Near Khomyakov

Section 1 * Appendix * Section 2 In Professor V.V. Zavitnevich’s own words, he takes upon himself “the task of presenting the first experience of scientific research and bringing to light the entire sum of the concepts expressed by Khomyakov” 1 . He completed the task he set for himself. But this experience is not only the first, but also the only one. The exceptionally large volume of this study for a monograph, about two thousand pages 2 , makes one think that it will not be long before a new scientist will decide to compete with Professor Zavitnevich. On the other hand, competition with him is very difficult due to the long duration of his work. The research on Khomyakov began, according to the author’s own instructions, “ten years ago” 3 (written in 1902), that is, in 1892, and on the second volume there is already a note - “1913”. So, for twenty-one years the author lived in the atmosphere of Khomyakov’s ideas and during this time he became close to them and internalized them to such an extent that, according to a confession he dropped somewhere, it is already difficult for him to distinguish where the boundaries of Khomyakov’s thought are and where – his own. Professor Zavitnevich's research is the work of a respectful heart and a willing mind. The author reveres Khomyakov’s personality and lives in his thoughts. As a result of this attitude towards his subject, the author becomes close to the person he depicts and his views and even loses the ability to look at him from the outside, perhaps with a colder, but also sharper eye. Here is the source of both the main advantages and the most important shortcomings of the work being analyzed, and both of them can be called in one word - apology. But Khomyakov, both as a person and as a thinker, is so great (my desire is to say: even exceptionally great) that an apologetic tone in relation to him and his views seems to be unnecessary and almost obscures a deeper insight into the essence of the matter 4 . Khomyakov - the one we know - would be happier to accept a word of criticism, even if harsh, but freeing thought from the shackles imposed on it by Western philosophy 5 than to hear assent to some of his own theses, at least ambiguous. So we say, believing in the nobility of his personality and the impeccable honesty of his thoughts. Professor Zavitnevich lets us in on the progress of his work, because his very method of presentation coincides with the order of presentation. This method of presentation is explained by the fact that, on the one hand, Professor Zavitnevich sees in Khomyakov himself the inseparability of the form of presentation from the content, and therefore, to deprive his reader of the material in its original form, if possible, seems to the researcher to be distorting the material itself. On the other hand, research requires a “dry” formulation of the obtained theses 6 . Thus, the presentation does not move in a straight line, but gradually narrows in concentric circles. “All of Khomyakov’s thoughts,” the author testifies, “first of all, we try to express them in his own words, bringing them into a system and taking them out of those random contexts in which they are found in his works, which are not usually distinguished by a strictly developed plan. But after this we give a concise summary of what has been stated and, having analyzed the main provisions, we separate the essential from the secondary in them” 7 . But that's not all. When presenting subjects related to Professor Zavitnevich, a brief summary of the previous one is usually given again. And finally, all the essential themes appear again in the second volume, with a systematic presentation of Khomyakov’s philosophical and theological worldview. It is clear that this method of presentation makes Professor Zavitnevich’s work extremely swollen, and for a reader who has already read Khomyakov in the original, reading it becomes tedious. The author himself admits to this difficulty, which, however, cannot be eliminated for him: “If a lazy reader were confused by the volume of our work,” he says, “he could form a fairly clear idea of ​​it on the basis of these brief summaries alone” 8. The work itself consists of two volumes of very unequal volume. The extensive volume one should, according to the author’s plan, have a preparatory value; This is a biography of Khomyakov, mainly outlining the disclosure of his worldview. In the second volume, which is much smaller in volume, Professor Zavitnevich makes an attempt to present Khomyakov’s views as a coherent and consistent system of philosophical and theological thought. In the first volume, the author faced an obstacle when choosing a method of presentation. It would be natural, of course, to present this historical part of the work simply in the form of a biography, as is usually done in monographs of this kind. Biographical information about Khomyakov, especially regarding the development of his understanding of life, is extremely scarce and dry. Chaste in expressing his inner life, and even to the point of secrecy, all whole and proud of his integrity, not allowing himself to reflect on himself, Khomyakov left extremely little data for judging the inner growth, the ebb and flow of his soul. “Khomyakov,” according to N.A. Berdyaeva is a man of strong character and great self-control. He does not like to reveal his suffering, and is not intimate in his poems and letters. From Khomyakov's poems one cannot decipher the intimate side of his being as much as from the poems of Vladimir Solovyov. In his poems he is warlike, as if he were firing from a cannon, he is proud and secretive” 9. On the other hand, both Khomyakov’s contemporaries and his admirers left us a whole heap of laudatory words about Khomyakov and an incomprehensibly few factual reports: the Slavophiles of that time reasoned and worried, seethed with the heat and joy of the newly discovered Rus', felt that they were history makers, and they had no time to think of themselves as history, to become their own historiographers. And so, we know so little about the greatest ideological fighter for Holy Rus' that it is, unfortunately, almost impossible to study his verbal creativity on the basis of this meager and fragmentary information. The researcher faces rather the opposite task: to understand Khomyakov’s soul from his works. But here again difficulties arise. To arrange Khomyakov's works in purely chronological order means, given the diversity of their content and the randomness of their occurrence for external reasons, to obscure their internal unity, because Khomyakov's main intuition for researchers is not the given, but the sought-after. “An essay devoted to the study of the life and works of Khomyakov, constructed according to one chronological method, would be something like a mechanical set of facts, the chaos of which would be generally difficult to understand, and the ideological side of which would completely elude the attention of the most attentive reader; and yet the ideological side of Khomyakov’s activity is precisely that valuable thing that deserves the special attention of a serious and thoughtful historian” 10. But, on the other hand, it is impossible to immediately bring these works into a system, because the questions raised in them are too varied, and we do not have the right to determine in advance what is important and what is not important, due to the lack of appropriate criteria preceding the study. Professor Zavitnevich emerges from these difficulties very successfully, arranging Khomyakov’s ideas, so to speak, into nests. It turns out that the logical order of these nests approximately corresponds to their chronological order and, therefore, in the biography of Khomyakov, Zavitnevich provides a synthesis of the orders - both logical and chronological. Certain periods of Khomyakov's life are filled with special departments of ideological work. Khomyakov had no, or almost no, change of heart; the main angles of his vision were inherent to him almost from birth, forming the very structure of his spiritual organism, and Khomyakov’s growth did not consist in changing them, but only in awareness and more precise logical expression 11 . Each period in Khomyakov’s life is presented by Zavitnevich as the crystallization of the soil on which Khomyakov was born into clearly stated theses of a philosophical and theological system. But in all stages of this crystallization, Khomyakov’s thought is equal to itself, talking all the time about one thing, although this one thing passes from an amorphous state to a crystal. What is this one thing that Khomyakov has been talking about all his life and what is Professor Zavitnevich talking about after him? Unfortunately, this latter does not lead the line of this revelation with a sufficiently conscious hand; it is clear that Professor Zavitnevich himself rather only feels this unity, this primary intuition of Khomyakov, than realizes it. But, as research progresses, it emerges from the fog of all the material that serves to embody it, and finally, in the introduction “from the author,” written at the end of the first volume, that is, ten years after the start of the work, Professor Zavitnevich finds the desired word, defining Khomyakov as a “great altruist.” “Although Khomyakov amazed his contemporaries with the diversity, variety, and, in a word, encyclopedicism of his information, this encyclopedicity did not exclude in him the unity of an all-pervading common principle; and such a beginning was a religious beginning. He, for example, worked a lot on studying history with all the sciences associated with it; but historical research was for him only a path to understanding the laws of sociology, and he built the social life of humanity in its highest ideal on the same principle on which the Orthodox Church is built, that is, on the beginning of love, which in turn he laid as the basis not only of Christian ethics, but also of Christian metaphysics. This, in essence, is what his poetic activity boils down to, for it is not without reason that some connoisseurs call him a poet of love, of course, Christian love. In a word, if we were required to characterize Khomyakov in a few words, we would call him a great altruist” 12. One can object to this last word; one can doubt whether it finally and accurately expresses Khomyakov. But there is no doubt that it is in some way related to Khomyakov’s true word. For now, let’s keep it and see how it finds ever more pure expression in Khomyakov. First, Zavitnevich outlines the biography of Khomyakov “until the half of the 30s.” This streak is separated from the subsequent death of his father and the marriage of Khomyakov. The main intuition is expressed here primarily subjectively, in images of the creative imagination. That is why in this section of the biography, Professor Zavitnevich examines the poetic works of Khomyakov. One could characterize this period as a dream of a society based on love. The next period, from the mid-30s, represents, as it were, an antithesis to the previous one. Khomyakov now devotes himself to peasants and agriculture 13; in the soul of the peasant and in the structure of the peasant community he sees the embodied reflection of his dream. From this moment on, he realizes a solid point of support for his intuition and then turns to understanding its roots. That is why Khomyakov begins the third period, “from the late 30s and early 40s,” with intensive study of historical sciences. He discovers the duality of world history. That highest principle, about which he sang as a poet, and in which he saw the guarantee of the strength of peasant society, as a master, now turns out to be the highest principle of history. But another force is fighting against this beginning in history, as earlier - in the images of poetry and then - in peasant life. The “Iranian” principle, as Khomyakov called the highest spiritual principle of history, is opposed by the “Kushitic” materialistic principle that corrodes it 14. After such a discovery, Khomyakov tries to find the living centers of these principles in their purest form. These centers turn out to be historically the Church and Romanism, that is, the fundamental force that made the Roman Church a society of heretics and in its further development gave birth to Protestantism. This is the task of the theological period of Khomyakov’s studies. Finally, the highest and last activity in Khomyakov’s life, interrupted by an attack of cholera, was the clarification of the metaphysical and epistemological foundations of churchliness - an attempt to express that system of theoretical premises and final foundations that are presupposed by our faith in the Church, that is, already embedded in our statement about the possibility and fact of the existence of the Church. Thus, Zavitnevich leads us, together with the movement of Khomyakov’s biography, to a presentation of Khomyakov’s fundamental principles, more and more distant from random distorting layers, that is, to the intuition of love. The returning twists of the spiral determine by their totality this center of it. Before our eyes, Khomyakov’s personal mood and personal properties seem to be separated from him, become objective and, gradually rising, go into the metaphysical world as entities that determine all of reality. Then, starting back from the highest point reached by Khomyakov, Professor Zavitnevich tries to reconstruct the totality of his thoughts precisely as a system. Based on the found center of this vortex movement of thought, the researcher understands this movement as one whole and moves in a spiral, now from the center 15. As an introduction to this system of Khomyakov’s thought, Professor Zavitnevich prefaced it with “Critique of the principles of the German philosophical school of Kant,” that is, Kantianism, German idealism and Feuerbach. Anticipating the thought of later philosophy of culture, especially the Marburg school 16, and in agreement with it, rightly seeing in the rationalistic German philosophy of the 19th century the self-awareness of Western European civilization, Khomyakov, with his criticism of this philosophy, cuts into the very heart of Western life and Western understanding of life and thereby negatively clears his way to the construction, or, more correctly, to the awareness of Eastern, Russian epistemology - one that recognizes the cognitive a function inherent not in abstract reason, but in reason as the fullness of the powers of the spirit, guided by faith. Then the basic categories of the mind are constructed. Thus, the opportunity opens up to provide an ontology that, in its content, coincides with the content of Christian doctrine. The teaching about the Church and its life, which in its scope should be separated into a special chapter, as well as the subsequent chapter with criticism of Western confessions, in Khomyakov now turn out to be only developments and applications of the basic teachings of epistemology and ontology. Thus, from the most abstract questions to objections to particular points of Western confessions, Professor Zavitnevich’s book builds one integral system of thought, and the fulcrum for it is not lust and the concept of isolated consciousness, as in the West, but the holiness and truth of love of the Catholic church society - love in which Khomyakov sees the synthesis of freedom and necessity, the general and the particular. This is, in the most general terms, the course of Professor Zavitnevich’s research. Exquisite in love, this plan for the study of love represents perhaps the most attractive side of Zavitnevich’s work. If we add here that the entire study is preceded by a review and analysis of the sources and literature of the subject, then from this plan all that remains to be desired is what, as will become clear later, Professor Zavitnevich, due to many of the properties of his attitude towards Khomyakov, could no longer give. I mean the sharpening of Khomyakov’s problems into some basic questions and their criticism - both immanent and ecclesiastical. Without this same emphasis, the entire building of Professor Zavitnevich represents a church with an unfinished roof and, most importantly, without a cross erected on it, and we, finishing the essay, which ends with criticism of Western confessions, still do not know whether the Church will bless to consecrate this building into a church, place a holy altar in it, anoint it with holy chrism and erect a holy cross on it, or whether it - this building - will destined to remain a noble, but not a sacred building. For some reason, Professor Zavitnevich not only does not doubt the “yes” of the Church, but the very question we are now posing is not brought to his attention: the small number of pages at the beginning of the first volume 17 devoted to a rather unfounded polemic with those who reproached Khomyakov for Protestantism can hardly count. The premise of the entire presentation by Professor Zavitnevich is silently accepted that the Khomyakov building differs only in shape from an ordinary Orthodox church. But to the reviewer this simple identity of the contents of the church and Khomyakov’s teachings does not seem axiomatic, and he would consider it absolutely necessary for the appearance of a third volume of Zavitnevich’s book, where the final results would be summed up and a fundamental criticism of Khomyakov’s teachings would be given, carried out with the same thoroughness that characterizes the first two volumes. From what has been said so far, it is clear that Mr. Zavitnevich successfully completed the task set for himself. But the question of the value of the book is not yet resolved by this, but is only asked: you never know what tasks you can set for yourself and successfully complete them, and, however, the value of completing it is in direct connection with the value of the task itself. Every book raises questions in the reader first of all: is it necessary? what is the meaning of its existence? Was it worth writing and publishing it? And of course, these questions especially apply to a book of such a large volume as the study of Professor Zavitnevich - a book that required a lot of time and labor, and not only from the author himself, but also from everyone who, in one way or another, served the multiplication of its copies on the printing press and requires a fair amount of time and effort even from the reader. Is the work and loss of time of all of them justified: the author, typesetters, proofreader, etc., including the reader? There can hardly be any doubt about the significance of the topic itself. During his lifetime, both his friends and his enemies, Khomyakov was still recognized as the head of that direction of Russian thought, which received the inappropriate and ugly nickname of “Slavophilism” 18. Both the government and the intelligentsia in Khomyakov precisely saw the source, or at least the hotbed, of a new idea. Both praise and censure from theological circles were directed precisely at Khomyakov—not at any of the Slavophiles, but almost exclusively at him. Every question about Slavophiles and Slavophilism seems to be three-quarters turned into a question about Khomyakov, and the Slavophil group itself is thought of as “Khomyakov and others.” Is this fair? We believe that yes, without even prejudging Khomyakov’s comparative superiority with other Slavophiles in terms of talent, intelligence, education and conviction. Khomyakov was and remains the ideological center and leader of Slavophil thought, not only or, more precisely, not so much in himself, but because of the place he occupied. He is, after all, a primary researcher of that sacred center from which the thoughts of the Slavophiles emanated and to which they returned - Orthodoxy, or, more precisely, the Church. He looked more closely and consistently at himself; he spoke more persistently than anyone else about the decisive turn that threatens the worldview of the people depending on the wrong attitude towards the Church, and about the subsequent historical failure. Slavophilism is a worldview that, in its concept, is directly adjacent to the Church, and Khomyakov is the center of the Slavophil group, the ruler of Slavophil thoughts due to the fact that, according to the general sense and the direct recognition of the Slavophiles, especially the older ones, the Church, with which he, in essence, was involved internally all his life, is the center of created being 19 . Khomyakov is all about the Church, and therefore it is clear that the attitude towards the Church on the part of those judging Khomyakov turned out to be, one way or another, decisive in the assessment of Khomyakov himself. I say “one way or another,” because in judgments about Khomyakov one can hear the exact opposite. On the one hand, for those who love the Church, but do not see it in Khomyakov, or rather see him replacing the Church Truth with something else, homemade, as well as for those who do not love the Church at all and do not feel its reality, Khomyakov’s teaching is a vague and vague teaching about something dreamy and illusory, some kind of system about an empty place, and, therefore, sophistry, virtuoso idle talk, brilliant originality. In these attacks on Khomyakov, representatives of the church sometimes agree with ardent Westerners. On the other hand, for people who, in some sense, took into account the reality of the Church that Khomyakov spoke about, and recognized that he was talking about the real Church, and not at all about a powerless emptiness, modeled on the abstract absolutes of German idealism, and precisely because they were afraid of the excessive, in their opinion, reality of this Church, who looked askance at the very possibility for the Church to become where it, in its meaning, by right, should stand for those who saw it The Church was an obstacle on the way to a semi-church and non-church system of society, be it the idea of statehood or socialism, Khomyakov’s power seemed harmful. Extreme statists, as well as revolutionary and socialist leaders, both of them did not like Khomyakov’s teachings, instinctively perceiving in him, if not a future victory, then at least a real enemy; Both of them considered Khomyakov a dangerous person. Thus, statists and revolutionaries extended a hand to each other. Besides all these people who rejected Khomyakov for one reason or another, there remains, finally, a circle of people who looked at Khomyakov unconditionally positively. In the teachings of Khomyakov they saw the guarantee of a better future for Russia, the first sprout of national self-awareness, the beginnings of a new, finally truly Orthodox, theology, etc., in a word - the dawn of a new culture, with which the Slavs will shine upon humanity. At present, to prove the significance of Khomyakov the thinker and the nobility of his personality would be a useless waste of words. No one doubts either his talents and intelligence, or the purity of his personality and the selflessness of his intentions. There is also no doubt that Khomyakov’s hitherto ever-increasing fame is recently ready to flare up with a bright flame in connection with the emerging disgust from Western culture and the rise of Slavophilism. But to pay tribute to the subjective height of his personality and the elastic freshness of his thought is only to go very far in an objective assessment of his inner life and the system of his thought. I will say more: an objective assessment of his worldview and his personal disposition should also provide a more solid basis for revising and, perhaps, re-evaluating his subjective life. Who knows, in the impartial light of an objective church assessment, the snow-white robe of his religious and philosophical convictions will not reveal dubious stains or, on the contrary, whether Khomyakov’s system will turn out to be even more impeccable than is usually thought? But, in any case, we must be prepared for the fact that what captivates us in Khomyakov may turn out to be not so captivating and not so right in every sense of the word, as is accepted by almost everyone without discussion. “By their fruits you will know them.” But hitherto Khomyakov’s teachings were only shoots. Currently, it is ripening and seems ready to bear fruit. Are these good fruits? That's the point, they are dual. We see that Russian theological thought, represented by its most talented representatives, accepted, one way or another, Khomyakov’s teaching, that everything fresh in theology, one way or another, refracts Khomyakov’s ideas. The names alone of Metropolitan Anthony of Petrograd 20 and