Georgy Vasilievich Florovsky. Electronic collected works

Georgy Vasilievich Florovsky

Florovsky, Georgy Vasilyevich (1893-1979) - Russian theologian, cultural historian, philosopher. Born in the family of the rector of the Odessa Theological Seminary.

Florovsky Georgy Vasilyevich (1893-1979) - Russian Orthodox theologian, historian and one of the founders of the World Council of Churches. Works: “Dostoevsky and Europe” (Sofia, 1922), “On the Ways: Approval of the Eurasians. Book. 2." (M., 1922) - one of the authors of the collection, etc. Mentioned Gumilyov as one of the prominent Eurasians, the creator in 1921 of the first manifesto of the Eurasians "Exodus to the East" together with N. Trubetskoy and P. Savitsky. However, after the publication in 1928 of his article "Eurasian temptation" will enter into an ideological conflict with the leaders of the movement.

Quoted from: Lev Gumilyov. Encyclopedia. / Ch. ed. E.B. Sadykov, comp. T.K. Shanbai, - M., 2013, p. 615.

Other biographical material:

Sobolev A.V. Russian Orthodox theologian ( New Philosophical Encyclopedia. In four volumes. / Institute of Philosophy RAS. Scientific ed. advice: V.S. Stepin, A.A. Huseynov, G.Yu. Semigin. M., Thought, 2010).

Kyrlezhev A. I. Theologian, philosopher, historian ( Russian philosophy. Encyclopedia. Ed. the second, modified and supplemented. Under the general editorship of M.A. Olive. Comp. P.P. Apryshko, A.P. Polyakov. - M., 2014).

Beznyuk D.K. cultural historian ( The latest philosophical dictionary. Comp. Gritsanov A.A. Minsk, 1998).

Lossky N.O. Philosopher, scientist and religious thinker ( Great encyclopedia of the Russian people).

F.R. Orthodox thinker ( Encyclopedic Dictionary of Russian Civilization).

Read further:

Florovsky G.V. Ways of Russian theology (Article by A.V. Sobolev on the work of G.V. Florovsky).

Florovsky G.V. Ways of Russian theology (Article by A. T. Pavlov on the work of G. V. Florovsky).

Exodus to the East. Premonitions and Accomplishments. The affirmation of the Eurasians (Article by A. V. Sobolev on the collection of articles by P. N. Savitsky, P. P. Suvchinsky, N. S. Trubetskoy and G. V. Florovsky).

Exodus to the east. Premonitions and Accomplishments. The affirmation of the Eurasians (Article by Z. O. Gubbyeva and V. Ya. Pashchenko on the collection of articles by N. S. Trubetskoy, Savitsky, Florovsky, Suvchinsky).

Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).

Compositions:

Breaks and connections // Exodus to the East. Premonitions and Accomplishments. The approval of the Eurasians. Sofia, 1921;

The trick of the mind // Ibid;

On non-historical peoples (country of fathers and country of children) // Ibid.;

On Righteous and Sinful Patriotism // On the Way. The approval of the Eurasians. Book. 2. Berlin, 1922; D

Ostoevsky and Europe. Sofia, 1922;

Two Testaments // Russia and Latinism. Berlin, 1923;

Petrified insensibility. Regarding the controversy against the Eurasians // Way. Paris, 1926. No. 2;

Eurasian temptation // Modern notes. Paris, 1928. No. 34;

Petrified insensibility (about the controversy against the Eurasians) // Way. 1929. No. 2;

The languor of the spirit // Ibid. 1930. Prince. 20 (about P. Florensky);

Eastern Fathers IV century. Paris, 1931;

Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937 Vilnius, 1991;

Metaphysical premises of utopianism // VF. 1990. No. 10;

Did Christ live? Historical testimonies about Christ. M., 1991.

(28.08.1893–11.08.1979)

Florovsky Georgy Vasilyevich, archpriest, religious thinker, theologian and historian. Author of numerous works on Byzantine theology of the 4th-8th centuries, on the history of Russian religious consciousness. Professor at Harvard and Princeton Universities.

Born August 28, 1893 in Elizavetgrad in the family of Archpriest Vasily Florovsky. In 1916 he graduated from the historical and philological department of the Novorossiysk University (in Odessa). He also studied the history of philosophy and the natural sciences (his experimental work on the physiology of salivation was approved by I.P. Pavlov and was published in the Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences in 1917). In 1919 - Privatdozent of the Department of Philosophy and Psychology.

In January 1920, he emigrated with his parents to Bulgaria, where he participated in the creation of the Russian Religious and Philosophical Society, lived first in Sofia, and then in Prague.

During these years, Florovsky became one of the founders of the Eurasian movement (together with N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, P.P. Suvchinsky and others), participated in the Eurasian collection-manifesto Exodus to the East (1921). He took part in two more Eurasian collections - "On the Way" (Berlin, 1922) and "Russia and Latinism" (Berlin, 1923).

Apparently, he was united with Eurasianism by the assertion of the uniqueness of the Russian path of development, which is fundamentally different from the Western one, a purely critical attitude towards the Western type of rationality, towards Western culture in general, as well as a call to be based on the true Orthodox faith and traditions. But at the same time, he did not accept some specifically Eurasian ideas, for example, about the spiritual closeness of Russian and Turkic-steppe cultures, about the transformation of Eurasianism into a coherent system of official Russian ideology, capable of competing with Marxism and replacing it. After publishing a few more articles in Eurasian publications, Florovsky moves away from the movement. The final ideologization, politicization and, as it seemed to many, the pro-Bolshevism of Eurasianism at the end of the 1920s made Florovsky one of the fundamental critics of this trend. The article "The Eurasian Seduction" (1928) is considered one of the most serious and thorough critiques of the Eurasian ideology.

In 1922 he married K. I. Simonova in Prague.

In 1923 he defended his master's thesis "The Historical Philosophy of Herzen" in Prague. He taught at the Higher Commercial Institute and at the Russian Law Faculty of Charles University in Prague (1923-1926). Master of the Russian Academic Group in Prague (1924). Member of the "Brotherhood of St. Sophia", founded in Prague by Fr. Sergei Bulgakov.

In 1923, he took part in the work of the first organizational congress of the Russian Student Christian Movement (RSHD) in localities. Psherov (Czechoslovakia).

Around 1926 he moved to France. Professor of St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris (1926-1939, 1947-1948), taught patrology, dogmatic and moral theology. Lecture courses on the history of patristics became the basis of a two-volume study: "Eastern Fathers of the 4th century." (Paris, 1931) and "Byzantine Fathers of the 5th-8th centuries." (Paris, 1933).

In 1932 he received the priesthood.

Member of the Icon Society in Paris. Doctor of Theology "honoris causa" of the University of St. Andrew in Edinburgh (1937).

During World War II, Florovsky lived in Yugoslavia. Only in 1946 was he able to return to Paris.

In 1948-1955 he was professor (from 1951 - dean) of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary in New York.

In 1954 he was elected president of the National Council of Churches in the USA.

From 1956 to 1964, he held the Department of Eastern Church History at Harvard University.

In the last years of his life he taught at Princeton University in the Department of Theology and Slavic Studies.

Member of the Fellowship of the Holy Martyr of Albania and St. Sergius. A prominent member of the ecumenical movement, he was elected to the executive committee of the World Council of Churches (1948).

He died on August 11, 1979 in Princeton (USA). He was buried in the cemetery of the Church of St. Vladimir near Trenton (USA).

Performance evaluation

At the basis of the theological and philosophical position of Fr. George Florovsky is the idea of ​​"neopatristic synthesis", a return to the teachings of the Church Fathers. Such a path, in his opinion, involves the perception and "synthesis" of the metaphysical content of patristics, taking into account modern philosophical experience ("Forward - to the Fathers").

According to N. O. Lossky, “the most Orthodox of modern Russian philosophers,” Florovsky made a serious contribution to such diverse areas as literature, the history of philosophy, theology, and the history of Russian religious thought.

A well-known figure in the Orthodox Church in America, Protopresbyter John, in the preface to Florovsky's fundamental work "The Paths of Russian Theology" notes that although Florovsky was a brilliant self-taught in the field of theology, having no formal theological training, he not only immersed himself in the study of the Church Fathers, but also gained fame like a patrol. His work "Ways of Russian Theology" was recognized by many as the main bibliographic reference book on the history of the spiritual culture of Russia. This book went through numerous editions (copies of the first edition became a bibliographic rarity, since the circulation was almost completely destroyed during the bombing of Belgrade).

Florovsky's worldview throughout his life evolved towards an ever greater orthodoxy of the traditional Orthodox theology. He actively argued with the "sophiological" interpretation of Orthodoxy by Vladimir Solovyov, priests Pavel Florensky and Sergius Bulgakov.

Proceedings

• Dostoevsky and Europe. - Sofia, 1922. 40 p.
• On the Ways: Approval of the Eurasians: Book. 2. - M., Berlin: Helikon, 1922. 352 p. (One of the authors of the collection).
• Russia and Latinism. - Berlin, 1923. 218 p. (One of the authors of the collection).
• Did Christ live? Historical testimonies about Christ. - Paris: UMSA-Press; , 1929. 48 p.
• Eastern Fathers of the 4th century. - Paris, 1931. 240 p. (2nd edition (reprint) - Paris: UMSA-Press, 1990; 3rd edition (reprint) - M.: Palomnik, 1992); 4th edition - Holy Trinity Sergius Lavra, 1999. 260 p.)
• Byzantine Fathers of the V-VIII centuries: From the readings at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. - Paris, 1933. 260 p. (2nd edition (reprint) - Paris: UMSA-Press, 1990; 3rd edition (reprint) - M.: Palomnik, 1992).
• Transmigration of souls: The problem of immortality in occultism and Christianity: Collection of articles. - Paris: YMCA-Press, 1935. 166 p. (One of the authors of the collection).
• Ways of Russian theology. - Paris, 1937. p. 574. (2nd edition (reprint) - Paris: YMCA-Press, 1983; 3rd edition (reprint) - Vilnius, 1991; 4th edition (reprint) - Kyiv: Path to truth, 1991) (English, French (Les voies de la theologie russe. - Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1991. 314 p.) translations).
• Bible, Church, Tradition. - Belmont, 1972. 127 p.
• Fathers of the first centuries. - Kirovograd, 1993. 45 p.
• From the past of Russian thought: Collection of articles. - M.: Agraf, 1998. 431 p.
• Selected theological works. - M.: Probel, 2000. 318 p.

August 28 (September 9), 1893, Elizavetgrad - August 11, 1979, Princeton, USA] - Russian Orthodox theologian, philosopher, cultural historian. Born into a family that produced a number of clergymen and professors. I hesitated for a long time, choosing between a theological academy and a university. In 1916 he graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of the Novorossiysk University. He also studied the natural sciences, published a work on experimental physiology. Was left to prepare for a professorship. Since 1919 Privatdozent at the Department of Philosophy and Psychology. In 1920 he emigrated to Bulgaria. In 1922 he moved to Prague. After defending his master's thesis "The Historical Philosophy of Herzen" (1923) - Privatdozent of the Russian Faculty of Law in Prague. Since 1926, professor of patrology at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. He accepted the priesthood in 1932. In 1939-45 he lived in Yugoslavia, then in Prague. Since 1946 he was again a professor at the St. Sergius Institute in Paris. Since 1948 professor, in 1951-55 dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary in New York. In 1956-64 he was a professor at Harvard University, then until the end of his life he taught at Princeton University. One of the organizers and leaders of the World Council of Churches.

