“EUROPEAN, MUSCOVITE AND SON OF THE CHURCH”

     Although the editorship of The Muscovite was a short-lived career for Ivan, his relationship, assistance, financial aid and contribution to the publication of works that would spring out of his relationship with Optina Monastery began with the article on Blessed Elder Paisius.

     Fr. Sergius describes for us the beginnings of the work of publishing that began with Elder Makary in the Kireyevsky’s home:

In the following year, 1846, while the Elder was visiting the Kireyevskys at their estate, he touched upon the question of the lack of spiritual books which guide one towards the active Christian life. He mentioned that he had a fair number of manuscripts of Elder Paisius’ translations of the works of the ascetic Holy Fathers, filled with spiritual understanding and power. It turned out that Natalia Petrovna Kireyevsky had preserved a few similar manuscripts as well, having received them as an inheritance from her former spiritual father, Elder Philaret of Novospassky. Then she herself raised the question – why not reveal these spiritual treasures to the world? The Elder, with his characteristic humility, remarked that he considered himself incapable of taking on such an important matter, that he had never done anything like this, that this was clearly not the will of God, etc. The Kireyevskys said that they would give a report about the matter to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and, if he blessed it, it would be necessary to begin printing the manuscripts. Then the Kireyevskys began to implore Fr. Makary to immediately write an introduction to the planned publication.

Having prayed to God, the Elder wrote the first page. On that very day the Kireyevsky’s sent a letter to Moscow, to the professor of Moscow University, S.P. Shevirev, asking him, in their own name, to obtain a blessing from the Metropolitan for the publication of the manuscripts of Elder Paisius. The Metropolitan was so kind that, not only did he give his blessing to the project; he even promised to provide them with his own personal support.¹

     The following year, 1847, was the beginning of the publications of Optina Monastery, the first book being, The Life and Writings of the Moldavian Elder Paisius Velichkovsky.²

     Fr. Sergius further describes the environment and interactions that permeated such a holy activity for the next fifteen years.

 All work was directly guided by the Elder himself – both the preparation for the printing of the Slavonic translations of Elder Paisius (with explanatory footnotes of the unclear words and expressions) and the translation of some of these into the Russian language. He was helped by his disciples from the Skete brotherhood: Hieromonk Ambrose, Monk Juvenal (Polovtsev),³ Fr. Leonid (Kavelin)⁴ and Fr. Platon (Pokrovsky).⁵

For their work, the aforementioned people gathered daily in Elder Makary’s reception cell. Though he did not cease his usual work with the brothers and guests, visiting them at a set time at the guest house, he nevertheless played the most active part in the labor of these disciples. One may positively state that not one expression, not one word was written in a manuscript that was sent to the censor without his personal approval… Who, being attentive to himself, would not have given a few years of his life to hear what their ears heard – the Elder’s explanations of passages in the writings of the Fathers, about which none of his disciples would have dared to ask him had it not been for the work they were engaged in. And had they dared, they would have undoubtedly

received the humble answer: “I don’t know about this, it’s beyond my abilities; perhaps you’ve attained to it, but I know only: ‘Grant me, O Lord, to see my sins! Cleanse my heart,’ then you’ll understand it!”

Who of his co-workers could forget how condescendingly the Elder heard out his childish remarks and made concessions, in the hope of expressing a thought more gracefully or clearly, as long as he did not see a violation of the spiritual meaning. He would accompany his concessions with a good-natured joke: “Let it be that way – I’m not familiar with the latest literature; but after all, you’re learned people!” If a disagreement arose in understanding, the Elder immediately eliminated it, or offered his own opinion, or left such a spot completely without explanation, saying: “This is beyond us – whoever does this will understand it; but what if we put our own rotten opinion in place of his (i.e., Elder Paisius’) lofty spiritual understanding?⁶

     Alongside these publishing labors, Ivan wrote two more papers which revealed the maturation of his ideas that were expressed only in part in his earlier works. In 1852 he wrote, “On the Character of European Enlightenment and its Relation to Enlightenment in Russia.” The second work was entitled, “On the Necessity and Possibility of New Principles in Philosophy” but was published posthumously in the year of his repose, 1856. In these works he describes the deviation of the Patriarchate of Rome from the teaching of the Fathers of the first thousand years. In the briefest of summaries it can be said that the root of the problem in the Roman Church that was passed to the entire West was that of rationalism.

     Ivan Kontzevitch correctly appreciates Kireyevsky’s diagnosis when he says:

The West overlooked Eastern wisdom. Its scholars mastered in detail all the ancient philosophies: Egyptian, Persian, Chinese, Hindu, etc. But the mysticism of the Orthodox East was closed to them. Russia, on the other hand, inherited from Byzantium great treasures of this spiritual wisdom contained in the writings of the Holy Fathers. Hence, Russia’s historical task was to build on the rich Byzantine heritage a new spiritual culture which would impregnate the whole world. Kireyevsky posed the problem in all its fullness. According to him, Russian philosophy was to be built on “the deep, living and pure love for wisdom of the Church Fathers, which is the embryo of the higher philosophic principles” [vol. II, p. 332, Collected Works].⁷

     Kireyevsky’s thesis can be summarized thus:

     This special fondness of the Roman world for the formal coherence of ideas represented a pitfall for Roman theologians even at a time when the Roman Church was a living part of the Universal Church and when the shared consciousness of the entire Orthodox world maintained a reasonable balance between all special traits. Thus, it is to be expected that after Rome’s separation this peculiarity of the Roman mind was bound to attain decisive predominance in the character of Roman theologians’ teachings. It may even be that this Roman peculiarity, this isolated rationality, this excessive inclination toward the formal coherence of ideas, had itself been one of the main reasons for Rome’s defection… What is not open to doubt is the actual pretext for defection – the new addition of a dogma to the earlier creed, an addition that, contrary to the ancient tradition and shared consciousness of the Church, was justified only by the logical deductions of the Western theologians.⁸