Archbishops Anthony and Sergius 21 - names that have become slogans for vast currents of Russian theological thought - would be sufficient to confirm what has been said. This is true. But she accepted, on the other hand, these ideas and put them into the basis of her own and that thought, the churchliness of which there is still no reason to testify to, for example, N. N. Neplyuev, the founder of the Brotherhood of the Exaltation of the Cross 22; and what’s more, even the clearly non-Orthodox teaching of L. N. Tolstoy 23 in its own way can lay claim to Khomyakov’s heritage. Khomyakov’s ideas turned out to be convenient for polemics with Catholicism; Let us mention at random at least the same Archbishop Sergius, M.A. Novoselov and Yu.A. Kolemin, who made people talk about himself in recent years. (See, for example, his book “Roman Spiritual Caesarism” and his report “Authority in Matters of Faith,” published in the “Theological Bulletin.”) But at the same time, there is also a danger of such polemics: while weeding out the chaff of Catholicism, doesn’t such polemics risk uprooting the wheat of Orthodoxy from the soil, at least, for example, by its denial of authority in the Church, which supposedly does not exist in Orthodoxy, and with it, consequently, the beginning of fear, the beginning of power and the obligation of the canonical system 24. At the present time, so generally prone to all kinds of denial of norms and even to the fight against all kinds of norms, doesn’t this dissolution of canons in the abyss of altruism pose a particular danger? The dangerous sides of Khomyakovism should include Khomyakov’s criticism of the Catholic teaching on the sacraments and the Protestant teaching on the inspiration of the Bible 25 . Having some kind of truth in itself, this criticism, however, inevitably leads to clearly unchurch pragmatism or modernism, which destroys the very essence of the doctrine of the sacraments and leaves only its external, in itself not valuable, shell. Even Khomyakov’s main idea in his anti-Catholic polemic, namely the reproach for violating unity by proclamating new dogmas, that is, usurping the right of the Universal Church, - and this idea again replaces the internal essence of church unity with its external forms and sins with the very jurisprudence that, according to Khomyakov, is sick of the Western world 26 . In a word, Khomyakov and Khomyakovism, which were a problem for his contemporaries, not only did not cease to be a problem for us, but rather discovered a new series of problems requiring our own research. The main question - the main one not only from our point of view, but also from the point of view of Khomyakov himself and his worldview, arising on the basis of Khomyakov’s teachings itself - is the question of Khomyakov’s own churchliness. But at the present time, with the open appearance of pragmatism, modernism and their shoots, this question has not only not been clarified, but, on the contrary, has become extremely confused. What is Khomyakov? - “Teacher of the Church,” according to the popular expression of Yu. F. Samarin 27, or the founder of sophisticated Russian socialism, as his contemporaries defined it. Did he found a new school of theology, finally truly Orthodox, and not Catholic and not Protestant, 28 or is his teaching a refined rationalism, “Hegelism,” as his opponents somewhat naively expressed it, 29 a system of extremely flexible, and therefore most poisonous, formulas that corrode the foundations of churchliness? And further, in the area of ​​state, was he a faithful servant of the autocracy, this foundation of the Russian state, did he want to strengthen and exalt the royal throne, or, on the contrary, should he be seen as the creator of the most popular, and therefore the most dangerous, form of egalitarianism? We repeat: what was Khomyakov himself? Is it the protector and deepener of the roots of Holy Rus' or, on the contrary, the eradicator of its primordial foundations in the name of the dreamy image of the projected Russia of the future? Did he humbly perceive the shrine of the Russian people, wanting to cleanse it of the random dirt that had fallen on it from the outside, or did he, with the pride of a reformer, try to prescribe to Rus' something that he himself, or they themselves - the Moscow circle of Slavophiles, invented. After all, to tell the Church on one’s own what it should be, even out of one’s purest motives, means not recognizing the Church, but recognizing oneself; to prescribe your demands to the tsar, even if they boil down to the demand for tsarist autocracy, means denying autocracy 30 . So, what was Khomyakov? This question is not a formal question: Khomyakov himself gives rise to an ambivalent interpretation of himself; and, given one desire or another, it can be interpreted in two ways. If we take into account the dual claims on Khomyakov from society and the dual flow of theological and social thought associated with his name; if we take into account that not only Katkov 31 and the later Slavophile statists, more than dubious churchmen, but also the populist revolutionaries and the revolution on the right, like Iliodorov’s 32 , are somehow connected with Khomyakov; if we pay attention to the amazing elasticity of Khomyakov’s formulas, in his brilliant dialectic and in his rich and convinced mind, they have powerful persuasiveness, but are almost empty and therefore easily convertible when used by a party person; if, I say, all this is taken into account, then the questions raised about the interpretation of Khomyakov, which is ambiguous in the presentation given by Zavitnevich, will turn out to be real questions. I have no right or basis to assert that these issues should be resolved in a direction unfavorable for Khomyakov; but that they must be put in place, and especially at this time; that they contain a fundamental question not only about Khomyakov, but also about many currents of Russian life; that the urgent needs of our time, both church, state and social, are associated with the question of Khomyakov - this, I believe, can be affirmed with complete decisiveness. It is not this or that critic who raises the question of Khomyakov, but life itself. In this sense, the study on Khomyakov is one of the most important, and the very fact of many years of work on preparing such a study deserves respect. But, while welcoming the very fact of this research and the diligence in its implementation, the reviewer must point out one property of Professor Zavitnevich’s work. This property, being in its own way even an advantage of the work, does not, at the same time, give Zavitnevich’s work the right to be considered the work on Khomyakov that our time requires, but rather further emphasizes the need for work of this latter type 33 . Zavitnevich’s essay is not a study of Khomyakov from the outside. It is not the verdict of a church court on Khomyakov’s views, even if preliminary, and not even an immanent criticism on the part of a historian of thought, but a transmission and systematization of Khomyakov’s thoughts through the lips of a faithful and reverent student, so that even the author’s language is likened to the language of the thinker being expounded. Apart from a few private comments that are not of fundamental importance, and even then made by Professor Zavitnevich reluctantly, we do not find here either criticism of Khomyakov, or his defense on the basis of data that is significantly new in comparison with Khomyakov’s. Zavitnevich’s work is a continuous stream of Khomyakov’s ideas, the small remarks dropped into which seem to make sense - only to confirm Khomyakov’s thought in general, just as small whirlpools in a river do not deny, but only confirm the general flow. Professor Zavitnevich's work is literally a monograph. Here - Khomyakov and only Khomyakov. The author of the study on Khomyakov almost does not consider it necessary to talk about the historical background of Khomyakov’s teaching, or about the shoots of later thought that grew out of it, or even about the surrounding society. I say “does not consider it necessary,” and not simply “does not say,” because I have no doubt that this is not done out of ignorance, but deliberately, due to the same devotion of the student to the teacher, which encourages the student to put his teacher on a pedestal and thus make him beyond comparison, beyond comparison, beyond criticism. And that’s why, if our judgment is correct that Khomyakov and his teaching are a problem, then the work of Professor Zavitnevich contains no less a problem: a picture, mysterious in its plot, in a reduced copy, even an excellent one, is not made clearer at all, and the copy is just as in need of interpretation as the original itself; and Professor Zavitnevich’s work is such a reduced copy, accurately conveying Khomyakov’s drawing, but leaving the reader, who is perplexed by Khomyakov’s works, in precisely the same bewilderment - not to say that in Professor Zavitnevich’s drier reproduction of his drawing than Khomyakov’s, the dual meaning of Khomyakov’s system emerges with even greater prominence. We repeat, for Professor Zavitnevich the problem about Khomyakov does not exist. Perhaps, with a critical attitude towards Khomyakov, his ideas would have received even greater persuasiveness, having new confirmation, acquiring new approaches to their top points. But Professor Zavitnevich, convinced of the complete truth of Khomyakov’s system, thought only about conveying what was there, thought to be satisfied with the description of Khomyakov’s thoughts, reproducing them step by step. Of course, this description has its good points; we can be sure that in such copying nothing has been added and, probably, nothing essential has been omitted. But there is also an important drawback: Professor Zavitnevich, adhering to the descriptive method, does not have the opportunity to highlight the important in comparison with the unimportant, to identify the core, to emphasize with sufficient independence and force the main intuitions of Khomyakov, although, to a certain extent, he tries to do this retroactively, in the introduction to the first book of the first volume. For Khomyakov himself, not everything in his writings was of equal value; not everything, according to his feeling, had equal weight. Much of what he discusses is discussed, so to speak, without internal fervor, for reasons of impartiality; and, on the other hand, other motives, internally dear, develop for various reasons, external and internal, only incidentally. The essential, in its place in the writer’s soul, is not always expressed in the main sentences, and the secondary, again in the writer’s spiritual organism, is not always expressed in the subordinate clauses. Quite often it happens the other way around, for, forced to give an answer to some question put to him from the outside and, therefore, answering a topic that is not most dear to him, the writer, by the way, not being able to restrain his thoughts, almost blurting out, speaks about things that are dear to him, significant in his own sense of life, but not formally put up for discussion. In general, the formal outline of a system, especially a system that reveals spiritual convictions on philosophical and theological issues, does not coincide at all with the inner life of the creator of the system. But in particular, the psychological emphasis on other particulars is not conveyed in the system, revealing that these particulars and secondary places are in fact the center and fulcrum in the living worldview of the thinker. And even moreover, the true motives of creativity and the internal aspiration of attention in the system are usually bashfully covered up with general provisions, not to say platitudes: this is the psychological function of the system, to cover up and protect too tender and too bashful (for reasons of the author’s chastity or, conversely, his depravity), but in any case the most genuine movements of the soul. This remark applies especially to Khomyakov, with his chaste secrecy. Consequently, in order not just to describe the system, but to understand its internal meaning and the mutual connections of its individual tissues and organs, it is necessary to understand what is most essential in it and to arrange the rest of the material in relation to it. But could mistakes be made? - Undoubtedly, they can. However, in general, any understanding of anything is threatened by the same danger of error, and only a mechanical cast of the system, its mechanical reproduction stands outside this danger of error. But then it is natural to ask what new such, even error-free, reproduction would bring, and why publish such a book about Khomyakov when there is a collection of his works? Professor Zavitnevich’s drawing, formally correct and accurate, resembles a tracing paper with smooth lines without pressure: all contours are of the same thickness, the drawing is without shadows, without colors; he conveys Khomyakov carefully, line by line, just as in icon-painting originals the outlines of the icon are conveyed in all its details, fold by fold; this drawing is not incorrect; but he does not give Khomyakov’s understanding, but only a summary of it; this is like a retelling of Khomyakov, but with almost no intonation. Knowing Khomyakov already, we will gain almost nothing from Professor Zavitnevich’s extensive research. Those who study Khomyakov will probably also look into the book we are discussing in order to more easily find parallel passages in Khomyakov’s works. But hardly anyone will say: “I agree with Zavitnevich” or: “I disagree with Zavitnevich.” The entire essay resembles preparatory materials for a study on Khomyakov; but this is not yet the research itself. Everything is “so,” but not because you agree with the researcher, but simply because the researcher, hiding behind Khomyakov’s shoulders, speaks in unison with his favorite author, and it is Khomyakov, not his student, who has to object, especially since of the several hundred pages of Professor Zavitnevich’s essay, probably at least three quarters are verbatim quotes from Khomyakov. Nothing touches the living in these vast volumes, and you drag through them without animation, joy or anger, as if along a long, very long monotonous alley. This impression of monotony is also facilitated by the author’s above-mentioned manner: returning to the same subject several times in Khomyakov’s system, sometimes even quoting the same passage several times. Judging by many signs, the author loves Khomyakov and is passionate about him, therefore he must have his own assessments and his own approaches to Khomyakov. But for some reason he does not want to share the very juice of his work with the reader and shifts all the responsibility from himself to the reader. But who should take upon himself the most important decision, if the Khomyakov specialist does not want or does not dare to be the person responsible? Feeling that they don’t want to help him, the reader begins to get bored; Professor Zavitnevich’s essay is read with difficulty and effort. Meanwhile, Khomyakov - a waterfall of themes and ideas - doesn't it raise acute and disturbing questions? The main one, of course, is Khomyakov’s long-standing suspicion of Protestantism. For Khomyakov, the essence of Protestantism lies only in protest against Romanism, while preserving, however, the basic premises and characteristic techniques of the latter’s thought. But one can doubt whether this is so: the development of Protestantism and its derivatives after Khomyakov revealed with certainty that the basis of Protestantism as the main exponent of the culture of the New Age lies in humanism, man-affirmation, man-theology, or, in terminology borrowed from philosophy, immanentism, that is, the plan of humanity from itself, outside and apart from God, to recreate from nothing all reality, and especially the reality of the shrine, - recreate in every sense, from the construction of concepts to spiritual reality. Meanwhile, the essence of Orthodoxy is ontologism - the acceptance of reality from God, as given, and not created by man - humility and gratitude. What do we see in Khomyakov? The very contrast between the principles of “Iranian” and “Cushitic” should give rise to thought. In Dostoevsky’s “Legend of the Grand Inquisitor,” Dostoevsky’s splitting of the image of Christ into two, neither of which – neither the Inquisitor nor “Christ” – is a pure expression of the Spirit of Christ, leads religious consciousness to endless difficulties, forcing one to choose between “yes” and “no” where tertium dandum est. The inquisitor is not anointed by the Spirit of Christ. But is it really possible, on the other hand, while remaining a member of the Church, to deny “authority, miracle and mystery” or at least one of the three? It’s the same with Khomyakov: Dostoevsky’s Inquisitor corresponds to “Kushitism”, Dostoevsky’s “Christ” corresponds to “Iranianism”; but then the Spirit of Christ, the Church, has no true place in the system. “Iranianism,” which for Khomyakov is almost synonymous with Christianity and the Church, in fact, in its characteristic features, is very reminiscent of the Protestant self-affirmation of the human “I” 34 and, in any case, is no closer to Orthodoxy than “Kushitism,” in which Khomyakov caricatured many features of ontology. It is not customary to talk about all this in the press, although similar opinions have been repeatedly expressed in a friendly manner. But it’s time to put the question of “Kushitism” squarely. The spirit of “Kushitism,” although in a distorted presentation, which L. Tolstoy brought to the end in his blasphemous antics against the sacraments, has undoubted features of genuine churchliness. If one had to choose between Khomyakov’s two, in different senses, incorrect depictions of churchliness, one would rather have to settle on the distorting mirror of “Kushitism” than on the embellished “Iranianism.” That in the living Orthodox Church there are both beginnings, Khomyakov saw and recognized this very well, but he too simply got rid of this objection by referring to the contamination of the Orthodox world with the “Kushitic” principle. Looking more closely at Khomyakov’s own theories, we, to our sorrowful surprise, discover in them the same spirit of immanentism that constitutes the essence of Protestantism, albeit in an immeasurably improved form - mainly by introducing the idea of conciliarity 35, although it should be noted that the idea of conciliarity of consciousness is not completely alien to Western philosophy, for example to Kant, not to mention Schelling of the last period and further to Feuerbach, Comte and others. 36 Of course, Orthodox upbringing and awareness of the sources of doctrine and church history prompted Khomyakov to be careful in those places where it was natural for Khomyakov’s thought to diverge from church reason; and a dialectic of rare strength—the well-known “Khomyakov” dialectic—gave Khomyakov’s propositions such flexibility and such persuasiveness that the most dubious and the most dangerous seem to have dulled the sharp cutting edges 37 . But, with all Khomyakov’s caution and with his sincere desire not to collide with church teaching, do not the very foundations of his views for an Orthodox person, when examining them carefully, seem suspicious? While for the church person the Church expresses the Truth, for “so it pleased the Holy Spirit” and her to reveal to her the existing Truth independent of her in God, Khomyakov’s theory of the Church leaves the impression that the decrees of the entire Church are true because they are the decrees of the entire Church. It is as if the word “all” is important, as if the decrees of the Church were not the discovery of the Truth, but the composition of it, as if the Truth were immanent to human reason, even taken collectively, and not transcendent to it and revealed to it from its transcendence 38 . It said "impression". Yes, an impression, because such a goal could not clearly appear in Khomyakov’s consciousness, and, moreover, be expressed by him. Khomyakov's thought evasively runs away from ontological certainty, shimmering with pearlescent play. But this play of superficial tones, brilliant, but not substantial, and therefore changing and changing their outlines at the slightest turn of the head, does not provide a stable content of thought and leaves anxiety and question in the heart. Immanentism is the flavor of Khomyakov’s theories, despite the complaints of N.A. Berdyaev. Of course, here in Khomyakov we are dealing only with shades of thought; but how far are these shades from the Catholic “fabrication of dogmas”? Meanwhile, in connection with these particular shades stands Khomyakov’s polemic against Romanism. It is not the false resolution of the Western Councils in itself, as such, that outrages Khomyakov, but the violation of unity. And the fault of Catholics seems to lie not in the fact that they profess a false dogma, but in the fact that they are not together with the East. Here the importance of human agreement or disagreement is exaggerated and the dignity and value of Truth is diminished. True, Khomyakov speaks of God’s grace, and even, in an inaccurate turn, almost identifies it with the Church, but from the general meaning of the system it is not clear from anywhere that the grace of God has a significant, vital, and not decorative meaning for Khomyakov, for for the Khomyakov Church, consensus omnium in amore is sufficient, and this consensus itself provides knowledge of the Truth. Yes, besides, doesn’t Romanism also refer to the grace of God, just like Protestantism? So, Rome is guilty of stealing a right that does not belong to it, but belongs to the entire Church as a whole. Here Khomyakov himself, under the guise of a temporary concession to the terminology of his opponents, reveals the immanently earthly nature of his theology, for he himself relies on legal concepts. But even apart from this self-contradiction, the replacement of purely legal concepts with sociological concepts, on which Khomyakov’s entire construction is based, does not at all prove the ecclesiastical nature of his teaching, but only proves that he wants to supplant law and coercion - the element of the Romance peoples - with publicity and kinship - the element of the Slavic peoples. This may be good, but replacing one earthly force with another does not solve the theological question: the community, as such, is not in itself an approach to the Church, compared with a legal state, and, in the most favorable case for Khomyakov, can be understood as a necessary condition for the existence of the Church, and not as a sufficient condition. But just as in his doctrine of the Church Khomyakov contrasts social concepts with state concepts, instead of directly taking up church concepts, so in his doctrine of the state he has a noticeable desire to explain everything from the social moment. “Society, not the state” - this is the meaning of Khomyakov’s statements, expressed directly. These complex constructions, we think, are nothing more than a cautious approach to the theory of popular (or, when talking about the Church, universal) sovereignty. The Roman hierarchy, according to the meaning of Khomyakov’s teaching, is guilty of having assimilated the sovereignty of all humanity, that is, the entire Church - it makes a hasty equalization of Khomyakov’s concepts. I said “hasty,” because if the Roman hierarchy or even the pope himself proclaimed the true dogmas, and all of humanity opposed Rome in this, then Rome would be the entire Church, although the sovereignty of humanity would be usurped. And that Khomyakov adheres to the theory of sovereignty in general is undoubtedly: he openly expresses it in his historical considerations about the origin of the Romanov dynasty, although he does not call this theory by its real name. Russian tsars are autocratic because he believes that the Russian people bestowed such power on them after the Time of Troubles. Consequently, not the people-children are from the Tsar-father, but the father-Tsar is from the children-people. Consequently, an autocrat is an autocrat not by “God’s grace,” but by the will of the people. Consequently, it was not because the people called the Romanovs to the royal throne that in the hour of enlightenment, with a heart purified by suffering, they saw the accomplished determination of the will of God, they sensed that Mikhail Feodorovich had already received the royal crown from God, but because they chose, as they so pleased, the most convenient