In 1921 he was one of the founders of Evrazchistvo, but in 1923 he retired from active work, and in 1928 he broke with the movement completely, subjecting him to harsh criticism for refusing a culture-centric position in favor of politics. But the echoes of the Eurasian disputes are clear in his later fundamental work The Ways of Russian Theology (Paris, 1937), where he explains the ailments of Russian society by the weakness of the creative will and imitation, raising the origins of the "Western captivity" of Russian thought to the 17th century. The trouble with Russian culture is the lack of creative acceptance of history, which happens in this case, as it were, in a “passive voice, more happens than happens” (Ways of Russian Theology. K., 1991, p. 502).

Florovsky disagreed with the majority of emigrants in his assessment of the "Russian spiritual renaissance", criticizing it for its tendency to "depersonalize a person" and for its narrow historical outlook. He believed that Russian religious philosophers tend to test Orthodox spiritual experience with German idealism, but according to Florovsky, on the contrary, the worldly philosophy of the New Age should be revised in the light of the experience of the churching of Hellenism carried out by the Church Fathers. This was what his program of "neopatristic synthesis" envisaged. Being a consistent personalist, he insisted that every act of understanding only as a personal action has meaning and value. Attempts to clear the mind of premises lead to sterility. It is not the depersonalization of the mind that leads to the truth, but the entry of the personality into eternity and immortality through deification. True knowledge is inseparable from spiritual achievement. He considered despondency and lack of faith not only a sin, but also a defect of the mind. And the Russian tragedy, Florovsky insisted, should not become a pretext for hasty pessimistic conclusions. “The Russian path has not closed yet. The way is open, though difficult. A harsh historical sentence must be reborn into a creative call to accomplish what has not been done” (ibid., p. 520).

Cit.: Eastern Fathers of the 4th c. Paris, 1931; M., 1992; Byzantine Fathers 5th-8th centuries Paris, 1933; M., 1992; From the past of Russian thought. M., 1998; Dogma and history. M., 1998.

Lit .: Khoruzhy S. S. Russia, Eurasia and father Georgy Florovsky. - "Beginnings", 1991, Ne 3; Georgy Florovsky. Priest, theologian, philosopher. M., 1995.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Russian theologian, philosopher, cultural historian. Graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Odessa University. He had no theological education. In 1920 he emigrated. Since 1926 - Professor of Patrology at the St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. In 1932 he accepted the priesthood. In 1948-1955 - professor, then dean of St. Vladimir's Theological Academy in New York. He taught at Harvard (Professor of the History of the Eastern Church, 1956-1964) and Princeton (Department of Theology and Slavic Studies, 1964-1979) universities (USA). Vice President of the National Council of Churches USA (1954-1957). His main works: The Eastern Fathers of the 1st century (1931), Ways of Russian Theology (1937) and others. system of their views "neopatristic synthesis" (the main movement of F.'s philosophical thinking was carried out in the context of the idea "Forward - to the Fathers!"). He opposed some ideas of Russian religious philosophy, an opponent of sophiology (V. Solovyov, Bulgakov, Florensky) as an expression, in his opinion, of German idealism and Gnosticism; criticized the theory of unity and believed that God creates the world as a different reality, different from itself. God created man, according to F., a free active personality, history is the unity of creative acts of a free personality; human knowledge is infinite in its progress. The death and resurrection of Christ transform the death of a person from a "cosmic catastrophe" into a "sleep" until the time when the soul and body are united at the resurrection from the dead ("Death on the Cross", 1930). The Christian worldview (unlike the Greek, philosophical and rational) is historical: time is not cyclical, it is not a cycle, but a line that has a beginning, an end and a goal. As a figure in the ecumenical movement. F. advocated "actual joint work ... in the pursuit of Christian truth", but believed that Catholicism replaces the invisible presence (and leadership) of Christ in the Church with the idea of ​​his vicar (pope), who essentially replaces Christ in the earthly church and history ("The problem of Christian unification", 1933). In his fundamental work "Ways of Russian Theology", covering the period from the 14th century. by 1917 F. gave a specific analysis of the production process philosophical knowledge in Russia, singled out its features, traced the history of the relationship between Western and Russian philosophical culture. F. noted that Russia is characterized by an early-established orientation towards understanding its own history and the role of Russia in world culture. This orientation was most often clothed in the form of theological quest. An important role in the formation of Russian philosophy was played by Russian fiction. F. was sure that Western thought should not be neglected (the systems of scholastics, the experience of Catholic mystics and theologians, who caused a peculiar “Western captivity” of domestic religious thought from the 17th century), but on Russian soil it must be assimilated based on the style and methods of representatives Eastern patristics. According to F., the "Christian Hellenism" of the era of the Ecumenical Councils and Greek patristics (4th-8th centuries) is the enduring paradigm of Orthodox theology. "Ways of Russian Theology" is not without some subjectivity of the author, which is caused by his ecclesiastical conservatism and pan-religiousness in philosophical topics. So, F. considered the Eucharist as a form of truly ecclesiastical catholicity, on the basis of which the church is able to act as a transfigured humanity. BUT. Lossky believed that of all Russian theologians, Fr. George is the most faithful to Orthodox teaching. F. strives to strictly adhere to the Holy Scriptures and patriotic tradition. It should be added that F.'s conservative approach to theology was never combined with blind worship of the past and was alien to intolerance and formalism. Acting as the greatest authority in the fields of study of Slavic and Byzantine studies, striving to overcome the alienation of the Greek and Slavic branches of Orthodoxy, F., of course, was adequately interpreted in the West as a highly intellectual "voice of Orthodoxy" of the 20th century.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

FLOROVSKII Georgy Vasilyevich (1893-1979)

Relig. figure, philosopher, theologian, cultural historian. In 1911 he graduated from the gymnasium with a gold medal and entered the historical and philological studies. f-t Novoross. university In 1916 he graduated from it and was left to prepare for a professorship at the department. philosophy and psychology. In 1919 he became Privatdozent. In January 1920 he emigrated with his parents to Bulgaria, where he participated in the creation of the Eurasian movement. In 1922 he married K. Simonova. In 1923 he defended the magician. dis. "Histor. Philosophy of Herzen", taught at the legal. f-te Prague. university In 1926 he moved to Paris, where he was elected prof. Rus. theologian. institute, where he taught patristics. In 1931, with the organizational and financial support of I. Bunakov-Fondaminsky, the books Eastern Fathers of the 4th century were published, and in 1933, Byzantine Fathers of the 5th-8th centuries. Since 1929, F. paid much attention to the problems of ecumenism, becoming one of the founders of the Commonwealth of St.. Albania and Sergius. In 1932 he accepted the priesthood, and in 1936 he was elevated to the rank of archpriest. In 1937, Ways of Russian Theology was published, commissioned by the YMCA-PRESS publishing house. During the Second World. During the war he lived in Yugoslavia, in the fall of 1944 he moved to Prague, and in 1945 to Paris. In 1948 he left for the USA, where until 1961 he was a member of the center, and will perform. committees of the World Council of Churches. He taught at Columbia, Harvard, and other high fur boots, did otd. messages and lectures. In 1951-55 he was dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary. Since 1965 - member of the Amer. Academy of Sciences and Arts. Since 1976 - honorary member of the Brit. Academy.

F.'s worldview was formed under the influence of the holy fathers. heritage and a number of works on Orthodoxy (M. Bogoslovsky); works in Russian history and history of Russian. cultures of Klyuchevsky, S. Solovyov, Platonov, Gershenzon, on the basis of which his idea of ​​history as part of Christ was formed. religion; as well as youthful enthusiasm for natures. sciences (the article "On the mechanisms of reflex salivation" was highly appreciated by I. Pavlov and was published in the "Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences").

The pinnacle of culture, according to F., is Christianity. Its basis lies in the synthesis of the intuition of the Holy Scriptures with the categorical apparatus ancient philosophy, which arose in the Nicene (325) and post-Nicene (until the 8th century) period and allowed Christianity to be institutionalized.

The study of patristic synthesis in Europe. culture was undertaken by F. long before the "Philosophy of the Church Fathers" (1957) X. Wolfson or the works of R. Guardini. F. identified two dangers that prevented the creation of Christ. culture. First, Rome. the empire, like Christianity, claimed a certain universalism in all areas of life, incl. spiritual. Secondly, the problem of gnosis or Gnosticism, which emerged from the Judeo-Christian tradition, Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, esoteric Eastern teachings. Gnosis derives the world directly from the nature of God, denying the act of creation. The knowledge contained in this teaching excludes any form of free will, opposing them to rigid predestination. According to F., the conflict with dec. elements of gnosis, which indirectly stimulated the cultural development of the world, can be found in the deism of the Enlightenment (Freemasonry), German. idealism, Russian sophiology, existential philosophy. As an alternative, F. proposed a "neopatristic synthesis" in culture - a solution to the problems raised by the Gnostics on the basis of the teachings of St. fathers and biblical tradition. F. analyzed the opposition "gnosis - patristic. (Neopatristic.) synthesis" in all his studies.

In book. "Ways of Russian Theology" (1937) F. gave a detailed analysis of the opposition on the basis of the fathers. culture. He considered the period from con. 15th c. (crisis of the patristic tradition) until 1917. F. traced the genesis of Gnosticism from the Western. influences that took shape in the official. ideology of Feofan Prokopovich, through the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the Alexander era to the extremist currents of Tue. floor. 19th century F. dwelled in detail on the principles of selection Gnostic. ideas, paying attention to the dominant factor in the choice of personal reflection of their bearer. F. paid much attention to the objective factors of culture, coincidences, to-rye led to the fact that in con. 19th century theologian, thought was able to free itself from the paragnostic. influences and return to the neopatristic. synthesis, to a fundamental ecclesiology. Analyzing Russian. culture, F. noted its binarity. He wrote about the "day" (Christian) and "night" (linguistic) sides of mass consciousness.

F. finds the influence of echoes of gnosis in the works of L. Tolstoy. His moralism is associated with sentimentalism, which originated as a religious-mystical. direction. The denial of the church by Tolstoy is connected with the denial of history by sentimentalism, without which, according to F., it is impossible to understand the church.

Utilitarian perception of man and modern. culture was noted by F. in the philosophy of the common cause of N. Fedorov. F. saw in his work a "project of an imaginary deed", an escape from history into an illusion, the construction of Christianity without God, the resurrection of the body without a soul.

Skeptical of the philosophy of unity, F. did not reduce it to the Gnostic. culture. In the analysis of the work of S. Trubetskoy, he noted that the historicism of the latter is not a tribute to tradition, but a feeling of universal solidarity. Trubetskoy managed to avoid gnosis by placing Hellenism as Christ. problem.

The problem of Gnosticism was considered by F. in the field of sociopolit, culture. According to F., Eurasianism, like Marxism, has its source in the culture of Protestantism, with its providentialism, the denial of free will. The error of Eurasianism is in the substitution of cultural foundations, as a result of which religion is the basis of any cult-historical. type is replaced by ethnic. or terr. factor. Thus, the Christian, spiritual (historical) unity of Europe and Russia is denied by the Eurasians in favor of the territorial one - with Asia.