     Fr. Seraphim Rose, elaborating on this point, says: “logicalness becomes the first test of truth and the living sources of faith second. Under this influence, Western man loses a living relationship to truth. Christianity is reduced to a system, to a human level… It is an attempt to make by human efforts something better than Christianity. Anselm’s proof of God’s existence is an example – he is ‘cleverer’ than the ancient Holy Fathers.”⁹

     Amidst these accusations one must not assume that Ivan despised the West. It was quite the opposite. He clearly articulates his appreciation but with some reservation, saying:

I have no intention of writing a satire against the west. No one values more than I the conveniences of public and private life which are a result of rationalism. To speak frankly, even now I still love the west… I belong to it by education, by habit, by taste… by my disputatious turn of mind, and even by the habits of my heart.

I want to travel to Europe… And yet I know that I am only going to a graveyard; but it is a most precious graveyard, that is what it is!

For within a man’s heart are certain movements and demands of the mind… which are stronger than all the habits and tastes, more powerful than all the pleasantries of life and the benefits of outward reasonableness, without which no man, nor a people, can live… Therefore, while fully appreciating all of the separate benefits of rationalism, I think that in its final form… rationalism clearly reveals itself as a one-sided principle which is fraudulent, deceptive, and betrays.¹⁰

      Ivan continues his contrast between the Roman mind with the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, saying:

For, striving for truth through introspection (umozrenie), the Eastern thinkers are concerned above all with the proper inner condition of the thinking spirit, while the Westerners are more interested in the external linking of concepts. Eastern thinkers, that they may achieve the complete truth, seek the inner wholeness of the intellect, that concentration, so to speak, of the mind’s forces, in which all the faculties of the spirit are fused into one living and exalted unity. Western philosophers, on the other hand, assume that the full truth may be achieved by the disparate forces of the mind acting automatically (samodvizhno) and in isolation. They used one faculty to understand the moral and another to grasp the aesthetic; yet a third they employ for the useful; they attempt to understand the true through abstract reason. No one faculty knows what the others are doing until the action has been completed.¹¹

     Further, Ivan describes what has been handed down through the tradition of the Fathers of the Church, saying:

…Believing thought [ie. religious thought (editor’s note)] is best characterized by its attempt to gather all the separate parts of the soul into one force, to search out that inner heart of being where reason and will, feeling and conscience, the beautiful and the true, the wonderful and the desired, the just and the merciful, and all the capacity of the mind converge into one living unity, and in this way the essential human personality is restored in its primordial indivisibility.¹²

     Gleason’s final analysis of Kireyevsky and his last years is quite bleak. His conclusions of failure, despair and an overall pathetic life stems more from Ivan’s inability, in Gleason’s mind, which can be partly justified, to produce a magisterial philosophy that develops his ideas in more detail with application to the common man. It is unfortunate that Gleason’s valuable work shows no awareness of Orthodox life and spirituality or an understanding of the monastic life or elders. This lack clearly hinders him from understanding Kireyevsky, especially in the later part of his life.

     Gleason, concluding, says:

…Kireyevsky’s pathetic dependence on Makary and his retreat from “the world” cannot be explained solely in religious or intellectual terms. At the end of his life, Kireyevsky was obviously prey to an overmastering sense of guilt and failure. He was desperately afraid of God’s judgment, feeling himself corrupt and unclean in the deepest recesses of his being. Nothing now remained of the optimism which he had set out on his odyssey in the twenties. Slowly and inexorably it had been drained from his life.¹³

     Others, misunderstanding the Orthodox life, evaluate Ivan’s life and works in a less than complimentary if not erroneous way. The following paragraphs will explain a few of these misunderstandings but also how it is that Ivan is living within the Tradition of the Church. We will see that Ivan is a “mystic” insofar as all of the theology of the Orthodox Church is “mystical theology,” born out of the ascetical life not logical deductions.¹⁴ Ivan explains the ascetical life as being “pre-conditions” for knowledge of God. He does not develop an entire philosophic system, instead his emphasis focuses on the unity of the faculties within man.

     Michael Hughes in his essay on Ivan as a “mystic” offers us a glimpse into his spiritual life. It began when Ivan started to move away from Hegel, was inspired more by Schelling but found its embodiment in his spiritual father, Fr. Filaret of the Novospassky Monastery. In this context, Hughes uses the term “mystic / mystical / mysticism” as terms which explain the way by which someone comes to true knowledge. He says, in affirmation of one of Ivan’s earlier biographers,

The previous pages have put forward a number of arguments that together make it reasonable to accept Gershenzon’s characterization of Kireyevsky as a “mystic.” The first of these arguments is the argument from source. Kireyevsky’s sustained interest in the patristic writings of such figures as Isaac the Syrian shows his intimate familiarity with a tradition that, at its heart, rested on the assumption that God was to be found above all in direct personal experience and contemplation rather than dry definitions and creeds. The second argument is the argument from context. Kireyevsky’s close links with the elders of Optina Pustyn brought him close to the most important focal point in the development of the hesychast tradition [relating to the Philokalia] in nineteenth century Russia, with its characteristic emphasis on inner contemplation and the search for a direct encounter with the divine, a teaching that found striking echoes in Kireyevsky’s focus on the existential condition of the observer in the cognitive process. The third argument supporting Gershenzon’s treatment of Kireyevsky as mystic – and perhaps ultimately the most important one – rests on the character of the language he used in articles such as “New Principles” when seeking to define the conditions by which an individual could obtain the highest insights that eluded ordinary reason.¹⁵

     We can see the beginning of this in 1836 when he is reading Sts. Isaac the Syrian and Maximus the Confessor. This also sheds more light on his “conversion experience” as being an experience with lasting effects that continued to inspire the rest of his life. Herein we can also trace the maturation of his thought and how he focuses his writings on the pre-conditions of the individual knowing the truth and the importance of the integration of all the faculties of man and not only his reason.

