Приложения

Opening speech before the defense of the book for the master's degree: “On Spiritual Truth”, Moscow, 1912, said on May 19, 1914 Bishop Anthony (Florensov) - with filial piety. Your Eminences and venerable Assembly! People most often ascend to this pulpit in anticipation of a trial over their work. It is not surprising, therefore, if someone who ends up here wants, having warned the verdict, to give his explanations on the book to be analyzed and thereby prevent some of the accusations. It is also natural that there are many points on which such clarification is required - much more than the length of the introductory speech would allow. After all, every book is a part of the soul of its author, or at least should be so, and therefore, no matter how carefully it is prepared, it nevertheless has thousands of still living nerves and blood vessels connecting what is said with what remains unsaid; It is always painful for the author’s consciousness that an organ of his soul can be mistaken for an independent whole and, even worse, contrasted with his other organs, without which there is no life in this one. And so, mentally reviewing everything that was crowding in my mind when I thought about the upcoming debate, I saw that I would be forced to go into difficult and complex questions about the methods of philosophy and theology, about the tasks of the modern sciences of the spirit, etc. And at the slightest attempt to speak out and be demonstrative, a special essay is already required. Of course, these topics are not for introductory remarks... In addition, I remember my own mood as a listener to other people’s debates. In anticipation of the “business”, the very discussion of the work at hand, the speech is involuntarily listened to somehow. Therefore, following the “golden rule” of morality, I limit my language and allow myself only the necessary minimum of explanations. I would avoid him, too, but I have a presentiment that you would still have to listen to him, if not in the opening speech, then during the debate itself. I will begin with the subtitle of my work - “The Experience of Orthodox Theodicy”, that is, with the content of the work, in order to then make a few comments about the method. In what sense can the book under discussion be considered a theodicy? To clarify this issue, it is necessary to recall several very elementary considerations about the essence of religion. Religion exists, or at least claims to be an artist of salvation, and its job is to save. What does religion save us from? “She saves us from us,” she saves our inner world from the chaos lurking in it. She overcomes Gehenna, which is within us, and whose tongues, breaking through the cracks of the soul, lick the consciousness. It strikes the reptiles of the “great and vast” sea of ​​subconscious life, “they are countless,” and wounds the snake nesting there. She settles the soul. And by establishing peace in the soul, it pacifies both the whole society and all of nature. This is the business of religion, deliberately taken within the most narrowed and modest boundaries - its main business, which hardly anyone will dispute. So, although the external world is not abandoned by religion, its real place is the soul. And therefore, if ontologically religion is the life of us in God and God in us, then phenomenally - religion is a system of such actions and experiences that provide salvation for the soul. In other words, salvation, in the broadest, psychological sense of the word, is the balance of mental life. Abstractly speaking, there may be several types of relative equilibrium; some of them, so to speak, are full of sound, others are poor; some are strong, others are unstable; some have high potential, others low. A certain type of balance may be very insufficient, just as the religion that provides it may not be unconditional. Abstractly speaking, there must be a type of perfect balance and highest potential corresponding to human nature. It is this type that is explored in the book under discussion. From what was said earlier, it is clear that when studying religion, according to its description, two questions arise: firstly, how salvific is this system of experiences and actions and why is it salvific, i.e., what is it about it that ensures salvation? and, secondly, how this system of experiences and actions becomes saving specifically for me, since I am convinced of its saving in general. In other words, the question is: first, what trains of thought must my mind go through in order to recognize the salvific nature of a given religion? and, secondly, in what real environment must I move and what connection must I enter into with it in order to assimilate salvation for myself? This is in terms of phenomenology. If we now move on to the terms of ontology, then we need to retell our questions something like this: firstly, in what ways does a person become convinced that God is God, and not a usurper of the holy name, that is, one who really has salvation and really gives it to people? Secondly, in what ways does a person accept God’s salvation into himself and be saved by his Savior?.. Or, in other words, with the first question, we test God with our minds and find that truly He is God, the Real Truth, the Savior. With the second question, we, testing ourselves, find ourselves “lies” and impurity, we see our inconsistency with the truth of God and, therefore, the need for purification. These are the two ways of religion. But the first path, the justification of God, or theodicy, is possible only by the grace-filled power of God, and the second path, the path of justification of man, or anthropodicy, is again possible only by the power of God. And we believe in God, and we live in God, but we are God, not ourselves. And therefore, the first path is, as it were, the ascent of grace in us to God, and the second is the descent of grace into our depths. However, both theodicy, as ὁδὸς ἄνω *, as our ascent to God, and anthropodicy, as ὁδὸς κάτω **, as the descent of God to us, is accomplished by the energy of God in the human environment. How is this possible? How can a “weak human face” come into contact with “God’s truth”? How does Divine energy not incinerate the insignificance of creation? These and other similar questions require ontological dissection. Translating into the crude and poor language of earthly comparisons, let's say: how can it be that St. the cup does not melt like wax, and so that our eyes do not become blind from the unbearable radiance of That which is in it? What would happen if a particle of the sun were placed in a chalice? But there is That, before which the sun is darkness, and... the cup is unharmed. Doesn’t it seem at moments that the priest is holding a thundercloud in his hand: one careless movement, and a lightning strike will strike him. These are images. But no images will convey the power of the contrast between God and creation - a contrast that must necessarily be realized in order for the justification of the creature to be possible. Anthropodicy must clarify the ontology of this realized contrast between everything and nothing. Of course, neither the path of theodicy nor the path of anthropodicy can be strictly isolated from one another. Every movement in the field of religion antinomically combines the path of ascent with the path of descent. By being convinced of the truth of God, we thereby open our hearts for grace to