for themselves - to grant Mikhail Feodorovich power over Russia; in a word, he did not find his Tsar, but made himself a Tsar. And the first Romanov sat on the throne not because God put him there, but because he entered into a “contract with the people.” Consequently, we have to further conclude that “existing powers” ​​are not “created by God,” but from contrat social; It is not God’s will, but the suffrage of the universe that holds the throne, according to the meaning of Khomyakov’s teaching 39 . Perhaps they will say to this that such an objection to Khomyakov is a confusion of the legal and state sphere with the theological and spiritual sphere. In legal terms, they will say, the sovereignty of the people must still be recognized, and it cannot be circumvented. Without going into a discussion of these objections, we must only note that Khomyakov himself denies the purely legal formulation of social and state issues and demands that everything be led by faith. Of course, in non-religious, purely secular thought, where God is not recognized as the Source of the social order, it is impossible to do without popular sovereignty, for if there is no God in the scientific consciousness, then who, if not the people, should be the final judge of their affairs, and then the right of autocracy without sovereignty cannot be justified. But will such an “autocracy” be an autocracy? The fact of the matter is that in the consciousness of the Russian people, autocracy is not a legal right, but is a fact revealed by God himself - the mercy of God, and not a human convention, so that the autocracy of the Tsar is not a legal concept, but a doctrinal one, it is part of the realm of faith, and is not derived from non-religious premises with a view to public or state benefit. We started talking about royal power in Khomyakov’s interpretation not because this question in itself especially occupies us here, but because it is particularly clearly reflected in Khomyakov’s main point of view, which, with less brightness, but still clearly defines his teaching about the Church. Free self-affirmation of a person - being, immanent to a person, manifested in the organization of love, is most precious to him. Indeed, he is a “great altruist,” as Professor Zavitnevich defines him. But great altruism in itself is not at all similar to the Church, for the Church lays its foundation in what is outside of humanity, and for altruism, as for any humanism, the strongest point of support seems to be the internal, immanent forces of man. The position expressed here about Khomyakov may seem unexpected, but, being accepted, it also casts an unexpected light on Khomyakov’s struggle with the ontological moment in religion. The attitude towards the transcendent in religion, in his opinion, seems to be a manifestation of the beginning of the “Cushitic”. But then it is clear why he denies authority, which is authority only insofar as it is outside the one who submits to authority; then his struggle with the term and even with the concept of transubstantiation, contrary to the direct testimony of the Jerusalem Council 40, is also understandable. In view of the importance of the concept of transubstantiation, we will dwell on it a little longer. It is often forgotten that the Holy Eucharist is not one of the moments of church life, but its focus and, in a certain sense, church life itself, the criterion of all other aspects and the surest point of support. “Our teaching is in agreement with the Eucharist, and the Eucharist, in turn, confirms this teaching” εὐχαριστία βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην) 41 - Saint Irenaeus of Lyons testifies to the correctness of his theoretical views 42 And now, applying this criterion to the teachings of Khomyakov, we notice how the harmonious building of his theological system it is swaying, I won’t say collapsing, but it is cracking and clearly requires the laying of stronger ontological foundations and the addition of noumenal buttresses 43 . In the treatise “An Experience in a Catechetical Presentation of the Doctrine of the Church,” 44 written in the forties or earlier, Khomyakov cautiously notes about the Holy Church that “she does not reject the word transubstantiation, but does not attribute to it the material meaning that is attributed to it by the teachers of the fallen Churches.” The subsequent evasive presentation of the Eucharistic dogma is an attempt to bypass the term transubstantiation, but no matter how careful Khomyakov’s presentation is, it is impossible to ignore one shade, namely: in Khomyakov the emotional emphasis falls on the word faith in the sacrament, and not on the sacrament itself as an object of faith. Khomyakov wants to put a dogmatic question on a pragmatic basis, to put it in a modern way, that is, in such a way that the concept of the Holy Eucharist in itself is excluded and only the concept of perceiving it, worshiping it, reverently thinking about it remains. The Protestant flavor of these arguments is undeniable, although the vagueness of the statements makes it possible to avoid Protestant formulas 45 . But in another treatise dating back to 1855, namely in the treatise “A few words of an Orthodox Christian about Western confessions” 46, Khomyakov is already more definite or more frank: “He who sees in the Eucharist only remembrance, as well as he who insists on the word transubstantiation or replaces it with the word coexistence (consubstantiation); in other words, both the one who, so to speak, evaporates the sacrament, and the one who turns it into a purely material miracle, equally dishonor the holy supper by approaching it with questions of atomistic chemistry” 47 . So, the Church “does not reject” the word “transubstantiation,” but to “insist” on it means “to dishonor the Last Supper,” “turn it into a purely material miracle,” “to approach it with questions of atomistic chemistry.” Strange logic! If insisting on the term “transubstantiation” is no less erroneous than understanding the Holy Eucharist as coexistence (that is, according to the formula cum pane, in pane, sub pane) or even as a simple remembrance, that is, falling into obvious impiety, then how can the Church “not reject” the word “transubstantiation”? In general, how can the Church “not reject” something that is reprehensible to insist on? It is clear that she either completely rejects the term discussed here, or, having admitted it, thereby allows her to stick to it, that is, to insist on it, as soon as there is a need for it and without it it will be impossible to stop the mouth of the heretic. But Khomyakov wants to avoid certainty and simply silence the term, which in a Eucharistic dispute with Protestants is as decisive and therefore irremovable as the term “consubstantial” in a Trinitarian dispute with Arianists 48 or the term “Mother of God” in a dispute with Nestorians 49 . “There is no this word in the liturgy,” notes Khomyakov, a Protestant 50. But doesn’t Khomyakov know that such a trick is unworthy of him, for the same thing was said by semi-Arianists, “without rejecting” the term “consubstantial,” referring to its non-existence in the Holy Scriptures 51 . And, to complete the analogy, the terms “consubstantial” and “Mother of God,” as well as the term “transubstantiation,” were actually used by heretics, using them in a crude, sensual way for their own purposes. But, nevertheless. The Church not only “did not reject them,” but also positively approved them, for without them it was impossible to resist the flow of heretical false teaching that was eroding church dogma. In the XVII member of the “Confession” of Patriarch Dositheus of Jerusalem, the Eucharistic dogma is expressed with complete certainty 52. But this “Confession” has canonical significance, for it was approved at the Jerusalem (against the Calvinists) Council of 1672, at which representatives of all Local Churches, including the Russian, took part, and then strictly approved by the Eastern Patriarchs in 1728, who included the “Confession” of Dositheus in the message to the “existing in Great Britain” archbishops and bishops and to their entire clergy. It is worthy of note that apart from this “Confession” the Eastern Patriarchs did not find it necessary to answer anything else. Here we read: “We believe that in this sacred rite [the Holy Eucharist] our Lord Jesus Christ is present, not symbolically, not figuratively (τυπικῶς, εἰκονικῶς), not by an excess of grace, as in other sacraments, not by influx alone, as some fathers said about baptism, and not through insight bread (κατ’ἐναπτισμόν per impanationem = Khomyakov’s “co-existence”), so that the Divinity of the Word enters substantially into the bread offered for the Eucharist (ὑποστατίκώς), as Luther’s followers rather inexplicably and unworthily explain; but truly and truly, so that, after the consecration of bread and wine, the bread is broken, transubstantiated, transformed, transformed μεταῤῥυθμίξεσθαι – transmutetur, transsubstantietur, convertatur, transformetur) into the truest body of the Lord, which was born in Bethlehem from the Ever-Virgin, baptized in the Jordan, suffered, buried, resurrected, ascended, sits at the right hand of God the Father, has to appear in the clouds of heaven, and wine transformed, transubstantiated (μεταηοιεῖσθαι καὶ μετουσιοῦσθαι – converti ac transsubstamiari) into the very true blood of the Lord. We also believe that, after the consecration of bread and wine, what remains is not the bread and wine itself, but the very body and blood of the Lord under the form and image of bread and wine [in the “Confession” of Patriarch Dosifei: εἴνου εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ ταὐτὸν εἰπεῖν, ὑπὸ τοῖς τοῦ ἄρτου συμβεβηκόσιν – sub panits et vini specie et figura, id est, sub panis accidentibus: therefore, the phrase is omitted: “that is, under the accidents of bread”] – the Lord is present in His essence (κατ’οὐσίαν, secundum substantiam). Although at the same time there are many sacred rites throughout the universe, there are not many bodies of Christ, but one and the same Christ is truly and truly present. There is one body and one blood in all the individual churches of the faithful. And this is not because the body of the Lord, which is in heaven, descends on the altars, but because the shewbread, prepared separately in all churches, and, after consecration, is transformed and transubstantiated μεταποιουμενος κα ὶ μετουσίούμενος – conversusac transsubsantiatus), the same thing is done with the body that is in heaven.” Is it really possible to say that in the above words the Church only “does not reject” the term “transubstantiation,” which is in itself dangerous and impious, but does not use it in the fight against Protestants with all possible energy to express and defend the most important thing? Really, the concepts of transformation and transubstantiation do not serve in the passages cited as the most decisive for distinguishing church property from the attempts of Protestants, are they not the last words that complete the self-determination of the Church? But if they are used and retained, then one must believe and understand that these terms were not put in vain, but were really necessary. Khomyakov wants to dull the sharpness of the Eucharistic formula, and thereby opens the door to Protestant denial; his followers already openly explain his intentions and openly deny and even blaspheme the word “transubstantiation.” But they themselves will be convinced by the experience of history that to reject the word “transubstantiation”, given the modern tension of Protestantism, modernism, pragmatism and similar immanentist heresies, means cutting the rope of a tightly drawn bale and not foreseeing the denials that are likely to follow, for such people have long been waiting for their freedom. Then the perpetrators of dogmatic ruin, who follow the path paved by Khomyakov here, will either have to reintroduce the rejected term, or openly reject the holy mysteries. No matter how far Khomyakov is from calling the term under discussion “blasphemous,” he is still somehow responsible for the latter. Here the road from Khomyakov goes downhill, but to the church teachings it goes uphill. But besides this dogmatic-canonical side of the dispute, it is impossible not to note that Khomiakov’s philosophical interpretation of the term “transubstantiation”, as allegedly containing the concept of the “miracle of atomic chemistry,” is not a Catholic teaching, although, perhaps, some theologians have fallen into such wickedness. But this unholy view is precisely the denial of transubstantiation, for in “atomistic chemistry,” even miraculous, the maternal being, the material substance, remains unchanged, does not transubstantiate, and only accidents, only species, change; in transubstantiation the being changes, but accidents and species remain. Khomyakov could not help but understand this distortion of concepts, but instead of exposing the false usage of words and restoring the right one, he preferred the easiest way of simply abandoning church property, just as the semi-Arianists avoided the term “consubstantial,” incidentally, on the false basis that such a term was falsely used by the Gnostics 53 . However, let the statement about the validity of the above-mentioned abuse of the term “transubstantiation” remain on the conscience of those who express it: even though they are Latins, they cannot, at the instigation of Protestants, obvious enemies of the Church, be accused of any absurdity. In any case, those militant about transubstantiation should have stipulated that, according to church faith, “the word transubstantiation (τῇ μετουσίωσιςλέξει, verbo transsubstantionis) does not explain the way in which bread and wine are transformed (μεταποιοῦνται, convertuntur) into the body and blood of the Lord, for this cannot be comprehended by anyone except God himself, and the efforts of those who wish to comprehend this can only be the result of madness and wickedness, but it is only shown that bread and wine, after consecration, are converted into the body and blood of the Lord not figuratively, not symbolically, not by an excess of grace, not by a message or influx of the one Divinity of the Only Begotten, and not by any accidental accessory (the accident) of bread and wine is transformed into an accidental accessory (accident) of the body and blood of Christ, by some change or mixture, but, as said above, truly, truly and essentially the bread is the truest body of the Lord, and the wine is the very blood of the Lord" 54: ...ὁ ἄρτος καὶ ὁ οἴνος μετὰ τὸν ἁγωομὸν οὐ τυπικῶς οὐδ’είκονικῶς, οὐδε χάριτι ὐπερβαλλούσῃ, τῇ κοινωνίῇ παρουσίᾳ τῆς θεότητος μόνης τοῦ μονογεν οῦς μέταβάλλειται εἰς τὸ σῶμα καὶ αἴμα τοῦ κυρίου, οὐδὲ συμβεβηκόςτι τοῦ ἄρτουκαὶ ? ? ?? ὁ δ’οἴνος αὔτὸ, τοῦ κυρίου αἴμα, ὡς εἴρεται ἄνωτέρω ... 55 Thus, all those dangers that opponents of the term “transubstantiation” point out were foreseen, specified and classified by the Church; and yet, despite this, the word transubstantiation is repeatedly used in places of the most significant meaning. In particular, it should be noted that this term seems to Khomyakov and his followers on this issue to be introducing “scholastic definitions.” As if philosophical language is not a type of language at all, and as if Khomyakov himself does not use all sorts of philosophical definitions, his own and those of others, scholastic and Hegelian! To refer to the scholasticism of definitions, as such, without indicating exactly why these definitions are bad, means fundamentally protesting against any kind of theology, including Khomyakov’s. And if the holy fathers had taken the point of view of this nonsense, then there could not have been a Creed. But Khomyakov defends alogism 56 as long as we are talking about the sacraments, with which he does not quite get along at all, because here the specter of “Kushiteism” seems to him, and he himself talks about the dogmas of faith, including the mystery of the Holy Trinity, when the above is considered outside of its relation to the below, that is, it is considered as a concept, and not as life. Consequently, it is not the alogism as such that attracts Khomyakov, but the concreteness and spontaneity of the spiritual world revealed in the divine service that repulses him. This ethereality and bloodlessness (probably a Hegelian infection) were to a certain extent a disease of early Slavophilism. If we try to look at Khomyakov’s thought from the point we have reached, then much here becomes clear, explained precisely from immanentism, from the fear of the invasion of the transcendental into the immanent. It is then understandable that the denial, this time direct, of “periodic miracles”, such as the incorruption of the Epiphany water, is, however, backed by the weighty authority of the Menaion 57 and Chrysostom 58. In the January Menea, precisely after the rite of the Epiphany consecration of water, a note is made about the holy Epiphany water with the following reference: “About this water, the heavenly verbal gusset, the golden-speaking ecumenical teacher John, Patriarch of Constantinograd, in his word, about the coming of a Christian into the holy church of God, and about baptism, its beginning: all of you I am in complacency today, but in sadness I am the only one who is sick: He testifies with the verb: but for the sake of it, it is not the day that he was born, but the day that he was baptized, the phenomenon is said; This is the day to be baptized and to sanctify your nature with water. For this reason, at midnight on this holiday, everyone, having drawn water, takes it to their houses, and observes it, and preserves it completely through the summer. It is still the day of blessed waters, and the sign is clear; their waters are not corrupted by nature through the length of time: but for a whole summer, and two and three many years, today the drawn water is whole and new and remains, and according to the amount of time now from the sources, it is equal to the natural waters.” This is what the Menaea testifies (Kyiv, 1911, l. 100). But Khomyakov neglects this thousand-year-old testimony, which is still accepted by the Church - he neglects it in the name of the non-incarnation of the spiritual principle. I repeat, if you notice this slight bias towards dualism in Khomyakov, then a lot in Khomyakov is explained. For example, the extremes of his struggle against Catholicism are understandable. As if the heresy of the West was not enough for Khomyakov, he wants to present the very heresies of the West as irrevocable nonsense, which leads him to the above bad words about the Eucharist, in the Western understanding, as an “atomic miracle” and even as an “oracle” - words that can hardly be regarded other than a step towards Tolstoy’s blasphemies, when another “great altruist”, and even “greatest altruist,” again prompted by human self-obstinacy, declared the holy sacraments to be “witchcraft” 59 . The same extremes include excessive accusations of Romanism in depriving the laity of the Holy Chalice. If Khomyakov had applied in relation to Catholicism the very method of knowledge that he accuses the West of forgetting (knowledge by love), then perhaps he would have found analogies in the Church to those Latin features that, while there, in the West, are errors, are not, however, irrevocable nonsense, as Khomyakov is inclined to interpret them. So, for example, the Pope, of course, is not infallible, but this is not because if to admit the opposite, one would certainly have to equate the pope with an “oracle.” Why, in principle, abstractly speaking, is the grace-filled gift of infallibility in matters of faith, infallibility independent of the degree of moral perfection, absurd and unacceptable, if the gift of performing the most holy sacraments can be independent of moral perfection? Khomyakov says that the pope's claims to infallibility in matters of faith could be likened to some bishop's claim to the perfection of love. Again, we repeat that, denying the actual existence of the gift of infallibility, which the Church does not actually recognize, we do not see why Khomyakov’s last comparison leads this non-existent gift to absurdity in principle. And why, in principle, is the gracious gift of the love of Christ bestowed upon the ordination of a bishop or priest unacceptable? Yes, in addition, in Orthodox theology the view was actually expressed that the peculiarity of the gift of the priesthood is precisely compassionate love. “The shepherd,” says Archbishop Anthony, “is given a gracious, compassionate love for his flock, which determines the ability to experience in himself the sorrow of struggle and the joy of the moral improvement of his flock, the ability to worry about them, like the Apostle Paul or John. This quality of the pastoral spirit expresses the very essence of pastoral service” 60. In a similar way, abstractly speaking, the gift of special sensitivity, and hence infallibility in dogmatic matters, could be constructed. “But,” Khomyakov would say, “the Latins recognize this gift not for bishops in general, but for the pope alone.” Yes, but we must also add that they consider the hierarchical degree of the pope not as the third, but as the fourth, completely different from the degree of bishop, so that the pope is recognized as the only representative of his degree. Consequently, the point is not the absurdity of the claimed gift of infallibility, but the non-existence of the fourth degree of the priesthood. But this point of anti-Catholic polemics also became unreliable after in modern times voices began to be heard in our theology in favor of recognizing the patriarchate as a special degree of priesthood, the fourth. If these voices find sympathy for themselves, then they will have to determine the peculiar feature of this degree. And since the peculiarity of the episcopal degree is recognized to be the content of church teaching in purity and integrity, then no matter how on this path it is necessary to recognize the infallibility in expressing new judgments about matters of faith as a peculiarity of the patriarchal degree, that is, to agree with Latinism. The history of the West is connected by a fatal and indestructible logic, and if the Latins came to the dogmas they invented, then they were forced to this by their entire past. Or here’s another example of Khomyakov’s exaggerated polemics with the West: Khomyakov sees the deprivation of the laity of the Holy Chalice as usurpation and pride of the Latin hierarchy 61 . Meanwhile, this feature of Romanism can be explained by other, deeper reasons, but with much less condemnation of the West, namely, for example, the too great (historically attested) connection of the Roman Church with the Old Testament cult and the Old Testament system of thinking. Reflected in many other ways, this connection, purely historically, without any malicious intentions, could distort the Eucharistic rite. Let us note that none of the clergy, not even the pope himself, even if he received communion not as an official, but, for example, on his deathbed, partakes of the Holy Blood, just like any layman. Not only that. When several priests serve, only the eldest drinks the Holy Chalice. Consequently, the Holy Blood is not communed with the Latins at all, that is, it is not considered here as a privilege of the clergy, contrary to Khomyakov, but has some special meaning. Which one exactly? Let us remember that the Holy Eucharist has its prototype in the Old Testament “sacrifice of praise”: of the different types of sacrifices, this one is most suitable for the Eucharist both in its meaning and in its liturgical ritual. In the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the Holy Eucharist is directly called the “sacrifice of praise” (in the prayer for the presentation of gifts, the so-called prayer of proskomedia). The “sacrifice of praise”... was in the Old Testament cult one of three subtypes of the “peaceful sacrifice”... And so, it seems, Catholicism draws an analogy between the bloody Eucharist and the “peaceful” sacrifice in all details more consistently than is commanded by Christ, who offered a “peaceful sacrifice” at the Last Supper, but bloodless. And since in a bloody and “peaceful” sacrifice they partook only of the meat of the sacrificial animal, while the blood “in which life,” that is, the sacrifice itself, was offered to God and poured into the horns of the altar, therefore Catholicism allows Holy Communion as a sacrament, and, moreover, of absolutely all members of the Church, from the pope to the