarch for his contemporaries. Apparently, it was the lessons of Rev. Seraphim taught him to overcome intrigue. After 1841, he achieved the publication of the life of St. Seraphim and his “Instructions”, having to subject them to strict censorship. In 1858, it was he who removed it. Joasaph to another diocese. His (Metropolitan Philaret’s) confessor and adviser was the former Sarov novice Anthony Medvedev, who in the past was very close to Saint Seraphim and left valuable testimonies. Having entered Sarov in 1818, in 1820 he moved to another monastery as abbot. Metropolitan Philaret made him his locum tenens at the Trinity-Sergius Lavra (1831). Rev. Seraphim blessed this transition and prophetically asked Anthony to one day stand up to protect his orphans. It was he who handed over Motovilov’s report to Metropolitan Philaret. Having headed the investigation, Metropolitan Philaret kept Anthony informed of events and took advantage of his advice. Although in 1861 the Diveyevo sisters regained independence, it is known that Joasaph, as predicted by the Venerable. Seraphim continued to pursue them until his death, but we know nothing significant about this. The mission of the witnesses chosen by the monk was almost completed, and they died over the next few years. It remains to tell how their evidence came to us. Editing evidence and publishing it Although the matter of Rev. Seraphim and his memory suffered due to court intrigues; it should be noted that the personal participation of Tsars Alexander II and Nicholas II first saved his cause and then contributed to his glorification. And the initiator of canonization and exposer of intrigues, by his origin and beliefs, belonged to the same high society of St. Petersburg. In the past, Colonel of the Imperial Guard, L. M. Chichagov, to whom the Diveyevo Monastery entrusted the analysis of its archives, became a priest under the influence of St. John of Kronstadt. He published his first review of the archives in 1896, while at that time the rector of an aristocratic church in Moscow. Having accepted monasticism under the name Seraphim, he used all his strength to rank as Venerable. Seraphim canonized, and in 1903 he published a more complete version of his work. Having become a bishop, he was Metropolitan of St. Petersburg from 1928 to 1933. In 1937, he was arrested and died a few months later in the prison hospital 28. Chichagov was the last one to sort through the archives, consisting of 60 notebooks. As we have already said, he does not say anything about notebooks No. 40 – 60, containing notes from Motovil ov. 17 notebooks tell about the events after the death of the Rev. Seraphim and are of only illustrative interest to us. Striving to create a comprehensive work, Chichagov tried not to miss anything that would have to do with the monk. And we can in fact be convinced that he conveyed the contents of the remaining 22 notebooks perfectly. Texts outlining the course of events (records of Father Vasily and Motovilov, Manturov’s stories recorded by two of his friends, etc.) are often conveyed verbatim, and on occasion, the stories of the sisters are also given. Chichagov was a historian, the author of military memoirs, and was not afraid to tell the truth, even if it was unpleasant to someone or posed pressing problems. Apparently, the archives were collected in 1870, but they also contain earlier documents, for many of the records are contemporary with the life of Rev. Seraphim. The notebooks are of uneven value; some of them have reached us in the form of drafts. The 6th notebook stands out among the others due to its special care in its composition 29 . II. Biography of St. Seraphim and historical criticism Those who follow Christ are called to share His destiny: “A servant is not greater than his master. If they persecuted Me, they will persecute you too; If they have kept My word, they will keep yours.” So the story of the messenger, if it does not tell us about the persecutions he suffered, and how, with divine help, he triumphed over them, is in fact not completely conveyed to us; Rev. Seraphim would not have been a disciple of Christ if he had not been persecuted - and yet his biographers are silent about this. Of course, comparing the fate of a saint to the fate of Jesus is just an analogy, especially if the saint did not become a martyr. In fact, Rev. Seraphim experienced rather not persecution, but oppression, although very rude; During his lifetime he did not receive recognition from most of the Sarov brethren. He became persecuted in his students, the Diveyevo nuns. The persecution came not from the Sarov community, but from one single monk, who was not admitted to monastic vows and the priesthood in Sarov and moved