F. had, therefore, an influence on the app. and immigrant culture. Long teaching. work allowed F. leave behind a whole school of specialists in the culture of Byzantium. The works of K. Rosemond on the Christology of John of Damascus, D. Evans on Leonty of Byzantium and others have found a worthy place in the modern. Byzantology.

Op.: Vost. fathers of the 4th century M., 1992; Vost. fathers of the V-VI11 centuries. M., 1992; Russian ways. theology. Kyiv, 1991; Eurasian temptation // Modern. notes. T. 34. Paris, 1928; Collected Works. v. 1-3. Belmont, 1972-76.

Lit .: George Florovsky - clergyman, theologian, philosopher. M., 1995; Fotiyev K. In memory of Fr. G. Florovsky // Vestnik RHD. T. 130. Paris; New York; M., 1979; Apocrypha of ancient Christians: Research, texts, comments. M., 1989; Raeff M. Enticements and Rifts. Minneapolis, 1990; Russian and Orthodoxy: Essays in honor of G. Florovsky. The Hague; V.3. P., 1974.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

Florovsky Georgy Vasilievich

(1893-1979) ? religious figure, philosopher, theologian, cultural historian. In 1911 he graduated from the gymnasium with a gold medal and entered the historical and philological studies. f-t Novoross. university In 1916 he graduated from it and was left to prepare for a professorship at the department. philosophy and psychology. In 1919 he became Privatdozent. In January 1920 he emigrated with his parents to Bulgaria, where he participated in the creation of the Eurasian movement (see Eurasianism). In 1922 he married K. Simonova. In 1923 he defended the magician. dis. “Histor. philosophy of Herzen”, taught at the legal. f-te Prague. university In 1926 he moved to Paris, where he was elected prof. Rus. theologian. institute, where he taught patristics. In 1931, with the organizational and financial support of I. Bunakov-Fondaminsky, the books Eastern Fathers of the 4th century were published, and in 1933 - Byzantine Fathers of the 5th-8th centuries. Since 1929, F. paid much attention to the problems of ecumenism, becoming one of the founders of the Commonwealth of St.. Albania and Sergius. In 1932 he accepted the priesthood, and in 1936 he was elevated to the rank of archpriest. In 1937, “Ways of the Russian. theology”, written by order of the publishing house “IMKA-PRESS”. During the Second World. During the war he lived in Yugoslavia, in the fall of 1944 he moved to Prague, and in 1945 to Paris. In 1948 he left for the USA, where until 1961 he was a member of the center. and perform. committees of the World Council of Churches. He taught at Columbia, Harvard. and others high fur boots, did otd. messages and lectures. In 1951-55 he was dean of St. Vladimir's Seminary. Since 1965 - member of the Amer. Academy of Sciences and Arts. Since 1976 - honorary member of the Brit. Academy. F.'s worldview was formed under the influence of the holy fathers. heritage and a number of works on Orthodoxy (M. Bogoslovsky); works in Russian history and history of Russian. cultures of Klyuchevsky, S. Solovyov, Platonov, Gershenzon, on the basis of which his idea of ​​history as part of Christ was formed. religion; as well as youthful enthusiasm for natures. sciences (the article “On the mechanisms of reflex salivation” was highly appreciated by I. Pavlov and was published in the “Proceedings of the Imperial Academy of Sciences”). The pinnacle of culture, according to F., is Christianity. Its basis lies in the synthesis of the intuition of Holy Scripture with the categorical apparatus of ancient philosophy, which arose in the Nicene (325) and post-Nicene (before the 8th century) period and made it possible to institutionalize Christianity. The study of patristic synthesis in Europe. culture was undertaken by F. long before the “Philosophy of the Church Fathers” (1957) by X. Wolfson or the works of R. Guardini. F. identified two dangers that prevented the creation of Christ. culture. First, Rome. the empire, like Christianity, claimed a certain universalism in all areas of life, incl. spiritual. Secondly, the problem of gnosis or Gnosticism, which emerged from the Judeo-Christian tradition, Pythagoreanism, Neoplatonism, esoteric Eastern teachings. Gnosis derives the world directly from the nature of God, denying the act of creation. The knowledge contained in this teaching excludes any form of free will, opposing them to rigid predestination. According to F., the conflict with dec. elements of gnosis, which indirectly stimulated the cultural development of the world, can be found in the deism of the Enlightenment (Freemasonry), German. idealism, Russian sophiology, existential philosophy. As an alternative, F. offered “neo-patristic. synthesis” in culture - the solution of the problems raised by the Gnostics on the basis of the teachings of St. fathers and biblical tradition. F. analyzed the opposition “gnosis - patristic. (neopatristic) synthesis” in all his studies. In book. “Ways of Russian. theology ”(1937) F. gave a detailed analysis of the opposition on the basis of the Fatherland. culture. He considered the period from con. 15th c. (crisis of the patristic tradition) until 1917. F. traced the genesis of Gnosticism from the Western. influences that took shape in the official. ideology of Feofan Prokopovich, through the philosophy of the Enlightenment, the Alexander era to the extremist currents of Tue. floor. 19th century F. dwelled in detail on the principles of selection Gnostic. ideas, paying attention to the dominant factor in the choice of personal reflection of their bearer. F. paid much attention to the objective factors of culture, coincidences, to-rye led to the fact that in con. 19th century theologian. thought was able to free itself from the paragnostic. influences and return to the neopatristic. synthesis, to a fundamental ecclesiology. Analyzing Russian. culture, F. noted its binarity. He wrote about the “day” (Christian) and “night” (linguistic) sides of mass consciousness. F. finds the influence of echoes of gnosis in the works of L. Tolstoy. His moralism is associated with sentimentalism, which originated as a religious-mystical. direction. The denial of the church by Tolstoy is connected with the denial of history by sentimentalism, without which, according to F., it is impossible to understand the church. Utilitarian perception of man and modern. culture was noted by F. in the philosophy of the common cause of N. Fedorov. F. saw in his work a “project of an imaginary deed”, an escape from history into an illusion, the construction of Christianity without God, the resurrection of the body without a soul. Skeptical of the philosophy of unity, F. did not reduce it to the Gnostic. culture. In his analysis of S. Trubetskoy's work (see Trubetskoy, Sergei), he noted that the latter's historicism is not a tribute to tradition, but a sense of universal solidarity. Trubetskoy managed to avoid gnosis by placing Hellenism as Christ. problem. The problem of Gnosticism was considered by F. in the field of socio-political. culture. According to F., Eurasianism, like Marxism, has its source in the culture of Protestantism, with its providentialism, the denial of free will. The error of Eurasianism is in the substitution of cultural foundations, as a result of which religion is the basis of any cult-historical. type is replaced by ethnic. or terr. factor. Thus, the Christian, spiritual (historical) unity of Europe and Russia is denied by the Eurasians in favor of the territorial one - with Asia. F. rendered mean. influence on the app. and immigrant culture. Long teaching. work allowed F. leave behind a whole school of specialists in the culture of Byzantium. The works of K. Rosemond on the Christology of John of Damascus, D. Evans on Leonty of Byzantium and others have found a worthy place in the modern. Byzantology. Op.: East. fathers of the 4th century M., 1992; Vost. fathers of the V-VI11 centuries. M., 1992; Russian ways. theology. Kyiv, 1991; Eurasian temptation // Modern. notes. T. 34. Paris, 1928; Collected Works. v. 1-3. Belmont, 1972-76. Lit.: George Florovsky - clergyman, theologian, philosopher. M., 1995; Fotiyev K. In memory of Fr. G. Florovsky // Vestnik RHD. T. 130. Paris; New York; M., 1979; Apocrypha of ancient Christians: Research, texts, comments. M., 1989; Raeff M. Enticements and Rifts. Minneapolis, 1990; Russian and Orthodoxy: Essays in honor of G. Florovsky. The Hague; V.3. P., 1974. A. V. MARTYNOV Cultural studies of the twentieth century. Encyclopedia. M.1996

The History of Relationships in the Light of the Sophiological Controversy

Relations between George Vasilievich (later Father George) Florovsky and archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov left a noticeable mark in the history of Russian theological thought of the 20th century. Their personal acquaintance took place in the spring of 1923 in Prague, where Bulgakov arrived shortly after his expulsion from Soviet Russia at the end of 1922; he was invited as a professor of ecclesiastical law and theology by the Russian Faculty of Law, founded at the University of Prague with the help of the so-called "Russian Action" of the Czech government. And Florovsky just at that time was finishing in the same educational institution dissertation on Herzen. Having successfully defended it in 1923, he was assigned to the Department of the History of the Philosophy of Law with the title of Privatdozent.

By the time of the meeting, Florovsky was already well acquainted with Bulgakov's printed works. Ever since his gymnasium years, Florovsky showed a keen interest in the theological currents dating back to Vl. Solovyov, but his youthful hobbies rather soon gave way to a more critical attitude towards the legacy of the philosopher, and already in 1921-22. Florovsky expresses his disagreement with this line of thought in print. However, his disapproving assessment of the philosophical orientation, of which Bulgakov was the most prominent representative, did not prevent Florovsky from feeling sincere respect for the personality of Fr. Sergius. This is eloquently evidenced by the fact that shortly after the meeting, Florovsky chooses Bulgakov as his spiritual father. However, as we learn from Bulgakov's diary of that time, they soon had some significant disagreements, sparingly noted by Bulgakov with the following entry: "I can not put G.V.F. on the rails." In all likelihood, these words indicate a disagreement of a philosophical nature; in any case, disputes of this kind colored the relationship between Florovsky and Bulgakov during all subsequent years.

I will cite two characteristic episodes that point to the difficult relationship that developed between them from the very beginning. In the autumn of 1923, Bulgakov headed the newly created Brotherhood of St. Sophia, whose goal was to develop and spread the Orthodox worldview. Florovsky was one of the fourteen founding members, but after only a few, he expressed his readiness to leave the Brotherhood due to disagreement with the philosophical views of the other members, and at the same time doubted the possibility of taking a position in the Theological Institute being created in Paris, because he felt the incompatibility of his philosophical views with the views of other teachers.

At the root of disputes and disagreements in these years lay a deep divergence in the assessment of the legacy of Vladimir Solovyov. It is known that Bulgakov felt a sense of gratitude towards the Russian philosopher for the positive influence that Solovyov's works had on his personal spiritual evolution. Moreover, in his eyes, Solovyov deserved credit for his attempt to formulate an Orthodox conception of Sophia, despite the fact that by 1924 Bulgakov already recognized much of Solovyov's approach as imperfect and unfinished.

Florovsky looked at the question quite differently. Although he showed scientific interest in Solovyov throughout his life, he was convinced that the influence of the philosopher on Russian spiritual and intellectual history was negative and even pernicious. In his correspondence with Bulgakov (after Father Sergius moved to Paris), Florovsky expresses this judgment with a sharpness that leaves no doubt that the entire post-Soloviev galaxy of Russian philosophers and theologians, to which Bulgakov belonged, is being criticized at the same time.