     To clarify the term “mystic” we should look at Henry Lanz’s work. He correctly sees the germination of Ivan’s thought not as being a product of German idealism,¹⁶ romanticism or any type of mysticism. Instead, he rightly says, “It is simply and solely a modern continuation of a religious tradition which has been dominating Russian life since the time of St. Vladimir, and which was temporarily driven into the underworld by the violent reforms of Peter the Great and his successors.”¹⁷ Therefore, Ivan is not saying something new. Instead, it is as old as Russia herself.

     Ivan did not, as many of his critics note, produce that masterful, all-pervading philosophy by which society could function and from which Russian social thought could rise to new levels. Instead, as he came to focus his work more and more, it grew to be an expansion only of a foundation by which people can begin to think and function from.

     Florovsky describes Kireyevsky as a “man of a single theme, if not a single thought.”¹⁸ This observation can be addressed by noting that Kireyevsky was not so much concerned with the development of ideas as much as he was attempting to “affirm what were the essential fundamentals of any true or desirable Weltanschauung [worldview]: integrity, conviction, faith and so on… [I]t seems clear that Kireyevsky’s concern for the construction and elaboration of a fully-developed Christian philosophy was less marked than his desire to lay down the foundations for such an exercise upon which others could be built.”¹⁹

     Ivan is more than able to produce such a system. Chapman expresses it thus:

Kireyevsky could have been more precise had he wished. By all accounts he was polymathic in his reading and phenomenally cultured. He could have illustrated his points with specific references to a formidable range of examples drawn from half a dozen cultures, references which would not have been lost on the literary aristocrats who constituted his readership. Such a philosophical style was not just the result of following the European, and especially German, fashion for vague and superfluous expansiveness: precision was likely to lead a Russian intellectual into trouble with the authorities. In the event, even Kireyevsky’s consistent imprecision led to official disapproval and hostility: even after taking care to veil the references to political movements in the loosest sense, Kireyevsky found his journal Yevropeyets unacceptable to the authorities and his movements constantly under the watchful eye of the notorious “Third Section”, with its brief to report on “all events without exception.”²⁰

     Although Gleason correctly notes that Kireyevsky does not develop the magisterial philosophy which Gleason believes he should have been able to, Gleason ultimately misunderstands what Ivan does do through his collaboration with Elder Makary. Gleason describes this work with Elder Makary, saying: “There is curiously little substance in Kireyevsky’s letter to Makary about the works which they were together engaged in translating and publishing. Kireyevsky largely confined himself to rather timid suggestions about the translation of certain terms in the texts. One of his concerns was to avoid terminology in any way suggestive of the language of ‘Western’ philosophical speculation.”²¹ Given the rebirth of the writing of the Fathers at this time and their translation into modern languages through St. Paisius Velichkovsky and now through Optina Monastery, a very basic need was to develop a language that is able to convey the truths set forth by these Fathers; hence the importance of terms and terminology. Sergeii Chetverikov affirms the same point saying that the goal was to develop “a faithful philosophical language, in accordance with the spiritual language of Slavic and Greek Spiritual writers.”²² This was also what St. Paisius was doing before him.²³

     In his critics’ minds. Ivan clearly does not show a great command over the spiritual life. It seems as though Gleason, and others believe that he should have moved from the Elagin Salon to Optina Monastery to attain the heights of a Staretz. In reality the spiritual life that Ivan attained was not recognizable to his critics. In 1851 his friend Koshelev asks him about which Fathers of the Church he should read. Ivan replies saying,

You ask me… whom you should read first and whom later, and I have to tell you that this simple question has been difficult for me. In order that this reading be of real use, it must be in conformity with the particular nature of each person. In my case, before I had mastered what was fundamental and general, I grasped at the more lofty, proper only to him who has been tried and perfected, and I confess to you that by this arrogance I paralyzed my forces, nurturing in myself precisely that dividedness, the elimination of which is the goal of spiritual introspection.²⁴

     Gleason describes this letter as an example of Kireyevsky’s “basic uncertainty” with the “intimate sense” and “methodology” of the Church Fathers.²⁵ To the contrary, we find that this is clearly no wavering when it comes to someone asking advice on reading the Fathers of the Church. As he already notes, Kireyevsky expresses the danger that he was in being caught up in reaching too high and grasping for things he was not able to understand. This is why he says that there are certain Fathers that can only be read by those who have been “tried and perfected” because we are not talking about reading something that is commonplace.