to another monastery. But this Judas was never a student of St. Seraphim. It was the nuns who brought to us the main testimonies about St. Seraphim. The history of their persecution and the circumstances of their victory are as inseparable from his biography as the Acts of the Apostles are from the Gospels. Preparing his spiritual daughters for their upcoming death, Rev. Seraphim, without hesitation, repeated verbatim many of the speeches of Jesus that He said to the disciples on the eve of separation from them, and in particular the conversation after the Last Supper. And we can also, paraphrasing the Epistle to the Hebrews, say about him: “So also Rev. Seraphim did not give himself the glory of being a father. In the days of his mortal life, with a strong cry and tears, he brought prayers and supplications to the One who was able to save his daughters from death, and was heard for his reverence, and became the author of eternal salvation for all those who obeyed him.” But all this can become clear only as a result of the painful efforts of textual criticism, the main directions of which we would like to outline here. And the efforts are all the more painful because we will have to resurrect in our memory many facts that it would be more pleasant to consign to oblivion. The human side of the life of St. Seraphim The fundamental source for the biography of Rev. Seraphim are the archives of the Diveyevo convent. They were not compiled during the life of the Rev. Seraphim and not by the nuns themselves, who for the most part hardly knew how to write, but by two laymen devoted to them and the parish priest, on the basis of their own testimonies and, as a rule, oral stories of the nuns. Documents emanating from the Sarov Monastery are rare, while other sources play only a supporting role. Only in 1896, 65 years after the death of Rev. Seraphim, the partial publication of these chronicles has finally taken place. These documents are not at all as dubious from a critical point of view as they might seem at first glance. To explain this, we must first recall some little-known aspects of the life of St. Seraphim, reserving the right to support them with documentary evidence later. It should be noted that no hymns were pronounced at his burial, although by that time he had long been one of the most prominent monks. When in 1806 Rev. Seraphim refused the position of abbot offered to him, and those who distrusted him gained the upper hand in the community. It was then that he took a vow of complete silence for 5 years. When the right opportunity presented itself to the new abbot to order him to leave the hermitage and reunite with the community, he secluded himself inside the monastery. During the last seven years of his life, he spent the daytime in the hermitage, and in the evening, obeying the instructions of the abbot, he returned to the monastery cell for a short sleep. On Sundays he attended not the cathedral, where the brethren gathered, but the hospital church. Despite this aloofness, he had to suffer from slander, harassment and even violence, especially after 1822, when he took the Diveyevo nuns under his wing. He became the subject of two investigations by church authorities: one in the area of ​​morals, the other on charges of stealing scaffolding for the nuns. In addition, the police ordered the church authorities to conduct an investigation into one serf girl wanted by the owners. She wandered around, dressed in the dress of a novice, and assured that she had the blessing of the reverend for this. Seraphim. This last investigation was especially painful for the monk, who saw in it a sign of the approach of his death. Since its creation in 1788, the Diveyevo community has been in close communication with the Sarov community, and the founder of the community was its outstanding benefactor. But in 1806, the new abbot Nifont put an end to the spiritual, administrative and economic patronage of the nuns from Sarov. Rev. Seraphim, who again took responsibility, aroused nothing more than sympathy. With his tireless help and blessing, the modest Diveyevo community developed rapidly. By the end of the 19th century, it had become a monastery with 900 nuns and became a “lavra”. This was an example of the saint’s special love, marked by his seal and bringing his image to us. During ten years of caring for the monastery, Rev. Thanks to his foresight, Seraphim knew that he was working not only for the present and near future, but also for the coming decades. He was unable to find a suitable abbess for the nuns and foresaw that after his death none of the monastery elders would take on the role of patron. Moreover, he foresaw that the nuns would become victims of the adventurer