descend into it. And vice versa, by opening our hearts to grace, we brighten our consciousness and see God’s truth more clearly. Just as it is impossible to separate the poles of a magnet, so it is impossible to separate the paths of religion. “Οδόςἄνω and ὁδὸς κάτω are combined in religious life and only methodologically can be considered to a certain extent separately. However, this separation is facilitated by the fact that certain periods in personal development and in the development of social consciousness are predominantly characterized by either one or the other path. The path of grief is primarily the path of one embarking on a spiritual feat, and the path of the valley is the path of one who has advanced along it. That is why I considered it expedient to highlight theodicy in this work, leaving the more difficult anthropodicy for more mature years and more experienced experience. But, to a possible question about the content of anthropodicy, perhaps one should answer: “Different types and degrees of the Descent of God should form its main theme.” In other words, we should be talking there about the categories of spiritual consciousness and about the revelation of God in the Holy Scriptures; about sacred rites and holy sacraments; about the Church and its nature; about church art and church science, etc., etc. And all this should be the frame of the central question of anthropodicy - the Christological one. However, from what still needs to be done, that is, from anthropodicy, as a primarily practical path, let us return to the discussion of what has been done - to theodicy, as a primarily theoretical path. This path begins in the mind and then goes beyond the mind, to its roots. How is a theodicy constructed? To answer this question, let us remember that “Pillar of Malice Opposite to God” on which the anti-religious thought of our time rests and from which it needs to push off in order to establish itself on the “Pillar of Truth”. Of course, you guess that Kant is meant. “How is Truth possible?” – asks Kant, and his answer reads: – Truth is possible as methodical cognition, that is, as an eternally under construction, but never completed system of knowledge - the Tower of Babel of the New Age. “But how, in turn, is methodical cognition possible?” “It is possible, as synthetic judgments a priori,” Kant hastens to reassure. “But, in this case, how are synthetic judgments a priori possible?” – Kant’s anxiety stirs again. “As functions of the organization of the mind,” he opens with a satisfied look. And he becomes completely silent. But the subsequent history of thought is again not satisfied with this answer. “And the organization of the mind with all its functions, how is it possible?” - they ask Kant. But Kant no longer wants to give an answer to this question, and the series of questions must be interrupted. In the organization of the mind, critical thought gets bogged down as if in a quagmire. Meanwhile, it is still unknown whether, in fact, this organization of reason exists, and whether there is reason itself. Kant is trying to prove that there is: both. How exactly? – Availability of reasonable functions. But where are they? - In science. Why do we know their universality (universality and necessity)? – Because science is universal. So, Kant’s last support is the fact of science, or, more precisely, mathematical natural science. There is reason, and therefore there is also Truth, for Kant believes in the Tower of Babel of mechanistic natural science. Our reasoning begins from the point where Kant ends. "Is there a mind?" – we ask ourselves. – No, we don’t know such a specific value. The mind is something moving. This is a dynamic concept, not a static one. Reason has as its lower limit, since it is transcendental reason, decay, complete insignificance, Gehenna; and the upper one, like the transcendental mind, is fullness and steadfastness. “But,” one asks then, “how is intelligence possible?” Reason longs for salvation, that is, in other words, it perishes in its essential form, in the form of reason. “The human mind,” Martin Luther says somewhere, “is like a drunkard on horseback; support him on one side, he will fall on the other.” This is a figurative expression of the antinomy of reason. Disintegrating in antinomies and dead in its rational existence, reason seeks the beginning of life and strength. Salvation, in the theoretical sphere, is thought of primarily as stability of mind, that is, precisely as an answer to the question: “How is mind possible?” And if religion promises this stability, then the task of theodicy is to show that this stability can really be given, and how exactly. But it is clear that if reason is understood as an empty form into which one can put different contents without violating the properties of this form, then its inherent instability or antinomy will be absolute instability, and the theodicy is doomed to failure in advance. From this it is clear that from the recognition of religion - already a priori, “transcendentally”, a different view of reason follows. The mind is not a box or some other geometric container of its contents into which you can put anything; he is not a mill that will grind both grain and garbage, that is, not a system of mechanical, always equal implementations, applicable equally to any material and under any conditions. No, it is something living and purposeful, an organ of a living being, the modus of the relationship between the knower and the known, that is, a type of connection between being. It is clear that it cannot always function in the same way, because it itself, its “how” is determined by its subject, its “what”. The properties of the mind are flexible and plastic properties, realized in one way or another depending on the nature of its life activity. Consequently, the task of the epistemologist is not to discover the nature of reason outside of its relationship to any object of knowledge, outside of functioning, for this task is essentially uncertain, but to find out: when, under what conditions reason becomes truly reason, when it has its highest manifestation, when it blooms and smells fragrant. This epistemological work is implied to have been done in the construction of the theodicy. And there is only one possible answer to the question posed here - this: the mind ceases to be painful, that is, to be reason, when it cognizes the Truth: for the Truth makes the mind reasonable, i.e., the mind, and it is not the mind that makes the Truth true. Therefore, the answer to the fundamental question about intelligence, namely the question: “How is intelligence possible?” should read: “Reason is possible through Truth.” But, then, what makes Truth true? - She herself. To show that Truth makes itself Truth is the task of theodicy. This self-truth of Truth is expressed, as research reveals, by the word όμοουσία, consubstantial. Thus, the dogma of the Trinity becomes the common root of religion and philosophy, and in it the primordial opposition of both is overcome. This is the content of the book. Let us now turn to her method. For someone who has leafed through the book, it is probably indisputable that this method is dialectics, meaning the word dialectics in its broad meaning - vital and living direct thinking, as opposed to school thinking, i.e. rational, analyzing and classifying. This is not a speech about the process of thought, but the process of thought itself