      More to the point is the continuation in the letter that Gleason does not quote. In it Ivan shows discernment in noting that it takes spiritual wisdom and discernment to advise people. “More important than all the books and every kind of thinking is to find a holy Orthodox Staretz [Elder] who can become your guide, to whom you can communicate every thought and hear in reply not his private opinion – which might be more or less intelligent – but the very judgment of the Fathers.”²⁶

     In the last ten years of his life, Ivan, along with his wife Natalia, would grow closer in their relationships with Optina Monastery and to Elder Makary. Ivan would spend a lot of this time with Elder Makary in his cell working on translations. Ivan’s contributions to publishing, translating and/or correcting included Sts. Isaac the Syrian, Barsanuphius the Great, Mark the Ascetic, Symeon the New Theologian, Maximus the Confessor, Theodore the Studite, Thallasios, Gregory of Sinai.²⁷

     In 1856, Ivan set out from Dolbino for St. Petersburg to be with his son Vasily who was taking his final examination at the Lyceum. He stopped by Moscow on his way to see his mother and brother for what would be the last time. On June 10, Ivan contracted cholera in St. Petersburg and on June 12 he died, in the arms of his son.²⁸

     Eight years earlier, Alexei Khomiakov composed a few verses in honor of his friend which is a fitting tribute:

Beyond the sea of meditation

Beyond, like waves, your thoughts, your dreams:

A realm of bright illumination,

Transcendent beauty, radiance gleams.

Unfurl the sail, thou trav’ler bold,

Like the white wing of a swan;

Prepare to journey, and behold,

Before thine eyes, a new sun dawn.

Return again with precious treasure;

Bring nurture to the hungry heart,

Granting burdened souls new leisure,

Strength to weary wills impart.²⁹

     Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky was buried near the Optina Monastery Cathlicon, dedicated to the Entrance of the Theotokos into the Temple, at the feet of Elder Leonid, the first of the Elders of Optina. Ivan was the first layperson ever to be buried in the cemetery at Optina Monastery.³⁰ Learning of this, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow noted the great honor that Optina bestowed upon her son.³¹ On his tombstone was written: “I loved wisdom and sought her out from my youth… When I perceived that I could not otherwise obtain her, except God gave her me,… I prayed unto the Lord and besought Him… For they shall see the end of the wise, and shall not understand what God in His counsel hath decreed of him” (Wisdom of Solomon).³² Later, a portrait of Ivan lying in his coffin was hung on the western wall of the reception room of Elder Makary’s cell.³³ 

Subdeacon Matthew Long

ENDNOTES

 

1 (Chetverikov), Fr. Sergius. Elder Ambrose of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1997), 126-127. Fr. Leonid Kavelin notes that often Elder Makary would work on these patristic publications at the home that was prepared for him on the Dolbino estate; see Ivan M. Kontzevitch, “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevksy”; also in Elder Macarius of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995), 113 note.

2 For a list of works published at Optina, see “An Annotated Bibliography of Optina Publications” in Leonard J. Stanton’s, The Optina Pustyn Monastery in the Russian Literary Imagination: Iconic Vision in Works by Dostoevsky, Gogol, Tolstoy and Others. (New York: Peter Lang, 1995), 273.

3 Later Archbishop of Lithuania and Vilnius.

4 Later the Superior of the Holy Trinity-St. Sergius Lavra and author of the biography Elder Macarius of Optina which was translated into English.

5 The confessor of Elder Ambrose and of the pilgrims to Optina.

6 Elder Ambrose of Optina, 127-130. For a brief description of the scarcity of Orthodox Patristic material at the time and the difficulty it took to have works published, see I.M. Kontzevitch, “The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1988), 273-274.

7 “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevsky,” 299-300.

8 Kireyevsky, Ivan. “On the Nature of European Culture and its Relationship to Russian Culture; Letter to Count E.E. Komarovsky” quoted in Boris Jakim and Robert Bird, trans. and eds. On Spiritual Unity: A Slavophile Reader (Hudson: Lindisfarne Books, 1998), 202-203.

9 Christensen, Fr. Damascene. Father Seraphim Rose: His Life and Works. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), 622.

10 Young, Fr. Alexey. A Man is His Faith: Ivan Kireyevsky and Orthodox Christianity. (St. George Information Services: Norwich, 1980), 32-33.

11 From Kireyevsky’s Collected Works as quoted in European and Muscovite, 255.

12 On Spiritual Unity, 285.

13 Gleason, Abbott. European and Muscovite: Ivan Kireevsky and the Origins of Slavophilism. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 293-294.

14 “Mystic” is this context is being used to accommodate an author that is describing what Ivan writes about. The Orthodox generally do not use the term “mystic” which is more of a Catholic and Far Eastern derivation. See note #17 regarding mysticism.

15 “Mysticism and Knowledge in the Philosophical Thought of Ivan Kireevsky” in Mystics Quarterly (vol. 30, no.1/2, 2004): 26. Gleason agrees with this point but adds that Kireyevsky’s emphasis on “the collective and the communal” which Gleason denies are part of the Orthodox tradition but are instead more closely related to German counterrevolutionary and anti-rationalist ideologies; see European and Muscovite, 283-284.

16 Which Lanz notes about Slavophilism generally; see Henry Lanz, “The Philosophy of Ivan Kireyevsky” in The Slavonic Review. (vol. 4, no. 12, 1926): 594.

17 Ibid., 604. In short, these “pre-conditions” are the ascetical life. This is also the explanation that Vladimir Lossky’s gives regarding “mystical theology”; see Lossky, Vladimir. The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church. (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1998), 7. Regarding Ivan’s understanding of the relationship between thought and the ascetical life see “The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia, 279-283.

18 Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: Part II. (Belmont: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), 25.

19 M.C. Chapman. “The Role of Religious Belief and Astheticism in the Philosophy of Ivan Kireyevsky” in New Zealand Slavonic Journal. (vol. 1, 1978): 37-38. See also Edie, James M. et al. Russian Philosophy: The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy – The Slavophiles – The Westernizers. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1976), 1:169.