last layman, only under one guise - under the guise of the Body. In fact, no one partakes of blood. But since it has to be put somewhere, it is consumed, just as we consume the Holy Gifts after the Liturgy, with the difference, however, that this consumption, as well as the consumption of the remaining holy Body, is carried out in the West during the Liturgy itself, immediately after Communion, and moreover by the eldest of the servants, while in our country the consumption of the remaining Holy Gifts is carried out during the end of the Liturgy, and, moreover, by the youngest of the servants, usually a deacon; but this is a difference in the statute, not in the essence of the sacrament. In both cases, the mouth and entrails of the clergyman consuming the Holy Mysteries are likened, in their liturgical meaning, to the horns of the Old Testament altar. It seems that this is precisely the meaning, at least the initial one, of the notorious deprivation of the laity of the Holy Chalice. I repeat, I want to say that among the Latins it is not only the laity, but absolutely all the believers, led by the pope, who are deprived of the Holy Chalice. This is probably even worse than depriving only the laity of the Holy Chalice; but this is not done maliciously. I do not undertake to insist on all these interpretations; It may very well be that other explanations are possible. But it is difficult not to be sure that polemics against Latinism are a matter that requires caution, since it is very easy, under the guise of fighting “scholasticism” and “papalism,” to undermine the foundations of our own dogma. We see this, for example, in Khomyakov’s ambiguous and seductive formula, according to which the sacraments are performed not for the elements, not for animals and not for non-believers - a formula that is either self-evident and does not need to be stated (who says that it is for animals?), or has an internal meaning of the destruction of the reality of the sacrament - the transformation of the dogma of the sacrament into some kind of pragmatic or modernist rule of our behavior. If Khomyakov wants to say that the sacrament is intended, in the sense of the direct use of its gifts of grace, only for members of the Church, then this statement is in a certain sense indisputable, although here there may be objections that the sacrament indirectly affects all creation, and some types of sanctification are directly applied to all creation (see, for example, in the Breviary, numerous prayers and rites of cosmic significance). If the meaning of Khomyakov’s formula is that a sacrament is only a sacrament insofar as the members of the Church think about it, and in the proper sense is nothing for everyone who does not think about it that way, that is, that it, for example, is not capable of scorching a blasphemer into the sacrament, however, who does not believe, then this meaning, without any doubt, cannot be admitted. Such private questions make us think that there really is something wrong in Khomyakov’s teaching about the Church, and therefore in his entire system; that either Khomyakov, under the pressure of some extraneous teachings, at that time, generally far from churchism, was unable to express the truly Orthodox faith of his heart, or, on the contrary, that he tried, although not quite consciously, to cover up the wrong convictions of his mind with the beautiful, but ambiguous clothing of semi-church formulas. It is difficult and sorrowful to say all this about Khomyakov, probably the purest and most noble of the great men of modern Russian history; but we have to say this because of Professor Zavitnevich, who did not stop and did not even try to stop suspicions similar to those expressed here. I repeat, his work needs an additional volume. In the introduction to the first volume, pointing out the lack of familiarity with Khomyakov and the Slavophiles not only by society, but even by many scientists, Professor Zavitnevich rightly notes that until studying the spiritual heritage of the Slavophiles, it is impossible to say what of it “will become a lasting heritage of life and what will go to waste, as a temporary and accidental moment in the process of historical development” 62. That is why, having taken upon ourselves “the task of an exhaustive presentation of the entire sum of concepts expressed by Khomyakov, we could not,” he says, “allow ourselves to be too picky in relation to the scientific material at our disposal, but had to first of all take care that in our work the reader would encounter completeness of data and documentation in the presentation” 63. Did the author comply with this own requirement for the material completeness of his work? No, from the content side, Professor Zavitnevich’s research can be supplemented. In a brief review, we have neither the opportunity nor the need to indicate everything that Professor Zavitnevich omitted, but, nevertheless, we will note something in the appendix. At the same time, many of Professor Zavitnevich’s omissions are explained by the too long period of printing of his work, during which period several documentary data appeared that would be useful to include in the content of the work being analyzed, but which went unnoticed by the researcher. And it must be said that a number of them (see appendix) could be continued without much difficulty. Work on replenishing the materials used by Professor Zavitnevich is also required by the essence of the matter. When reading the book we are considering, a whole series of questions arise, to which neither the materials contained there nor the additions given here below provide an answer. For some reason, Professor Zavitnevich limits himself to materials printed outside of him, and even then not to their full extent, and he did not use handwritten sources. Meanwhile, it is inconceivable that in twenty-one years of work, even if a researcher wanted to find something new about Khomyakov, he could not find anything; this is impossible to believe. Obviously, he was not looking for handwritten material. That is why the circle of information of Professor Zavitnevich is limited to precisely the same horizon as that of any reader of Khomyakov who has not been engaged in deliberate research into the history of Slavophilism. But questions that require special examination based on archival materials remain unresolved and not even raised in the work of Professor Zavitnevich. First of all, it seems to me that if in general the study of the clan to which a great man belongs, the internal characteristics of this clan, its life, its spiritual traits, its internal structure is one of the essentially important tasks facing the researcher, then in relation to Khomyakov, who, according to the recognition of everyone who wrote about him both approvingly and with censure, should be considered a nature that is extremely grounded, extremely connected with the clan and way of life - in relation Khomyakov, I say, this demand must be made with particular persistence. But this insistence should be all the greater in this case because the Khomyakov family itself is, undoubtedly, one of the noblest lines stretching in Russian history - a line untainted by anything dark and, despite its antiquity and genuine nobility, did not seek an external position for itself. The Khomyakov family in itself, even independently of Alexei Stepanovich, with its entelechy, is a subject of research worthy of all attention. We dare to think that there would be more than enough materials for such a study; but what Professor Zavitnevich has done seems to us insufficient and watery. Zavitnevich did not bother, for example, to inquire even about the Khomyakov coat of arms, although no search was required at all to extract this description from the “General Armorial Book”. Here it is, by the way: “The shield, which has a red field, depicts two golden crosses and between them a silver horseshoe, the spikes facing down. The shield is topped with a noble helmet and a crown with ostrich feathers. The marking on the shield is red, lined with silver.” This description must be completed: the shield of the Khomyakov coat of arms, the so-called in heraldry, is of “French” shape, that is, quadrangular, pointed at the bottom, and the helmet is of the Western European type, that is, with five slats and set straight. Further, in the “General Armorial Book”, from which the above description is taken, information is given about the ancestors of Alexei Stepanovich 64. To study Khomyakov’s ancestors, one should also use the “Notes of A. T. Bolotov” 65, where there is a lot of genealogical information. We have just said about the need to study the genealogical background of A. S. Khomyakov. This study, generally speaking, is possible and necessary in two directions. In one case, we recognize the genus into which the given person belongs; in another case, the object of knowledge turns out to be the totality of those families of different surnames, the blood of which flows in the veins of a given person. The first study determines the place of one among many, within many; the second shows one as consisting of many, that is, the place of many in one. The first study is built according to the well-known family tree scheme. And the second should be built according to the inverted scheme, well known in biology, but in genealogy occasionally used under the name of the table of “ascending mixed genealogy” and giving a “pedigree with coats of arms.” This last diagram could be called an ideological tree. Here she is. The genealogical tree is primarily important in research that has as its subject the genus, while the idiological tree is most useful in studying the structure of an individual personality, because with particular clarity it presents to us all the potencies received by a given person from his ancestors. But, unfortunately, neither one nor the other scheme was applied by Professor Zavitnevich to A. S. Khomyakov. Meanwhile, how much such an application would promise, at least for the analysis of his character traits, which he received from his mother, Marya Alekseevna, born Kireevskaya, from his grandmother, born Griboedova, etc. Examination of the genus to which the person under study belongs expands this face, as if magnifying it under a microscope in time. But this face can also be “enlarged” in space through consideration of contemporary relatives. If his ancestors are his roots, then his relatives are the branches that grew on the same roots, and some feature that is weakly expressed in a given person, and therefore hardly noticeable, may turn out to be more visible and more taken into account on these branches. But the generally important question of relatives in this case, when we are talking about A.S. Khomyakov, acquires a peculiar significance. The fact is that the Moscow Slavophiles and their closest like-minded people were in close family ties. No wonder observation! But it is rich in significant conclusions. So, for example, this fact of the related structure of the circle of Slavophile figures explains the close cohesion of the Slavophiles with some special friendliness, which we will not find in Westernizing circles, which rely more on unity in the theoretical program than on the natural ties of their fellow members. In this particular feature of the Slavophile circle, the strange, at first glance, closed sphere of dissemination of Slavophile views also finds an explanation; Having quickly, one might say, almost instantly spread in certain circles and finding sudden recognition and enthusiastic appreciation here, Slavophilism not only did not find sympathy for itself in other circles, but simply, even the names of many Slavophiles were not known. Wouldn’t it be correct to say that the border of understanding, and even more so recognition, of Slavophilism almost coincided with the border of the kinship of the Slavophiles? Further, the fact of the kinship cohesion of the Slavophiles also indicates the “material reason” for their views, precisely that important, if you like, exaggeratedly important, place that the Slavophiles theoretically recognized for the kinship, for the friendly proximity of members of society to the detriment of legal, coercive norms. This is where their persistent struggle against the established principles in the Church, in the state, and even in thinking comes from. They, accustomed to breathing the air of kindred compliance, kindred courtesy, that soft lawlessness, without which kinship itself is unthinkable, apparently, it never occurred to them that any social group could be built differently, unless out of malicious intent. Projecting their offices, their living rooms and their dining rooms to the whole world, they would like to see the whole world arranged in a family-like way, like one huge tea party of friendly relatives who have gathered in the evening to talk about some good issue. Thus, Slavophilism can be considered as a life understanding that is truly oriented towards the great (but still not the only!) fact - kinship. Once such an orientation is accepted, it is invulnerable, but outside of it, Slavophilism naturally raises many bewilderments. But, unfortunately, Professor Zavitnevich did not pay attention to this fact, although already in 1911 this kindred cohesion of the early Slavophiles was noted by Prince N.V. Golitsyn 66. “It would not be superfluous to note in passing,” he says, “how numerous were the family ties between most of the figures of the original Slavophilism. Panov was related to the Aksakovs and Valuevs; Valuev was the nephew of A.S. Khomyakov through his wife, born Yazykova. The Khomyakovs, in turn, were related to the Kireyevskys, for the mother of A, S. Khomyakova, Maria Alekseevna, was born Kireyevsky. Finally, the Sverbeevs, not belonging to the Slavophile camp themselves, were the connecting link between the above families: Panov was a cousin of D.N. Sverbeev, since his mother, Maria Aleksandrovna Panova, born Obreskova, was the niece of Sverbeev’s mother, born Obreskova; on the other hand, D.M. Sverbeev was, also on the female side, a second cousin of the Yazykovs and therefore Valuev’s uncle; finally, the Sverbeevs were in property with the Elagins, and therefore with the Kireevskys, as a result of the marriage of Ekaterina Alexandrovna Sverbeeva’s sister, Anna Alexandrovna, with Alexander Nikolaevich Elagin, a relative of Avdotya Petrovna by her second husband” 67. Further, Prince N.V. Golitsyn emphasizes the importance of these family ties in the study of Slavophilism: “This interweaving of family ties gives us the right to conclude that in its initial stage Slavophilism spread among people who were not only close in their class origin and social status, but also more or less closely connected with each other by relations of kinship and property to varying degrees” 68. Prince Golitsyn makes this conclusion, although with the caveat that he does not want to “attribute to this circumstance (family ties) any exceptional significance for explaining the course of the spread of Slavophilism in the first years of its existence” 69. The isolation of the Slavophile circle implied in this kindred cosiness, its incomplete accessibility to strangers, even like-minded people, is partly witnessed by Nikita Petrovich Gilyarov-Platonov 70 . A friend of the Slavophiles, “the only person with whom Khomyakov (by his own admission) recognized his complete agreement” 71, he still felt the edge of separation between himself and the Moscow circle, but since there was no lack of mutual recognition or divergence in the understanding of life, the reasons for the alienation must be sought in something organic. As we will now see, Gilyarov points out this organic element in the Slavophiles themselves. But, on the other hand, from the oral stories of Anna Sergeevna Bukhareva, the widow of Alexander Matveevich 72, we know about the difficult and unpleasantly proud character of Nikita Petrovich; The Aksakov family, who were close to him, pointed out to him his inhospitability and self-employment, 73 and, therefore, some of his complaints below can be explained by his personal characteristics. These are the complaints of N.P. Gilyarov-Platonov in his letter dated February 2, 1866, expressed to Prince Shakhovsky regarding the death of I.S. Aksakov: “... Having arrived from Trinity after Aksakov’s last farewell, I found your parcel and a letter in it; I ran through it; now I’m answering what directly applies to me. “Raise the fallen banner,” is what you write. A visiting foreigner watches the Tsar Cannon and the Tsar Bell in Moscow and is looking for an opportunity to see Katkov and Aksakov. But in the same Kremlin there is a unicorn cannon; they don't talk about it or mention it. I don’t have a great opinion of myself, but, however, I don’t have a small opinion either. But I’m not recognized, that’s what, dear! I am in the position of some Don Carlos. Aksakov valued me, thought me very highly; in many cases I was his authority. Moreover, the late Yu. F. Samarin bowed before me (in my opinion, even beyond what he deserved); For Khomyakov, I was the only person with whom he acknowledged his complete agreement. And yet NN looks either askance or dryly. When Aksakov began publishing Moskva and invited me to write leading articles with unlimited power (I wrote them), he... and never even hinted at me with an offer to co-edit 74. Few even knew that some of the most serious advanced ones belonged to me. So, the unicorn was left in the shadows. I don’t remember, I almost even complained to you that my spirit sometimes collapses when I realize that I have no students, that I am being ignored and that therefore I am useless. The death of Aksakov and the exclamation that I hear - “Raise the banner” - resurrect this thought again. I am ignored, I am silenced, the neo-Slavophiles who were born when I was already in my prime (like Lamansky and Miller 75) have only an external concept of me, they deign to know only by hearsay. The late Hilferding, in the eyes of me, Khomyakov and K. Aksakov - once a boy and student, died exalted and glorified; he was an authority and chairman of the “Slavic Society” 76. I am not an authority for anyone; Not once has anyone named me as a candidate for a prominent social position... “And you would have died, like thousands of others who I don’t know died, but you have friends...”, and so on. This is what Nikolai Pavlovich once said to Samarin, who was brought from the Peter and Paul Fortress to his office 77. Yes, Samarin had friends, and he was the cousin of such and such, the nephew of such and such, and he was not allowed to rot in the fortress. And Aksakov’s social position was such that he could not be lost, like a needle. He was known to the court, Anna Feodorovna lived there 78; comrades and acquaintances at the highest levels of government service, in a word, great connections, and not even just in Russia - this is what gave him the importance of a leader and influence to a certain extent, at least negative. In this regard, Aksakov’s situation will not be repeated, and it no longer depends on me, my dear.” 79 Further, Gilyarov points out the timeliness of Aksakov’s death, for “the ideal of Slavic brotherhood, outlined by him [I. S. Aksakov] teachers [Khomyakov and K. Aksakov] are scattered; The “brothers” respond to open arms with disdain, envy, deceit, and malice... Russian generosity towards the Slavs is abolished by the very circumstances, by history itself. I predicted this back in 1838, I insisted, but who needed to listen to me? This confirms the other side of the kinship of the Slavophile circle - isolation. But even if it did not exist, the fact of kinship connections nevertheless remains, and Khomyakov cannot be considered in isolation from his friends and relatives, as is done by Professor Zavitnevich. This latter leaves almost no attention to the ideological relationship of the Moscow circle. Moreover, Khomyakov is considered separately, apart from his relations with other thinkers and researchers of different directions. Meanwhile, it is self-evident that for a person who was constantly reproached even for unnecessary conversations and disputes, that is, in an eternal mental dialogue, such a study of those with whom he spoke and argued is essential: after all, Khomyakov was not a hermit who, in the solitary Thebaid, formed his view of the world and told about it to future generations, without hearing a response from the world. Without dwelling further on this fact, for further researchers of Slavophilism I present here only a table showing more accurately and more clearly the family ties of the Slavophiles. This table was compiled at my request by F.K. Andreev, who was busy studying the Slavophiles and especially Yu.F. Samarin, and will probably be included in his book about the latter. That is why we would both be very happy if relatives or descendants of the persons listed in it and others who were not included in the table due to the lack of genealogical information about them responded to our call and provided additional information. Speaking about the development of Khomyakov’s personality, Professor Zavitnevich ignores such data that naturally arises as auxiliary materials to fill in the information about the absence of which Zavitnevich complains. So, for some reason, he did not try to find out for us who Khomyakov’s teachers were in childhood and what impact they had on the child, and then on the young man 80. Meanwhile, on page 97 of his book, this question arises by itself. Further, Professor Zavitnevich for some reason does not study either Khomyakov’s handwriting or portraits, although even such a responsible institution as the court uses both to study a person and establish his identity. To study the development of Khomyakov’s handwriting and the changes in his facial features in a series of successive portraits would mean filling in many gaps in the understanding of Khomyakov’s spiritual development, which still remain empty. On page 98 it talks about Khomyakov’s book purchases, and it is indicated that in one year 10,000 rubles worth of books were purchased. The composition of a library deliberately acquired (and this is how Khomyakov acquired books) is highly indicative of the mental interests and outlook of its owner. Professor Zavitnevich somewhere throws in a few words in a note that it would be possible to find out from the Bogucharov library what exactly Khomyakov read. But excuse me, whose responsibility is this if not the researcher Khomyakov himself, and why does he shift it from himself to the reader? Bogucharovo 81 is not in the Himalayas, and rather than invite his reader there, it would be easier for Zavitnevich to go there himself from Kyiv, and, by the way, ask Alexey Stepanovich’s son, Dimitry Alekseevich Khomyakov, for permission to delve into his father’s old income and expense books. In Professor Zavitnevich’s book, especially given its vastness, a huge drawback must be the lack of indexes - nominal and subject, a table of Khomyakov’s “works and days” and various kinds of reference tables and diagrams, which are so necessary in our literature in general, and in particular in books of a historical nature. We hope, however, that Professor Zavitnevich will publish an additional volume in which he will fill these gaps. I would have many more similar questions to Professor Zavitnevich. But, leaving them, as well as his objections to Khomyakov regarding the ancient Russian enlightenment and the nature of the associated folk belief in icons, miracles and in general all sorts of direct manifestations of God’s help (here I would just take Khomyakov’s side, against Professor Zavitnevich, who emphasizes and consolidates Khomyakov’s bias towards immanentism in immanentism, which has already been determined), I will express the result that I have formed while reading the venerable work of the Kyiv professor. Treating the topic he chose with the greatest sympathy, welcoming in his person his passion for Slavophilism in general and the noble personality of Khomyakov in particular, expressing gratitude to the author for his efforts to give a legitimate place in social thought to Slavophilism, we, however, cannot consider his work the final word of Russian theological science about the worldview and personality of A. S. Khomyakov. But Professor Zavitnevich’s book is an important and necessary step in the study of Khomyakov. We hope that either Zavitnevich himself or other researchers, with the help of his work, will be able to come closer to clarifying those issues that the theological and social thought