in its immediacy - a trembling thought demonstrated ad oculos ****. The simplest case of dialectics - that is, thought in its movement - is every conversation. What follows this word, that is, the dispute itself, will probably also be dialectical. The highest example of dialectics in relation to faith was given by St. The Apostle Paul in his Epistles: St. does not teach us about spiritual life. the apostle, but life itself in his words overflows and flows as a living stream. There is no division here into reality and the word about it, but reality itself appears in the words of the Apostle to our spirit. However, the point is not what the apostle writes. Apostleship is reflected in the nature of the life it reveals, in its spirituality, and not in the very fact of the presence of some vitality. After all, dialectics as a method also includes the manifestation of life in words, although in one case or another life itself may be insignificant and worthless. The dialectician does not want to talk about his contact with reality, but to show it: let the listeners see for themselves whether he is not omitting something essential in his awareness of this reality. What is said about spiritual life also applies to the sphere of philosophy. Where the right to independent activity is not recognized, there is no place for dialectics; but where there is freedom, there will certainly be dialectics. Philosophy, as a matter of creativity (but not as a subject of teaching), philosophy is completely inseparable from dialectics, that is, from the process of peering and, consequently, mental deepening and getting used to reality. The greatest examples of philosophical creativity are the best achievements of dialectics. What is the meaning of dialectics? - In integrity. There are no separate definitions, just as there are no separate proofs. What is there? – There is an ever-growing tangle of threads of contemplation, a clot of penetrations, ever denser, ever deeper penetrating into the essence of the subject under study; dialectics is a set of thought processes that “mutually strengthen and justify each other.” It is like an onion, in which each shell is a living layer. If the conversation were not dialectical, but didactic, not about reality, but about my or someone else’s thoughts about reality, then I could give a definition and say: “This is exactly what, and not something else, I think about this thing.” But if the subject of speech should be reality itself, then how do I know in advance what it is, this reality? And if I knew, then why would the research be needed? To define means to outline a certain limit around the subject of research, to surround it with a limit, to isolate it. What is the limit for? what to put a limit on? - Thoughts, of course. To define means to deprive thought of the freedom to move as it may be necessary during the course of research, and to artificially confine it within boundaries. But dialectics, as a growing thought, lies in the fact that it moves towards more and more valuable achievements, ascending the ladder of comprehension, so that the natural limits of reality are outlined by the gradual compaction of thought. Living thought is necessarily dialectical: that is its life; dead thoughts, or, more precisely, frozen thoughts, thoughts in a state of suspended animation, are non-dialectical, that is, motionless, and can be arranged in the form of a textbook, as a certain sum of definitions and theses. But even here, as soon as we want to bring this heap or this warehouse of dried and frozen material into internal unity, that is, understand it, we must introduce the beginning of a movement from definition to definition and from thesis to thesis. And then, under the caress of a contemplating gaze, the ice melts, the dams are torn down, definitions flow, and theses flow in a living stream, flowing into one another. “Omnis definitio in jure civili periculosa est” *****, is listed in the Digest ******, and an explanation is immediately given of why periculosa est: “parum est enim, ut non subverti possit” *******. So - not only in the field of law. Omnis definitio the more periculosior est ********, the more internal movement in the determined; and where life is in full swing, in life primarily or in religion, it is maxime periculosa est ********. Here Pavlov’s sword cuts through every definition, and, having broken the shackles, thought rushes like a fiery stream in Pavlov’s dialectic. Now it is no longer we who define the object, but the object itself which determines itself to us. We peer and peer at it, and each new comprehension of it serves as a new definition. Each new revelation of reality about oneself adds a new link to the chain of penetrations. Rotating before our eyes, reality shows more and more new aspects of itself. And if now you ask a dialectician where his definitions are, he will answer you: “Everywhere if I wrote something meaningful, and nowhere if the book was a failure.” The book itself is a definition of the subject that it examines, i.e. Spiritual Truth, or, if you like, churchliness. And if I start with the fact that churchliness is indefinable, then further, after this statement, I devote an entire book to show churchliness in its different spheres and at different depths. – After all, even in mathematics there is no criterion to immediately find out whether a given number is simple. Only by consistently sifting through the “Eratosthenes Sieve” all non-prime numbers, we are convinced of its simplicity or complexity. Likewise, in the Church there is no one criterion that would guarantee the churchliness of a given person; but life itself, through a series of trials, weeds out the faithful from the unfaithful. They philosophized quite a bit about religion and about religion: then it was possible to give definitions, and too many of them were given. Do I really need to add one more to the list of unsuccessful definitions? We must philosophize in religion, plunging into its environment. There were enough denials, objections, resistance and reluctant concessions; we need to launch an offensive. It is better to understand at least one living religion than to cut up and kill all that have ever existed anywhere. If tolerance and liberality towards the faith of others consists only in the fact that for the sake of justice (“So as not to offend anyone!”) people try to do without religion altogether, then away with such respect and such liberality. And besides, for any religion, it will be more respectful to fight against it than toleration, which equalizes all religions in general contempt for them. – This call, expressed here by me in words so hasty and incoherent, was a call for the book to be discussed. But, having heeded him, it was necessary to take the most difficult step - to understand that the study must be an experience of concrete religious epistemology, for only a concrete thought can be a dialectical thought. What, however, does it mean to develop a specific religious thought? Doesn't she risk falling into subjectivism and psychologism? Doesn't the desire for concreteness risk replacing dialectics, as a methodical insight, with a simple play of random thoughts that have only biographical significance and are interesting only to the author's friends? Doesn't looking into reality risk degenerating into a bare story about psychological illusions? I don’t dare bore your attention with a detailed answer to the