20 Ibid., 34.

21 European and Muscovite, 338, note #36.

22 Cited in On Spiritual Unity; A Slavophile Reader, 19.

23 See Elder Ambrose of Optina, 125-126.

24 European and Muscovite, 246.

25 Ibid.

26 From Ivan Kontzevitch and quoted by Fr. Alexey Young in A Man is His Faith, 17. Although seemingly unknown to Gleason, points such as this are strewn throughout the Fathers and we can say that they were known by Kireyevsky at least through the translation of St. Paisius Velichkovsky’s. See St. Paisius’ Letters in Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky: The Life and Ascetic Labors of Our Father, Elder Paisius, Archimandrite of the Holy Moldavian Monasteries of Niamets and Sekoul. Optina Version. By Schema-monk Metrophanes, trans. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. (Platina: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1976), 130-152.

27 Gleason lists and gives the dates of these publications as: The Life and Works of the Moldavian Starets Paisii Velichkovskii (1^st ed. 1847, 2^nd ed. 1848); Gleanings for Spiritual Refreshment (translations from the Fathers by Paisy Velichkovsky, 1849); Nil Sorsky, Conferences on Monastic Life (1849); Barsanuphios and John, Introduction to the Spiritual Life (1851); Twelve Sermons of Simeon the New Theologian (1852); Isaac the Syrian, Spiritual-Ascetic Sermons (1854); Abbot Dorotheos, Instructions and Letters (1856); Mark the Anchorite, Moral-Ascetic Sermons (1858); The Ladder of St. John Climacus, in several editions. (ibid. note 8, p. 337); see also Elder Ambrose of Optina, 130-133. Most of these works were financed by the Kireyevsky’s themselves; see The Acquisition of the Holy Spirit in Ancient Russia,” 273-274.

28 “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevksy”, 306.

29 Quoted in Ibid., 302.

30 After the Elder’s repose, Natalia labored to collect all his letters and, using her own money published six thick volumes. “In order to gather them she visited many monasteries and convents – there is evidence that she visited about two hundred women’s convents alone!” Elder Macarius of Optina, 287.

31 Ibid., 304. Gleason is silent as to the value of Kireyevsky being the first layperson buried at Optina Monastery.  Ivan’s brother, Peter, who reposed in the following year, is buried beside him as well as his wife, Natalia. Four years later, Elder Macarius would be buried besides Elder Leonid, at whose feet Ivan was buried.

32 Elder Ambrose of Optina, 65.

33 “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevksy”, 143.

Hi, this weekend is nice in favor of me, as this time i am reading this enormous educational article here at my home. cialis Cheers a lot to the writer for that very utile report.

“EUROPEAN, MUSCOVITE AND SON OF THE CHURCH”

     The religious climate which Ivan came into, beginning with his encounter with Fr. Filaret, is best understood by looking a generation earlier at the life of St. Paisius Velichkovsky. In so doing we will see the type of life that Ivan participated in and the significance of the role he played for future generations.

     Ivan Vasilievich Kireyevsky (1806-1856) belonged to the generation following St. Paisius Velichkovsky (1722-1794). St. Paisius’ reflection on his times can be seen in a letter he wrote later in life regarding the early years of his monasticism. To learn the monastic life, St. Paisius went to the Holy Mountain of Athos (from 1746-1763) seeking a spiritual father and an education in the works of the Holy Fathers of the Church. he describes what it was like in a letter to Archimandrite Theodosius, the Superior of the Sophroniev Hermitage in Russia:

     We bought… the above-mentioned books written in the Slavonic language and regarded them as a heavenly treasure given to us freely by God. But when I had read them for a number of years with diligence, I found in very many places in them an impenetrable obscurity, and in many places I did not find even any grammatical sense, even though I read them many times with extreme labor and testing. God alone knows with what sorrow my soul was filled; and being uncertain what to do, I thought that it might be possible to correct the Slavonic books of the Fathers at least a little by comparing them with other Slavonic books.

St. Paisius (Velichkovsky)

     And I began to copy out with my own hand the books of St. Hesychius, Presbyter of Jerusalem, and St. Philotheus the Sinaite, and St. Theodore of Edessa, from four copies, so that at least by bringing together something from each of the four copies I might be able to see in them the grammatical sense. But all this labor of mine was in vain; for not even in those books compiled from four copies was I able to see the complete sense of them. Then for six weeks day and night I corrected my book of St. Isaac the Syrian from another copy of it, believing the assertion of one person that the copy corresponded in all respects to the Greek text; but this labor of mine also was in vain, for in time I came to understand that I had ruined my better copy from a worse one.

     And after I had suffered many times in this way, I recognized that I was laboring in vain in a supposed correction of Slavonic books by means of Slavonic ones; and I began diligently to search out the reason for such obscurity and want of grammatical sense in the books. With my infirm mind I made the discovery that there are two reasons for this: first, the inexperience of the ancient translators from Greek into Slavonic; second, the inexperience and carelessness of inexperienced copyists.¹

     Not only were few works available and in an incoherent state, but in many places people had never even heard of these authors.