The first letter on this topic that has come down to us is dated December 30, 1925. In it, Florovsky talks about his study of Solovyov, in particular, about conversations with N.O. Lossky on the religious evolution of the philosopher. These studies convinced him, he writes, that his earlier criticisms of Solovyov were too mild. And he adds a somewhat playful phrase: “Do you know who pushed me towards even greater intransigence? Author of Quiet Thoughts... This refers to a collection of articles by Bulgakov himself, published in 1918, which includes a large work devoted to the most controversial aspects of Solovyov's heritage: his quasi-erotic attraction to the Eternal Feminine-Sophia, and the painful episode with Anna Schmidt. Florovsky continues:

As for me personally, I feel repulsed by Sol<овьева>throughout the relay<игиозно >-Phil<ософской>thoughts. And through this renunciation, we will also be freed from the whole vague tradition that leads through Freemasonry to the extra-church mysticism of imaginary secret spectators of bad taste - and it is precisely this tradition, in my opinion, that has fettered our creative forces.<...>And about Solovyov it is now necessary (to compose - A.K.) not panegyrics and almost akathists, but tearful prayers for the dead - for a troubled soul ...

Bulgakov answered this letter only two months later - at the very beginning of 1926 he fell seriously ill and was almost at death's door. In connection with the interruption in Bulgakov's teaching activities due to his illness, Florovsky was asked from Paris if he would agree to conduct a course on apologetics at the Theological Institute in the spring of that year, with a request to address the answer to the recovering Bulgakov. In a large undated letter, probably referring to the first half of February, Florovsky expresses his joyful readiness to accept "such obedience" and discusses at length the composition of the proposed course. But at the end of the letter he returns to the topic of his studies as Solovyov, expressing criticism here in a much more moderate form than in the passage quoted above. Florovsky writes, in particular, that he continues to consider Solovyov “external” to the whole spirit of the Orthodox Church, but adds a strongly mitigating clause to this sentence: “no matter how much we love him, no matter how grateful we are (and should not be) to him ".

In a reply letter dated February 21, Bulgakov dwells in some detail on the question of Solovyov's significance, responding mainly to the harsh remarks of the December letter. Illness, writes Bulgakov, led him to reconsider many of his previous views, including those that dated back to Solovyov.

I thank the Lord for my illness; I believe and know that she was sent to me for admonition and help. All the time I was in consciousness and spiritual and even mental tension. And it seems to me that much more has partly burned out, partly burned out in my experience. It is still difficult for me to sum up the “ideological” results myself.<...>.

Pages from Quiet Thoughts, to<ото>which, you obviously understand, burned down even earlier, along with all of Schmidtology. I have nothing to defend ideologically against you in Vl. FROM<оловьев>That is, I felt this with particular obviousness for myself when there was his memory.

Rejecting Solovyov on the theological plane, Bulgakov, however, defends his significance on the subjective-emotional plane. From this point of view, he writes, Solovyov remains one of his "fathers" for him. In the same way, in his opinion, many people look at the philosopher, therefore the process of liberation from Solovyov, which Florovsky set himself as a goal, should take place freely, without any pressure and "anathematization in the heart":

After all, C<оловье>lives still today in our contemporaries who need some kind of help, and not just<в>opposition or denial.

Florovsky's answer has not been preserved, but judging by Bulgakov's next letter (May 10), Florovsky expounded on Fr. Sergius, the course of his studies on the history of the Church, and, apparently, again spoke of Soloviev in a relatively mild form. In any case, Bulgakov took either the words or the tone of Florovsky as a sign of a spiritual change, and in his answer he expresses joy that Florovsky, as it seems to him, has moved away from his sharp rejection of Soloviev (“You have moved aground from your anti-Solovievism”) and - as Bulgakov hopes, is on the way to understanding the philosophical inevitability of the concept of Sophia.

Florovsky's answer is again unknown, but Bulgakov's letter of July 20 shows that he protested very vigorously against such an interpretation, and he connected his objections with one of the treatises of St. Gregory Palamas, the translation of which he attached to his letter, which has not come down to us. In his response, Bulgakov expresses deep regret over Florovsky's "sophiopia" and warns that such an attitude can lead him to very dubious results.

And this, in turn, provoked the most militant of Florovsky's well-known statements on the subject of Solovyov and sophiology. In a letter to Bulgakov dated August 4, he delivers an uncompromising verdict on Soloviev's concept of Sophia, along with an explicit but more diplomatic criticism of Bulgakov. I quote two fragments from this lengthy document.

As I said a long time ago, there are two teachings about Sophia and even - two Sophia, more precisely, two images of Sophia: true and real and - imaginary. In the name of the first, holy temples were built in Byzantium and in Russia. The second inspired Solovyov and his Masonic and Western teachers - up to the Gnostics and Philo. Church Sophia Sol<овьев>did not know at all: he knew Sophia from Boehm and the Boehmists, from Valentine and Kabbalah. And this sophiology is heretical and renounced. What you find in Athanasius refers to another Sophia. And more about her can be found here<илия>Great and Gregory of Nyssa, from which there is a direct path to Palamas.

I will say sharply, Solovyov has everything superfluous, but at the same time there is no main thing at all. Everything is just on a different topic, and therefore not on the topic. Everything is superfluous. I think that Solovyov also prevented you from finding the main thing for a long time. And in order to find it, one must go through Christology, and not through trinitology, for only in Christ Jesus "worship appeared in the Trinity."<...>All this, of course, needs to be told better. I insist on one thing: there are two channels - ecclesiastical sophiestry and gnostic. Sol<овьев>- in the second, and before that the second church<овному>the theologian doesn't care.

It is difficult to more clearly formulate one's rejection of sophiology and the entire philosophical tradition that goes from Solovyov to Bulgakov. And it is all the more remarkable that, as far as we can judge, on a personal level, Florovsky's relationship with Fr. Sergius during these years remained quite friendly. In letters, they carefully inquire about each other, Fr. Sergiy sends his blessing to Florovsky every time, and he usually ends his answers with the phrase “G. Florovsky, who loves you.” (Judging by Bulgakov's remarks, Florovsky wrote to him often and in detail, although only a part of his messages was preserved in Bulgakov's Paris archive).

In the summer of 1926, the appointment of Florovsky to the chair of patristics at the Theological Institute was determined, and after he moved to Paris, the correspondence of the previous months naturally ceased. Florovsky's dispute with sophiology, however, did not dry up, but moved to a qualitatively different level, and now began to be expressed in purely scientific articles directed against the theoretical and historical foundations of the sophiological doctrine, at the same time most scrupulously avoiding polemics and any kind of direct criticism. Bulgakov.

I will dwell briefly on four works of this type, although I share the opinion of the late archpriest. John Meyendorff that anti-sophiological pathos is discernible in almost the entire scientific heritage of Fr. George.

In 1928, Florovsky published a large and abundantly documented article entitled "Creature and Creature", in which he explores the interpretation of the philosophy of creation, which follows from the patristic statements on this subject. The article does not mention either Sophia or Bulgakov, there is not even a hint of polemical enthusiasm in it. The point, however, is that the sophiological system is based on a fundamentally different theory, which naturally leads to different philosophical consequences. Florovsky emphasizes the radically free nature of the act of creation, as interpreted in traditional Christianity (God did not need to create the world), and points to the doctrine of a “complete and final break” between God and the created world. Both of them fundamentally contradict the sophiological premises, according to which it is argued that God created the world for the sake of expressing His love, and that, most importantly, Sophia is a kind of connecting link between God and the world.

The second example refers to 1930, when at a conference in Bulgaria Florovsky presented a detailed report on the historical context in which churches in Byzantium and in Russia were dedicated to St. Sophia and icons depicting Sophia, the Wisdom of God, were venerated. And although the report again lacks any mention of Bulgakov or his predecessors, Florovsky's work is undoubtedly directed against attempts - characteristic of both Bulgakov and Florensky and Solovyov - to present sophiology as something sanctified by the centuries-old tradition of the Church. Contrary to this understanding, Florovsky cites historical data showing that in medieval Orthodox practice, the dedication of the temple "Sophia, the Wisdom of God" was perceived as something tantamount to a dedication to Christ. As for the well-known iconographic images of St. Sophia, Florovsky suggests that images of this kind are most likely inspired by Western influence. Although this hypothesis remains controversial, the very posing of the question is a good example of the approach chosen by Florovsky - an attempt in a purely scientific way, without getting personal, to criticize the fundamental premises of the sophiological doctrine.

In the same year, 1930, Florovsky twice appeared in the press with articles directly related to his rejection of sophiology. In the first of them, reviews of the reprint of the book by Fr. Pavel Florensky "The Pillar and Ground of Truth", he openly criticizes the contradictions, in his opinion, characteristic of Sophian vision. But still this is not the main thing. In this review and in the article "The Dispute about German Idealism", published at the end of 1930, Florovsky develops a theme that later became the main one in his approach to the entire problematic of the issue. He points to the irresistible desire of thinkers like Florensky to abstract from the real historical canvas, including sacred history. Symbolism, as it were, obscures or even replaces history, and against this background, the image of the real God-man Christ inevitably pales and is lost. This is precisely the most serious accusation brought against the author of The Pillar, who at one time, as is well known, had a huge influence on Bulgakov.

Florovsky sees the same exit from historical time and immersion in the world of ideal, but motionless categories in the worldview of the classics. German philosophy XVIII-XIX centuries, such as Kant, Schelling and Hegel. Sophiology clearly belongs to this type of worldview systems, and it is quite symptomatic that Bulgakov himself recognized his complete lack of interest and taste "for the concrete, for reality."

A new stage in Florovsky's relations with Bulgakov dates back to the early 1930s, when Florovsky and Bulgakov (along with a number of other teachers of the Theological Institute) began to actively participate in ecumenical meetings of Anglicans and Orthodox under the auspices of the Commonwealth of Sts. Albania and Sergius, founded in 1928. Annual conferences arose, at which, as a rule, both Bulgakov and Florovsky read reports and had conversations. And this inevitably led to the fact that theological differences between them began to acquire an increasingly public character. The fact that, according to Nikolai Zernov, the sophiological theme did not find much sympathy with the Anglican audience, which was much closer and more understandable to Florovsky's biblical and patristic approach, also played its role. And at the conference in 1933, a rather sharp confrontation arose when Bulgakov proposed that the Orthodox and Anglican members of the Commonwealth should immediately begin mutual communion (the word "Interkommunion" was used in German spelling), without waiting for the formal sanction of the church authorities. The proposal was not accepted, partly due to the strong protests of Florovsky, who, as one of those present recalls, in this situation could be called "anti-Bulgakov."

Due to the official condemnation of sophiology by the Moscow Patriarchate and - almost simultaneously - by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia in the autumn of 1935, relations between Bulgakov and Florovsky were on the verge of breaking.