question posed here; I’ll just tell you the essence of the matter in a nutshell. There is no doubt that a specific thought is a personal thought, a thought not “in general”, claiming to exist outside its subject, but a thought that characteristically correlates a given object with a given subject. Thinking is a constant synthesis of the cognizable with the cognizing and, therefore, is deeply and thoroughly permeated with the energies of the cognizing personality. But who is the subject of dialectics? This cannot be abstract, colorless and impersonal, “consciousness in general,” because I know that it is I who peer into reality. The author’s self, which is not interesting to anyone, should not be such, because if some Paul is looking into something, then, of course, it cannot and should not be significant in philosophy. The peering I must be personal and, I will even say, more personal than the underdeveloped I of the author. But it must also be holistic and characteristic. This is concrete-general, symbolically-personal - I am obviously a typical I, and if you look for parallels to it, then it comes closest to the type in a work of art. His dialectical insight is personal, but it is not psychological. It is specific, but its originality is not accidental. Let's call it "methodological". And since dialectics certainly presupposes those who δια-λέγονται, who negotiate, who speak, then the methodological I corresponds to the methodological we and other methodological personae dramatis dialecticae **********. It is through them that a certain διὰ-, re-, times-, i.e., methodological environment is realized, which merges its personal energies with the object. It is clear that this environment, in order to be methodological, must be the most perfect organ of this dialectic, that is, it must be not just any, but the most akin to this particular knowledge. Each object of dialectics corresponds to a certain subject, a certain type. If, according to the Bible, marriage is knowledge, and knowledge is a kind of marriage, then this reality cannot be married to anyone, but it is necessary to marry the betrothed. Thus, the philosophical creativity of truth is closely related to artistic creativity, not as “the poetry of concepts,” but as the sculpting of typical subjects of dialectics. And while the philosopher has not found the type of this dialectic, he has not yet begun dialectics. Just as a poet, isolating his aspect, objectifies it and makes it a type (remember, for example, Werther and Goethe), so the philosopher does not talk about himself at all as the subject of dialectics he has found, but typically forms from his existing stock of experiences the subject most friendly to the given subject. This is exactly how Plato’s dialogues are written: everyone sees it; but perhaps not everyone noticed that Kant’s “Critics” and Descartes’ “Reflections” were written in the same way, etc., etc. The only difference is that the methodological I is usually introduced somewhat secretly and poorly. In the book under review, following in the footsteps of Plato, the methodological I is openly deduced not as I “in general,” but as a specific I. I don’t dare claim that I completed the task successfully; However, I stand most resolutely for the position taken as a principle. But, if you accept this principle, then one feature of the proposed dialectics becomes clear. A specific personality, this typical subject of dialectics, is not a linear series of any mental processes, and its internal life is not structured at all like beads strung on a thread in a necklace. Consequently, the dialectical development of thought cannot be represented by a simple one-voice melody of revelations. Mental life, and especially religiously ordered life, is an incomparably more coherent whole, rather reminiscent of fabric or lace, where the threads are woven into diverse and complex patterns. In accordance with this, dialectics is the development of not one theme, but many, intertwined with each other and turning into each other, and emerging again. And just as in life only the variety of functions forms a single whole, and not individual abstract principles, so in dialectics only the contrapuntal development of the main melodies allows one to vitally delve into the subject of study. This, in general terms, is the method of the book being analyzed. I know that I have not completed enough of the tasks that I have set for myself, and how much is not enough - we will hear about this now. I also admit that the tasks themselves were set incorrectly. But this is what I do not doubt and, with God’s help, I will not doubt either during the dispute or after it. Philosophy is lofty and valuable not in itself, but as a pointing finger to Christ and for life in Christ. And the path traveled becomes unnecessary. My highly respected judges can deprive me of a book, but not of what now, having lived through it, I already have, in addition to it. That is why, deep down, there is already a ready answer - one to all their objections: “It is good for me to cleave to God, to place the hope of my salvation in the Lord.” Priest Pavel Florensky From the history of the book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Experience of Orthodox theodicy in twelve letters of St. Paul Florensky" The term “theodicy” (from the Greek Θεός - God and δίκη - justice) - “justification of God” refers to religious and philosophical teachings that seek to reconcile the idea of ​​good and reasonable Divine management of the world with the presence of world evil, to “justify” this management despite the existence of the dark sides of existence ***********. “Man wants to worship God not only as a fact,” wrote Fr. Pavel Florensky, - not as an all-breaking force, nor even as his Patron or Master; – This Power, This Patron can only be an object of worship in His Truth, in His truth, like the Father. Before the justification of man, the justification of God is sought: before anthropodicy, theodicy is sought.” ************. Among various historically established types of theodicies (polytheistic, dualistic, theistic), “Pillar” is a theodicy of Christian theism, built on the concept of human free will. The specific features of “The Pillar” include the fact that Florensky develops the justification of God as Truth, and not as Good. Therefore, all ordinary questions of theodicy are considered not on the plane of “morality”, but on the plane of “reason” and “reason”. “The task of the epistemologist,” Florensky wrote, “is not to discover the nature of reason outside of its relationship to any object of knowledge, outside of functioning, for this task is essentially uncertain, but to find out: when, under what conditions reason becomes truly reason, when it has its highest manifestation, when it blooms and smells fragrant. This epistemological work is implied to have been done in the construction of the theodicy. And there is only one possible answer to the question posed here - such a mind ceases to be painful, that is, to be a mind, when it cognizes the Truth: for the Truth makes the mind reasonable, i.e., the mind, and it is not the mind that makes the Truth true. Therefore, the answer to the fundamental question about intelligence, namely, the question: “How is intelligence possible?” – should read: “Reason is possible through Truth.” But then, what makes Truth true? - She herself. To show that Truth makes itself Truth is the task of