     …I had all the more earnest intent to seek out, with pain of heart, the Greek patristic books, in hope of correcting the Slavonic books from them; and having searched many times in many places, I could not find them. Then I went to the Great skete of the Lavra, St. Anne’s, and to Kapsokalyvia, and to the skete of Vatopedi, St. Demetrius’, and to other lavras and monasteries, everywhere asking learned

     people, and the eldest and most experienced confessors and venerable monks, for the patristic books by name; nowhere, however was I able to obtain such books, but from everyone I received the same set answer, that “not only have we not known such books up to now, but we have never heard of the names of such Saints.” Having received such a reply God knows into what perplexity I fell, discerning that in such a holy place, chosen by God for the quiet and silent habitation of monks, where many great and perfect Saints had lived, I was unable not only to obtain these holy books which I so desired, but even to hear the names of those Saints from any one; and therefore I fell into not a little sorrow over this.²

     This is a sketch of the beginnings of St. Paisius’ monastic life. It would continue to be a life of meticulous translating, copying and laboring over a correct translation of the Greek and the formation of an ascetical terminology previously lacking in the Slavonic language.³ In 1905, in the Niamets Monastery, the monastery of his repose, was housed some 300 manuscripts that were from the time of St. Paisius and 44 of them were in his own handwriting.⁴ Not only did he become a diligent translator but also a great teacher of monastics. In one source we find that near the end of his life St. Paisius had seven hundred disciples gathered around him at the Niamets monastery. Another source indicates a thousand.⁵

     The works that St. Paisius was translating and disseminating contained “basic” teaching of the Fathers. At this time even the monks on the Holy Mountain were unfamiliar with these writings, and the saints who wrote them. One would agree with St. Macarius of Corinth (1731-1805) that, “Paisius had prepared the groundwork.”⁶ Concerning the need for such elementary education, it was also obvious to other contemporaries of St. Paisius. “St. Macarius, himself aware of the times and being a teacher and a pastor in the world, knew well that Orthodox people desperately needed their own basic Orthodox sources. We can clearly see this in the case of their contemporary, St. Cosmas of Aitolia [1714-1779], who abandoned everything and went to preach the basics of Christian faith.”⁷

     St. Paisius had a broad influence on Russian and Athonite writers but for the purposes of this present work we will focus only on a few of the Russian ones. In the Optina Edition of St. Paisius’ life we find that his influence and work was spread through: “Metropolitan Gabriel in Petersburg; Metropolitan Platon (who personally wrote to him) in Moscow; and Metropolitan Philaret in Kiev.”⁸ Metropolitan Gabriel in Petersburg received a translation of the Philokalia from Elder Paisius and brought it to Petersburg. This Metropolitan had a particular method to verify the translations. He brought the work to a group of scholars at the seminary of St. Alexander Nevsky:

     To them he entrusted the translation, because in this work was required not only a precise knowledge of the Greek language, but also a faithful and experienced understanding of spiritual life. Those who labored in the comparison of the translation of this book with the Greek original, according to the Metropolitan’s instructions, were obliged to constantly take counsel concerning all necessary corrections with spiritual elders who had actual experience in conducting their spiritual lives in accordance with this exalted teaching set forth in the Philokalia. These elders with whom they were to consult were: Elder Nazarius, Abbot of Valaam monastery; Hieromonk Philaret, who originally had been summoned by Metropolitan Gabriel from Sarov monastery to come to Petersburg (and later became the renowned elder of Spassky Monastery in Moscow and spiritual father of the philosopher Ivan V. Kireyevsky and his wife Natalia); and also Athanasius, who brought into Russia the Greek original of the Philokalia. The Metropolitan would say to the learned translators, “Although they do not know the Greek language as well as you, they know better than you from experience the spiritual truths which cannot be understood by book-learning alone. Therefore they can understand better than you the meaning of the instructions contained in this book.”⁹

     Ivan’s story begins again with his spiritual father being involved in the translation of the Philokalia. Ivan was not involved in any translation work with this venerable Elder but the previous information is intended to reveal the kind of spiritual father he was. Ivan’s translation work began later with another renowned Elder, Makary of Optina. After his marriage in 1834, Ivan spent the next twelve years at the homestead in Dolbino.  Kontzevitch notes that,

     After Kireyevsky’s wedding and during the next twelve years of his life in Dolbino… This quiet life in the village seemed to one ill-disposed “biographer” like some kind of sleep or inactivity. But these years were not lost for Kireyevsky – they passed in spiritual and mental self-deepening. If in his young years he believed in European progress and was a Westernizer (while being editor of The European), now he drastically changed his worldview. Ivan Vasilievich became himself: that “Kireyevsky” whose image is stamped on the history of our spiritual culture. The years spent in studying scientific books broadened his knowledge.¹⁰

     Fr. Georges Florovsky, in agreement, writes, “From one standpoint he might seem an unsuccessful, subdued and superfluous man, and in reality his social activity did not meet with success. Yet by passing through a period of inner construction he became self-contained, and through an ascetic effort, not through disillusionment.”¹¹

     When Ivan came under the spiritual guidance of Elder Philaret of the Spassky Monastery after receiving the gift of Fr. Philaret’s pectoral cross, his position towards the Church changed from being disinterested to taking an active interest in becoming acquainted with the writings of the Fathers.¹² Under Fr. Philaret’s influence Ivan began reading Sts. Isaac the Syrian and Maximus the Confessor and was taught by him as someone who had experienced these writings.¹³

   Unable to find an outlet for his work following the repression of his journal, Ivan continued to meet with his closest friends discussing the West and Russia’s past, present and future. In 1839 we see a further development of Ivan’s ideas in his discussions with Alexei Khomiakov. He was acquainted with Alexei in the mid- 1820’s and became closer to him from 1833 on.