But first, it should be clarified that the bans of 1935 cannot be considered unexpected, and that apart from Florovsky there were quite a few church leaders who expressed doubts about Bulgakov's sophiological constructions. The lack of sympathy for sophiology was observed even at the Theological Institute, where Bulgakov taught a course in dogmatic theology. Metropolitan Evlogy, for example, strongly defending Fr. Sergius from all formal accusations, treated Bulgakov's sophiological constructions with obvious coolness. He attributed their characteristic deviations from traditional Orthodox theology to the “worldly pathos” of Fr. Sergius, - because Bulgakov did not receive "the foundation that was laid in our theological academies." (O. Sergius, of course, perfectly understood how the metropolitan looked at him, and in a letter of 1929 he ranks Eulogius among the “sophiobors”). You can also cite the testimony of Prof. Alexander Schmemann, who was a student at the Theological Institute during the last three years of Fr. Sergius. Schmemann recalls the incomprehensible abyss that, as it seemed to him then, lay between the righteous and bright personality of Bulgakov and his ponderous philosophical doctrine. According to Schmemann, his intuition told him that sophiology simply had no connection with the main concerns of Orthodoxy: it was "not that, not so, not about that."

Other commentators, especially adherents of the Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia, spoke out more harshly, and sharp criticism of sophiology began to appear in the emigre church press from the second half of the 1920s. Detailed reviews of this controversy are available. The main texts related to Bulgakov's conviction are also not available, some of them in recent reprint editions.

However, in the émigré context, the theological side of the issue itself turned out to be inextricably intertwined with painful political and jurisdictional topics that had been worrying the Russian diaspora for more than a decade. The sad details of the jurisdictional strife of those years have already been described many times, and consideration of them is by no means included in the purpose of this article. It should be noted, however, that the long conflict of Met. Evlogy, both with the Church Abroad and with the Moscow Patriarchate, played a significant role in the course of events connected with the condemnation of Bulgakov. And it should be especially emphasized that the public outcry from the accusations brought against Bulgakov was very significant, and the condemnation of Fr. Sergius was perceived as a pretext used to attack the legitimacy of Met. Evlogy and the Theological Institute.

Two episodes give some idea of ​​the heat of passion at this time. When it became known that the decree of the Moscow Patriarchate condemning Bulgakov was based on a report submitted to Moscow by the Parisian theologian Vladimir Lossky, the indignation was so strong that at the end of a public dispute on the topic "Freedom of Thought in the Church", one of Lossky's colleagues was subjected to physical assault by Boris Vysheslavtsev, professor at the Theological Institute. And when Lossky sent a copy of his critical analysis to Mother Maria (Skobtsova), she returned the pamphlet to him unread, but with the following indignant inscription: “I don’t read literature signed by scammers!!”

Given all this unhealthy excitement, one might assume that Florovsky would try to avoid participating in the controversy. And although he did very soon take just such a position, one can judge from his archive how far he was at first from an impartial scientific view of the subject of the dispute.

The clearest evidence of how deeply he was affected by these events is contained in a letter dated November 3, 1935, from Milica Zernova (wife of Nikolai Zernov), in which she expresses her deep distress at the harshness with which Florovsky responded to the news of Moscow decree against sophiology. Zernova's letter is extremely emotional in tone, but there is no reason to doubt the authenticity of the facts presented to her.

Zernova states that she was literally stunned by the rigidity of Florovsky's position. When he was visiting them, she writes to him, she wanted to know what he intended to do in defense of Fr. Sergei Bulgakov. But to her horror, she instead heard from Florovsky that Bulgakov was guilty of heresy, that he should be "brought off the stage" and "pushed out of work" in the Commonwealth of Sts. Albania and Sergius. Such views, protests Zernova, are not only unjust, but also devoid of a sense of Christian love, and if they are implemented, they can cause irreparable damage to the Parisian religious community, and especially to the Theological Institute. She then makes accusations that are essentially offensive, assuming that Bulgakov's criticism arose on the basis of Florovsky's own unsatisfied ambition. “Don't think that you will become a rector,” she writes.

Since there is no other evidence of this kind in Florovsky's archive, it must be assumed that this outburst of anger was short-lived. Nevertheless, according to the surviving letters from a number of friends, it is clear that Florovsky painfully experienced all this drama. However, by the end of 1935, Florovsky firmly decided to refrain from any public statements on this subject. Apparently, this decision was formed mainly under the influence of unhealthy public excitement, including because of the possibility of a crudely selfish interpretation of his views, which manifested itself in Zernova's letter. Undoubtedly, the letters of friends from England also played a role, unanimously advising Florovsky not to speak on this issue. Inflating the topic, in their opinion, can cause great harm to the cause of communion between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.

Nevertheless, Florovsky did not manage to avoid an extremely prominent role in the further round of events. At the end of 1935 Met. Evlogy appoints a commission to consider the charges against Bulgakov. The commission consisted mainly of teachers from the Theological Institute (where Bulgakov was the dean - this, of course, was a very significant awkwardness). Florovsky says that he tried with all his might to avoid membership in the Commission, but was ultimately forced to submit to the Metropolitan, who argued that without Florovsky, the conclusion of the Commission would be like a too easy rehabilitation of Bulgakov's views.

The work of the Commission took place in two stages. The meetings began in February 1936 under the chairmanship of Archpriest. Sergei Chetverikov, a priest of the Presentation Church in Paris, where Florovsky often served after his ordination to the priesthood in 1932. The minutes of the meetings were not published and they are not in Florovsky's archive in Princeton, but a number of letters from Chetverikov to Florovsky about the progress of the Commission's work have been preserved. The very existence of these letters, by the way, confirms the remark of one of the members of the Commission, V.V. (later Archpriest Vasily) Zenkovsky that Florovsky took part in only one official meeting.

The Commission almost immediately split into two camps. The majority defended Bulgakov against accusations of heresy, while the minority, represented by Chetverikov and Florovsky (the latter usually in absentia), expressed Fr. Sergius has serious doubts. In June 1936, the Commission issued preliminary opinions despite the lack of unanimity. In three letters to Florovsky, Chetverikov asks and even begs him to state his views in writing, or at least comment on the outline of the “Special Opinion” drawn up by Chetverikov: “I am sending you a draft resolution” (June 6, 1936); “If possible, leave me your written opinion at the altar tomorrow” (June 10); "You made me very sad<...>I once again ask you to write your personal conclusion directly and frankly” (June 12). Florovsky disagrees, and Chetverikov prepares a minority report by himself. “If you are burdened by drawing up your opinion, then you can not do this. I've reviewed our protocols...<и>I will use these materials to draw up an objective report ”(from a letter from Father Sergiy Chetverikov dated June 16, 1936). Chetverikov succeeded in obtaining Florovsky's signature on the "Special Opinion" when he, as chairman of the Commission, sent Florovsky his text together with the opinion of the majority of the Commission and with a repeated - but obviously completely hopeless - request to Florovsky to draw up his own opinion: "If you find it possible be satisfied with one of the attached documents - and not form your own dissenting opinion, then do not refuse to sign one or the other ”(from a letter of June 26, 1936).

The "special opinion" of the minority of the Commission dated July 6, 1936, signed by Chetverikov and Florovsky, was submitted by Met. Eulogy. The document states that although the condemnation of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov should be considered premature and hasty, his views really "cause great concern", and the representatives of the majority in the Commission did not take this into account in their report. (The majority report had been drawn up a few weeks earlier by A.V. Kartashov, V.V. Zenkovsky, and others. It categorically dismissed Bulgakov’s accusations of heresy, but raised serious objections to certain aspects of sophiology.

Although these preliminary reports were not made public, Florovsky is apparently mistaken in assuming that Met. Evlogii did not get acquainted with the opinion of the majority. In any case, it is known that at the diocesan meeting on July 14, the metropolitan spoke about the work of the Commission and, noting the unresolved differences of its members, asked the Commission to continue consideration of Bulgakov's views - in the hope that unanimity would be reached.

For Florovsky, this was a difficult time. In the spring and summer of 1936, he participated in regular work of the Commonwealth in England, together with Bulgakov, Kartashev, Zenkovsky and others, thus communicating daily with his philosophical opponents just at the time of writing reports. The activities of the Commonwealth, as in previous years, consisted of reports and discussions in different cities of England on topics of common interest to Orthodox and Anglican participants. To the chagrin of Florovsky, Bulgakov in his speeches continued to insistently put forward the theme of Sophia, which, according to Florovsky, had a negative effect on the attitude of almost all members of the Orthodox delegation to the sophiological doctrine.

I have a general impression, - writes Florovsky to Xenia Ivanovna on May 4, - that all our people instinctively shun Fr. Sergius Bulg<акова>, even o. Cassian, and everyone has a desire to emphasize that they are not Sophians (excl.<ючая>Zander). Undoubtedly it is psychological<еский>the effect of accusations - there is some kind of vague feeling among everyone that these accusations are in some sense justified. From English<ичан>Dobby-Bateman said this very clearly and openly.

And in a letter two days later, Florovsky reports that A.F. Dobby-Bateman is actively trying to prevent the publication of an English book in which Bulgakov expounds his sophiological concept:

As far as I understand him, he has two motives. 1) He is afraid for Fr. Sergius B<улгакова>that criticism may be too harsh and scathing. 2) He is afraid that in the face of Fr. Sergius will compromise all p<усское>theology, for therethere is a general impression that all Russians talk about the incomprehensible and vague.

Be that as it may, by the summer of 1936 the majority and minority reports of the Commission had been drawn up and signed. It is known from Florovsky's archive that he immediately sent copies of these documents to Dobby-Bateman with a request for a sincere and strictly confidential review. Dobby responded with detailed analysis, which should be recognized as a model of clear thinking. In his opinion, the report of the minority was logically vulnerable (“anxiety is not a legal category,” he notes), but Dobby considered the criticism of Bulgakov’s theological constructions set out in the report of the majority to be essentially deadly for the entire Bulgakov concept. Somewhat later, Dobby-Bateman very aptly formulated the situation: “They were divided,” he writes about the members of the Commission, “into those who sincerely defend good theology, and those who just as sincerely defend Father Sergius.” Such incompatible attitudes cannot be reconciled, he argues, and concludes: “In the end, your solution is probably the best one, which is to remain silent.”

Meanwhile, the Commission resumed its work in the autumn of 1936, starting with a discussion of a detailed report in which Prot. Chetverikov outlined those aspects of sophiological teaching that seemed to him the most controversial. This lengthy document, expressing, according to Fr. Chetverikov, his “bewilderment”, was in fact very close to the main points of the accusation drawn up a year earlier by the Church Abroad (“Determination of the Synod of Bishops ...”), but with the essential difference that Chetverikov does not have a conclusion on heresy, and the whole the text is moderate in tone. Florovsky informed Chetverikov that he had read the report "with great satisfaction", but nevertheless did not respond to Chetverikov's repeated requests for written answers to a series of questions about sophiology sent out with the report.

Florovsky's firm decision to resist all attempts to draw him into any significant further participation in the Bulgakov Commission had an effect here. To some extent, Florovsky's hope was probably reflected here, that in this way his name would not be directly associated with the conclusion of the Commission, whether it was "for" or "against". But to attribute this attitude to everyday naivety alone would be a mistake. Despite his strong opposition to sophiology, Florovsky was at the same time convinced that a negative decision in Bulgakov's "case" could only further inflame the already raging jurisdictional and political passions. From a moral point of view, the situation really seemed to be a dead end. Florovsky's position is not difficult to understand, but it was clearly impossible to combine it with work in the Commission.