Joasaph, who would try to destroy his work, seeking to use it for his own glorification, and would force them to endure terrible oppression. With devilish dexterity, Joasaph enlisted the support of the imperial court, posing as the chosen disciple of St. Seraphim and the authorized executor of his will. Only in 1861, thirty years after the death of the saint, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, having received an order from the Holy Synod to conduct an investigation, personally heading it and presenting a conclusion on it with his own hand, achieved the removal of Joasaph from Diveyevo. Thanks to the gift of clairvoyance, knowing about the upcoming trials, Rev. Seraphim commanded the manachins: “Then they will come to you... and great faces will seek you out! They will ask you then, tell everyone what you heard from me, do not be afraid, it will please the Lord and do not hide anything; now, before the time comes, be silent!” Not finding more prepared patrons, he entrusted the community to two laymen, Manturov and Motovilov, as well as Fr. Vasily Sadovsky, a very young priest from the village of Diveevo, who at the same time served as confessor to the nuns. Im Rev. Seraphim gave the same command, and it was they, waiting for the day when they could speak, who wrote down their testimonies and the testimonies of the sisters, thus establishing an archive kept in the community. The historicity of the biography of the Rev. Seraphim depends entirely on the veracity of these three witnesses, chosen by himself. Created in opposition to the machinations of Joasaph, the archive represents an apology for the work of the saint, and its authenticity is guaranteed by the authority of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. No matter how scandalous this page in the history of the Russian Church may be, it is impossible to turn over it silently. In doing so, we risk depriving the evidence of its historical meaning. The community of nuns was delivered from their oppressor in 1861, but the machinations of Joasaph, which only ceased in 1880 with his death, cast a shadow over too many high-ranking officials. Therefore, many facts could not be made available to the general public and the whole truth could not be told about the arbitrariness to which the spiritual heritage of St. Seraphim. So, for example, one of the bishops of Nizhny Novgorod, under whose subordination both Diveevo and Joasaph were located, having opposed the latter, received an order to be transferred to the Alaskan diocese. The unfortunate man chose to seek his retirement. Only thirty-five years later, in 1896, when most of the compromised individuals had already died, and the publication of the “Letters” of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, completed in 1888, became indisputable proof of the reality of these scandalous intrigues, a review of the documents contained in the Diveyevo archives appeared. In 1903, the determination of Tsar Nicholas II put an end to the resistance of the Synod, and Rev. Seraphim was canonized. 30 Since he was revered throughout Russia during his lifetime, some of his biographies were published long before 1896. Those published before 1861 are very brief; with one exception, they are a bibliographic rarity and were already inaccessible to the archive compiler in 1896. The history of the biographies of St. Seraphim The monastic authorities of Sarov had personal reasons to refrain from publications about St. Seraphim, but two monks managed to publish their memoirs privately. One of them, Sergius, having become the abbot of another monastery and no longer depending on the Sarov authorities, did this under his own name. The second had to speak anonymously. To his version of the biography of Rev. Seraphim Sergius added the biographies of the hermit Mark and the recluse George and included in the appendix compiled by St. Seraphim "Instructions". In 1837, he submitted his work for publication to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. He, by his own admission, made changes and additions to the text of the “Instructions” for censorship reasons. Lives of St. Seraphim and George still did not pass the censorship, and in 1839 only the life of the hermit Mark was published with the appendix of the “Instructions” of St. Seraphim, although, as far as we know, the relationship between the two hermits was far from mutual respect. Life of Rev. Seraphim was published only in 1841, after Metropolitan Philaret removed several episodes from it, such as the episode about the “numb deacon,” which has not reached us. In 1850, Sergius published the lives of St. Seraphim and Mark with “Instructions” in one volume, which went through four editions. An anonymous