theodicy. This self-truth of Truth is expressed, as research reveals, by the word όμοούσια, consubstantial. Thus, the dogma of the Trinity becomes the common root of religion and philosophy, and in it the primordial opposition of both is overcome. This is the content of the book" *************. What spiritual experiences, what spiritual experience formed the basis of Florensky’s theodicy? In a letter to V.A. Kozhevnikov on July 27, 1912, Florensky wrote about the “Pillar”: “Dear and deeply respected Vladimir Alexandrovich! Those courageous sounds that you—and I myself, even more than you—would like to hear from me, so far sound only in the recesses of my heart, and it is not yet possible for them to sound either subjectively, according to the stage of my development, or objectively, according to the tasks I set. Κάθαρσις **************, Μάθησις **************, Πράξις ****************! You can write about what you have experienced, but I am only approaching (and whether I will approach it is a question) to Πράξις. My scientific articles, most of which are not printed or even slightly scribbled, my “notebooks”, etc., mathematical work and mathematical notes - this is all, as I always mentally called it, - τα καθαρτικά, - clearing my soul of modernity. “Poem” (written) ***************** – the end of the cathartic period. “Pillar”, being developed, although its theme appeared about 9-10 years ago - μάθησις of the first half, i.e. theodicy (only!), and all other topics are deliberately excluded from it. That’s why the lyrics of “The Pillar” are again not what you want - something fragile and intimately personal, solitary. The supposed and partly sketched 2nd part of the “Pillar”, under a different name, is the 2nd half of μάθησις, i.e. anthropodicy, about secrets and sacraments, about grace and incarnation in all forms and images. It slightly outlines πράξις, but I hope that the artistic side, the “background”, consciously anticipating what follows, will no longer be either a pipe or a complaint of the abandoned (that is why the problem of Theodicy arises; otherwise there would remain a betrothal celebration and a pastoral), but a “drama”, in the modern sense of the word, and a hint of tragedy. In the future, I imagine πράξις and tones of tragedy - mystery. But this is just a miracle, and I still have almost no idea how it will be or whether it will happen somehow. One must grow very, very much in order to surpass μάθησις, and suffer a lot in order to grow into mystery, into πράξις. After all, so far the only germ I have of this is the cycle of experiences, thanks to which and from which my family life took shape.” ****************** . This evidence is supported by Florensky’s dedicatory inscription to P. A. Alferov on the book “Pillar” on February 9, 1914: “Is this in my mind my only book? Of course not, because there is much more that I can and want to say. But to get to the other one, you need to go through this book, which is a pass. This book is an image of life at the moment when I decided to transfer to the Academy, that is, my internal state in the 4th year of the University” *******************. So, in Florensky’s own words: “The Pillar” first of all reflects his spiritual life in 1904. - the time of transition from Moscow University to the Moscow Theological Academy, the time of conscious entry into the Orthodox Church. That is why Florensky, taking into account the newness of his church life, wrote that if he attaches “some significance to his letters, then it is exclusively preparatory, for the catechumens, until they have direct nourishment from the hands of the Mother - the meaning, as it were, of catechetical words in the church yard” ******************** . But limit the basis of the “Pillar” only to 1904. it would be wrong. “The Pillar” includes experiences of pitch darkness, the torment of doubt that Florensky experienced back in 1899 *********************, a whole series of topics in 1902–1903, when Florensky’s negative attitude towards representatives of the “new religious consciousness” was determined, and, finally, the period of study at the MDA in 1904–1908, when Florensky became spiritually close to the Elder - the hieromonk Gethsemane skete by Abba Isidore (†February 4, 1908) ********************** and with Friend S.S. Troitsky (November 2, 1910) ***********************. Attempts to identify Friend with V.F. Ern, S.N. Bulgakov or anyone else are incorrect. In 1905–1907 Florensky lived with Troitsky in the same academic cell, traveled with him to Zosimov Hermitage, Tolpygino, Kostroma province, and vacationed in the Caucasus in the summer. After graduating from the MDA in 1907, Troitsky moved to Tiflis and in 1909 married Florensky’s sister Olga (Vale). Archival materials, as well as family tradition, undoubtedly indicate that the Elder and Friend of the book “The Pillar” is Abba Isidore and S.S. Troitsky. Of course, we should not forget that the author’s Self in the book is not only specific, but also typical, and that the Elder and the Friend, being also specific people, express not only the personal, but also the typical, general. Since Florensky continued to work on the book after 1908 (first edition) until 1914. (fourth edition), then the experience of these years should have been somehow reflected in “The Pillar,” although Florensky deliberately continued to limit the subject matter of “The Pillar” to the early period. It was during these years that Florensky, after marriage (1910) and acceptance of the priesthood (1911), began a new stage of spiritual life and a departure from the themes of theodicy. Deep spiritual experiences and incessant scientific and theological disputes and searches confronted Florensky with the question of whether it was necessary to publish “The Pillar”, and he himself wrote to V. A. Kozhevnikov on March 2, 1912: “My Pillar” disgusted me to such an extent that I often think to myself: isn’t releasing it into the world an act of impudence, for what, in fact, I understand Am I in the spiritual life? And, um, from a spiritual point of view, he will all turn out to be rotten” ****************************. As a literary, artistic and philosophical work, the book “The Pillar and Ground of Truth” went through four editions. The first edition, the candidate's essay “On Religious Truth” (1908), consisted of twelve parts: I. To the reader. II. Letter one: two worlds. III. Letter two: doubt. IV. Letter three: trinity. V. Letter Four: The Light of Truth. VI. Letter Five: The Comforter. VII. Letter six: contradiction. VIII. Letter seven: Gehenna ****************************. IX. Letter eight: creature **************************. X. Letter Nine: Sophia. XI. Letter ten: friendship. XII. Afterword. Sections I-IX were presented by Florensky printed, sections X-XII - in the form of a manuscript *******************************. Complete records of the sections go back to 1906, when Florensky probably developed a complete plan for the theodicy, but individual drafts and extracts also date back to earlier years. Let us note that back in 1905 Florensky wrote to A. Bely that he was collecting material on Sofia. The manuscripts of the sections were rewritten and revised several times by Florensky in 1906–1908. It is this essay by MDA professor S. Glagolev rated it five plus, concluding the review with these words: “The author’s work needs development, substantiation of many provisions, changes in details, but what the