     Khomiakov was part of the “Literary Aristocracy” as was Kireyevsky and also contributed articles to The European. A frequent patron of the Elagin Salon, Khomiakov is described by some as one of the first Slavophiles. “‘I knew Khomiakov for thirty-seven years,’ Koshelev wrote late in life, ‘and his fundamental convictions of 1823 had not altered in 1860’.”¹⁴ Gleason describes Khomiakov as haing an “extraordinary consistent character,” and as one who seemed “to have sprung from the earth.”¹⁵

      Koshelev describes the conversations between the two men which began before Kireyevsky was married, writing, “There took place endless conversations and arguments beginning in the evening and ending at three, four or even five or six in the morning. There was hammered out and developed that Orthodox-Russian way of thinking, whose soul and prime mover was Khomiakov.”¹⁶ Here too were also many discussions of Church Fathers.¹⁷

     In 1839, an article written by Kireyevsky was an essay entitled, “In Answer to Khomiakov.” “It was subsequently circulated in manuscript and created considerable stir in Moscow literary and social circles.”¹⁸ This essay regarding the development of European society, including its causes reveals that his views had matured since his writing The Nineteenth Century.

     The Nineteenth Century was the core of the first issue of his journal, The European. Twelve years after The Nineteenth Century first appeared; Herzen reread the article and noted in his diary, “Ivan Kireyevsky’s article is remarkable. He anticipated the contemporary direction of Europe itself; what a healthy, powerful intelligence, what talent, style…”¹⁹ Gleason further noted that at the time of the release of this first issue, “with the exception of poetry, the content of the journal – Heine, Börne, Menzel, Villemain, et al. –  flowed from Kireyevsky’s central idea of the ‘new era’ in Europe and European literature. They – and he with them – were in fact the new era itself.”²⁰

     Gleason compares In Answer to Khomiakov, with Ivan’s earlier work, The Nineteenth Century, saying that in both works, Kireyevsky believed the bases of European culture to be i) the pagan classical world, ii) the barbarian tribes which destroyed it and iii) Christianity. In The Nineteenth Century he describes the third element as the “the Christian religion”; in Answer it became “Roman religion.”²¹ Kireyevsky says,

     This classical world of ancient paganism, which is not part of Russia’s heritage… is essentially the triumph of man’s formal reason over everything inside and outside of it – pure, naked reason, based upon itself, recognizing nothing higher than or beyond itself, and manifesting itself in two particular aspects – that of formal abstractness and that of abstract sensuality. The effect of classicism upon European culture had to be of this same character.²²

     Developing this thought, Ivan wrote to Khomiakov the following year explaining himself further, saying,

     The development of “abstract reason” in men and nations had been accompanied by a decline in will and feeling. “My thought is this,” he wrote, “that logical sense (soznanie), which translates the deed into the word, life into a formula, does not grasp the object fully, and annihilates its action on the soul.” We mistake the blueprint of the house for the structure itself, he went on; living as we do under the yoke of logic, we ought at least to recognize that it is not the “summit of knowledge.”²³

     We may note here that in the time between these two articles being written (1836 and 1839) Ivan’s view of the differing “Christianities” is becoming apparent. He begins to describe more the deviation from traditional Christianity in the West that followed the Schism. He will further elaborate on this point later in life.

     In 1844, Ivan would emerge back in the public sphere through a new journal called The Muscovite. He took over its editorship and had been friends for some time with those who had previously managed it. Ivan expressed his thoughts regarding the acceptance of this editorial position saying,

     The time has now come when the expression of my deepest convictions will be possible and not without value. It seems to me probable that in our time, when Western literature does not present anything in particular to dominate the intelligence, no particular principle which does not contain contradictions, no sort of conviction in which even its advocates believe – now, that is to say, the hour has come when our Orthodox principle of spiritual and intellectual life can find sympathy with our so-called educated public, which has hitherto lived in the belief in Western systems.²⁴

   While Ivan was the editor of The Muscovite it included many poems, translations, tales and contributions by him but also a homily by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow²⁵ and a piece by Elder Makary in 1845. It was suggested to Elder Makary that he publish an article for the journal, and, as Fr. Sergius Chetverikov notes, “The Elder accepted this suggestion with gratitude and answered that if it would be possible and convenient, he wished to submit the biography of Elder Paisius [Velichkovsky].” Fr. Sergius continues, saying,

     Since Ivan Vasiliviech shared Fr. Makary’s opinion about the services rendered by the Blessed Elder Paisius to all Orthodox monastics and to Slavonic literature in general (by confirming its use of ascetical terminology) he agreed with pleasure to the proposal to enhance the pages of the journal with this article. It was published in the twelfth issue of The Muscovite for 1845 and was adorned with a portrait of Elder Paisius.²⁶

     There were to be only three issues of The Muscovite under Ivan’s guidance after which he retired back to Dolbino due to ill health.

     Late 1845 to late 1846 proved to be one of the most difficult and blessed years of Ivan’s life. It was filled with deaths but also with a close relationship to Elder Makary. In late November, 1845 a close friend of the family died from tuberculosis, Dimitri Valuev who was then twenty-five years old. He had lived for a time with the Kireyevsky-Elagin’s in the house at the Red Gates in Moscow (which housed the Elagin Salon). On December 3, Alexander Turgenev died, who was Ivan’s Paris correspondent and a close friend of his uncle. Early in 1846, Ivan’s stepfather, Aleksei Elagin died of a stroke. A few months later Ivan buried his young daughter, Ekaterina. Near the end of the year, Ivan’s close friend, the poet, Nikolai Mikhailovitch Iazykov also died. “This year,” he wrote to his brother Peter, “I have been through the most agonizing time, coupled with the most uninterrupted misfortunes, to the point that when I bore my poor Katiusha into the church it was in fact almost easy, by comparison with other feelings.”²⁷