of our time cannot help but deal with. With the intention of discussing the material completeness of Professor Zavitnevich's research, we begin with a review of the sources. On pages 51–58 of the first volume, Professor Zavitnevich lists Khomyakov’s poetic works, and notes where each was published. But now, when D. A. Khomyakov has released a new edition of volume IV of “The Complete Works of A. S. Khomyakov” (Moscow, 1909), these instructions from Zavitnevich must be corrected. Now this volume includes: “Message to the Venevitinovs” (pp. 8–89); “The Immortality of the Leader” (pp. 92–93); “The Desire for Peace” (pp. 94–96); "Youth" and "Prefects" (pp. 96–97); "Elegy on V.K." (pp. 102–103); "Inspiration" (p. 102); “Three Pieces for Farewells” under the title “Three Impromptu Parties for Farewells” (pp. 99–100); "For New Year 1828" (p. 101); “Ermak” (pp. 305–4)8); "Dmitry the Pretender" (pp. 116–292); “Steppes” (p. 98); “Impromptu to M.A.N.” (p. 105); “Imitation of the Ancients” (p. 105); "Confession" (page J05); "Grief" (p. 107); “Conversation with S.S. Uvarov” (p. 106); “Rus.., (A. O. Smirnova)” (p. 105); "Novgrad" (p. 58). But, in addition to those indicated, the new edition of the fourth volume includes those not yet indicated by Professor Zavitnevich: “In the album of V., S. Karamzina” (1832) (p. 108); “To the album of P. A. Barteneva” (1832) (p. 108); Palmer's English translation of three of Khomyakov's poems (pp. 109–112); Finally, we immediately find the passage: “Prokopiy Lyapunov. Scene in Ryazan” (pp. 293–302); a list of poems set to music is also included here (p. 419); On the other hand, some things indicated by Professor Zavitnevich and some even published in magazines, for some reason were not included in the “Complete Works of Khomyakov.” These are: “Vadim” (one of Khomyakov’s early poems), “In the Album to Sister”, “Dumas”, “V. A. Zhukovsky" and, finally, a number of poems, the affiliation of which to Khomyakov, Professor Zavitnevich is not sure and about which, in his words, "we have no information." A list of them is given on page 58. Apart from Novgrad, none of them were published in the Collection. Connoisseurs of Khomyakov, of course, will be grateful to Professor Zavitnevich for the valuable list, on the compilation of which he worked a lot; but they would, of course, be even more grateful if Professor Zavitnevich contributed to the publication of these poems. On page 65 of the first volume, Professor Zavitnevich lists articles that were not included in Khomyakov’s “Works.” But they were all now included in the new edition of the third volume (1900): “On Architecture” (pp. 474–481); “On the Rural Community” (pp. 459–468); "Answer... regarding the publication of Daskolov’s article” under the title Greco-Bulgarian feud (pp. 454–457); "A Note on England" (pp. 469–471). The only thing we didn’t find here was “Messages to the Serbs from Moscow.” But, in addition, in the same third volume, not indicated by Professor Zavitnevich: “About Prince V. G. Madatov” (pp. 472–474); “From the letters of A. S. Khomyakov to Princess S. A. Madatova” (p. 474); “Lending Banks are closed. What are the consequences of this? (page 481482); “The experience of improving winter roads by pointing” and an English description of Moskovka, with drawings (see Supplementary, pp. 1–11). Next, Professor Zavitnevich has a series of memoirs of contemporaries about Khomyakov and the literature of the subject. A lot of additions could be made here, but we will only note a few. In the first place we put here “An excerpt from the notes of Yu. F. Samarin”, reported by Baroness E. F. Raden and delivered to the editorial office of the “Tatev Collection” by O. A. Novikova - an excerpt of the greatest biographical importance and in its specific weight is worth entire books about Khomyakov. This is almost the only evidence of Khomyakov’s inner life, moreover, of the most subtle movements of his soul, recorded by a friend and student and not intended for publication at all. Due to the little known nature of this passage, I consider it necessary to quote it in full. Here it is: “...Khomyakov understood Christian Revelation as the living, continuous speech of God, directly addressed to the personal consciousness of each person, and listened to it with intense attention. Our conversations often touched on this topic and on the general question of the significance of Providence in the history of mankind, a people or an individual, but he never brought me into the realm of my own inner feelings. Only once was it possible to penetrate into the secret of this continuous conversation between him and God. This conversation is so deeply etched in my memory that I can repeat it almost word by word. Having learned about the death of Ekaterina Mikhailovna, 82 I took a leave of absence and, having moved to Moscow, hurried to see him. When I entered his office, he stood up, took me by both hands and for some time could not utter a single word. Soon, however, he regained control of himself and told me in detail the entire course of the illness and treatment. The meaning of his story was that Ekaterina Mikhailovna died, contrary to all probabilities, due to a necessary confluence of circumstances: he himself clearly understood the root of the disease and, knowing firmly what means were supposed to help, contrary to his usual determination, he doubted using them. Two doctors, not recognizing the disease, the signs of which, according to him, were obvious, fell into a grave mistake and, through incorrect treatment, produced a new disease, first depleting all the strength of the body. He saw all this and yielded to them, etc. After listening to him, I noticed that all this seemed obvious to him now, because the unfortunate outcome of the illness justified his fears and at the same time erased from his memory all the other signs on which he himself probably based his hope of recovery. I added that by now reproducing the entire course of the disease in his own way and in reverse order of consequences to causes, he is only exposing himself to fruitless torment. Then he stopped me, taking me by the hand: “You didn’t understand me: I didn’t want to say at all that it was easy to save her. On the contrary, I see with crushing clarity that she had to die for me, precisely because there was no reason to die. The blow was directed not at her, but at me. I know that she is better now than she was here, but I forgot myself in the completeness of my happiness. I neglected the first blow; the second is such that it cannot be forgotten.” His voice trembled and he lowered his head; after a few minutes he continued: “I want to tell you what happened to me. Several years ago, I came home from church after communion and, unfolding the Gospel of John, I attacked the last conversation of the Savior with the disciples, after the Last Supper. As I read, these words, from which a stream of boundless love flows with a living spring, came to me more and more strongly, as if someone was pronouncing them next to me. Having reached the words you are my friends, I stopped reading and listened to them for a long time. They penetrated right through me. On this I fell asleep. My soul felt unusually light and light. Some force lifted me higher and higher, streams of light poured from above and washed over me; I felt that a voice would soon be heard. Trembling ran through every vein. But in one minute everything stopped; I cannot tell you what happened to me. It was not a ghost, but some kind of impenetrable curtain that suddenly fell in front of me and separated me from the region of light. I couldn’t make out what was on it; but at the same moment, like a whirlwind, all the idle moments of my life, all my fruitless conversations, my vain vanity, my laziness, my attachments to everyday squabbles flashed through my memory. What didn't happen here! Familiar faces with whom God knows why I got along and broke up, delicious dinners, cards, a game of billiards, many things that, apparently, I never think about and which, it seemed to me, I don’t value at all. All this merged together into some kind of ugly mass, fell on my chest and pressed me to the ground. I woke up with a feeling of crushing shame. For the first time I felt like a slave to the bustle of life from head to toe. Remember, in passages, it seems John Climacus 83, these words: Blessed is he who has seen an angel; a hundred times more blessed is he who has seen himself. For a long time I could not recover from this lesson, but then life took its toll. It was difficult not to lose myself in the completeness of the undisturbed happiness that I enjoyed. You cannot understand what this life together means. You are too young to appreciate it." Here he stopped and was silent for some time, then added: “On the eve of her death, when the doctors had already hung their heads and there was no hope of salvation left, I threw myself on my knees in front of the image in a state close to frenzy and began not only to pray, but to ask her from God. We all repeat that prayer is omnipotent, but we ourselves do not know its power, because it rarely happens to pray with all our soul. I felt such a power of prayer that could melt everything that seemed to be a solid and impassable obstacle: I felt that God's omnipotence, as if summoned by me, was meeting my prayer and that the life of a wife could be given to me. At that moment the black curtain fell on me again, what happened to me the first time was repeated, and my powerless prayer fell to the ground! Now all the charm of life has already been lost for me. I can't enjoy life. Joy was available to me only through her, as what consoled me was reflected on her face. All that remains is to fulfill my lesson. Now, thanks to God, I won’t need to remind myself of death, it will go with me inseparably until the end.” “I wrote down,” Yu. F. Samarin continues, “this story from word to word, as it was preserved in my memory, but, having re-read it, I feel that I am not able to convey the calmly concentrated tone in which he spoke to me. His words made a deep impression on me precisely because it was in him alone that not a shadow of self-delusion could be assumed. There was no person in the world who was so disgusted and uncharacteristic of being carried away by his own sensations and yielding clarity of consciousness to nervous irritation. His inner life was distinguished by sobriety - this was the predominant feature of his piety. He was even afraid of tenderness, knowing that a person is too inclined to take credit for every earthly feeling, every shed tear; and when tenderness came over him, he deliberately doused himself with a stream of cold mockery, so as not to allow his soul to evaporate in fruitless impulses and to direct all its strength back to business. That everything that he told me really happened to him, that in these two minutes of his life his self-knowledge was illuminated by a revelation from above - I am as sure of this as I am of the fact that he was sitting opposite, that he, and not anyone else, spoke to me. His entire subsequent life is explained by this story. The death of E.M. produced a decisive turning point in her. Even those who did not know him very closely could notice that from that moment on his ability to get carried away by anything that was not directly related to his calling had cooled. He no longer gave himself free rein in anything. Apparently he retained his former cheerfulness and sociability, but the memory of his wife and the thought of death did not leave him. How many times have I noticed from the expression of his face how this thought interrupted the cheerful stream of his good-natured laughter. His life was divided into two. During the day he worked, read, talked, minded his own business, and gave himself to everyone who cared about him. But when night came and everything around him settled down and became silent, another time began for him. Here memories of the previous bright and happy years of his life rose up, the image of his late wife was resurrected before him, and only in these moments of complete solitude did he give vent to restrained melancholy. Once I lived with him in Ivanovsky 84. Several guests came to see him, so all the rooms were occupied and he moved my bed to his place. After dinner, after long conversations, enlivened by his inexhaustible gaiety, we lay down, extinguished the candles, and I fell asleep. Long after midnight I woke up from some talking in the room. The morning dawn barely illuminated it. Without moving or uttering a voice, I began to peer and listen. He was kneeling in front of his traveling icon, his hands were folded in a cross on the chair cushion, his head was resting on his hands. I could hear suppressed sobs. This continued until the morning. Of course, I pretended to be asleep. The next day he came out to us cheerful, vigorous, with his usual good-natured laugh. From the person who accompanied him everywhere, I heard that this was repeated almost every night...” 85 To the above story by Yu. F. Samarin, P. I. Bartenev adds the following: “In the general government of Count Zakrevsky 86, janitors were ordered to take turns going to the transit premises of criminals exiled to Siberia, to help those guarding them. Khomyakov's janitor, returning home, said that two exiles recalled their exploits in front of him and said that they were detained near Tula, intending to rob the master's estate. As night fell, they hid in the bushes and waited for the lights in the manor house to go out. They waited for a long time, but in one room the candle was still burning; They came closer and through the window they saw someone on his knees praying, and he prayed until dawn, when they were grabbed by the awakened people. The janitor asked what estate they were caught in and found out what A.S. Khomyakov had in Bogucharovo. “Our master was saved from robbery by prayer,” said the Khomyakov servants.”87 To this important evidence about Khomyakov’s inner life should be added a letter from I. S. Aksakov to Countess A. D. Bludova, 88 written under the impression of Khomyakov’s death. In this letter, both the reverence for Khomyakov of the entire circle of Slavophiles and the suspicious attitude towards him on the part of the government come out with great prominence. This letter is from Vienna and dated Monday, October 31 (November 12, BC) 1860. These are the words in which I. S. Aksakov expresses his grief: “You and I, Countess, have nothing to say to each other about the enormity of our loss, nor about the greatness of the misfortune that has broken out over us, over all of Russia. – Never taking the position of the head of the party or a teacher, Khomyakov, of course, was not only our leader and teacher, but also a constant, inexhaustible source of spiritual living power, vital, fruitful, so to speak, building thoughts. A sage with an infantile simplicity of soul, an ascetic, constantly illuminated by the holy joy of the soul, a poet, philosopher, prophet, teacher of the Church - Khomyakov, as in the order of things, was appreciated by very few during his lifetime, but his importance will grow every year. His word still resounds, rushing through modern generations to future generations. I don’t know how it is in Russia, but here this news deeply upset all thinking, educated Slavs. This news caught us in Vienna; I hid this from my brother for two weeks until I gradually prepared him 89. Therefore, only yesterday we were able to celebrate a public memorial service for Khomyakov in our church. We published in the local Fremdenblatt the announcement that I am sending you and which was nailed to the church doors on Sunday a week before. There were no other invitations. On the appointed day, just yesterday, the church was filled with representatives of all Slavic tribes, not only Orthodox, but also Catholic and Uniate. After the liturgy, Mikhail Feodorovich Raevsky served a memorial service with sincere feeling and with all possible solemnity. Unfortunately, he did not have time to write his beautifully conceived sermon on the text “Fear not, little flock” and therefore no word was spoken. There were also Galicians who knew by heart all of Khomyakov’s poems to Kyiv; and the Czechs who remember his message to Hanka 90; other Slavs, also not forgotten and named in Khomyakov’s poems. There wasn’t just you know who? Russians! Of course, my brother and I were here, but as Russian writers. The Slavs here were accustomed to connecting the idea of ​​Russia with its official representation and therefore were amazed, upset, embarrassed, scandalized by the fact that not a single official was in the church! And among them there are Orthodox Christians who go to church, and besides, it was Sunday! This was no accident. The embassy manager, Knorring, found it indecent to serve a memorial service for Khomyakov in the Embassy Church and forbade his officials to attend the memorial service. But this diplomatic behavior of his took on the character of a sharp demonstration, the character of a protest that made a strong impression on the Slavs. “What were we supposed to do to answer their questions?” We were put in a very awkward position: the Slavs saw that government Russia not only did not respect Russian poets, but even openly, publicly showed them complete contempt. But this is not enough. They thought that this contempt applied specifically to that poet and writer who was a preacher of the idea of ​​Slavs; therefore, they explained, this contempt extends to the idea itself and to all Slavs! No, they say, when it comes to publicity, Russia will always be ashamed of us in the face of the world! Of course, we tried in every possible way to correct the matter, blaming illness and misunderstandings, but, in essence, the Slavs are right! I know (but this is between us), Knorring then called the priest to him and formally reprimanded him in front of all members of the embassy. Isn't it sad? And what are they afraid of! Demonstrations! “But not even a sermon was delivered, but those present, having listened to the requiem piously, immediately dispersed, but the demonstration was organized by the Russian embassy...” 91 Is it about Knorring? Another researcher answers this: “People close to the tsar and who had weight, even influence, frightened with unrealistic fears, tried to undermine the well-intentioned aspirations of the Slavophile party in the eyes of the sovereign and the entire administration and tried in every possible way to stop the movement that had begun in favor of the people. The largest of all representatives of this trend is Stroganov 92. And here, for example, is what he writes to his brother, Count Al. Gr. Stroganov 93 to Odessa: “Slavophiles extol the dawn of a new life for Russia and look at the founding of a community as the first step in retreat from Peter’s reforms. Khomyakov said the other day that after this first step, the second should be the release of the beard and caftan, so that the people would know that the government is looking for its salvation at the beginning. You see that this is Orthodox socialism! At the same time, the luminaries argue that if the nobility for so many years did not manage to strengthen itself as an independent class, then it has proven its insignificance and does not deserve to be supported. The movement of minds is generally remarkable, and I fear that if we carelessly stirred up one institution, we would shake the whole building... It seems to me that sooner or later, we will have to take up this (!) remedy, as they do with spoiled children" 94 . The anonymous poems against Khomyakov that circulated in his time characteristically express an unkind, even malicious, mood against Khomyakov, which was fueled even by what, in good faith, he had no reason to be excited about. Professor Zavitnevich cites the first verses of one of these lampoons, but in a sense completely opposite to their true meaning, as if Khomyakov’s versatility was approved in them. These poems are completely, in many ways, modern, even purely. Doctor, painter and philologist, Communities of Russian publicist – You are wise as a serpent, as pure as a dove. All this knowledge in oneself He predicted progress in Russia: Here, you say, is your golden age! And you and I lived together, You have captivated many of us with your words; But the color of your hopes has faded. So, my serpent, so, my dove, Shouldn't we throw him into the hole? All this rubbish, all this rubbish, What fascinated Moscow ladies? Shirt, murmolka, undershirt They didn’t work out: we feel awkward about them. Well, my dove? What should I do, my snake? And to drive away worldly boredom, A flock of sheep, your people. 95 will make your mouth open again. Another poem of the same kind. And that great man, oh my friend Khomyakov, What a cunning scheme was planned against England. Who in her wanted to break the connection between the altar and the throne? A zealot of the ancient eastern law, All-destroying, and he fell in this struggle, And the best fresh leaf of his crown withered 96. Let us also add that, according to D. X., the above poem, and therefore this one, belongs to the pen of Dmitry Nikolaevich Sverbeev 97, a Westerner of a moderate liberal direction 98. Not only moderate liberals, but also revolutionaries—Khomyakov’s contemporaries—failed to see anything good in Khomyakov. On March 26, 1849, Petrashevite A. N. Pleshcheev 99, having visited Moscow, wrote a letter to S. F. Durov 100 outlining his Moscow observations. Here is something from there that relates to the Slavophiles: “I turn to smart people. There are many of them here. All of them, as someone put it, are for a common cause. However, there are those who do...” 101 Regarding this place, Pleshcheev gave the following explanation to the question of the investigative commission: “Here I used the word smart people, speaking about the Slavophiles, so-called and enjoying this reputation in Moscow... I meant to lie for a common cause in the sense that all Slavophiles there have their own theory, consisting in some kind of desire to get closer to the people, from whom we are supposedly too estranged in morals and clothes. They consider this theory to be their common cause; It is known that some even wear Russian folk costumes with a beard. To lie for a common cause was said about them in mockery, for they, except for a very limited circle, have no followers... Most of the people who enjoy the reputation of being smart in Moscow spend their lives in disputes that lead nowhere... 102 About Moscow society,” Pleshcheev continues his letter, “one can notice that here there are much more well-read and correctly looking at things than in St. Petersburg. Slavophilism has a very limited circle of proselytes. Their luminaries: 1) Khomyakov, who has no similar gift for chatter in all of Rus'. A man without serious convictions, as they say, but very educated, very smart, able to make himself listen. Encyclopedist type. 2) Aksakov (K.S.) is a fanatic...”, etc. 103 We found two pieces of evidence about Khomyakov’s foreign assessment. The first of them, dating back to 1855, is given by Archpriest I. I. Bazarov: “The Grand Duchess (Olga Nikolaevna, in Stuttgart) returned in June from St. Petersburg 104, and our ordinary life in Stuttgart began again. At this time, at the request of Her Majesty, I translated into German Khomyakov’s pamphlet, which appeared in French under the title: “Quelques mots d’un chrétien orthodoxe aux confessions occidentales.” My translation was deliberately published in Frankfurt so as not to give the impression to the Germans that the future Queen of Wirtemberg was interfering in the church dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches. Written very boldly and intelligently, Khomyakov’s pamphlet attracted the attention of German theologians and aroused, at least from Protestants, reviews in which one could hear the consciousness of the truth expressed to them by an Orthodox non-theologian” 105 . But in 1874, the Germans treated Khomyakov much less favorably. “Russian singers and prophets,” we read in one of the magazines of that time, “were in anticipation of strange events; not to mention the satirical poems in which the expected enemies - the British and French - were pursued with more or less wit, the poet Khomyakov, recognized and celebrated by his supporters as a genius, especially stood out from the general environment. With very limited positive knowledge, this young writer possessed an unusually ardent imagination, which also represented to his imagination in the past the completely illusory history of Russia; Of his poems, one in particular (known as “Vision”) is remarkable for its strange content. The poet sees in the fog in the morning a mountain crowned with palaces and churches; a procession of the cross rises to it; the procession consists of the clergy in vestments established by the Greek Church, with beards, according to the requirements of its law; they are followed by a believing crowd; everywhere in this procession a Greek cross can be seen; clergy and crowd sing psalms in Slavic; the poet sees and feels that he is in Russia, but he recognizes the mountain as Gridshen in Prague; he (?) rises in the midst of Russia, and the whole beautiful country that he gazes out from there is Russia, professing the Orthodox religion and subordinate to the Orthodox Tsar. Such poems passed from hand to hand and aroused delight everywhere” 106 107 . Some messages by N. A. Melgunov 108 are not without interest. Slavophiles - Khomyakov and Shevyrev - considered him a “one-sided Westerner”; he is “on errands with the Fryags,” Shevyrev wrote about him 109 to Pogodin 110 . Melgunov himself did not recognize himself as such. And this is how he defines his position in two letters to Shevyrev: “You find a place in my system, but I don’t find a place in yours. I'm an exile. For me, you are alchemists looking for gold in Russian history. You won’t find gold, but you will come across a lot (!) of good and useful things and, most importantly, awaken a thirst for self-knowledge in Russians. This is your inalienable (!) merit. And therefore - peace to you! Give your hand, and let everyone work to the best of their ability for the glory of humanity." 