Florovsky spent the autumn and early winter of 1936 in England and Greece and could, apparently, not take part in the official decisions of the Commission for this reason alone. However, his scientific activity at this time shows that he continued to deal with issues related in one way or another to repulsion from sophiology, although he acted, as from the very beginning, in an indirect way. The main theme of his work concerned the enduring value of the patristic heritage in religious culture. This is precisely the main motif of the book Ways of Russian Theology, completed in England in the autumn of 1936. The same idea underlies Florovsky’s report at the Congress of Orthodox Theologians in Athens in December 1936. There is no doubt that the persistent emphasis on this topic in in many ways reflected Florovsky's sharp disagreement with the point of view of Bulgakov, who believed that the problems of the modern world could not always find an answer in the heritage of the Church fathers.

Florovsky was ready to challenge Bulgakov's views at the theoretical level, but he simply refused to participate in the still ongoing quasi-trial in the Bulgakov case. Chairman of the Commission, Rev. Chetverikov, clearly did not appreciate the depth of Florovsky's convictions on this matter - the Princeton archive contains a number of letters in which Chetverikov implores Florovsky to take part in the preparation of the final document, and even turns to his wife so that she can help convince Fr. George. In the end, Chetverikov announced that he would resign the chairmanship if Florovsky did not cease to evade participation, and since he remained inexorable, Chetverikov carried out his intentions. In a letter to Florovsky dated March 30, 1937, he writes of a sense of relief that he no longer has to "dig into the tricks of Sophianism." Chetverikov's departure removed the obstacle to unanimity, and the Commission, chaired by archim. Kassiana (Bezobrazova) finished her work pretty soon.

As far as I know, the final document on the work of the Commission has not been published anywhere. It is not in Florovsky's archive either. However, hegumen Gennady (Eikalovich) quotes the official resolution of the episcopal meeting, convened by Metropolitan. Evlogiem on November 26–29, 1937 with the aim of putting an end to the Bulgakov case. The text of the resolution states that the bishops, having studied the reports of Fr. Chetverikov and archim. Cassian, came to the conclusion that Bulgakov's accusations of heresy are unjustified, but that his theological views nevertheless raise objections and need to be corrected. Therefore, the bishops call on Bulgakov to critically review those aspects of his teaching that caused criticism, and "to remove from them that which gives rise to confusion in simple souls who are inaccessible to theological and philosophical thinking."

It should be added that the document published by Eikalovich does not require Bulgakov to renounce sophiology. However, in the memoirs of Rev. Zenkovsky says that Bulgakov made an official statement to Metr. Evlogy that he would not promote sophiology in his lectures at the Theological Institute. But, as the same Zenkovsky bitterly notes, Bulgakov did not fulfill this promise and conducted his studies in exactly the same way as before. Nevertheless, the official discussion on this painful issue was closed.

* * *

Although, from a formal point of view, Bulgakov's "trial" was over, Florovsky felt its consequences for a long time to come. The decision to evade the work of the Commission did nothing to mend his relations with colleagues at the Theological Institute, where he was considered a kind of "traitor" to Bulgakov. Letters received by Florovsky during this period show that he suffered painfully from hostile attitude towards himself and expressed a desire to leave Paris forever. The ecumenical contacts established in England in previous years helped out, and which now made frequent absences from Paris possible. During one of these trips, an episode occurred that was directly connected with Bulgakov, as a result of which Florovsky found himself in the front ranks of the ecumenical movement. In 1937 Bulgakov, Florovsky and two other professors of the Theological Institute were invited to Edinburgh as Orthodox delegates to the second international Conference on Faith and Order. The Parisian delegation was accompanied by Met. Eulogy, who decided to join out of concern about possible friction within the group. His fears were soon justified. As the Metropolitan writes, Florovsky in his speech “sharply and caustically” attacked the idea of ​​the self-sufficiency of sincere piety, devoid of a solid philosophical foundation, and, most importantly, his message followed immediately after Bulgakov’s report, in which Fr. Sergius insisted on the opposite, speaking of the secondary importance of all doctrines in the ecumenical work. The Metropolitan was indignant at the content and tone of Florovsky's speech, considering it an open attack on Bulgakov, but he noted with bewilderment that some prominent non-Orthodox delegates found Florovsky's tough stance quite to their liking. The result was unexpected: Florovsky was elected to the Executive Committee, which was charged with drafting a plan for the constitution of the then created World Council of Churches. Thus, a certain connection is outlined between Florovsky's many years of controversy with Bulgakov and his entry into the higher spheres of the ecumenical movement.

Despite his growing participation in the activities of the WCC (naturally interrupted during the war years), Florovsky almost did not reduce the flow of scientific publications, in a number of which polemics with the principles of sophiology can be easily traced. Here we briefly note only four examples of post-war articles most clearly devoted to this topic. In his 1949 work, The Ever-Virgin Mother of God, Florovsky sharply rejects the widely held abstract and allegorical view of the Incarnation. In fact, he writes, the Mother of God should be viewed as an accomplice in the work of the Incarnation, as a historically real person, endowed with free will, as a person who consciously agreed to serve the divine plan. Such a formulation of the question is contrary to the tendency to give the Virgin Mary a purely symbolic meaning, in which She is perceived as the most perfect expression of sophiological principles.

In 1951, Florovsky published the article "The Lamb of God" ("The Lamb of God"), whose title alone already evokes Bulgakov's monograph of the same name. In this work, which largely develops the provisions of the article on the Ever-Virgin Mary, Florovsky emphasizes with particular insistence the idea of ​​the historical nature of Christianity. An abstract, metaphysically speculative approach to the foundations of the Christian religion has been declared flawed and inadequate.

Two more articles this case related to patristics are undoubtedly related to the subject of the dispute with Bulgakov. In his 1960 work, Saint Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers, Florovsky shows that Palamas is in the mainstream of the patristic tradition, thereby challenging Bulgakov's view that St. Gregory follows regarded as one of the founders of sophiology. And in a 1962 article, "The Concept of Creation in St. Athanasius” (“The Concept of Creation by St. Athanasius the Great”), which is a continuation of Florovsky’s long-standing work on the philosophy of creation, one can guess an attempt to refute Bulgakov’s opinion that Athanasius, like Palamas, is the forerunner of sophiology.

In these and other articles of the post-war years, Florovsky, as it were, returns - now in a new, English-speaking environment - to the method of impersonal polemics characteristic of his approach in the pre-war years, and the rejection of any open criticism of Bulgakov is just as strictly observed as before. .

In a 1975 letter, Florovsky confirmed that his critical silence was a completely conscious act on his part. He reproaches his Parisian acquaintance for his trust in rumors:

You, in Paris, create legends. The late P. Evdokimov claimed in the press that I "violently" attacked Fr. Sergius. Never about. Sergius I did not write<критических статей>, and avoided verbal criticism.

But it should be noted that the ban on criticism of Bulgakov, which Florovsky imposed on his own publications and speeches, did not extend to informal conversations and private correspondence. As an example, I will cite an excerpt from Florovsky's letter to Yu.P. Ivask, written in the last years of his life, in which Fr. George openly discusses a topic that has never disappeared from his field of vision. At the same time, it is quite characteristic that from remarks about Florensky, he seems to naturally pass to Bulgakov:

I read your article in the Bulletin. Your defense of Florensky is a complete misunderstanding. Wrote a book about Christianity and it doesn't even have a short chapter about Christ. And the picture is crooked. The late Father Sergius Bulgakov devoted an entire volume to the theme of the Lamb of God. He began, however, from the periphery - the Mother of God, the Forerunner, the Angels. In an intimate conversation, he himself confessed to me that he turned to Christology under my influence. However, his Christology does not satisfy me. In his old book, "Non-Evening Light", only the first chapters are Christological - those written before Florensky (sic - A.K.) turned him down. It's not that they both commemorate Christ sometimes, but He is not in the center<...>.

The negative view of Bulgakov's theological constructions expressed here did not, in essence, change with Florovsky throughout his life. But this philosophical rejection developed into a strained relationship only in the mid-1930s. Before and after this time, he combined theoretical differences with benevolence and even warmth on a personal level. Quite soon after the events connected with the Bulgakov case, the status quo ante was restored, mainly, I think, thanks to the amazing gentleness of Fr. Sergius. As Florovsky recalls, Bulgakov was the only teacher at the Theological Institute who did not show hostility towards him in connection with the position taken by Florovsky in the "case" of heresy. Moreover, when in 1939 Bulgakov underwent a throat operation and was forced to cancel his trip to a meeting of the ecumenical organization in Geneva, where he was expected as a delegate, he invited Florovsky to take his place - a step that caused bewilderment in the Theological Institute and Florovsky's deep gratitude .

In letters from Serbia, where Florovsky spent almost all of the war years, good feelings towards Bulgakov are particularly pronounced. The following lines, referring to the forthcoming celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Fr. Sergius:

May the Lord keep you and may He bless your entry and exits with peace and strengthen you in your service to His truth. I really feel that with all our disagreements and quarrels, we are doing a single thing, and working in the same field.

This personal warmth over time took the edge off the theological differences as well, but did not in the least remove Florovsky's fundamental disagreement with sophiology. Most clearly, such moderate and friendly criticism, formulated in combination with a clear definition of the reason for disagreement, was expressed by Florovsky in a letter addressed to Tatyana Sergeevna Frank, the widow of the philosopher S.L. Frank. Florovsky here responds to what T.S. Frank is distressed at the assessment that Florovsky gave to the theological views of her late husband.

I completely agree with everything that you say about the faith of S.L., and tried to emphasize his deepest loyalty and conviction, which was so characteristic of him, and yet, and this was my thought, his philosophical formulation of this faith did not correspond to the religious the depth of his belief<...>. I would say exactly the same thing, even more sharply, about Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and many others. My "criticism" does not concern the faith of S.L., but only<...>in essence, Christian Platonism. This is an ancient and very respectable tradition, but for me unreliable and insufficient....

It was to this final judgment of Bulgakov that Florovsky came to the end of his life.

NOTES

See: Nun Elena. Professor Archpriest Sergiy Bulgakov (1871–1944) // Theological Works. Issue. 2. 1986. C. 140. See . See also: Riha T. Russian й migr й Scholars in Prague after World War I // Slavic and East European Journal.1958 Vol. 16. No. 1. P. 22–26.

See Sat. ed. Marina Sklyarova: Vessel chosen. History of Russian theological schools. SPb., 1994. S. 111.

1921 - Bliss of suffering love // ​​Zapiski russ. acad. groups in the USA. 1992–1993 T. 25, pp. 95–101; 1922 - Human Wisdom and the Wisdom of God // Mladorus No. 1. P. 50–62. Reprinted on Sat. Articles: Florovsky G. From the Past of Russian Thought. M., 1998. S. 74–86; 1922–1923 - Paphos of false prophecy and imaginary revelations // Russian Thought. T. 44. No. 3/5. pp. 210–231. Reprinted on Sat. From the past of Russian thought. pp. 189–209.

An entry in the Prague diary of S.N. Bulgakov dated September 16/29, 1923. See: Kozyrev A., Golubkova N. Prot. S. Bulgakov. From the memory of the heart. Prague // Studies in the history of Russian thought. Yearbook for 1998 (under the editorship of M.A. Kolerov). M., 1998. S. 156.

There. P. 171. Entry 18.X.1923

Cm .: Evtuhov C. The Correspondence of Bulgakov and Florovsky: Chronicle of a Friendship // Wiener Slawistischer Almanach. 1996. Bd. 38. P. 37–49.