author has already done is an extremely valuable contribution to Orthodox theological literature” **************************************. On September 17, 1908, Florensky gave two test lectures on the history of philosophy at the MDA. Both lectures were considered satisfactory, and on September 23, 1908, Florensky was approved as acting assistant professor at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in the department of history of philosophy. The original topic of Florensky's master's thesis was approved on December 19, 1908. It was formulated as follows: a translation into Russian of the theological and philosophical works of the Neoplatonist Iamblichus, accompanied by an introductory article about the philosophy of the thinker, footnotes and a number of exegetical and historical-philosophical excursions, as well as the application of parallel passages from other thinkers of the same school. However, by the beginning of the 1909–1910 academic year, difficulties emerged in preparing the approved topic for the master's thesis. Professor A. I. Vvedensky advised to revise the candidate’s essay “On Religious Truth” for the defense of a master’s degree in theology. On May 10, 1910, the Council of the MDA approved Florensky’s request to extend his period for obtaining a master’s degree by one year, i.e. until September 23, 1911. At the same time, the topic of the dissertation was probably changed. Indeed, until September 1911 Florensky published in the “Theological Bulletin” the chapters “Sophia” ******************************, “Friendship” ******************************, which were previously known from his candidate’s essay, and also first appeared as an appendix to the chapter “Friendship” “An Excursion on Jealousy”. April 5, 1912 Florensky presented the book “On Spiritual Truth” ******************************* to the MDA Council with a request to be allowed to defend the Master of Theology degree. This book, which consisted of two editions, is the second edition of The Pillar. The main differences between this edition and the first are as follows: 1) the preface “To the Reader” and the first letter “Two Worlds” were combined; 2) a new chapter “Sin” was written; 3) the chapter “Gehenna” was removed; 4) the chapter “Jealousy” was written; 5) it was written “Explanation of some particulars that were already assumed to be proven in the text” (sections XIII-XXVIII, which were included in the fourth edition as sections XV-XXX); 6) notes and notes were compiled; 7) textual editing was carried out concerning both the content and development of lyrical introductions. The dissertation was submitted for consideration to Professor S. S. Glagolev. At his own request, the rector of the MDA, Bishop Theodore, was approved as the second reviewer. In fact, Vladyka Theodore became not only a reviewer, but also the leader of the work of Father Paul after the death of Professor A.I. Vvedensky (1913). The guidance of Vladyka Theodore consisted not only in scientific and theological verification of the essay, but also in understanding what educational requirements could be presented and by whom, in the ability to convince not to present for the defense of a master’s thesis questions that had not been resolved in patristic theology. At the same time, Vladyka Theodore considered it his duty to preserve the freedom of Father Paul’s creativity and did not want him to act against his conscience by changing something in the book that he himself did not agree with. How acute the question was is shown by the rare letters of Father Paul and Vladyka Theodore, which, naturally, only complemented their close communication within the walls of the Academy. Dear Bishop, bless and allow me to write to you not as the Rector of the Academy and not as an acquaintance, but as your Bishop, to whom you not only have the right, but also the duty to turn in serious circumstances of life Externally, my letter is about my dissertation, but internally – for reasons that have been going on for a long time, already 10 years, hidden and much deeper than the real reason. I well understand and feel that with my dissertation I put you, dear Vladyka, in an awkward position, and I was and am very embarrassed by this. You don’t know what, in fact, you should do with me, and this is not at all due to an unkind attitude, but despite a direct desire to do everything in the best possible way. But there are forces that are difficult and even impossible to fight. At least I’m tired after 10 years and I’m giving up the fight. The fact is that the Church is specifically revealed in different social environments. And since it is natural for every environment to overestimate itself, it is inclined to consider all its characteristics, everyday and temporary, as attributes of the Church. The clergy, as possessing power in the Church, partly legal, partly seized, more than any other environment, has a tendency to pass off priestly life, priestly manners, priestly interests as the Church of Christ and its attributes. I do not undertake to judge or even condemn “priesthood”; however, I will say in the most decisive way that it is not only alien to me, but I do not at all see the need to assimilate it to myself ********************************. But it is on this basis that the terrible, incomprehensible to a person who grew up in this way of life, occurs, the weight of small demands that are presented supposedly in the Name of the Church. I’ll say roughly: in my dissertation, the majority are and will be confused not at all by the actual meaning of the book, but 3) philosophical terms. Meanwhile, why should I print in such and such a font, speak in such and such a language, use such and such terms, and not such and such. Neither the Lord nor St. Church canons do not require from me either font, language, or philosophical terminology. And so I see (I am not saying this as a condemnation to anyone) that people who deny not only the provisions of Orthodoxy, but also Christ Himself, directly or indirectly, but at the same time observe the well-known seminary etiquette, are prosperous; and others, who have violated etiquette or, more precisely, live according to the etiquette of a different environment, although they sincerely recognize churchliness, are based on some kind of suspicion. I'll tell you about myself. I had the opportunity to be a professor in the mathematics I loved; I also had another opportunity - to study theology abroad (my father almost demanded this and was offended by me for the Academy). If I abandoned all this and, having chosen the Academy, spent 10 of the best years of my life and hard work on it, it means that I wanted Orthodoxy and precisely churchliness. I wanted and want to be a believing son of the Church and, moreover, I have always, both by character and by conviction, tried to sincerely honor all legitimate authority, even when it was not at the height of its position, submitting to it for God. But if others do not understand, then you, Vladyka, understand the difference between obedience and sycophancy. Of course, for the sake of general church life, sometimes you can’t talk about everything, but you can’t lie shamelessly, indulging the arbitrariness of individuals!” ********************************* . The decisive factor in what was written should be submitted as a master's thesis was probably the letter of Bishop Theodore dated January 28, 1914, in which he proposed to remove the