     In 1842, eight years after their marriage, Fr. Filaret reposed. During his final days, while Fr. Filaret was dying, Ivan would sit up with him through the entire night.²⁸ After Fr. Filaret’s death, Ivan and Natalia both would start to spend more time at Optina Monastery.²⁹

Since 1833, Natalia had been visiting Optina Monastery and had been acquainted with Elders Leonid and Makary. Later she became the spiritual daughter of Elder Makary.³⁰ After Fr. Filaret’s death, both the Kireyevsky’s became very close to Elder Makary. At their request, the Elder often visited them on their Dolbino estate and they also even built a cell for him on their estate in the orchard.³¹ Natalia says that it was in 1846 that Ivan became closer to Elder Makary as described through the following events:

     Ivan Vasilievich knew little of [Elder Makary] until 1846. In March of that year the Elder was with us in Dolbino and Ivan Vasilievich first confessed to him. He wrote Father for the first time from Moscow at the end of October, 1846, telling me: “I have written to Father, asking him many questions which are important to me; I purposely didn’t tell you about this because I feared that out of love for him you would somehow or another write to him. I am anxiously awaiting his reply. I am aware that it will be difficult for him to answer me.”

     I thanked Ivan Vasilievich for having told me that he had decided to write to the Elder, and I was convinced that Ivan Vasilievich would get a stunning response from the Elder. An hour had not passed when two letters were brought from the post office in the Elder’s handwriting – one addressed to me, the other to Ivan Vasilievich. Without opening it, he asked me: “What does this mean? [Fr. Makary] has never written to me before!” After he read the letter, his face changed and he said: “Amazing! Stunning! How can this be? In this letter are the answers to all my questions which I had only just now sent.”³²

To be continued..

–Subdeacon Matthew

ENDNOTES

     ¹ Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky: The Life and Ascetic Labors of Our Father, Elder Paisius, Archimandrite of the Holy Moldavian Monasteries of Niamets and Sekoul. Optina Version. By Schema-monk Metrophanes, trans. Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood. (Platina: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1976), 78-81. Twenty years after Paisius’ repose his biography was written, though not finished, by monk Mytrofan. In this biography, he too details “these wretched and terrible times when monasticism had degenerated to the last and was visible only in outward from.” He further describes how Paisius was alone in his endeavors with no human instructor, only the grace of God. see “The Life of Paisij Velyckovs’kyj,” trans. by J.M.E. Featherstone in Harvard Library of Early Ukranian Literature. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989), 4:146-147.

     ² Ibid., 81.

     ³ Fr. Sergius Chetverikov. Elder Ambrose of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1997), 126. See also, Bishop Seraphim Joanta, Romania: Its Hesychast Tradition and Culture. (Wildwood: St. Xenia Skete, 1992), 143-151.

     ⁴ Ibid., 196.

     ⁵ “The Life of Paisij Velyckovs’kyj,” 4: xiii, note 1.

     ⁶ Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, 92.

     ⁷ Ibid.

     ⁸ Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky, 96.

     ⁹ Ibid., 237.

     ¹⁰ Ivan Kontzevitch, “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan Kireyevsky,” in Elder Macarius of Optina. (Platina: St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995), 295.

     ¹¹ Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology: Part II. (Belmont: Buchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), 26.

     ¹² Kontzevitch says that Ivan was never an “unbeliever” noting that Ivan wrote to his sister in the 1880’s encouraging her to read the Gospels. The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevsky, 294.

     ¹³ Masaryk and Lazareva both date this reading of the Fathers at 1936; see, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, The Spirit of Russia: Studies in History, Literature and Philosophy, 2 vols., Eden and Cedar Paul, trans. (London: Allen & Unwin, 1919), 241 and Lazareva, “Zhizneopisanie” [“Biography”], introduction to I.V. Kireyevsky, Razum na puti k Istine [Reason on the Path to Truth].( Moscow: “Pravilo very,” 2002), XXXVI.

     ¹⁴ Abbott Gleason, European and Muscovite: Ivan Kireevsky and the Origins of Slavophilism. (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1972), 144.

     ¹⁵ Ibid., 143.

     ¹⁶ Ibid.

     ¹⁷ “[Khomiakov] was said to have discussed the works of St. Athanasius the Great, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem for hours with Kireevsky,” Archimandrite Luke (Murianka), “Aleksei Khomiakov: A Study of the Interplay of Piety and Theology”: 32, at http://www.jordanville.org/files/Articles/A_Study_of_the_Interplay_of_Piety_and_Theology.pdf, accessed on February 25, 2013.

     ¹⁸ European and Muscovite, 156.

     ¹⁹ Ibid., 104.

     ²⁰ Ibid.

     ²¹ Ibid., 162.

     ²² Ibid, quoted from Kireyevsky’s Collected Works.

     ²³ Ibid, endnote #19.

     ²⁴ European and Muscovite, 189.

     ²⁵ Ibid., 190.

     ²⁶ Elder Ambrose of Optina, 126-127.

     ²⁷ From Barsukov’s, Zhizn’ Pogodina, VIII, 487, as noted in European and Muscovite, 223.

     ²⁸ Ibid. 237.

     ²⁹ “The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan Kireyevsky,” 297.

     ³⁰ Ibid., 305.

     ³¹ Elder Ambrose of Optina, 125.

     ³² Ibid., 305-306.

A swab test involves taking a specimen from a site such as the vagina or cervix. cialis 20mg price in malaysia A vaginal swab can be collected by your doctor, or if you prefer you can swab yourself your doctor can instruct you on what to do.