biography appeared in the Mayak magazine for 1844, and the following year it was published as a separate publication. Metropolitan Philaret believes that its author is the monk Gury, who worked at one of the Sarov hotels and knew well the visitors of the Venerable. Seraphim. Later, having become abbot of another monastery, he presented evidence of this kind: not yet losing hope of finding a follower, the monk asked him to voluntarily accept this responsibility, while at the same time reproaching him for his adherence to those who condemned his patronage of nuns. By that time, his first life of St. Seraphim was also published by Joasaph, possibly anonymously. In 1849, he produced a second revised edition in St. Petersburg, one copy of which is available in the Slavic Library in Paris. Then he was already a hieromonk of the monastery in Nizhny Novgorod and took the name Joasaph. He republished his life in 1856. He published another one in 1877, since expulsion from Diveevo did not force him to abandon his claims. Joasaph founded another monastery forty kilometers from Diveevo. Then, having become a schema-monk, he took the name Seraphim. By assigning this name, he created confusion. He was often confused with St. Seraphim. His writings are a significant source of information only insofar as it was often simply beneficial for him to tell the truth, and also because, replacing the true interlocutor, Rev. Seraphim himself, Joasaph (we will continue to call him. - Ed.) retold the real revelations of the monk and finally, because, while relaying some of Seraphim’s speeches, in the darkness of pride he did not notice the prophetic warnings addressed to him in them. These are the first biographies mentioned in later works. To them it is necessary to add the life published by R. I. Kudryavtsev in St. Petersburg in 1845 and 1853. Since the Sarov Monastery belonged to the Tambov diocese, these publications are referenced in the “Historical and Statistical Description of the Tambov Diocese,” published in 1861 in Tambov by priest Georgy Khitrov, who for some reason does not refer to any other biography 31 . In it Rev. Seraphim is mentioned first (after the bishop, the founder of the diocese) among those whose grave is venerated. No other Sarov monk is directly named, at least in the review. There is a striking contrast between this diocesan publication and the work published by the monastery, probably at the same time, “The Sarov Hermitage and Its Famous Ascetics,” where Rev. Only a dozen lines are dedicated to Seraphim. Only the fourth edition of this work has been discovered, dating back to 1884 and reprinted in Jordanville (USA). It is supplemented by an appendix dedicated to Rev. Seraphim, but a careful study of the text convinces that this addition was not provided for in the original. When the “Joasaph case” was ended, at least officially, in 1861, biographers had access to the archives. The Sarov Monastery prudently turned to N.V. Elagin, who had already published a brochure about Sarov in 1856. Yuzhakov's encyclopedia speaks of him as a religious writer and censor who left a sad memory in the history of Russian literature. Since 1848, Elagin was a member of the censorship committee in St. Petersburg, and since 1857 he became an authorized member of the central censorship committee. His censorship activities were characterized by complete shamelessness and petty pickiness. He did not write a single book dealing with spiritual issues. His life Rev. Seraphim, published by the monastery in 1863, was reprinted six times, without mentioning the author. The second edition dates from 1874. In the fifth edition (1901), according to the monks, “some chronological errors” had to be corrected. A copy of the sixth edition (1903) is available in the Slavic Library in Paris. This volume of 329 pages of dense text is rather dubious. It seems as if the author, along with the Sarov archives, also used the Diveev archives, although he does not provide links. The first editions had the following inaccuracies: there was no mention of the venerable division of the Diveyevo nuns into two communities; Many details of his death and much of what concerns Motovilov are inaccurate. Since the latter played a decisive role in the events of 1861, Joasaph tried to discredit him by resorting to slander, which was repeated in Elagin's book. In 1870, Motovilov also prepared a brochure for publication entitled “True Testimony about Two Diveyevo Communities.” All clarifications were made not in the second edition of Elagin’s life, but only, apparently, in the fifth. It remains unclear whether Motovilov managed to publish his brochure, since the Diveyevo archives do not mention the brochure itself, but only its