Addenda et corrigenda.

Page 33–43 were already published when the long-awaited 2103 2nd edition of Fr.’s “Lectures” saw the light of day. Protopresbyter Ioann Leontievich Yanyshev (“Orthodox Christian teaching on morality.” St. Petersburg, 1906). However, we do not have to change anything said on these pages in view of the fact, definitely stated by the author himself, that “in the new edition of these lectures, their text is left without any changes” (p. V). As for the increase in the volume of “footnotes” to the text, in which “many references have been added to such passages from our theological and non-theological literature of later times that are closely related to one or another paragraph of the lectures” (pp. V-VI) Fr. protopresbyter and in which places are noted that serve to “justify” or “correct” his main provisions - then in relation to the issues of interest to us, we do not find anything significant in these new notes. ABOUT. The protopresbyter in the notes related to our question, in particular, mentions (with a very brief description in places) the articles of prof. M. M. Tareeva “The purpose and meaning of life” (Faith and Church. 1901, book IX, p. 552), “Religion and morality” (Theological Bulletin. 1904 Dec., p. 621), Archbishop. Anthony (Khrapovitsky) (Church News. 1901, No. 37), article “The need for asceticism in education” (Church and parish school. 1901 Saint, book 2, pp. 68–81), S.I. Smirnova: “The spiritual father, or elder, in ancient eastern monasteries” (Theological. Vestn. 1904, December), V. A. Nikolsky “Christianity, patriotism and war” (Orthodox Conversation. April 1904, p. 608;, on the meaning of earthly goods). See pp. 200–201 (2nd note), 202 (1st note), 209 (note) 224 (note) of the new edition. In the article by S.I. Smirnov about. I. L. Yanyshev sees, in particular, confirmation of the position that “ascetic benefits constitute a necessary condition not only for the development of the spirit as power in relation to nature, but also for satisfying the other side of the moral need, which manifests itself in its relations with other individuals” (p. 209). Here we mean “obedience” and “renunciation of one’s will” in a truly Christian spirit, with which Fr. I. L. finds disagreement with the demand of some ascetic writers “not to have one’s own will in “good”, not to have “freedom for good” (ibid). But on this issue it should be noted that the ascetic teaching about obedience and renunciation of one’s will, for its accurate understanding, requires a special, detailed analysis, in connection with an integral ascetic worldview. Describing the general features of his “Lectures”, Fr. I. L. in the preface to the 2nd edition, by the way, says that the “first basic requirement” of the “moral law” for him “is asceticism, not only religious, which consists of exercises in vigil, fasting, prayers and similar feats - but in general asceticism, as an incessantly awake rational power or domination over the elemental drives of the psycho-physical organism in general and the forces of external nature - domination, requiring and promoting the development of such moral qualities as wisdom (in particular, knowledge of the laws of nature), courage, patience, abstinence, hard work, etc., without which neither individual nor social moral good is conceivable - without which nothing can be expressed and nothing can be done for one’s neighbor and love for him - this is the center and crown of Christian virtues” (p. IX). The important, necessary, but essentially only service significance of the ascetic virtues is well expressed here. We also followed this point of view when analyzing the views of Fr. I.L. Yanyshev, considering it to be the most correct, corresponding to the essence of the matter. Therefore, it is with special pleasure and satisfaction that we note Fr. I. L Yanysheva is such a categorical and definite expression of a view that completely coincides with our main point of view. Trying to defend and substantiate the idea that among ascetic contemplatives, love for people was expressed predominantly, almost exclusively, in the form of a “benevolent mood” that turned “into action” only sometimes, occasionally, when direct reasons for this were presented, and the mood did not lose its value even in those cases if it did not turn into action at all (pp. 186–187), - Prof. I.V. Popov falls into some contradiction with his own definition of “love,” which he proposes in the same dissertation. That “inner mood” that I.V. Popov speaks about can rightfully be identified with what he quite correctly and accurately calls “sympathy.” But, according to his own categorical admission, “sympathy, manifested in compassion and rejoicing, is not yet love. There are two essential features that distinguish this state of feeling from love: firstly, sympathy is passive, love is active; secondly, sympathy is a matter of a moment, love is a mood characterized by great constancy (p. 241. Compare pp. 68–75). “Love is always revealed in sympathy for the sufferings and joys of a loved one and in active assistance to him” (p. 241, emphasis added). Hence, from the point of view of the author himself, it is impossible to weaken the necessary connection between the mood of Christian love and its active, constant manifestation for the comprehensive benefit of the loved one. Then it will be possible with full right, without fear of reproach for inconsistency, to assert that “social virtues have primary importance in morality, and asceticism is the most direct and