chapter “Sophia” and make a number of amendments to the chapter “Friendship”. With a heavy awareness of the difficulty being caused to you, but guided solely by the desire to bring the matter to the desired end without temptation, I must finally tell you that after repeated and careful reading, I find it necessary to release the entire chapter about Sophia from your work, especially since it was included in the complete edition of your book and you still want to work on this issue. I will say frankly that I have some reason to think that even the most eminent hierarchs - members of the Synod - from whom one could expect impartiality and breadth of views, look askance at your book. You need to be very good. careful. Of course, it is necessary to cover up with typographical paint the words on page 350 “the name of Christ is the mystical Church!” *********************************** On the same page. The name is capitalized, and the Greek. the text is small, it is better to put it small. I consider the passages inconvenient, or rather the expression: p. 446 in the appendix to the Gospel “insanely clear” and verses: pp. 324, 362 ********************************** . They may also be confused by Table 518, which concerns the genitals, but this is not particularly important. I fully understand the technical difficulties and I don’t know how to alleviate them; um, explain the page break as a typo, especially since this book in its corrected form will not go on sale, but for us this does not matter. With the exception of all this, I completely accept everything, and I want to finish the matter by the March Council. I ask you to tell me frankly, if this is difficult for you, then I would rather withdraw from reviewing your book and transfer the matter to someone else, at least F.K. Andreev. With love E Theodore. 28.1.1914" ************************************ . Father Paul first accepted all the comments of Bishop Theodore, and then did even more: from the book originally prepared for the defense of the master’s thesis in 1912–1913, the chapters “Sophia”, “Friendship”, “Jealousy”, as well as all explanatory sections were excluded (the letter “Gehenna” was not intended for the master’s thesis from the very beginning). Thus, the third edition of the book “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” arose, which consisted of the following parts: I. To the reader; II. Chapter One: Doubt; III. Chapter Two: Trinity; IV. Chapter Three: Light of Truth; V. Chapter Four: The Comforter. VI. Chapter Five: Contradiction. VII. Chapter Six: Sin. VIII. Chapter Seven: The Creature. Notes and Notes. Copies of the third edition are extremely rare (I know of only one), but Archpriest Georgy Florovsky confirms that “besides the public edition of this book, there was another, abridged (only the first 8 chapters, i.e., without chapters about Sophia) and under a different title (“On Spiritual Truth”), which was not put on sale and adapted for presentation as a dissertation.” ************************************* . On March 28, 1914, the Council of the MDA heard reviews from Bishop Theodore and Prof. S. S. Glagolev about the essay of the priest Pavel Florensky, submitted for the degree of Master of Theology, and official opponents were appointed. The defense of the master's thesis of priest Pavel Florensky at a meeting of the MDA Council took place on May 19, 1914. The official opponents were: ordinary professor in the department of basic theology S.S. Glagolev and acting. Doctor of Science, Associate Professor of the Academy in the Department of Systematic Philosophy and Logic F.K. Andreev. The third and final opponent was the Most Reverend Rector of the Academy, Bishop Theodore. At the end of the colloquium, the Most Reverend Rector of the Academy, having collected votes, announced that the Council unanimously recognized the defense as satisfactory, and the magistrate - worthy of confirmation as a master of theology and the position of associate professor of the Academy ****************************************. The magisterial disputation of priest Pavel Florensky aroused enormous interest among church circles and the public. A message about the dispute was even placed in the “Provincial Life” section of the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper *************************************************. On May 22, 1914, the proposal of the rector of the MDA, Bishop Theodore, was accepted to elect priest Pavel Florensky as an extraordinary professor from the date of approval of his Master of Theology degree by the Holy Synod. On August 9, 1914, Archbishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), who was tasked with reviewing Father Paul’s master’s work for the Holy Synod, sent a telegram from St. Petersburg to Bishop Theodore: “I read 136 pages of Florensky’s book. You can give an approving review." The very approval of the Holy Synod followed by Decree No. 14292 on August 27 of the same year. On December 16, 1914, the Council of the MDA awarded priest Pavel Florensky the Metropolitan Philaret Prize of Moscow, and on March 10, 1915, the Metropolitan Macarius Prize of Moscow for his master’s thesis “On Spiritual Truth.” While the fate of Florensky’s master’s thesis was being decided, at the very beginning in 1914. The publishing house "Path" published the full version of the book "The Pillar and Statement of the Truth", which is the fourth edition **************************************************. The complete and most famous edition of the book included everything that was scattered across the previous three editions: 1) letters “Two Worlds”, “Sin”, “Gehenna”, “Sophia”, “Friendship”, “Jealousy”; 2) “Explanation and proof of some particulars that were supposed to have already been proven in the text” (sections XV-XXX); 3) “Notes and minor notes”; 4) “Explanation of some symbols and drawings.” In addition, the entire text was expanded, especially due to lyrical introductions, and again edited. It was this fourth edition, which is now being published, that Florensky himself accepted as the final version. Thus, in a response letter to the editor of the “Theological Encyclopedia” N. N. Glubokovsky, Florensky wrote on October 20, 1917: “About my dissertation “On Spiritual Truth” I would only like to say that neither in it, nor anywhere else, for the sake of anyone, did I write a single comma. But I had to give up something essentially included in the fabric of my book, not because I was afraid of the Holy Synod, but because I did not have the moral right to demand Synodal sanction for those lines of my book that my reviewer found unworthy of such, and I write this with a clear conscience: I will not allow anyone to constrain my conscience and my thoughts, but therefore I do not want to rape someone else’s conscience and someone else’s understanding, even if they seem to me caricatured. So, what is missing from “On Spiritual Truth” compared to “The Pillar and Ground of Truth”? Firstly, the lyrical passages. In my understanding, these places were not decoration, not vignettes in the book, but methodological prologues to the corresponding chapters. Whether these places are successful is not for me to judge. But I wanted precisely such introductions, preparing the reader to understand dogmatic and philosophical constructions. Next, a number of chapters-letters are omitted, representing the philosophical and theological τέλος’ ***************************************** of