manuscript (3rd notebook). To analyze their archive, the Diveyevo nuns made a good choice by inviting L. M. Chichagov. Being a colonel of the imperial guard, he accepted the priesthood under the influence of St. John of Kronstadt. In 1896, he published “A Brief Description of the Seraphim-Diveevsky Monastery.” Having been widowed, Chichagov became a monk under the name Seraphim. He became one of the two inspirers of the canonization of St. Seraphim, and for this purpose he republished (1903) his one-volume work of 867 pages, which included all the testimonies known at that time about the monk and about the founder of the Diveyevo community 32. This is an excellent work and a fundamental work on Rev. Seraphim. A critical analysis of this work requires a separate study. A few years later, Chichagov was consecrated bishop. From 1928 to 1933 he was Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. In 1891, the Diveyevo Monastery published the life of the Holy Fool for the sake of Pelageya Ivanovna, who joined the community at the behest of the Venerable. Seraphim 33 In addition to the life of Pelageya, outlined by the publisher in the first part, it contains testimonies from nuns and friends of the monastery. Chichagov sets out the main content of this publication, retelling the text almost verbatim, the condition of which is quite satisfactory. There is every reason to believe that it reproduces the contents of one of the archive folders. The archives are divided into 60 notebooks, and “The Biography of Blessed Pelageya Ivanovna” is contained in notebook No. 9. So, this work tells us how Chichagov disposed of part of the archives. Over the years, popular lives of St. Seraphim multiplied. One of them was published by the Diveyevo Monastery in 1874. The earliest that has come down to us was a brochure of 36 pages, published in 1863 in Moscow. It doesn’t say a word about the Diveyevo nuns. Apparently, no one else was sorting through the archives; up to the present day, the authors are content with compiling Chichagov’s work. Thanks to Elagin’s diligence, we know nothing about the possible contents of the Sarov archives. At the same time, publications that appeared after 1903 contain some evidence that eluded Chichagov. They can also serve to restore the original text of the “Instructions” of St. Seraphim. The original contained 33 chapters. Elagin, and after him Chichagov, number 30. The publication by L. Denisov (1904) contains 43 chapters 34. To these can be added the work of E. Poselyanin (1903), which can also be found in the library of the Oriental Institute in Rome. No one, apparently, managed to discover the work of E. Gorchakova (1899), mentioned in Chichagov’s bibliography. There was also a work by Gorlov, cited as a source in a popular 1904 pamphlet. Finally, there are publications by Nilus, but the next section will be devoted to them. Among additional sources, we note the life of Theophan the Recluse compiled by Krutikov, stored in the libraries of the Institute of St. Sergius in Paris and the Oriental Institute in Rome. In 1861, after an attempt by the diocesan bishop to install a new abbess in the Diveyevo monastery, committed to Joasaph, the monastery was temporarily assigned to the Tambov diocese, where Feofan (Govorov) was the bishop 35 . An anonymous life of Bishop Jeremiah, who was removed by Joasaph, can be found in the library of the Oriental Institute in Rome. A list of recent studies is given in the life compiled by V. N. Ilyin (YMCA, Paris, 1930 and New York, 1971) and in the life of Irina Goryaynova (French, Desclee ae Brouwer, 1979, reprint of the eleventh issue of the series “Eastern Spirituality” of Bellefontaine Abbey, 1973). A critical study still does not exist. Ilyin believes that it is impossible until the Diveyevo chronicles are made public, but we do not share this opinion. Peter Ivanov entirely dedicated the last part of his book “The Secret of the Saints” to St. Seraphim (YMCA, Paris, 1949). He has studied the sources well, but interprets them one-sidedly, not taking into account everything that contradicts his own positions. Apocrypha published by Sergei Nilus Until now we have not mentioned one document that is universally recognized as the highest proclamation of St. Seraphim, is “A Conversation between St. Seraphim of Sarov and N.A. Motovilov about the purpose of Christian life,” which has come to us thanks to the only publication by S. Nilus, which appeared three months before the canonization of St. Seraphim. In it, the monk teaches that the goal of all Christian life is to “acquire the Holy Spirit,” and tangibly confirms this through a transformation that makes him and Motovilov sparkle brighter than the sun. The historicity of