expedient way of cultivating these virtues in oneself” (p. 245). This is indeed the teaching of Christianity, while according to Schopenhauer “the virtues of love are a means for cultivating ascetic virtues” (ibid.). And in this case, the very logic of things leads to the recognition of the need to talk about the importance of asceticism in a broad and general sense. According to the fair words of I.V. Popov, “the possibility of moral development is given only in the exercise of the will, which constitutes the essence of asceticism, and any system that denies asceticism undermines moral education at its root” (p. 322, note). Of the experiments in elucidating and revealing the issue of Christian asceticism, written by academic professors - specialists of later times, those pages that were devoted to the named issue by Prof. deserve mention - in part. M. A. Olesnitsky in his doctoral dissertation: “From the system of Christian moral teaching.” Kyiv, 1896. In this work, the mentioned issue is specifically addressed by § 83: “Means of sanctification (asceticism)” (pp. 255–268) and partially by § 84 “Vows” (pp. 268–271). Here the author correctly and accurately distinguishes two main meanings in the concept of “asceticism”: 1) a narrower and more special one, given to this concept “in the ancient Christian church” and connected with the name of asceticism at the present time, according to which “asceticism” is monasticism, hermitage, and 2) the “broader” meaning, “in which it is applicable to every Christian (and in which it is used in Holy Scripture).” “In this sense, asceticism is generally an exercise in virtue.” 2104 Such an exercise, the use of certain means, which are usually called ascetic, is necessary for every Christian “to complete the work of sanctification.” 2105 The author identifies four such basic means: self-knowledge, self-discipline (negative means) and self-enlightenment and self-exercise (positive means). A particular description of these ascetic means is offered partly on the basis of philosophical 2106 and psychological data (see, for example, the assessment of the educational value of keeping “diaries”; it is recommended to cope with self-testing and self-knowledge 2107 with the judgments of other people, especially friends and close relatives - brothers and sisters, 2108 mainly on the basis of the data of Holy Scripture, which are generally used to a sufficient extent. The patristic element is ignored when revealing this section, as in general in everything essay, with the most minor exceptions 2109. And this circumstance inevitably had to be reflected - and indeed it was very significantly reflected - on the quality of the author’s interpretation, which often lacks depth and which, although correct, is sometimes very general. 2110 The main purpose of the use of ascetic means, which is reduced almost to a general psychological point of view, is also not clearly clarified. According to M. A. Olesnitsky himself, these means “form partly our cognition, and our feeling and mood, and partly our will and activity.” 2111 The specifically Christian moment of asceticism is not highlighted characteristically enough, and Christian illumination in the author’s depiction is not outlined in its typicality with sufficient relief, as an organic process in which each ascetic moment would receive its own meaning. But, since the author expediently draws on numerous data from St. Scripture and correctly analyzes them, his treatise on the meaning of various (mentioned above) ascetic means cannot be denied not only philosophical and psychological thoroughness and correctness, but also some theological significance. Some of the author's judgments are undoubtedly accurate. To pp. 262–263. (Cf. pp. 267–268). The idea of ​​the opposition between hierarchical ministry, on the one hand, and extraordinary bearers of grace-filled gifts, on the other, is a frequent phenomenon in Protestant theology. This contrast is also indicated in the attitude of the Old Testament prophets to the Old Testament priesthood. See, for example, Maximilian Petry “Die mystischen Erscheinungen der menschlichen Natur”. Zweite Auflage. II Band. Leipzig und Heidelberg. 1872. S. 308: “The prophets of Israel not only announced the future but - what is much more important - they were the defenders of religious life and moral demands; they were the predominant bearers of the consciousness of God characteristic of the Israelites and stood in some opposition in relation to the elders with their established concepts and their external service in the church (und standen in einem gewissen Gegensatz zu den Priestern mit ihren stationären Begriffen und ihrem äusserlichen Tempeldienst).” The list of essays on 375 pages must be supplemented with the following indication. master's thesis: “Faminsky V. Religious and moral views of L. Anneus Seneca (philosopher) and their relationship to Christianity. Kyiv, 1906." one who, of his own free will, lives in the desert as a hermit" (about χ e ι του s ν τη ερήμω καθ ’ εαυτόν αναχωρυντος ) cf. also Apophthegmata, col. 425D-428A; Cp. Verba Seniorum., L. XIV, § 9, col. 949D-950A (saying of mother Synclitia). See, for example, N.P. Arkhangelsky (Bishop Stefan) “The task, content and plan of the system of Orthodox Christian moral teaching” (Simbirsk 1894), p. 10. p. 256. Italics by the author himself. See, for example, the reference to Malebranche, pp. 265–266. See, for example, pp. 97, 102, 215, 289, 292. See, for example, the discussion about fasting, pp. 261–262.