111 And here is some information from Melgunov directly about Khomyakov: “...Khomyakov has just arrived from the village. He spent the summer in the Caucasus. Until Christmas, he intends to live as a recluse: he has a new tragedy in his soul. The first action has already been written, but he has not shown it yet. Wonderful fellow: it’s a pity that the sophist is such that there is no urine. But these are sophisms not of a philosopher, but of a poet, and I forgive him. However, I would like to see him together with Baratynsky 112. They never spoke to each other: I am sure that if they meet and argue, they will at least somewhat recover from the passion to be original, contrary to truth and conviction. Nothing corrects one’s own shortcomings in someone else’s – this is a glorious mirror...” 113 In another letter he says: “...We Muscovites, as usual, do nothing. Pavlov 114 still cannot finish his story. Khomyakov has started a very serious and extensive work, he says that he will start in the village; we'll see. I just doubt it” 115. Two months later, on January 1, 1839, Melgunov tells Shevyrev how mutual Moscow friends celebrated the New Year with burnt food and champagne. There was also Khomyakov, who had just arrived, but did not write anything; “...talks about farming, about which he knows nothing” 116. May 15, 1847: “This morning Khomyakov and his wife left for St. Petersburg, where they intend to take a passport to foreign lands. Last night we saw him off, and now we think that he is already on his way to North Babylon. You will find changes in him, but in his appearance the fact that he looks like he’s being sold to an attorney with wine deals” 117 118. Count P. A. Valuev 119, in his Diary, dated January 27, 1859, notes: “Khomyakov’s poems to the pious philanthropist (At the midnight hour near the stream) in the almanac “Morning”, they say, is addressed to the sovereign” 120. In a letter to Gogol dated May 14, 1844 (from Moscow), A. O. Smirnova 121 notes: “Khomyakov is so smart that nothing can be said about his soul; one can, however, confidently say that his heart is good” 122. Let us give two more testimonies about Khomyakov as a poet from such a prominent poet as G. A. Baratynsky, from his letters to I. V. Kireevsky: “About the tragedy of Khomyakov (we are talking about Dmitry the Pretender - P. F.), - we read in a letter from the beginning of 1832, - you only wrote to me that it was over. Tell me more about her. My brother, to whom Khomyakov read it, writes to me from St. Petersburg that it is far superior to Boris Pushkin, but does not say anything why one could form an idea about it. I rely on you for this” 123. On May 30, 1832, Baratynsky again worried about the same work: “I can’t imagine what Khomyakov’s tragedy is. Dmitry the Pretender is a thoroughly historical figure; Our imagination inevitably gives him a physiognomy consistent with the legends of the chroniclers. Idealizing him is the height of art. Byronov Sardanapal is a hazy face, to which the poet could give the expression he wanted. There is no one to say: it doesn’t look like it. But we all seemed to have seen Dmitry, and we judge the poet as a portrait painter. The genre chosen by Khomyakov is extremely fascinating: it represents a wide frame for poetry. But it seems to me that Ermak is better off than Dmitry. Will he publish his tragedy soon? I can’t wait to read it, especially since its publication contradicts all my concepts and I hope to gain completely new poetic impressions from it” 124. Both letters are from the wilderness, from the Kazan village of Baratynsky. The lack of information about Khomyakov in his youth prompts a particularly high assessment of every line from the memories of his contemporaries about him. Such lines were left, by the way, by D. N. Sverbeev. Here are some passages from his “Notes” 125. December 14, 1825 caused numerous rumors. Sverbeev was in Paris at that time and was forced to listen to liberal conversations that contradicted his then political views. “But,” he notes, “the stories that reached me about Russia from General Shatilov, who lived with me in the same hotel, the conservative Golokhvastov and the young, less restrained than the first, Khomyakov, despite all the caution of our daily talk, somewhat shook the firmness of my convictions.” 126 Talking about his time in Paris, he adds another significant touch to Khomyakov’s appearance: “In the mornings,” Sverbeev says about himself, he willingly hung out with the verbose Khomyakov, a peculiar young man, who even then, without even knowing it, prophesied to Russia that there was a man of genius in him. At this time, Dmitry the Pretender read with him excerpts from his second, forgotten by everyone, tragedy. His first tragedy was called Ermak. Both were overextended, but both had a lot of thought and poetry in them. At the same time, he took lessons in oil painting and painted from models, often from sitters, which greatly amazed me, who knew the virginal purity of his morals, and he was then barely twenty years old. However, the invincible strength of his character was also expressed by strict adherence to paternal and Orthodox traditions. Arriving in Paris at the beginning of our Great Lent, I, as an eyewitness, testify to his future biographers how strictly this twenty-year-old youth observed our fast in noisy Paris, during the entire duration of which he absolutely did not eat anything, neither dairy nor even fish, and Shatilov and Golokhvastov, who lived with him, said that he did not allow himself a small meal at ordinary times and on Wednesdays and Fridays. But the love for the Slavs and the passionate love for Russia did not yet come to him at that time” 127. On December 26, 1846, the poet Yazykov died, a few hours before his death he ordered a funeral dinner for himself and demanded that there be a lot of wine on it. An ugly funeral orgy began. But Khomyakov, as Sverbeev noted, was only “modestly present” 128. Finally, it is worth mentioning the curious, albeit extremely strange, judgments expressed about Slavophilism by Sverbeev in “Memoirs of P. Ya. Chaadaev” 129 130. We also find something concerning Khomyakov in the “Diary” of A.V. Nikitenko 131. In 1832, on April 3, A.V. Nikitenko writes: “I read Khomyakov’s tragedy Dimitri the Pretender. No, Khomyakov absolutely has no dramatic talent. No character is created as it should be; no action; just conversations that could be cut in half without any damage to the integrity of the play. The poems are very good. But drama requires not words, but deeds” 132. On February 24, 1852, he again mentions the name of Khomyakov, in connection with the death of Gogol. An interesting detail: the impetus for Gogol’s dying illness and the burning of his papers was the death of Khomyakov’s wife, which greatly alarmed Gogol 133 . On April 28, 1852, Nikitenko writes: “There is commotion in Moscow again. A collection was published there by Khomyakov, Kireevsky and Aksakov, in which, they say, very strong things were printed... Khomyakov’s poems are even stronger. There is already a lot of talk about the collection in the public. Clouds are gathering: there will be a thunderstorm. Who is to blame? 134 January 20, 1856: “At an evening with the minister [A.S. Norov 135], I met one of the horse breeders of the Moscow Slavophiles, Khomyakov. He appeared in the minister's hall in a Armenian jacket, without a tie, in a red shirt with a slanted collar and with a murmur hat under his arm. He spoke incessantly and mostly in French - as befits a representative of the Russian nationality. His meeting with me was somewhat strained, for he, not without reason, suspected me of being a Westerner. But I hastened to throw a board at my feet and his, on which we could easily meet. He came here to ask for permission to publish a Slavophile magazine, and I addressed this subject directly, saying that nothing could be more desirable than for everyone to have the opportunity to express their convictions. This immediately loosened our tongues, and we began to reason without fear of bumping heads somewhere. He is smart, but, it seems, without what is called in his mind" 136. On March 31, 1861, Nikitenko writes about dinner with Count Bludov 137: “The Countess admired Khomyakov’s poems, but Annenkov 138 did not find anything good in them” 139. FAMILY RELATIONS OF THE EARLY SLAVICHILES The table is compiled mainly from the genealogical collections of the book. P. Dolgorukova. V.V. Rummel and V.V. Golubtsov, book. A. B. Lobanov-Rostovsky, P. N. Petrov and the “Russian Genealogical Book” published by “Russian Antiquity”, as well as according to the notes of the book. N.V. Golitsyn to the “Diary of E.I. Popova” and D.A. Khomyakov to the letters of A.S. Khomyakov, “Notes of D.N. Sverbeev”, “Chronicle of Recent Antiquity”, Vol. Obolensky-Neledinsky-Meletsky and other genealogical and historical research. Alexey Andreevich Elagin, according to the testimony of Prince. N.V. Golitsyn (see, “The Diary of E.I. Popova,” Introduction, p. XIII), is a relative of Alexander Nikolaevich Elagin - brother-in-law of D.N. and E.A. Sverbeevs, but we, unfortunately, were not able to establish the degree of their relationship; and according to researchers. for example, P. N., Petrova (see “History of the families of the Russian nobility, vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1886, p. 366), information about the family of the Elagin nobles is “very incomplete”: to this day they are limited to the genealogy “... issued in 1789, to the state councilor Lev Vasilyevich Elagin.” In the letters of Gogol (close to the Elagin family) it is mentioned “old man Vasily Elagin”, traveling abroad in 1843, but we were unable to establish what relationship he had with A.A. and A.N. Elagin. “Absolute Christian consciousness” is the main position of Mr. Khersonsky. If we add here that he energetically denies this consciousness to Khomyakov, but strenuously ascribes it to himself, obviously without suffering from false modesty, then it is not difficult to understand the purpose of his essay. Namely: “Our task,” says the author in the Preface to his work, “was to show that Khomyakov’s social teaching does not meet the height of the requirements of Christian religious freedom” (pp. V–VI). Thus, Mr. Khersonsky’s essay, from beginning to end, consciously and deliberately, is a prosecutor’s speech, and its task is not to understand Khomyakov’s teaching, but to convince the reader of his condemnation, a foregone conclusion before any research. G. Khersonsky does not study Khomyakov, and is even inattentive to his authentic works to such an extent that he did not notice the main idea of ​​Khomyakov’s entire teaching - about the need for specific forms to embody the absolute beginning of life and, instead of accepting or motivatedly rejecting this most important side of Slavophilism, he attributed to Khomyakov a simple and naive absolutization of conventional forms. G. Khersonsky not only does not discuss the problem of symbol, meaning this word in a broad sense, but does not even suspect its existence. But this means that he did not even approach the circle of thoughts in which alone the teaching of the Slavophiles can and should be considered, and his reasoning can be likened to counting on fingers, used in solving problems of higher analysis. This presentation of Khomyakov by Mr. Khersonsky may seem convincing only to those who have never seen Khomyakov and other Slavophiles, and is in fact a smoothly written libel on Slavophilism. Compiled from the point of view of “absolute Christianity,” such a “presentation” misses the real meaning of Khomyakov’s teaching. It is clear that, having turned Khomyakov into a blind idolater of Rus' as a simple historical fact, Mr. Khersonsky easily trumpets victory. But such a victory over Khomyakov did not even require that consideration of Khomyakov that we find in the work under review. If Mr. Khersonsky is convinced that his “freedom” is constrained by any form, as such, as if he had proven somewhere the dualism of internal freedom and external form; if indeed, “from the point of view of Christian love, for him (the Christian) any political system is too small, no matter how ideally it is built” (p. 172); if it is true that “a Christian could be satisfied only with such social relations in which there would not be the slightest coercion, no state duties necessarily associated with the dominance of some and the subordination of others” (pp. 172–178); if the author “does not understand” “how a conditional form can be an expression of an absolute spiritual ideal” (p. 100), as if his reader must believe in advance that the conditional is not conditional because it is subordinate to the unconditional, which forms it, but because it is conditional, which is absolutely incompatible with the absolute, that is, it is itself a negative unconditional; if, according to Mr. Khersonsky, “Christian teaching is never adequately expressed in any external everyday forms, institutions, moral precepts” (p. 132), so that even the Church has to be considered “as a historically everyday society” (p. 132), and if the defense of any external certainty leads the Church “to the path of Old Believer provincialism” (p. 133); if recognized Khersonsky that “religiously sanctioning conventional forms is possible only through a misunderstanding” (p. 134); if he often insists, to the point of importunity, throughout the entire essay about Christianity’s indifference to family, social and other norms of life; if the introduction of Christian principles into the field of social relations seems to him “fatal” even for the theory of the Slavophiles (p. 99) and if the law is “completely not subject to ethical Christian assessment” (p. 92); if, according to Mr. Khersonsky, “the Christian God does not interfere with the course of natural-historical life” (p. 168) (as if this course is the destiny of the Demiurge or Satan!), etc.; if, in a word, the entire area of ​​concrete life, according to his convictions, is not subordinate to a higher spiritual principle, the divine world, but is independent of it and even opposite to it, then what could Mr. Khersonsky, with such a premise, say about Khomyakov? Of course, only that “Khomyakov lacked this (that is, Solovyov’s or Chaadaev’s, as, in turn, Solovyov and Chaadaev 140 lacked this, that is, the absolute, assimilated by Mr. Khersonsky) breadth of religious worldview” (p. 72); that Khomyakov’s (isn’t it generally Russian and Orthodox?) “idea of ​​autocracy, as a manifestation of popular asceticism and Christian humility,” is a “dreamy-fantastic” idea (p. 75); that “he reduces personality to the level of a simple means for expressing the spiritual content inherent in the folk organism” (p. 79); that for Khomyakov “Russian life lays claim to absolute Christian dignity” (p. 93), etc. Khomyakov’s conviction that only on the soil of Orthodoxy can Christian science, Christian art, Christian law develop and that Western culture must disintegrate, of course evokes a pathetic exclamation from Mr. Khersonsky: “These are the strange claims that the confusion of national and religious principles leads Khomyakov to.” (page 94). In general, Khomyakov confused everything, mixed everything up and did not know how to distinguish where the distinction was clear as day to Mr. Kherson; This happened because of the insufficiency of Christian consciousness. Thus, “Khomyakov lacked awareness, like all Slavophiles in general, of the truth that the element of nepotism is not at all included in the focus of Christian vision” (p. 110); “Khomyakov makes no basic distinction between Christianity and the theocratic Jewish religion” (p. 118); “Khomyakov lacked that height of Christian consciousness at which the positive value and dignity of the individual lies in spiritual freedom from any externally conventional forms of life” (p. 118). Moreover: “...the introduction of the Christian principle into the limited sphere of social relations must inevitably lead to an insoluble antinomy: the absolute Christian principle of goodness, being introduced into someone else’s sphere of conditional relations, leads to obviously unsuitable goals” (p. 102). “We must admit that in the leadership of the right, society achieves more lofty goals than when the Slavophiles use the Christian principle,” which reinforces conventional forms that become “a brake on the path of progress” (p. 104). Mr. Khersonsky’s main objection to Khomyakov, repeated dozens of times, is that Khomyakov allegedly mixed Christianity with conventional forms of worldly life, which is why in general either “the secularization of Christianity occurs, or the curtailment and restriction of natural forms of life” (p. 22). Ultimately, the basis of Khomyakov’s views is not the desire for truth, but an egoistic commitment to one’s own. This, according to Mr. Khersonsky, became clear from the development of the Slavophil teaching “in the person of Katkov 141, Danilevsky 142, Leontyev 143 and contemporary representatives of nationalism, who are always ready to praise and defend everything Russian not for its goodness, but because everything Russian is sweet to them, because it flatters their national pride. Gershenzon also applies the same measure of nationalism to the old Slavophiles...” (p. 28). (Truly, in the dispute about Orthodoxy, the only thing missing here was Mr. Gershenzon! Compare similar references on pp. 30 and 70–71.) This accusation of confusion, even almost without modification, is repeated so many times that after reading the work of Mr. Khersonsky, one is left surprised not that such an Old Believer got it right, but that such a stupid landowner, who has not seen anything in his life except some Bogucharov, was honored to be examined with eyes accommodated no closer to infinity. It is clear, further, what happens from Khomyakov’s confusion. By mixing Christianity with everyday life, “Khomyakov constrains the freedom of the Christian spirit and reduces Christianity to the level of socio-moral prescriptions” (p. 28). “The desire to somehow combine the historical everyday way of life with the religious vocation of the people prevents Khomyakov from objectively facing historical facts” (p. 38), and he even reaches such obvious absurdities as the doctrine of a special predisposition of the Russian character and way of life to accept Christianity. (Although, let us note in parentheses, it is most natural to assume that a certain character and a certain way of life predispose more than others to the adoption of Christianity, just as there may be a character and a way of life that are most alien to Christianity. Khomyakov may be wrong when speaking specifically about the Russian character and way of life; but one must be a blinded fanatic of “absolute consciousness” in order to see the absurdity here in principle.) Meanwhile, Mr. continues his reasoning. Khersonsky, these supposedly Christian properties of the Russian people are explained more simply - by the raids of nomads; “two centuries of slavery instilled in the people’s character that humility that is associated with the conscious virtue of Christian humility” (p. 39), while “Christianity as a religion is absolutely spiritual and could develop more quickly on the basis of spiritual freedom and independence” (p. 39). How the pen turns in the hand of Mr. Kherson to make a blot on the clothes of his native people! But if he were factually right, then, firstly, why does he not admit the Christian educational significance of suffering, and secondly, why “spiritual (is freedom from the Tatar yoke a spiritual freedom?) freedom and independence” can contribute to the development of Christianity, while oppression turns out to be ineffective. According to the meaning of the doctrine of “spiritual freedom,” it would be necessary to say that both oppression and independence are equally indifferent to the Christian consciousness, and not condescendingly make exceptions for the latter. However, below we will see that this is done by Mr. Khersonsky is not at all accidental, for his true pathos is not at all the claimed spiritual freedom, about which, of course, he cannot know anything, but the most ordinary individualism and humanism, covering up its real moves with talk about the absoluteness of its goals. But let’s return to the objections to Khomyakov. “In the same way, historical stagnation explains the economic form of communal ownership that has been so delayed in our country, in which the individual is afraid to live and work for his own sake and puts the world in response for everything. To Khomyakov, this primitive economic form seemed to be the implementation of the highest Christian principle of love, combining the interests of the world and society” (p. 39). But not only that, Khomyakov also gets confused in theoretical constructions. “The mixture of methods, fatal for the theory of the Slavophiles - religious and scientifically positive, leads Khomyakov into the impenetrable jungle of scientific fabrications” (p. 38), to object to which would be beneath the dignity of “absolute Christians” and even to get acquainted with which Mr. Khersonsky considered for himself, apparently, unnecessary. He limits himself to the statement: “The scientific method is unduly constricted by religious tendencies and will justly excite discontent both on the part of the champions of positive science and the zealots of the true interests of religion” (p. 39); the representative of both in this case, obviously, should mean the author himself. These are Khomyakov’s fundamental misconceptions. But if they are so obvious, then, obviously, it is not a great honor to discover the true path, according to the recipe “quite the opposite.” If Khomyakov confuses everything, then everything must be separated: if “Khomyakov strove to base all forms of social life on faith” (p. 51), then we must, therefore, strive to ensure that all of them were grounded outside of faith. In short, to the word “Christianity” we must add epitethon ornans “absolute” and then safely forget about the existence of any kind of Christianity. This will be the true social and ethical theory. Khomyakov needs to understand that any “forms of social life are such group connections of people that can remain neutral in relation to the intimate religious life of a person” (pp. 41–42), and that “the state develops according to its own natural laws” (p. 61, note 1). “Khomyakov strives to substantiate the forms of social life on Christian principles, thus ignoring the path of gradual independent development of the rules and norms of human social relations, changing them in a new way, spiritually (?) perfect” (p. 64). So, the point is not about the freedom of Christian consciousness, but about the freedom of life from Christian demands. Christianity is declared absolute so that, by kindly shuffling in front of it, this unpleasant master of life can be led somewhere into the void and live