this episode is beyond doubt. On the one hand, in the brochure he prepared, Motovilov testifies to a conversation with the monk, during which he shone brighter than the sun, and refers to it as an episode already known to readers. About the transfiguration of St. Seraphim is also evidenced by many other episodes. On the other hand, although this teaching of the monk does not reveal itself in any document known to us, it is implicitly visible from the only instruction of Abbot Pachomius that has reached us. Pachomius, the first spiritual father of St. Seraphim, addressed his instructions to him and several other hermits. In it, he taught that the asceticism ahead of them was aimed at acquiring the Holy Spirit. Thus, the originality of the teachings of Rev. Seraphim consists in an unambiguous indication that the acquisition of the Holy Spirit is the life goal of not only the hermit, but also every Christian in general, and confirms this by transforming Motovilov just as successfully. Admitting this, it must be admitted that the publication of Nilus, for a number of reasons, the main ones of which are given below, appears in an extremely unfavorable light. With the exception of the introduction, which is often omitted by publishers (and which itself causes difficulties), the Conversation is a theological text of 30 pages (edited by I. Goryaynova). His theological construction is particularly concise and strict. On 10 central pages (from 165 to 176), the text is built on three dozen direct biblical quotations and many implicit quotations (biblical, patristic and liturgical). Motovilov, who was by that time twenty-one years old and had a diploma in philology and secular philosophy, could hardly perceive, much less retain, this passage in his memory - or he had to take advantage of such supernatural help that even sacred writers did not have. Rev. Seraphim addressed himself primarily to ordinary people and in conversations with them knew how to find the exact word. It is difficult to understand why he framed his appeal, addressed mainly to the laity of all classes, in terms of theological science. In addition, this text raises doctrinal difficulties, and from 1911 it began to appear in cuts, without the first four pages (from 166 to 170). It is this arbitrarily censored version that the most critical publishers V. Ilyin and G. Fedotov adhere to (“Treasures of Russian Spirituality”). The complete edition sets out the entire history of salvation from the creation of the world to the founding of the Church; the abbreviated text begins immediately with the Conversation after the Last Supper. Obviously, the censors insisted on the removal of everything said about the creation of man. It can be assumed that a person was declared to consist of body, soul and spirit, or even that the spirit of a person was declared to have no obvious difference from the Holy Spirit, although, according to all other known documents, Rev. Seraphim always spoke only about the body and the immortal soul. What is implausible is that animals were also declared to be composed of body, soul and spirit. This idea is alien to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church, which nurtured St. Seraphim 36. Such cosmogony and a similar method of argumentation are found, on the contrary, in Theophan Avsenev, who taught at the Kyiv Theological Academy some time after the death of the monk. Avsenev was an adherent of the German philosopher G. Schubert (“History of the Soul”, 1830), a follower of F. Schelling. Throughout his life, Nilus colored his own writings with the so-called notes of Motovilov, feeling himself providentially chosen as the latter’s spiritual heir. He assured that Motovilov’s widow had placed at his disposal several tens of kilograms of her husband’s papers. Apparently, they eluded the searches of Chichagov, who significantly supplemented the archival collection. This is absolutely incredible. The overwhelming majority of Nilus's writings have no value and are quite implausible, often for purely historical reasons. His last “revelation” deserves more attention, and we need to dwell on it, since it comes from the same source as the “Conversation”. Living in the USSR and seeing the inevitable end of the world, Nilus in 1922 decides to reveal to the world what he calls “the great Diveyevo secret.” Rev. Seraphim allegedly revealed to Motovilov that he must rise again and preach repentance to the whole world, and then, shortly before the end of the world, die again under fantastic circumstances. This myth, which was, however, widespread after 1910, was formed on the basis of some predictions of the monk, various elements of which are also visible in the phantasmagoria of Nilus. To arm his