the book. And this was not done without pain. As for the notes, their reduction is due solely to economic considerations - for the sake of the cheapness of the secondary set, and therefore, these reductions, perhaps, are detrimental to the material completeness of the book, from the ideological side they are not important and should be considered as ἀδιάφερον ****************************************************. So, if you would like to do me the honor of presenting my methods and views, then it is desirable that it be on the basis of the “Pillar”, and not “On Spiritual Truth”. But unfortunately, I don’t have a single copy of “The Pillar” and I cannot serve you as such, and I don’t know whether you can get it from where.” The release of “The Pillar” caused extensive controversy, which has not stopped even now. The deepest assessment of it belongs, in our opinion, to Bishop Theodore, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy, who called the “Pillar” “an Orthodox theodicy for people of reason” ***************************************************** . The book was greeted as an exceptional phenomenon; it symbolized the beginning of the appeal of the Russian intelligentsia to the Church on the eve of the revolution. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). way up, ascension (Greek). – Ed. way down, descent (Greek). – Ed. In the text - “rejecting”. – Ed. In civil law, every definition is dangerous (lat.). – Ed. Dig. lib. 50 tit. 17.fr. 202. (Corpus juris civilis, ed. stereot. cura L. L. G. Beek, Lipsiae, 1829, p. 778). For there are few that cannot be perverted (lat.). – Ed. dangerous to the highest degree (lat.). Ed. faces of dialectical drama (lat.). Ed. See: S. Averintsev. Theodicy. – Philosophical Encyclopedia. T. 5, M., 1970. Stlb. 197. P. Florensky. Dogmatism and dogmatics. – “Christian Misal” (Sofia), 1907, part 1, book. 3–4. Quote based on the Russian handwritten original. Priest Pavel Florensky. Opening remarks... Sergiev Posad. 1914, p. 9–10 (see this ed., p. 822). cleansing, clearing (Greek). action, deed (Greek). This probably refers to the unpublished 1904 poem “Eschatological Mosaic.” Hierodeacon Andronik (Trubachev). The main personality traits, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. – “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”, 1982, No. 4, p. 17. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). “75 years of “The Pillar and Statement of Truth” by P. A. Florensky. – In the book: 1989. Memorable dates. M., 1989. P. 56. "Pillar..." M., 1914. P. 5. See: P. A. Florensky. Memories. – “Literary studies”, 1988, No. 6. P. 144–145, 158. See about him: The Salt of the Earth, that is, the legend about the life of the elder of the Gethsemane monastery, Hieromonk Abba Isidore, collected and presented in order by his unworthy spiritual son Pavel Florensky. Sergiev Posad. 1909. See about him: Collection dedicated to the memory of Sergei Semenovich Troitsky. † November 2, 1910. Tiflis. 1912. Hierodeacon Andronik (Trubachev). The main personality traits, life and work of priest Pavel Florensky. – “Journal of the Moscow Patriarchate”, 1982, No. 4. P. 16. See: Pavel Florensky. The Pillar and Ground of Truth (Letters to a Friend). – In the book: Questions of religion. Issue 2. 1908. pp. 226–384. Same. Dept. imprint M., type. Vilde. 163 pp. Pavel Florensky. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Letter eight: Creature. – In the book: Religion and life. Sat. articles. M., 1908, p. 36–61. Same. Dept. Ott. M., printing house of A. I. Snegireva. 1908. 26 p. See: Glagolev S. Review of the essay by student Pavel Florensky on the topic: “On religious truth” - In the book: Journals of meetings of the Imperial Council. Moscow Theological Academy for 1908. Sergiev Posad, 1909. pp. 129–135. One of the copies of P. Florensky's candidate's essay has been preserved: reprints of the printed chapters of “The Pillar” of 1908 were bound together with the typescript of sections X-XII. Glagolev S. Review of the essay... P. 134–135. When the review was published, the indication of the rating was removed, but it is available in the official handwritten original. Priest Pavel Florensky. Sophia (From letters to a Friend) - “Theological Bulletin”, 1911, No. 5. P. 135–161, No. 7/8. pp. 582–613. Pavel Florensky. Friendship (from letters to a Friend). Appendix: Excursion about jealousy. - “Theological Bulletin”, 1911, No. 1, pp. 151–182. No. 3. pp. 467–507. Priest Pavel Florensky. About Spiritual Truth. Experience of Orthodox theodicy. Vol. –2. M. Type type. A. I. Mamontova. 1913. . 1913 (in the region 1912). 2, 534 pp. Vol. 2. Notes and notes. 1913, LXXIII p. Wed. similar experiences of one of the friends of Florensky archpriest Joseph Fudel (1864–1918), described by his son (S.I. Fudel. Memoirs. Manuscript). Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Priest Pavel Florensky is a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy and editor of the Theological Bulletin. – In the book: Theological works. Sat. 28. M., 1987. pp. 296–297. In “The Pillar” (M., 1914) this expression is found on p. 421 without reference. The preparatory materials indicate that this expression is a quotation from the works of St. Nicholas Cabasilas. But this is still tolerable. – Bishop’s note. Theodora. Hegumen Andronik (Trubachev). Priest Pavel Florensky - professor... P. 297. Archpriest Georgy Florovsky. Paths of Russian theology. Paris. 1937. P. 570. See the journals of the meetings of the Imperial Council. Moscow Theological Academy for 1914. Sergiev Posad, 1916. pp. 152–154. See I. Master's dispute in imp. Moscow Theological Academy. – “Moskovskie Vedomosti”, May 21, 1914, No. 116. The Pillar and Ground of Truth. Experience of Orthodox theodicy in twelve letters of St. Paul Florensky. M. "The Path". 1914, 814 p. Editions were made from it: Berlin, 1829. Phototype; Gregg International Publishers Ltd., England. 1970. Reprint; Collected Works, ed. N. Struve. T. 4. Paris, 1989. The following translations were also made from this edition: R. Florenskij. La colonna e il fondamento della veritá. Milano, 1974; P. Florensky. La colonne et le fondement de la verité. Lausanne, 1975. Excerpts from “The Pillar” were included in various collections on the history of Russian religious and philosophical thought in Russian and other languages: Der Pfeiler und das Grundfest der Wahrheit. Auswahl – In the book: Östliches Christentum Documente herausgegeben von v. Bubnoff und Ehrenberg. II. Philosophy. G. H. Becksche Verlagsbuchhandlung, München, 1925; Sophia – In the book: Ahren aus der Garbe. Kleines Jahrbuch des Matthius – Grünewald – Verlages für das Jahr 1926; Christi Reich im Osten. Mainz, 1926; In the book: S. L. Frank. From the history of Russian philosophical thought of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Anthology. Washington, New York, 1965; In the book: S. L. Frank. Il pensiero religioso russo. Antologia. Milano, 1977; On the Holy Spirit – In the book: A. Schmeman. Ultimate Questions. An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought. Oxford, 1977; La luce della veritá. La Sofia – In the book: Maria Giovanna Valenziano Osb. Florenskij. La luce della veritá. Edizion studio. Roma, 1986. indifferent, unimportant (Greek). Bishop Theodore (Pozdeevsky). Rec.: “On Spiritual Truth.” Experience of Orthodox Theodicy (“Pillar and Ground of Truth”) priest. P. Florensky. Sergiev Posad, 1914. P. 42.