independently of him. This is the long-known struggle of humanism against asceticism, the struggle of a protesting person against the Church, the struggle of the world against God. But Mr. Khersonsky also wants justification for his theory from Christianity itself. “Christianity,” he says, “does not know and does not preach its more sublime forms of life, except those that are developed by the human mind. It brought with it the most radical liberation (!) of natural life from the ascetic control of faith, leaving the human mind to arrange the world itself” (p. 169). “The first and most important natural good is the feeling of life, the good of animal existence; and it is worth taking care of” (p. 123). “Christianity does not present social life with any new paths, but allows it to develop according to its own original principles” (p. 170). “In the development of social relations, the Christian gives complete freedom to the human mind” (p. 173); “Christianity retains behind itself only the general direction of social progress, constantly pushing it forward and never being satisfied with the measures achieved” (p. 174)). Trying to build a life on the commandment of Christian self-denial means “trying to crush under the oppression of the ascetic commandment the very foundations of social forms, which can only be supported by the beginning of wisely used egoism, and not Christian self-denial” (p. 165). “The social theory, based on the theological Christian principle of love, with its ethereal nature, is inapplicable for the organization of earthly relationships” (p. 28). Human community “can exist in humanity apart from any religion. But Khomyakov sought to base all forms of social life on faith... In this area, he could not have any doubts” (p. 51). “No, if we allow the Christian universal principle into social life,” exclaims the author, trying to lead the doctrine of the Christian state to absurdity a fortiori, “then it would be more consistent to accept not the conciliatory theory of Solovyov, which allows compromises with everyday conventions, but the radical point of view of Tolstoy, who, setting himself the same task as the Slavophiles in relation to the social life of the Christian principle, consistently came from here to deny the most forms of social life: family, state and all culture in general” (pp. 153–154). “From the outwardly formal side, gospel morality is expressed in the form of an absolute commandment: be perfect, just as your Heavenly Father is perfect. In such an absolute expression, the Christian commandment loses all applicability to social forms of life... It is clear that to build social life on such a commandment, to try to make it the law of social relations, means to introduce excessive rigorism into life, to try to crush the very foundations of social forms under the oppression of the ascetic commandment” (p. 165). The latter would mean “burdening social life with a burden beyond its strength” (p. 166). Mr. Khersonsky insists on this idea many times. But the more he insists on this denial of the Christian community and the Christian state, the more persistently the question arises in the reader’s mind as to what, in fact, the author himself thinks on those issues for which he reproaches the Slavophiles for attempting a Christian solution. Is it really nothing? He demands freedom from Christianity for the public and the state; but does he really need this freedom only in general, without knowing how to use it? If with such exactingness he seeks the possibility of self-determination, self-legitimacy, self-affirmation of a person as a member of society and the state, then is it really possible that some positive solution to socio-political issues is not presented to his thoughts? G. Khersonsky, understandably, does not find it necessary to explain the methods of this solution, as being outside his topic. But the nature of his reproaches to Khomyakov shows quite clearly that the subject of his concern is not the absoluteness of Christianity, but something for which it was not worth discussing either Khomyakov or Christianity, much less the “absolute”. “Khomyakov strives to substantiate the forms of social life on Christian principles, thus ignoring the path of gradual independent development of rules and norms of human relations and replacing them with a new path, spiritually perfect” (p. 64). This “gradual independent development of rules and norms of human relations” should, according to the author, lead to socialism; inattention “to this latter is Khomyakov’s true fault. Khomyakov’s attitude towards socialism is definitely negative; nevertheless, socialism, not as a worldview, of course, but as an economic theory of a more equal distribution of earthly goods, could deserve attention, but not from Khomyakov” (p. 95). “We must agree,” the author expresses in a tone of irritation an idea that seems self-evident to him, “that every social group is a limited conditional form of community life, which can only pursue interests that are purely earthly, temporarily conditional, limited” (p. 100). But if so, then there is nothing to discuss further. “The negative attitude of Khomyakov and Dostoevsky towards socialism, in the name of the highest motives of love for humanity, is in itself quite instructive” (p. 102) as an example of the fact that “the absolute Christian principle of goodness, being brought into the alien sphere of conditional relations, leads to obviously unsuitable goals” (p. 102). For Mr. Khersonsky, the denial of socialism is a deliberately worthless goal, the last word to prove the worthlessness of religious sentiment. How does the author himself live? Does absolute Christianity or faith claim to have “conditional relationships”, but not those defended by Khomyakov, but some others, not subject to the “ascetic control of faith”? And isn’t this criterion of Mr. Khersonsky proof that his speeches about spiritual freedom and the height of Christian consciousness, previously unknown to Christians, are empty rantings that cover up a modest but firm faith in this world, closed in itself and self-sufficient, impenetrable to spiritual forces and opposed to the “Christian God”? “The religious thought of the ancient world could not reach that height of religious flight at which the spirit ceases to be attracted by the earth and acquires royal freedom, regardless of external forms of life... Meanwhile, Christianity is a completely new, highest religious level, at which a person with royal freedom begins to be completely indifferent to the very forms of conventional life” (p. 164). Is the author taking on too much? Royal freedom is the fruit of achievement, and not a naked claim, and it does not consist in indifference to forms of life, but in the power that spiritualizes them. Imaginary indifference is usually preached not in the name of freedom of the spirit, but in the name of the freedom of fallen flesh lying in sin. That is why the criticism of Khomyakov, given by Mr. Khersonsky and developed not at all in application to Khomyakov specifically, but in general in relation to any theory of Christian society, does not inspire confidence. As for the actual study of Khomyakov, it is presented in the work being analyzed very insufficiently, and the author, apparently, did not set such as his task. However, Mr. Khersonsky’s essay is written smoothly and, in its way, skillfully; he read some of the literature, although little related to the topic; Mr. Khersonsky’s thought is not distinguished by its depth, but is persistent in pursuing a certain thesis. The degree of candidate of Kherson can be awarded. V. V. Zavitnevich. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov. T. I. Book. I. Kiev, 1902, p. XIV. XVI + 866 + XIII + 1422 + 866 + VIII + VI + XVII + 306 = 1788 pp. The ideas of A. S. Khomyakov are scattered throughout his articles and letters; with the exception of the small work “The Church is One,” in which the thinker summarized his views on the Church, and three volumes of the unfinished “Notes on World History,” he did not leave a work in which his views were expressed systematically. The book by V.V. Zavitnevich has not lost its significance to this day as an example of a consistent presentation of Khomyakov’s worldview. – hereinafter notes compiled by R. Tempest. Later supporters of Slavophilism wrote about A. S. Khomyakov, one of whom was V. V. Zavitnevich, as well as such Orthodox writers as S. Bulgakov, N. Berdyaev, L. Karsavin and S. Frank. The most “Slavophile” part of the spiritual heritage of A. S. Khomyakov is his theological ideas, and it is on them that P. A. Florensky dwells in his review. This phrase expresses the views not only of Khomyakov, but also of Florensky himself. B. V. Zavitnevich. Decree. cit., vol. I, book. I, pp. XVI. N. A. Berdyaev. A. S. Khomyakov. M., Put, 1912, p. 42. V. V. Zavitnevich. Decree. cit., vol. I, book. I, page ix. N. Berdyaev speaks “of the captivating aesthetic completeness” of Khomyakov’s character and views. (See N. Berdyaev. Alexey Stepanovich Khomyakov. M., Put, 1912, p. 30). V. V. Zavitnevich. Decree. cit., vol. I, book. 1, pp. VIII–IX. According to N. Berdyaev, Khomyakov was “strong to the ground” (see N. Berdyaev, op. cit., p. 41). There was nothing complacent about him: he was a zealous, even stingy, landowner (Khomyakov called himself Papa Grandet), demanding of his serfs. V.I. Semevsky showed that the standard of living of Khomyakovsky peasants was significantly lower than the average for the province (see V.I. Semevsky. The peasant question in Russia in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries. T. II. St. Petersburg, 1888, pp. 397–399). Khomyakov sets up a distillery on his estate and treats peasants with homeopathic medicines; he was an excellent hunter and an expert on canine breeds; one of his articles is about dogs and hunting. Khomyakov invented: a gun with a longer range than conventional ones; a seeder, which he sent to the world exhibition held in England; a cure for cholera. A. S. Khomyakov called the religions of freedom “Iranian,” and the religions of necessity “Cushitic”; his philosophy of history, expounded in Notes on World History, is an attempt to show the struggle of the Iranian and Kushitic principles throughout the past of mankind. Iranian religions are spiritual; in them the deity is revealed as a person, the free Creator of the world; The Kushites believe that the gods created the world out of necessity; Kushiteism always led to pantheism - either "nihilistic" like Buddhism, or "substantial" like Saivism. The snake is a Kushitic symbol, while the Iranian principle is always hostile to snakes; Thus, Hercules fights the Hydra, Apollo fights Python, Vishnu-Krishna fights the dragon. Kushiteism found its expression in the fine arts, and especially in architecture, while Iranianism found its expression in literature, for when the human soul realized the meaning of free thought, it felt the need for poetry. Kushiticism (with the exception of Buddhism) led people to religious materialism, and then faith became “fetishism,” prayer became a “spell,” and ritual became “witchcraft,” having the same “material force” as natural phenomena. In the field of abstract thinking, the Iranian principle is associated with synthesis, the Kushitic one with analysis and rationalism (for logic belongs to the realm of the necessary); in public life, Iranianism found its embodiment in a natural community based on the free association of people, while Kushism created the state - a conditional and artificial organization. Iranian civilizations, always in need of renewal “by the private efforts of great minds,” are relatively weak, while Kushiteism is strong in that it is not subject to distortion, for it itself “contained an extreme distortion of human nature” (A. S. Khomyakov. Complete works in eight volumes. 4th ed. T. VIII. M., 1910–1914, p. 329). In his Notes, Khomyakov divided the peoples into Iranian and Kushite; The cradle of the former was Iran, the latter - Ethiopia. The ancient centers of Kushite civilization were Babylon, Egypt, China, South India and Kashmir; in Greece and Rome, although the essence of their civilization was predominantly Iranian, the Cushitic element dominated, for in the presence of an admixture of Cushiticism in Iran, no matter how small it may be, Cushiticism always wins: spiritual freedom must be absolute - any concession to necessity leads to its destruction (ibid., vol. V, p. 250; vol. VI, p. 124) In the pre-Christian world, only the Jews were faithful to the pure Iranian principles (ibid., vol. V, p. 341). Christianity, Khomyakov wrote, was not so much a revelation of new truths as a “return to forgotten teachings”, to “pure worship of the Spirit” (ibid., vol. V, p. 341). Christianity, however, is the triumph of the Iranian principle only in the sphere of spirit, but not in the historical arena, where its arrival did not resolve the eternal struggle between the Iranian and Kushite principles. The Slavs belong to the Iranian race; among Russians the spirit of Iranianness is most strongly expressed; the Poles betrayed Iran and the Slavs (ibid., vol. V, p. 186). The Germans are also an Iranian people, but due to certain tribal traits they came under the influence of Cushiteism; Hegelianism is his triumph; the Latin peoples are even more deeply infected by it; in England, however, the truly Iranian qualities of the ancient Teutons were better preserved than in other areas of Europe. The “notes” end at the beginning of the Middle Ages, when the Slavic peoples had just begun to form states. N.V. Ryazanovsky showed that Khomyakov’s historical concept was influenced by the views of Friedrich Schlegel (see Nicholas Riasanovsky. Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles. Harvard University Press, 1952), who in his “Philosophy of History” divided humanity into two races - Cainites and Sephites; the former were the exponents of the carnal will, the latter – the divine; but Schlegel did not reduce all history to the struggle of these two races. Spiral and vortex are P. Florensky’s favorite “dialectical” images. Neo-Kantian movement, the most important representatives of which were Hermann Cohen (1842–1928), Paul Natori (1854–1924) and Ernst Cassirer (1874–1945). The philosophers of the Marburg School tried to create a system of pure knowledge based on the philosophy of Kant and Kant's interpretation of Plato; they emphasized the a priori, non-empirical and non-psychological content of cognition, viewing it as a purely logical process of constructing concepts V. V. Zavitnevich. Decree. op., vol. 1, book. 1, pp. 35–49. The history of this term is as follows: it was invented back in 1809 by K. Batyushkov as a “mocking nickname” applied to the school of “archaists” of that time (see P. Ya Vyazemsky. Complete works. T. VIII. St. Petersburg, 1882, pp. 28–29.) “For my part, I am ready to accept this name and admit it willingly: I love the Slavs...” - wrote Khomyakov (op. cil., vol. I, p. 97). However, his like-minded people did not like this word. Thus, K. Aksakov speaks of “the nickname Slavophile, which was very awkwardly applied to the Russian direction”; we find the same opinion in A. Koshelev: “This nickname does not at all express the essence of our direction” (see V. A. Koshelev. Aesthetic and literary views of Russian Slavophiles. L., 1984, pp. 6–7). Neither Russian nor Western researchers of Slavophilism have ever agreed on who - Khomyakov or Ivan Kireyevsky - should be considered the head of this movement. Mikhail Gershenzon attached the main importance to Kireyevsky (see M. Gershenzon. Historical notes. M., 1910, p. 36); N. Berdyaev considered Khomyakov “the stone of Slavophilism” (see N. Berdyaev, op. cit., pp. 24–25): ...if we see in Christianity the soul of the Slavs, then primacy will need to be recognized for Khomyakov. Throughout his entire life, Khomyakov carried an unshakable church consciousness, a Christian faith as solid as a rock, was not tempted by anything, was not wavered by anything, did not experience any crisis... We see that in this the views of Berdyaev and Florensky coincide. Gershenzon’s opinion was shared by T. Mazarin (see his “Spirit of Russia”) and Alexandre Koyr é. Eludes sur l’histoire de la pensée philosophique en Russie. Paris, 1950), Berdyaev - A. Gratier (A. Gralieux. A. S. Khomiakov et le mouvement slavophile. Vol. 1–11. Paris, 1939) and N.V. Ryazanovsky, who, however, attaches secondary importance to the question of Khomyakov’s primacy among Slavophiles; A. Walicki places Kireevsky, as an original philosopher, above Khomyakov, but admits that Khomyakov was the “leader, organizer and popularizer” of Slavophilism (see Andrzej Walicki. The Slavophile Conlroversy. Oxford University Press, 1975, p. 181). Metropolitan Anthony, in the world A.V. Vadkovsky, in 1887–1892. was the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy; in 1893 appointed head of the commission for the reunification of the Eastern and Western Churches; in 1897 he represented the Russian Church at festivities in England on the occasion of the anniversary of the reign of Queen Victoria; elevated to the rank of metropolitan in 1898. Author of “On the History of Christian Preaching.” Essays and Research" (1892) and other works. Anthony, Archbishop of Volyn (since 1906), in the world Alexey Khrapovitsky, Orthodox theologian and religious philosopher; teacher, inspector and rector of the Moscow and Kazan Theological Academies. Received a master's degree for his dissertation “Psychological evidence in favor of free will and moral responsibility” (1888); for the three-volume collected works published in 1911, he was awarded the degree of Doctor of Theology. Anthony, whose views were strongly influenced by Slavophilism, called for the creation of an original Eastern theology based on the ancient Fathers of the Church and the text of liturgical books. Sergius, Archbishop of Finland and Vyborg (since 1905), Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' (since 1943), in the world John of Stragorod. Author of works: “Christianity in China and Japan” (1892–1893), “Orthodox teaching on salvation” (1895; master’s thesis), “Eternal life as the highest good” (1895), “Across Japan” (1899). The purpose of the founded H.H. Neplyuev in 1894 of the Holy Cross Labor Brotherhood was Christian education of children; all those who graduated from agricultural schools under the brotherhood joined it and became either teachers or tenants of the Neplyuev family estate in the Glukhov district of the Chernigov province. This implies Tolstoy’s rejection of the authority of the Church, which can be derived from Khomyakov’s concept of conciliarity, and his denial of the sacraments, which, despite its cruder form, is reminiscent of Khomyakov’s criticism of the Catholic attitude to rituals as something “miraculous.” This refers to Khomyakov’s immanentism (the term Florensky uses below), that is, his opinion that the internal church consciousness is the only criterion of truth, and his non-recognition of the idea of ​​​​the authority of the Church: “The Church is not an authority, just as God is not the authority, Christ is not the authority; for authority is something external to us” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 54). The perception of divine truth is a matter of mutual Christian love, and only that; to seek the guarantee of comprehending truth in something external, and not in love, means to fall into rationalism, but “the powers of reason do not reach the truth of God, and human powerlessness becomes obvious in the powerlessness of evidence” (op. cit., vol. II. p. 7). Khomyakov called the ritual “free poetry of symbols or words” (op. cil., vol. II. p. 177), in which faith itself is clothed. Catholicism, he wrote, attaches excessive importance to the ritual side of religion (op. cit., vol. I, p. 128): ...Romanism, insisting on the essence of the sacrament, that is, on the reality of the transformation of earthly elements into a heavenly body, interprets, according to its invariable habit, spiritual action as purely material and humiliates the sacrament to the point that it turns in its concepts into some kind of atomistic miracle... But Protestants are no less mistaken than Catholics (ibid., pp. 101–102): ... Protestantism, deprived of the support of tradition and the moral guardianship of the Church, which has turned for it into a pure abstraction, must inevitably remain with the Bible alone as the only guide... No matter how great the participation of the Spirit of God in the book of Holy Scripture, this book is still a human work, at least in appearance. Without the Canon, the Bible does not exist, and outside the Church there is no canon. Protestantism emphasizes the spiritual content of faith, neglecting the ritual, but rituals play an important role in the church tradition; changes in them should be introduced slowly and “organically”, with the consent of the entire Church, that is, both the clergy and the laity. Patriarch Nikon was right in his desire to correct distortions in church books, but the authoritarian way in which he acted was wrong. The Old Believers are representatives of the “material” (that is, Catholic) attitude to the rite, the Molokans, with their denial of its meaning, are Protestant. According to Khomyakov, Holy Scripture is immanent in the universal consciousness of the Church, for truth cannot be expressed in words. Disagreements about the authorship or authenticity of biblical texts are meaningless: the degree of their accuracy depends on the acceptance of the text by the conciliar consciousness of all members of the Church: “Every scripture that the Church recognizes as its own is Holy Scripture” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 9). “Khomyakov believed that the change made in the sixth century in the West to the Creed (Filioque) expressed only the private opinion of Western bishops: by changing the Symbol, the Western Church violated the law of love and doomed itself to “rationalism,” since it placed reason at the foundation of the Church. The Roman Church chose unity without freedom - and a purely external and material unity, the expression of which was the papacy. The principle of Catholicism is the principle of hierarchy and subordination of believers to the authority of the Church. Protestantism chose freedom without unity; it was a protest of the individual against authoritarianism, but it was a negative and narrowly rationalistic protest. Instead of materialistic rationalism, Protestants offer idealistic rationalism; they understand freedom as a purely external phenomenon; in Protestantism a person is even more alone than in Catholicism. Protestantism gave rise to philosophical idealism, which in turn gave rise to atheism and materialism. Western feudalism is a product of Catholicism, while “the whole modern history of Europe belongs to Protestantism, even in lands reputed to be Catholic” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 149). This is what Samarin called Khomyakov in the Preface to the first posthumous edition of his theological works (op. cit., vol. II, p. XXXVI). “As Prof. Walitsky, Khomyakov was more of an ecclesiologist, that is, a researcher of the structure and role of the Church, than a theologian: the history of dogmas and their content occupied him only insofar as they were for him a symbolic expression of the essence of the Church (see below Florensky’s remark that Khomyakov, when discussing the Eucharist, “bypasses” the term “transubstantiation”). The leaders of the Orthodox Church disagreed with his rejection of the hierarchy in the structure of the Church and its division into those who teach and those who are taught; The paradox of Khomyakov’s creative fate lies in the fact that until 1879 his theological works were banned in Russia and had to be published abroad, and mainly in French. “It is interesting to note that there are many similarities between Khomyakov’s views and the theological works of Hegel, which were first published in 1909. In his criticism of Catholicism, Hegel uses the same arguments as the Russian thinker: he speaks of alienation from the structure of the Church, its legal character and, based on this, its “external” relationship to the individual (see A. Walicki, op. cit., p. 193). The same paradox is also found in Karamzin, who in “A Note on Ancient and New Russia” (1811), addressed to Alexander 1, reproached the autocrat for weakening the autocracy (see I.M. Karamzin. A Note on Ancient and New Russia. St. Petersburg, 1914, p. 126). M. N. Katkov (1818–1887), publicist