spiritual daughters against the persecution coming after his death, Rev. Seraphim predicted to them that one fine day the truth would triumph. This celebration took place in 1861, but finally in 1903, during his canonization. Not wanting to talk about his glorification, the saint described this celebration with the help of various striking images that could make an unforgettable impression on illiterate women 37 . However apocryphal the nature of Nilus' published version of the Discourse, he rendered an invaluable service to the Church by making it public. He owes his fame to another, rather sad fact: it was he who introduced the world to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”, publishing them, like the “Conversation”, in 1903. On this basis, as well as thanks to the rest of his work, he enjoys considerable respect in reactionary Russian circles, which do not know that the Protocols are an anti-Semitic pamphlet 38 . But Nilus’s authority was not recognized by everyone, and above all not by those who dealt with him personally, such as Metropolitan Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who was in exile the leader of the most reactionary Russian party, or Metropolitan Eulogius (Georgievsky). The latter considered him the author of the “Protocols”; which is not entirely true. Nilus was a myth-maker, but he was not a conscious falsifier. In the Conversation his style is noticeable only in the preface. The obvious reactionary Chichagov in 1909 removed Nilus from the Optina Hermitage, near which he settled, because as a result of a disorderly life, his family affairs had become a general temptation. The task of historical criticism So, the task comes down mainly to a critical analysis of Chichagov’s review of the Diveyevo archives. It is necessary to bring together the stories of each witness, separated by Chichagov, who arranged them according to a chronological principle, and even more scattered in the archives themselves. This will allow us to recreate a correct and very complete picture of the last ten years of the life of the Rev. Seraphim. This will shed light on his teaching. Undoubtedly, his doctrine will turn out to be purely pneumatological, and then it will finally be possible to begin to restore the original text of the Conversations. Rev. Seraphim did a lot for other monasteries, which also left testimonies. But he provided not only spiritual and administrative, but also material assistance to the Diveyevo monastery and its nuns: he provided them with oil, wine, money, candles, receiving them from his visitors; he supplied them with vegetables from the garden, which he cultivated with their help, sometimes growing bulbs in one day; he worked with them on buildings that he himself started. Other monasteries had no need to record their testimonies, as was done in Diveyevo, which was forced to confront Joasaph. The Diveyevo community became a victim of his ambition only because Rev. Seraphim was unable to find an abbess for her. When asked about Joasaph, the abbess of another monastery replied that he persistently tried to infiltrate their community, but she quickly sent him out. However, several testimonies from nuns and monks of other monasteries, as well as lay people, are given in the archives or collected by Chichagov. It was the Diveyevo nuns, to a much greater extent than the Sarov monks, who brought to us information about the life of St. Seraphim before leaving the seclusion, told by the monk himself in his instructions. And it was Motovilov who made the trip to the homeland of the Rev. Seraphim to collect data about his youth. Neither Pachomius nor Isaiah, one of whom was the spiritual father, and the other was the confessor of St. Seraphim, nor any other person from the monastery (with the exception of Sergius and Guria), apparently, did not leave us evidence, or they have not been preserved; if there was something similar in the Sarov archives, it is difficult to understand how Elagin could pass them by in complete silence. Venerable Seraphim of Sarov. Paris: YMCA-Press, 1930, p. 187. “The sources of the saint’s biography... represent documents of unequal historical value: some of them are first-class evidence, others belong to the category of legends. A sound critical analysis of them is still awaiting its turn, but on the whole they produce such a wonderful, “medieval” impression that they run the risk of being skeptically perceived by modern readers. Nevertheless, we should understand that in the person of Seraphim we are dealing with a person endowed with extraordinary spiritual gifts, gifts of the highest order, which cannot be verified using the purely rational methods of a religious historian.” In fact, Fedotov often became