Brotherhood of St. Sophia: Documents (1918–1927) // Studies in the History of Russian Thought. Yearbook for 1997. SPb., 1997. S. 99–113; Brotherhood of Saint Sophia. Materials and documents. 1923–1939 Comp. ON THE. Struve; Preparation Text and notes. ON THE. Struve, T.V. Emelyanova. - M.: Russian way; Paris: YMCA-Press, 2000.

Letter to S.N. Bulgakova G.V. Florovsky dated August 18/31, 1924. Princeton Archive G.V. Florovsky.Princeton University Library, Manuscript Division of the Department of Rare Books and Special Collections.Georges Florovsky Papers - C0586. Box 12. Folder 9. Quoted with permission from Princeton University. Further references to this archival fund are designated as: Georges Florovsky Papers.

This is expressed most clearly by Bulgakov in his book (so far only available in English translation) The Wisdom of God: A Brief Summary of Sophiology.(New York & London. 1937. P. 24): "I regard Soloviev as having been my philosophical guide to Christ."

The fact that Bulgakov revised his views on Solovyov, probably not without the influence of a polemic with Florovsky, see: Kozyrev A. Prot. Sergei Bulgakov. About Vl. Solovyov (1924) // Studies in the history of Russian thought. Yearbook for 1999 (under the editorship of M.A. Kolerov). M., 1999. S. 199–222.

There. S. 206.

See: Bulgakov S. N. Vladimir Solovyov and Anna Schmidt // He. Quiet thoughts. M. 1918. S. 71–114.

Cit. Quoted from: Kozyrev A. Prot. Sergei Bulgakov. About Vl. Solovyov. S. 206.

See: Bulgakov Sergiy, prot. My disease // He. Autobiographical notes. Paris, 1946, pp. 136–139.

Cit. Quoted from: Kozyrev A. Prot. Sergei Bulgakov. About Vl. Solovyov. S. 210.

There.

Letter dated April 27 / May 10, 1926. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 12. Folder 11.

Letter from 7/20 July 1926 G . Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 12. folder 11.

Letter dated July 22/August 4, 1926. See: Pentkovsky A.M. Letters from G. Florovsky to S. Bulgakov and S. Tyshkevich // Symbol. 1993. No. 29. S. 205–206.

There. pp. 206–207.

Meyendorff recalls Florovsky's frequent remarks in his Patrology lectures at the Theological Institute in Paris (where Meyendorff was a student) that the great Fathers of the Church in the early centuries of Christianity most often theologised to refute heretics. According to Meyendorff, Florovsky followed precisely this example, and the repulsion from sophiology in all its forms was the main "psychological impulse" that determined the direction of his scientific work. See: Meyendorf I., prot. Foreword // Florovsky Georgy, prot. Ways of Russian theology. 4th ed. Paris, 1988, pp. VI–VII.

Florovsky G.V. Creature and creatureliness // Orthodox thought. Issue. 1. 1928. S. 176–212. In the same year, an abbreviated French version appeared: L'Idée de la création dans la philosophie chrétienne // Logos: Revue internationale de la synthese Orthodoxe. 1928. No. 1. P. 3–30. Twenty years later, a free English translation of the French article : The Idea of ​​Creation in Christian Philosophy // Eastern Churches Quarterly. 1949 Vol. 8. No. 3. P. 55–77. As told to me Winston F. Crum, author of a dissertation on Bulgakov, written by him at Harvard University under the guidance of Fr. George ("The Doctrine of Sophia According to Sergius Bulgakov".Harvard, 1965), Florovsky told him that this article expressed the whole essence ("the gist") of his disagreement with Bulgakov. The Russian text of 1928 is reprinted in Sat. Florovsky's articles: "Dogma and History". (M., 1998, pp. 108–150).

See: Florovsky G.V. On the veneration of Sophia, the Wisdom of God, in Byzantium and in Russia // Proceedings of the Vth Congress of Russian Academic Organizations Abroad in Sofia, September 14–21, 1930. Part I. Sophia, 1932. pp. 485–500. Reprinted on Sat. "Dogma and History". pp. 394–414.

Bulgakov briefly states this point of view in his formal response to the criticism of the Synod of Bishops of the Orthodox Church Abroad, which accused him of "modernism". See: Memorandum presented by Professor Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov to Metropolitan Evlogy in the spring of 1927 // About Sophia the Wisdom of God. Paris, 1935. S. 61.

Lev Zander, a student and follower of Bulgakov, disputes Florovsky's conclusions in his German article: Zander L. Die Weisheit Gottes im russischen Glauben und Denken // Kerygma und Dogma. 1956. T. 2. No. 1. S. 33–46. Florovsky's article is cited by Anthony, Met. Leningradsky and Novgorodsky, in his harsh criticism of sophiology: From the history of Novgorod iconography // Theological Works. Issue. 27. 1986, pp. 61–80. Sharp objections followed: A.V. The mouth of the righteous speaks wisdom // Vestnik R.Kh.D. 1987. No. 149. P. 12–45; Ivanova E. The legacy of Fr. Pavel Florensky. And who are the judges? // Vestnik R.Kh.D. 1922. No. 165. S. 121–138. For the iconography of Sophia, see also: Meyendorff J. Wisdom-Sophia.Contrasting Approaches to a Complex Theme // Dumbarton Oaks Papers. 1987. no. 41.P. 391–401. The idea that features that justify the constructions of the sophiology of modern times are manifested in ancient Russian icon painting was briefly expressed by Solovyov in the article “The Idea of ​​Humanity in August Comte” (1898) and then developed by Fr. Pavel Florensky in his famous book "The Pillar and Ground of Truth". (M., 1914. S. 370–382). A detailed attempt to substantiate the authentic Orthodox essence Novgorod icon presented in a large article by Priscilla Hunt: Hunt P. The Novgorod Sophia Icon and "The Problem of Old Russian Culture": Beturen Orthodoxy and Sophology // Symposion: A Tournal of Russian Thought. 1999–2001 Vols. 4–6. S. 1–40. A slightly modified Russian version of this article should appear in the Novgorod Historical Collection in 2003.

See: Florovsky G.V. The vexation of the spirit // Way. 1930. No. 20. S. 102–107. In a somewhat developed form, the review was included in the book Ways of Russian Theology. (S. 493–498). Reprinted on Sat. “P.A. Florensky. Pro et Contra” (St. Petersburg, 1996, pp. 359–363).

Path. 1930. No. 25. S. 51–80. Reprinted on Sat. Florovsky's articles "From the Past of Russian Thought". (S. 412-430).

Cit. by: Kozyrev A., Golubkova N. Prot. S. Bulgakov. From the memory of the heart ... S. 107.

See about this: Zernov N. Russian religious experience and its influence on England. // Russian religious and philosophical thought of the twentieth century (under the editorship of N.P. Poltoratsky). Pittsburgh, 1975. pp. 128–129.

There. S. 129.

Dobbie-Bateman A.F. Footnotes (IX) // Sobornost. 1944 No. 30 (N.S.). P. 8. Bulgakov's defense of the idea of ​​"Interkommunion" in 1933 is diametrically opposed to his own angry and categorical condemnation of such a practice ten years earlier: See: Bulgakov Sergiy, prot. Yalta diary // Bulgakov S.N. Autobiographical notes. Diaries. Articles. Eagle, 1998. S. 164.

Eulogy, Met. The path of my life. Memoirs based on his stories by T. Manukhina. Paris, 1947. S. 449.

See: Letter from L.A. Zander and V.A. Zander // Vestnik R.Kh.D. 1971. No. 101–102. S. 74.

Schmemann Alexander, prot. Three images. // Vestnik R.Kh.D. 1971. No. 101–102. pp. 12, 20–21. Schmemann put it much sharper in his diary published posthumously by his widow (in English translation). Cm.: The Journals of Father Alexander Schmeman, 1973–1983. Crestwood; N.Y., 2000.P. 261–262. The entry is dated March 31, 1980.

The chronology of the formal side of the "case" of Prot. Bulgakov expounds Dom C. Lialine in "Le Débat sophiologique" (see: Irénikon. T. 13. No. 2 (1936). P. 168–205 and additions to No. 3. P. 328–329 and No. 6 pp. 704-705 (the last addition is entitled "L'Affaire sophiologique") See also Schultze B., S.J.: Der gegenwärtige Streit um die Sophia, die Götterliche Weisheit, in der Orthodoxie // Stimmen der Zeit, 1940. No. 137. S. 318–324 The pamphlet of Abbot Gennady (Eikalovich) "The Case of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov. The Historical Outline of the Sophia Controversy" (San Francisco, 1980) is not without errors. See also brief memoirs of Archpriest Vasily Zenkovsky "The Case of the Accusation of Father Sergius Bulgakov of Heresy" ("Vestnik R.Kh.D." 1987. No. 149. S. 61-65).

Here are the main documents in chronological order:

1) Letter from the Metropolitan Anthony to the Metropolitan Eulogy of March 18/31, 1927, with an indication of the "modernism" of the Paris Theological Institute in general, and the teachings of Fr. Bulgakov in particular. (Reprinted in Sat.: Studies in the history of Russian thought. Yearbook for 1997. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 115–121.)

2) Bulgakov's formal answer, reprinted as an appendix to his brochure “On Sophia the Wisdom of God. Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate and memorandums of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov to Metropolitan Evlogy” (Paris, 1935, pp. 54–64).

3) Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate of 7 Sept. 1935 with the condemnation of sophiology as "alien" to Orthodoxy, but without accusing Bulgakov of heresy. The text of the decree and Bulgakov's response ("Memorandum") are printed in the brochure mentioned above (pp. 5–53). The Parisian theologian Vladimir Lossky, whose report served as the basis for the MP's decree, then published a pamphlet critical of Bulgakov's response, The Dispute over Sophia: Prot. S. Bulgakov and the Meaning of the Decree of the Moscow Patriarchate” (Paris, 1936).

4) A formal accusation of heresy is contained in the resolution of the Russian Church Abroad: Determination of the Council of Bishops of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad of October 17/30, 1935 On the new teaching of Archpriest Sergius Bulgakov on Sophia the Wisdom of God. Reprinted, together with a cover letter from Met. Anthony to the Metropolitan Evlogy, in the brochure by Lyudmila Perepelkina "Ecumenism - the path leading to death." (Jordanville, 1992, pp. 61–81). As indicated in this document, the accusation of heresy is based mainly on the analysis of the issue contained in the large book of Archbishop. Seraphim (Soboleva) "The New Teaching on Sophia the Wisdom of God" (Sofia. 1935. The book was reprinted in Jordanville in 1993)

5) Bulgakov denies the ROCOR accusations in the new pamphlet “Memorandum to Metropolitan Evlogii prof. arch. Sergius Bulgakov regarding the determination of the Council of Bishops in Karlovtsy regarding the doctrine of Sophia the Wisdom of God” (Paris, 1936). The text of this pamphlet was also published as an appendix to the journal Put. (1936. No. 50).

6) Archbishop. Seraphim (Sobolev) criticizes Bulgakov's answer in his new book "Defence of the Sophian heresy by Archpriest S. Bulgakov before the Council of Bishops of the Russian Church Abroad" (Sofia, 1937).