who became after the Polish uprising of 1863–1864. the main spokesman for conservative ideas in the Russian press; he viewed the state as the most perfect expression of the character and political interests of the Russian people; By “statists” in this review we mean Katkov, Leontyev and their like-minded people. Hieromonk Iliodor, in the world Sergei Trufanov, is a Russian spiritual and political figure of an extremely reactionary direction; during the first Russian revolution he conducted propaganda against Jews, foreigners and intelligentsia and called for pogroms; He was engaged in healing the sick and driving out demons from cliques and epileptics. In October 1912, he stated that he repented of his activities, asked for forgiveness from the Jews and renounced his faith in the Orthodox Church, after which he was stripped of his hair. The above-mentioned book by N.A. Berdyaev, for some of its assignments (“Khomyakov and We”), is more suitable for the type of work that our time needs. But, unfortunately, this book, in its own way not devoid of sharpness of thought, is not entirely churchly, and not sufficiently detailed. Florensky’s critical approach to Khomyakov’s ideas largely anticipates the analysis of Khomyakov’s worldview, proposed in the thirties by Father A. Pawlowski, who stood on the position of orthodox Catholicism (cf.: A. Pawlowski. Idea Kosciola w ujeciu rosyjskiej szkoly teologii i historiozofii. Part II. Warsaw, 1935; A. Walicki, op. cit., p. 200). Khomyakov believed that the secret of the harmonious reconciliation of freedom and unity, which was lost in the West, was preserved in the Orthodox Church, which remained faithful to the traditions of early Christianity. The term “conciliarity” expresses the essence of this voluntary and organic unity under the shadow of God’s grace. Khomyakov believed that the definition of “conciliar” accurately conveys the original Greek meaning of the word “Catholic,” so he refused to call the Western Church Catholic and used terms such as “Romanism” and “Latinism.” In Khomyakov’s understanding, the Church Council expresses the idea of ​​“unity in plurality” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 312). It should be emphasized that, speaking of the “entire Church,” the thinker did not at all mean the arithmetic sum of all members of the Church; conciliarity is not church parliamentarism (this feature of Khomyakov’s worldview has eluded some Catholic researchers of the Russian thinker’s work, for example, Father Pavlovsky). On the other hand, by freedom in the Church he understood not the “Protestant” freedom of every believer, but the freedom of the entire Church as a supra-individual organic whole. Based on the concept of conciliarity, Khomyakov viewed the “invisible” Church not as an institution or doctrine, but as the embodiment of the Holy Spirit. He said that church consciousness is a gift from God. In the Third Letter to the Anglican theologian William Palmer, he even claims that if all Anglicans “became completely Orthodox, accepted the Symbol, and beliefs completely similar to ours,” but did this “as a logical conclusion,” “as the prey of reason,” then “everything would be lost” (op. cil., vol. II, p. 353). Many modern researchers have come to the conclusion that Khomyakov’s doctrine of conciliarity was influenced by the ideas of I. A. Moehler, who belonged to the Tübingen Catholic school. Representatives of this school were most interested in church history, the task of which they considered to be the depiction of the Church in its origins and internal development. The Tübingen school fought against the ideas of the Enlightenment and against Protestantism, advocating, however, not for the restoration of the scholastic church of the Middle Ages, but for a return to the traditions of early Christianity (Khomyakov also called for it). In his essay “Die Einheit der Kirche oder das Prinzip des Katholizismus” (“Unity in the Church or the Principle of Catholicism”; 1825 and 1843), Mehler contrasted the “ecclesiastical egoism” of heretics and Protestants, who represent a “multitude without unity” (die Vielheit ohne Einheit), with the Catholic principle of “unity in plurality” (die Einheit in der Vielheit), which is the key to harmonious reconciliation of the individual and the general group. On Mehler's influence on Khomyakov, see: A. Pavlovski, op. cit.; S. Tyszkiewicz. La Théologie moehlerienne de l'unité et les théologiens pravoslaves. Paris, 1939 (ed. P. Chaillel); G. Florovsky. Paths of Russian theology. Paris, 1937, pp. 278–280; S. Bolsha koff. The Doctrine of the Unity of the Church in the Works of Khomyakov and Moehler. London, 1946, p. 127; A. Wahcki, op. cit., p. 192–193. Here Florensky obviously has in mind Kant’s opinion that faith is a consequence of purity of thought; Kant rejected speculative theology and did not attach much importance to religious institutions; believers must realize that they are members of the Universal - invisible - Church. The last, fourth, period in the development of the philosophy of Friedrich Schelling (1775–1854) began in 1809, when he began work on his “positive philosophy,” that is, the philosophy of religion. Schelling divided the history of Christianity into three eras, which he named after the main apostles. In the era of Peter, the Church was united, but this unity was forced and external. In the era of Paul, the unity of the Church is destroyed, and the spirit of freedom penetrates it. In the coming era of John, church unity will be restored on the basis of freedom and inner enlightenment. Peter is the representative primarily of God the Father, Paul is the representative of God the Son, John is the representative of the Holy Spirit. Ludwig Feuerbach (1804–1872) viewed religion as the most important manifestation of man's inherent anthropomorphism, that is, the desire to project himself outward. A person has an inherent desire to idolize his own ideals; it awakens as a result of the sharp contrast between what is and what should be. A believer, as it were, doubles and contemplates his own essence in the face of God; religion is the “unconscious self-knowledge” of a person. Feuerbach denied personal immortality, considering only the tribal consciousness to be immortal. Some of Khomyakov’s statements are reminiscent of Feuerbach’s teaching on the psychogenesis of religious faith: “the sky of all mythology is... the negation of the earth, and the anger of people is expressed by the anger of the gods” (op. cit., vol. V, p. 200); Khomyakov also speaks of “the language of religion, which transfers into the invisible sky the laws that govern the visible world of the earth and its visible ruler, man” (ibid., vol. I, p. 217). Auguste Comte (1798–1857), founder of positivism and the new positivist religion. The subject of this religion is humanity as the one and true Great Being (le Grand Etre). All individual souls, past, present and future, through love for him and through union with each other form an inner subjective unity, or soul of the Great Being; bad people cannot be part of the Great Being, unlike useful animals that help earthly humanity. Comte's religion of humanity had its own calendar (which included Adam Smith, Joseph de Maistre, Frederick II of Prussia, Dante and Shakespeare) and its positive catechism. Here is what Herzen wrote about this in “Past and Thoughts” (A. I. Herzen. Complete works in thirty volumes. T. IX. M., 1954–1966, pp. 156–157): ...Khomyakov was a truly dangerous opponent; a seasoned old master of dialectics, he took advantage of the slightest distraction, the slightest concession. An unusually gifted man, possessed of terrible erudition, he, like the medieval knights guarding the Virgin Mary, slept armed. At any time of the day or night, he was ready for the most intricate argument and used everything in the world for the triumph of his Slavic views - from the casuistry of Byzantine theologians to the subtleties of a resourceful legalist... And in his diary for 1844, Herzen writes about Khomyakov’s “cunning” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 397). Florensky, unlike Herzen, did not doubt the intellectual integrity of the thinker. This remark by Florensky is especially apt. Indeed, Khomyakov believed that infallibility is an attribute of the entire Church, and found confirmation of his view in the Letter of the Eastern Patriarchs to Pope Pius IX, which was written in response to the encyclical “In suprema Petri ApOSlolica Sede” (May 6, 1848). The thinker called the Epistle of the Patriarchs “the most significant event in church history for many centuries” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 61), especially emphasizing its position, which stated that in Orthodoxy neither the patriarchs nor the Councils have the right to introduce changes, since “the very body of the Church,” that is, the people themselves, is the guardian of piety (ibid., p. 61). Cp.: op. cit., vol. II, p. 36. ...After many collapses and disasters, the Russian people by general council elected Mikhail Romanov as their hereditary sovereign (such is the high origin of imperial power in Russia), the people entrusted to their chosen one all the power that they themselves were vested with, in all its forms... Prof. Walitsky notes that Khomyakov was well aware of the possibility that the Russian tsars could be charged with “Caesar-papism” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 36): ...By virtue of election, the sovereign became the head of the people in church affairs, as well as in matters of civil government; I repeat: the head of the people in church affairs (author’s discharge - R. T.) and in this sense - the head of the local Church, but only in this sense. The people did not and could not transfer to their sovereign such rights as they themselves did not have... The people took part in the election of bishops; he had “the right, or, more precisely, the duty, to ensure that the decisions of the Church are carried out”; he had to defend his faith against its enemies; he could transfer these rights and responsibilities to the king. “But the people had no power in matters of conscience, general church deanery, dogmatic teaching, church administration, and therefore could not transfer such power to their king.” The “cunning” for which Herzen reproached Khomyakov is manifested when he writes that, just as Nikon was deposed “not by the will of the sovereign, but by the court of the eastern patriarchs and domestic bishops,” “later, in the place of the patriarchate, a Synod was established; and this change was introduced not by the power of the sovereign (i.e. Peter I - R. T.), but by the same eastern bishops...” (op. cit., vol. II, p. 36). Teleologism is a characteristic feature of Khomyakov’s thinking. The Jerusalem Council of 1672 under Patriarch Dositheus recognized the “Orthodox Confession” compiled by Kiev Metropolitan Peter Mogila as the symbolic book of the entire Eastern Church. Irenaeus of Lyons. Against heresies, Book. IV. M., 1868, p. 185. Irenaeus of Lyons - Father of the Church of the second century, bishop of the city of Lyon. Saved the Church from division into Western and Eastern under Pope Victor 1. Noumenon is a term in medieval and modern philosophy that, in contrast to the term “phenomenon,” denotes the intelligible. A. S. Khomyakov Complete Works Ed. 5th T. 11. M., 1907, p. 14. Wed ibid., p. 131. approx. 3. Arians are followers of the Alexandrian priest Arius (died in 336), who taught about the inequality of the Son of God with God the Father. At the Councils of Nicaea 1 The Nestorians are a Christian sect that followed the views of Nestorius, who became the Patriarch of Constantinople under Emperor Theodosius II (428). Nestorius taught that the Virgin Mary should not be called the Mother of God, but “the Mother of Man” or “the Mother of Christ,” for she gave birth not to God, but only to a man who, through the influx of the Holy Spirit, became Christ. Ibid., p. 131, note. 3. At the Council of Antioch in 341, the Eusebians, followers of the bishops Eusebius of Nicomedia and Eusebius of Caesarea, who sympathized with Arius, composed four formulas about the “unity” of God the Father and God the Son; at the same time, the word “consubstantial” was replaced by the word “godlike”. The Poluarians, who began to be called that after the Council of Ancyra (358), recognized the Antiochian dogmas. J. Kimmel. Monumenta fidei Ecclesiae Orientalis, Jenae, 1850, pars 1, pp. 458–463. – For the Russian translation of the “Confession” of Patriarch Dosifei, see: Kostroma Diocesan Gazette. T. VIII, 1894, Nos. 18 and 19, unofficial part. Gnostics are representatives of a heretical sect of early Christians who combined Christian theology with the religions of the Ancient East, as well as with Neoplatonism and Pythagoreanism. For Gnostics, matter is the source of evil; it is opposed by the spiritual unknowable principle, which manifests itself in outflow (emanation). Patriarch Dosifei. Decree, cit., ch. XVII. E. J. Kimmel. Op. cit., pars I, p. 462. Alogism is the denial of the role of logic in knowledge. “Menaia Mena” contains prayers for each saint individually; these prayers are arranged by month and day in twelve books. John Chrysostom (347–407) is one of the Fathers of the Church, the author of more than 1000 sermons, of which 804 are known, and an interpreter of the Holy Scriptures. His rational exegesis, alien to allegory, is considered classic in Christian literature. Thus, in “Response to the Definition of the Synod,” Tolstoy wrote: “I consider all sacraments to be base, rude, incompatible with the concept of God and Christian teaching, witchcraft and, moreover, a violation of the most direct instructions of the Gospel” (see: L. I. Tolstoy. Collected Works in twenty volumes. T. XVI. M., 1960–1963, p. 545). Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky). Collection of lectures and articles on pastoral theology. M., Ed. "Religious and Philosophical Library", 1909, p. 18. Compare: “When the Latins give the cup to all believers, they will undoubtedly take a huge step towards the truth” (A. S. Khomyakov, op. cit., vol. 11, p. 180). V. V. Zavitnevich. Decree. cit., p. XIV. “General armorial of the noble families of the All-Russian Empire, begun in 1797.” Part six, 22. I department. - There's a drawing right there. We also point out that Count A. Bobrinsky, in his study “Noble families included in the General Armorial of the All-Russian Empire,” Part I, p. 626, noted three Khomyakovs who died in 1812–1813. A. T. Bolotov (1738–1833) – author of “Notes”, first published in 1871–1873. The “Notes” were compiled in 1789–1816; they represent a simple-minded, impartial description of the history of the Bolotov family, the author’s own life and the society around him. Characteristic of Florensky is the original interpretation of Slavophilism as a form of its representatives projecting their kinship to the whole world. “From Moscow life of the forties. Diary of Elisaveta Ivanovna Popova. SPb. 1911, Introduction, pp. xii–xiii. N. P. Gilyarov-Platonov (1824–1887) – publicist, publisher of the newspaper “Modern Izvestia” (1867–1887); joined the Slavophiles, working especially closely with Ivan Aksakov. P. Gilyarov-Platonov. Letter to Prince Shakhovsky. – “Russian Archive”, 1889, book. 3rd, p. 267. – The same – in a letter to I.F. Romanov. - “Collected works of N. P. Gilyarov-Platonov.” T. I, p. VII. A. M. Bukharev (1824–1871), Fyodor in monasticism, is a friend of Gogol, author of the essay “Three letters to N. V. Gogol, written in 1848.” (printed 1861). “Diary of V. S. Aksakova,” April 19, 1933, p. 112. – A quotation from the “Diary” and a selection of relevant evidence can be read in the article by F. K. Andreev “Moscow Theological Academy and Slavophiles.” – “Theological Bulletin”, Nos. 10–12, vol. 3, 1915, pp. 599–601. "Moskva" is a daily newspaper published and edited by Ivan Aksakov in 1867–1868. V. I. Lamansky and O. F. Miller - neo-Slavophiles, professors at St. Petersburg University; Lamansky – ethnographer and historian; Miller is a researcher and apologist for Russian folk art. A. F. Gilferding (1831–1872) – student of Khomyakov, historian and philologist, collector of epics. In 1849, Samarin, who at that time was under the Riga governor-general, wrote “Letters from Riga”, in which he discussed the attitude of the Baltic Germans towards Russia; The “letters” were distributed in manuscript. Samarin was accused of disclosing official secrets and spent ten days in the Peter and Paul Fortress; was released after a personal conversation with Nicholas I and transferred to service in the Simbirsk province. At the beginning of 1866, Ivan Aksakov married maid of honor A.F. Tyutcheva, the daughter of the poet. "Russian Archive", 1889, book. 3rd, pp. 267–269. Khomyakov's father, despite his education, was subject to lordly weaknesses; Thus, he lost more than a million rubles at the English Club. As a child, Khomyakov experienced the strongest influence from his mother, a strict and religious woman. “As for me, I know that, to the extent that I can be useful, I owe her both my direction and my steadfastness in this direction...” wrote the thinker (op. cit., vol. VIII. p. 422). It is known that in St. Petersburg, where the Khomyakov brothers moved in 1815, they were taught Russian literature by the dramatic writer A. A. Zhandre, a friend of Griboyedov; later, in Moscow in 1817–1820, they studied together with the brothers D. and A. Venevitinov under the guidance of Doctor of Philosophy A. G. Glagolev, listening to lectures by Prof. at home. Shchepkin in mathematics and prof. Merzlyakov in literature. Khomyakov's estate in the Tula province. Wife of Alexei Stepanovich Khomyakov. St. John Climacus (d. 563?) is the author of “The Ladder,” a guide to monastic life, consisting of 30 conversations about 30 different stages of spiritual ascent to perfection. Khomyakov's estate in the Ryazan province. “Excerpt from the notes of Yu. F. Samarin. (Communicated by Baroness E. F. Raden.) (“Tatev collection” by S. A. Rachinsky. St. Petersburg, 1899.) A. A. Zakrevsky was the military governor-general of Moscow in 1848–1859. P. I. Bartenev. From the notebook of the Russian Archive. - “Russian Archive”, 1908, book. 2nd, p. 167. A. D. Bludova (1812–1891) - writer and philanthropist, daughter of Count D. N. Bludov. That is, from the seriously ill K. Aksakov (who died on December 7, 1860), whom Ivan accompanied on a trip abroad. That is, Khomyakov’s poem “The starless midnight breathed coolness...” (see op. cil., vol. IV, p. 241), written in 1847, shortly after the author’s departure from Prague and sent by him to Vaclav Hanka (1791–1861), a figure in the Czech national revival. The poem was first published in Russian Conversation in 1856 (No. 1) under the title “Dream” together with the Czech translation of C. Stranitsky. "Russian Archive", 1915, book. 2nd, pp. 130–131. – Author’s italics. Count S. G. Stroganov (1794–1882) – trustee of the Moscow educational district in 1835–1847. Count A. G. Stroganov (1795–1891) - in the 50s and 60s. last century was Novorossiysk and Bessarabian governor-general. R. At the dawn of peasant freedom. – “Russian Antiquity”, vol. 93, March, p. 486. Anonymous. - “Russian Archive”, 1890, book. 3rd, pp. 365–366. Anonymous. – Ibid., page 363. "Notes of D. N. Sverbeev." T.I.M., 1899, p. VIII. D. N. Sverbeev (1799–1874) – retired diplomat, author of the famous “Notes”; Slavophiles and Westerners gathered in his Moscow salon on Fridays. The poet A. N. Pleshcheev (1825–1893) was sentenced to death in the Petrashevsky case, commuted to exile in the Orenburg region for eight years. S. F. Durov (1816–1869) – poet. He was sentenced to four years of hard labor and three years of service as a private. The letter was published both abroad and in Russia... but with omissions and inaccuracies. In “The Voice of the Past,” 1915, No. 12, pp. 62–65, part of it was published again in a corrected form by V. I. Semevsky in his article about the Petrashevites. I borrow the text from there, as well as the above information. Where did she go on the occasion of the death of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich. Memoirs of Archpriest I. I. Bazarov.” – “Russian Antiquity”, vol. 106, 1901, p. 57. We are talking here about the poem “The starless midnight breathed coolness...”, about which see note No. 57. "Field Marshal Paskevich in the Crimean War." – “Jahrbücher f. d. deutsche Armee und Marine", 1874, Nos. 35 and 36. (Translation and notes by N. Schilder.) The note shows that the content of the "Vision" is not accurately conveyed. - “Russian Antiquity”, 1875, book. 13th, pp. 608–609.) N. A. Melgunov (1804–1867) – writer and critic. In the 40s occupied a middle position between Slavophiles and Westerners. S. P. Shevyrev (1806–1864) - poet and journalist, professor at Moscow University, where he taught Russian literature. He maintained friendly relations with the Slavophiles and considered himself one. However, in his views he was a representative of the theory of official nationality. Shevyrev was a faithful ally and assistant to M. P. Pogodin (1800–1875), professor of history at Moscow University, publisher of the Moskovsky Vestnik (1827–1830) and Moskvityanin (1841–1856); like Shevyrev, Pogodin was a supporter of the theory of official nationality. Barsukov. Life and works of Pogodin. T. IX. St. Petersburg, 1880–1910, p. 37 A. I. Kirpichnikov. Between Slavophiles and Westerners. – “Russian Antiquity”, vol. 96, 1898, December, p. 570. There is the poet E. A. Baratynsky (1800–1844). Ibid., November, p. 317, note. 2 to previous page (Letter dated November 12, 1831) N. F. Pavlov (1805–1864) – writer, author of “Three Stories” (1835). Ibid., p. 327. (Letter dated November 1, 1838, from Moscow.) Ibid., p. 371, note. 3 to previous page. Khomyakov even went to England in a zipun and a murmolka. Count P. A. Valuev (1814–1890) – statesman, Minister of Internal Affairs in 1861–1868. “The Diary of Count P. A. Valuev.” – “Russian Antiquity”, vol. 71, 1891, p. 269. A. O. Smirnova, born. Rosset, (1810–1882) – friend of Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Gogol; in 1832 Khomyakov dedicated three poems to her (see op. cil., vol. IV, pp. 209–210). "Russian Antiquity", vol. 67, 1890, p. 211. Letters from E. A. Baratynsky to I. P. Kireevsky. No. 34. – “Tatev collection” by E. A. Rachinsky. St. Petersburg, 1899, p. 44. Ibid., letter No. 36. p. 46. "Notes of Dmitry Nikolaevich Sverbeev (1799–1826)." T. II. M., 1899, p. 308. D. N. Sverbeev. Notes. T. II. – “Russian Archive”, vol. 87, 1868, pp. 397–404. Sverbeev saw the roots of Slavophilism in Uvarov’s formula “Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationality”; According to him, Russia was drawn into the Crimean War due to the fact that the Slavophiles inflated “popular arrogance.” A. V. Nikitenko (1804–1877) – censor and critic, author of the famous “Diary”. A. V. Nikitenko. Diary. T. I. 1905, p. 221. A. S. Norov (1795–1865) in 1854–1858 was the Minister of Public Education. Count D. N. Bludov (1785–1864) - statesman of the era of Nicholas I and Alexander II; was the clerk of the Supreme Court over the Decembrists; in 1862 he was appointed chairman of the State Council and the Cabinet of Ministers. P. V. Annenkov (1811? 1813? –1887) – critic and memoirist, editor of the first academic edition of the works of A. S. Pushkin, author of “Materials for the biography of A. S. Pushkin” (1855). P. Ya. Chaadaev (1794–1856) considered Providence as the main force in history; the goal of the historical process is the apocalyptic merging of all souls and all forces and the emergence of a single soul and force; V. S. Solovyov (1853–1900) believed that nature is separated from God by its real basis - the earth, and at the same time connected to him by its ideal peak - man. About Katkov, see note No. 21. N. Ya. Danilevsky (1822–1885) – thinker; in his main work “Russia and Europe”, shares the views of the Slavophiles on Orthodoxy, community, etc., but diverges from them in his denial of the world-historical vocation of Russia; for him, Russia and the Slavs represent only a special cultural-historical type, albeit the most perfect one. While wishing Russia a great future, he did not consider it inevitable; Danilevsky’s ideal is not so much Russian or Slavic as Byzantine. K. N. Leontyev (1831 –1891) – writer and thinker who considered Danilevsky his teacher; was a supporter of autocracy, the state, original forms of national forms of Russian life; his main enemy is bourgeois progress, leading to the depersonalization of Russian culture.