a victim of his intuitions. Captivated by the figure of Archpriest Avvakum, put to death for his fanaticism, he was convinced that one day he would be recognized as a saint. In the introduction to the biography of Rev. Serafima Ilyin dared to mention that many Church leaders of that era were inclined towards rationalism, and the hierarchy curried favor with the secular authorities, whose representatives, like the entire aristocracy, were considered Christians only nominally. But even this was removed when his book was republished in New York in 1971. Seraphim de Sarov. Desclee de Brouwer, 1979. We omit the paragraphs about the sister-witnesses and the three patrons of Diveev, which are described quite fully in chapters IV (Flame No. 2 and No. 3) and V (see: Technical notes). His name was Ivan Tikhonovich Tolstosheev. Rev. Seraphim and his relatives called him Ivan Tikhonov, or the Tambov painter, or Tambovets (originally from Tambov), or simply an alien visitor. Metropolitan Seraphim (Chichagov) was executed on December 11, 1937. See: V. Chernaya. Memories of Metropolitan Seraphim and his family // Moscow, 1992, No. 11–12, p. 194–203 (approx. comp.). We omit the end of the paragraph on the sixth notebook, which is repeated in Chapter V (Flame No. 3), and the passage concerning the stages of the life of the Rev. Seraphim (chapter III Flame no.). As we have already said, the analysis of the “Conversation” that concludes this study in the HBV is assigned to the end of the third part (chapter IX) (see Technical Notes). In more detail the history of the canonization of St. Seraphim is described in “Selected Memoirs” by S. Yu. Witte (L., 1991, pp. 429–432). The initiator of canonization was Bishop Seraphim (Chichagov), who had access to Emperor Nicholas II. The act of canonization was scheduled for 1902, but the chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, K. P. Pobedonostsev, opposed such a hasty decision of the emperor. He had to convince the members of the Holy Synod, and over the course of a year, facts were collected indicating the holiness of St. Seraphim. He was canonized in 1903. After a trip to Sarov and bathing in its spring, the empress gave birth to a long-awaited son. This fact explains the special attitude towards Rev. Seraphim of the last Russian emperor (editor's note). Khitrov’s work could not be found, but a review of it can be found in the August issue of the magazine “Wanderer” for 1862, in the bibliography section, on p. 100–108. This publication was phototyped by the Brotherhood of Blessed Herman of Alaska (USA, 1978). The legend of Christ for the sake of the holy fool Pelageya Ivanovna Serebrenikova. Tver, 1891. This publication of 183 pages in a small format was reprinted by phototype in Jordanville in 1967. N. Levitsky (1907) gives 43. Publications by Denisov and Levitsky are available in the library of the Institute of St. Sergius in Paris; Denisov’s publication is also available at the Oriental Institute in Rome. He was canonized at the Local Council of the Russian Orthodox Church in 1988. This conclusion of Father Vsevolod Roshko is quite controversial. The Apostle Paul also spoke about the threefold composition of man. As for the animal world, this question has not yet been resolved by Orthodox anthropology. However, the thoughts expressed in the “Conversation,” no matter who they belong to, do not contradict either the spirit or the letter of Holy Scripture. The book of Genesis says: “And the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul” (Genesis 2:7). The commentary on these lines notes that “dust” (Hebrew “afar” - dust) is a synonym for everything small, humble...” (Bible. Brussels, 1973, p. 1858). So the words of the “Conversations” - “Before God breathed a soul into Adam, he was like an animal” - are only a deeper interpretation of the biblical lines (comp.). Unfortunately, Father Vsevolod Roshko did not live to see the fulfillment of these prophecies. Seraphim. On January 11, 1991, the relics of St. Seraphim of Sarov were solemnly transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church. Then they were solemnly sent to Moscow, where they remained in the Epiphany Cathedral for public worship until the summer of 1991. In the summer of 1991, a religious procession solemnly delivered the relics of St. Seraphim in Diveevo. Thus, one of his predictions came true - that he, as if by air, in his “piles”, would return to Diveevo, where his relics now rest (approx. comp.). The history of the emergence and subsequent fate of the “Protocols” is discussed in detail in the book: Kon N. Blessing for genocide. Per. from English M.: Progress, 1990. and also in the book Dudayov S. The History of a Myth. M., 1993 (approx. comp.).