See, for example, the statement signed by all the teachers of the Theological Institute (with the exception of Florovsky), which is quoted in the Igum brochure. Gennady (Eikalovich) “The Case of Archpriest. Sergius Bulgakov... (p. 39). See also memoirs of Met. Evlogy "The Way of My Life". (S. 637).

See: Lossky N.O. Memories. Life and Philosophy. Munchen, 1968, pp. 266–271. The dispute was held by N.A. Berdyaev, the author of an angry article directed against Bulgakov's critics "The Spirit of the Grand Inquisitor" (see: Put. 1935. No. 49. P. 72–81).

The inscription is quoted in a letter from N.O. Lossky (father of the theologian) to Florovsky dated December 29, 1935.Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 3.

Letter from 3 november 1935 G . Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 3.

For example, a letter from A.V. Kartashev dated December 17, 1935, in which Kartashev responds to Florovsky's apology, which has not come down to us, for the excessive harshness of his statements: “Regarding me<Вы>worry in vain<...>I have never been offended by your “thunders” and I am not offended, because they are disinterestedly sincere. You are suffering for the truth. And I sympathize with you here. I myself am a quick-tempered person and also ardently jealous of my standard of truth” (Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 3; underlining in the texts, hereinafter indicated in italics).

Letter to A.F. Dobby-Bateman, December 22, 1935. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 59. Folder 9.

See letters from Dobby-Bateman dated October 25 and December 22, 1935. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 3 and Box 59. Folder 9, and also a letter from Rev. IvanYoung, January 3, 1936 (mislabeled "1935"): Georges Florovsky Papers. box. 14. Folder 2.

It is noteworthy that the Commission was instructed to consider only accusations coming from ROCOR.

Eulogy, Met. The path of my life. S. 642.

See: Blaine E. Biography of Father George // Georgy Florovsky. Priest, theologian, philosopher (under the editorship of Yu.P. Senokosov). M., 1995. S. 66.

The first meeting was scheduled for February 10, 1936. See: Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 59. Folder 9.

Protopresbyter Yakov Smirnov was initially appointed chairman, but due to his illness, and soon death, the formal chairmanship passed to Chetverikov.

See: The Case of the Prosecution of Fr. Sergius Bulgakov in heresy. P. 64. However, Florovsky participated in a number of discussions preceding the compilation of the Commission's report. See note below. 54.

Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 5.

Ibid.

The four-page typewritten text (without signatures) is entitled: “Dissenting Opinion on the Recall of the Majority of the Commission in the Book Case of Fr. S. Bulgakov. See: Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 9. Hegumen Gennady (Eikalovich) in his pamphlet gives a very inaccurate and incorrectly dated back translation of this document from English.

The eight-page typewritten text is neither signed nor dated. Title: “Review of the Commission on the case of the writings of Archpriest. about. S. Bulgakov” Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 59. Folder 9. The authors of the document are named in a letter from Chetverikov to Florovsky dated June 26, 1936, which also states that the text was sent from England, where the authors, together with Florovsky, went in connection with regular summer performances under the auspices of the Commonwealth of Sts. Albania and Sergius. See: Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 14. Folder 5.

We learn about Florovsky's participation in the development of the "Review of the Commission" from a letter from Fr. George to his wife dated May 6: “I proposed to include in the report of the Commission<ельный>paragraph that the teaching of Fr. Sergius B<улгакова>is all the more embarrassing because it remains unclear how it differs from the obviously heretical sophianism of Blok and Bely, from the charming<ых>theories of Vl. Solovyov and Florensky - and everyone agreed to this, including<ючая>about. Cassiana the cat<орый>proposed to note that in the previous books of Fr. Sergius (“Non-Evening Light”) very much and should be recognized as false” (Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 55. Folder 6).

See: Blaine E. Biography of Father George. S. 67.

See: Dom C. Lialine. L'affaire sophiologique. P. 704–705.

Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 55. Folder 6. Arthur Dobbie-Bateman (A.F. Dobbie-Bateman, 1897–1974), later an Anglican priest, was one of the most active members of the Fellowship of Sts. Albania and Sergius.

Letter to Xenia Ivanovna dated May 6, 1936. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 55. Folder 6. It is interesting to note that Florovsky did not share Dobby-Bateman's fears, believing, on the contrary, that the publication would be useful for the reason that it would create an opportunity for real criticism for English-speaking readers. Speech it's about the book "The Wisdom of God: A Brief Summary of Sophiology", published the following year (1937).

Letter from Dobby - Bateman 9 august 1936 G . Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 59. Folder 9.

Letter from 12 november 1936 G . Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 59. folder 9.

Chetverikov's report is entitled “On the work plan of the Commission on the case of the writings of Professor Archpriest Fr. Sergei Bulgakov in the coming year. The cover letter is dated September 20, 1936. See: Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 59. Folder 9.

Chetverikov thanks Florovsky for these words in his letter dated October 1, 1936 to the Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 15. Folder 1.

Chetverikov's letters dated October 1 and November 1, 1936. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 15. Folder 1.

The preface is dated September 2/15, 1936 and summarizes Florovsky's conviction that "the Orthodox theologian in our days can find for himself the true measure and a living source of creative inspiration only in the patristic tradition" ("Ways of Russian Theology". 4th ed. Paris, 1988. S. XV.

The report was read in English (“Patristics and Modern Theology”), cm .: Proces-Verbaux du premier congres de th th ologie Orthodoxe a Athenes, 29 Novembre - 6 Decembre 1936. Athenes, 1939, pp. 238–242.

See for example: Bulgakov S., prot. On the paths of dogma // Path. 1932. No. 37. S. 3–35.

See letters to Florovsky dated January 21 and February 13, 1937 (Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 15. Folder 2) and to Xenia Ivanovna dated February 5 (Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 56. Folder 6).

Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 15. Folder 2.

See: Case of Prot. Sergius Bulgakov... S. 33–35.

There. S. 35.

See: Zenkovsky V., prot. My meetings with outstanding people // Zapiski russ. acad. groups in the USA. 1994. T. XXVI. C. 26.

See: Blaine E. Biography of Father George. pp. 67–68.

In the spring of 1937, in particular, Florovsky considered moving to Serbia, which aroused vigorous objections from his English correspondents. Dobby-Bateman, for example, wrote on April 21: “I very much hope that you have found new confidence in your appointment to remain among the Parisian emigration, where you are so needed. It cannot be that Paris was worse than Kronstadt when Fr. John, and did it not become for Fr. John's woeful hour? The consequences for your English friends would also probably be sensitive. And for you, leaving your people will have deeper consequences than you think” (translated from English; Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 15. Folder 2). Dobby is referring to Fr. John of Kronstadt at the beginning of the riots in the city in October 1905 and the ruthless criticism he was subjected to for this step.

On this, see: Blaine E. Biography of Father George. pp. 68–78.

See: Evlogii, Met. The path of my life. pp. 589, 593.

There. pp. 593–594.

See: Blaine E. Biography of Father George. S. 74.

English original on Sat. ed.E.L. Mascall. "The Mother of God".(London, 1949, pp. 51–63). Russian translation on Sat. Florovsky's articles "Dogma and History" (pp. 165–180).

See, for example, Bulgakov in his book The Burning Bush. (Paris, 1927. S. 189) and Florensky in the book "The Pillar and Ground of Truth" (M.. 1914. S. 350–351) and others.

Scottish Journal of Theology. 1951 Vol. 4. No. 1. P. 13–28.

The Greek Orthodox Theological Review.1960 Vol. 5. No. 2. P. 119–131. Russian translation on Sat. Dogma and History (pp. 377–393).

See, for example: Bulgakov Sergiy, prot. Bride of the Lamb. Paris, 1945. S. 23.

For the English original, see: Studia Patristica. (1962. Vol. 6. No. 4. P. 36-57). Russian translation on Sat. "Dogma and History" (p. 80–107).

See: Bulgakov Sergiy, prot. Kupina Burning. Paris, 1927, pp. 266–288.

This taboo reached a kind of climax in 1971, when in an article about Bulgakov in an American reference book on the history of the Church, Florovsky did not mention sophiology at all. Cm.: The Westminster Dictionary of Church History. Ed. Jerald C. Brauer.Philadelphia, 1971, pp. 138–139. The article is not signed, and I was informed about Florovsky's authorship by Rev. Winston F. Crum, who connected the editor with Fr. George.

Letter about. To Igor Wernik, June 23, 1975. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 12. Folder 1.

We are talking about the article by Ivask “Rozanov and Fr. Pavel Florensky", which appeared in the "Bulletin of R.S.Kh.D." in 1956. Reprinted in Sat. “P.A. Florensky: Pro et Contra". (St. Petersburg, 1996, pp. 440–444).

Florovsky refers to the sequence of Bulgakov's books: "Burning Bush" - about the Mother of God (1927); "Friend of the Bridegroom" - about John the Baptist (1927); "Yakovl's Ladder" - about angels (1929); and then a book about Christ, The Lamb of God (1933).

Letter to Yuri Ivask dated June 3, 1976. Georges Florovsky Papers. Box 12. Folder 3.

See: Blaine E. Biography of Father George. S. 63.

There. In a letter to Yu.P. Ivascu of February 1, 1975. Florovsky speaks of this as follows: “My disagreement with him, Fr. Sergius was upset, but nevertheless he chose me as his deputies in the Ecumenical Movement, to the indignation of his admirers and admirers. Archive YU . P . Iwaska - Iurii P. Ivask Papers. Box 3. Folder 5. Amherst Center of Russian Culture, Amherst College. Courtesy of the Center for the Study of Russian Culture , Amherst College, Amherst, Massachusetts.

Letter dated April 11/24, 1943. Fr. Sergius Bulgakov (St. Sergius Theological Institute; printed with the permission of the Theological Institute).

See: George Florovsky, prot. Religious metaphysics S.L. Frank // Collection of memory of Semyon Ludwigovich Frank. (Under the editorship of Archpriest V.V. Zenkovsky). München, 1954, pp. 145–156.

Letter dated December 6, 1954. Columbia University Library.Bakhmeteff Archive of Russian and East European History and Culture.B.A.R. Frank Papers. Microfilm 89-2007. Quoted with the kind permission of the Bakhmetev archive.

(1893–1979) - Russian theologian of the modernist direction, the founder of the "neopatric synthesis" direction, a prominent figure in the ecumenical movement.

Graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of the Novorossiysk University. He emigrated in 1920 to Bulgaria, then to Czechoslovakia. In Bulgaria, he becomes a member of the meetings of the Russian Religious-Philosophical Society, as well as a group of "Eurasians". He took part in the first collection of "Eurasians" "Exodus to the East" (1921), soon left the group. Founding member, leaves due to disagreement over sophiology. Member of the League of Orthodox Culture.

About him

Major writings

Ways of Russian theology. Paris, 1937

Eucharist and catholicity // Way, No. 19, 1929

Sources

arch. I. Meyendorff. Foreword // Ways of Russian theology. Vilnius, 1991

about. Andrey Eliseev. Father George Florovsky. His life and participation in the movement for Christian unity // Church and Time, 2004.

A.E. Klimov. G.V. Florovsky and S.N. Bulgakov. The history of relationships in the light of disputes about sophiology / / S.N. Bulgakov: Religious and philosophical path. International scientific conference dedicated to the 130th anniversary of his birth. M.: Russian way, 2003. S. 86-114