'Return Again with Precious Treasure'—Ivan Kireevsky on Pagan Philosophy

I suppose most of my readers will already know the great 19th-c. intellectual, ‘Slavophile’ philosopher, and spiritual son of the Optina Elder, St Macarius—Ivan Kireevsky. Concerning Kireevsky, Fr Seraphim (Rose) writes, ‘Having . . . gone to Germany to study with the most advanced philosophers, Hegel and Schelling, Kireeyevsky was thoroughly penetrated with the Western spirit and then became thoroughly converted to Orthodoxy. Therefore he saw that these two things cannot be put together.’ [1] In his study of Optina Pustyn, I.M. Kontzevitch has observed:

Of all the lay people who spent time in Optina Monastery, Kireeyevsky was closer than anyone to its spirit. . . . In Optina he saw the wisdom of the Holy Fathers brought to life. Being a philosopher, he felt that higher knowledge of truth was linked with integrity of spirit, with the restoration of the harmony of all mankind’s spiritual powers. This restoration is attained by inner ascetic labor, by spiritual activity. [2]

Kireevsky’s essay, ‘On the Possibility & Necessity of New Principles in Philosophy’, in Kontzevitch’s opinion, ‘laid a foundation for independent thought in Russian philosophy’, [3] and in it, according to Boris Jakim and Robert Bird, he ‘foresaw the return of philosophy to life and to the Church, which would restore the wholeness of philosophy in the integral knowledge granted by Christian belief.’ [4] The essay elicited the following verses from A.S. Khomiakov:

Beyond the sea of meditation,
Beyond, like waves, your thoughts, your dreams:
A realm of bright illumination,
Transcendent beauty, radiance gleams.
Unfurl thy 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. [5]

After his death, Kontzevitch notes that Kireevsky’s body was buried near the monastery church of Optina ‘at the feet of the grave of Elder Leonid’. When St Philaret of Moscow found out, he ‘perceived the great honor which was shown by Optina Monastery to her devoted son’. [6]

Well, I was looking through this essay again trying to find a particular passage, and instead I came across the passage below (the other turned out to be St Ignatius Brianchaninov anyway). I had forgotten it, but upon a rereading, was reminded of how closely Kireevsky supported some of the points I’d been trying to make in earlier posts here and here.

Christianity, however, which altered the spirit of the ancient world and resurrected the lost dignity of man’s nature, did not unconditionally reject ancient philosophy. For the harm and falsehood of philosophy lay not in the development of the mind which it produced, but in its final conclusions, which depended on the fact that it considered itself the highest and only truth, conclusions which were eliminated as soon as the intellect recognized a superior truth. Then philosophy took a subordinate position, appearing as relative truth and serving as the means for the confirmation of the highest principle in the realm of a different culture.

Although engaged in a life-and-death struggle with the falsehood of pagan mythology, Christianity did not destroy pagan philosophy but accepted it and transformed it in accordance with its own higher philosophy. The brightest lights of the Church—Justin, Clement, Origen (insofar as he was Orthodox), Athanasius, Basil, Gregory, and most of the great Holy Fathers upon whose work, so to speak, the Christian teaching became established in the midst of a pagan culture—not only were thoroughly versed in ancient philosophy but also utilized it for the rational construction of the first Christian philosophy, which combined the development of science and reason into one all-embracing vision of faith. The part of pagan philosophy which was true and was pervaded with the Christian spirit was the intermediary between faith and the external culture of mankind. And not only at the time when Christianity was still combating paganism, but also in the whole subsequentexistence of Byzantium, we see that the profound study of the Greek philosophers was the common legacy of almost all the Church teachers. For Plato and Aristotle could only be of use to Christian culture as great scholars; they could not endanger it as long as as Christian truth occupied the summit of man’s culture. For it should not be forgotten that in its struggle with paganism Christianity did not concede superiority in intelligence to it, but, permeating paganism, placed in its own service the whole intellectual activity of the world, past and present, to the extent to which it was known.

If there was any danger anywhere that a Christian people might deviate from the true teaching, the danger lay primarily in ignorance. The growth of rational knowledge, of course, does not offer salvation, but protects from false knowledge. It is true that where the mind and the heart have once been permeated by Divine truth, there the degree of learning becomes a side issue. It is also true that consciousness of the Divine is equally compatible with all stages of rational development. But in order that Divine truth might permeate, inspire, and guide man’s intellectual life, it must subordinate external reason to itself and dominate it, not remain outside its sphere of action. Divine truth must stand above other truths in the general consciousness as the sovereign principle pervading all culture. For each separate individual Divine truth must be supported by the like-mindedness of cultivated society. Ignorance, by contrast, keeps people from vital intellectual interchange through which truth among men and nations is sustained, advanced, and enlarged. An ignorant mind, even when accompanied by the most righteous convictions of the heart, gives birth to irrational jealousy, from which in turn springs the deviation of the mind and the heart from true convictions. [7]

The entire essay can be found translated by Peter Christoff in James M. Edie, et al., eds., Russian Philosophy, Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy; The Slavophiles; The Westernizers [8] and in a revised version in Boris Jakim & Robert Bird, tr. & eds., On Spiritual Unity: A Slavophile Reader. [9] I have excerpted the unrevised version.


[1] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim Rose: His Life & Works (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), p. 620.

[2] Ivan M. Kontzevitch, ‘The Life of Elder Macarius’ Disciple, Ivan V. Kireyevsky’, Elder Macarius of Optina, by Fr Leonid Kavelin, tr. Valentina V. Lyovina (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1995), p. 297.

[3] Ibid., p. 302.

[4] Boris Jakim & Robert Bird, tr. & eds., On Spiritual Unity: A Slavophile Reader (Hudson, NY: Lindisfarne, 1998)), p. 233.

[5] Qtd. in Kontzevitch, p. 302.

[6] Ibid., p. 304.

[7] Ivan V. Kireevsky, ‘On the Possibility & Necessity of New Principles in Philosophy’, tr. Peter Christoff, Russian Philosophy, Vol. 1: The Beginnings of Russian Philosophy; The Slavophiles; The Westernizers, ed. James M. Edie, et al. (Knoxville: U of Tennessee, 1994), pp. 188-9.

[8] Ibid., pp. 171-213.

[9] Jakim & Bird, pp. 234-73.

'A Theologian by Virtue of Thy Life in God'—St Nazarius of Valaam

Today, 23 February on the Church’s calendar, we celebrate the memory of the Holy Nazarius (1735-1809), Abbot of Valaam. The Life of St Nazarius compiled and translated from 19th-c. sources by Fr Seraphim (Rose)—who, providentially, was tonsured on the day of St Nazarius’s repose [1]—describes him as ‘a man of virtue who loved the solitary life of silence in the wilderness.’ [2] We Orthodox in America are indebted to St Nazarius for sending us the extraordinary missionaries to Alaska, including the great St Herman. Here is the brief account of his life from the Valaam Patericon Book of Days:

A severe Sarov Monastery ascetic from the age of 17, and a counselor during the publication of the first Philokalia in Russia, he revived ancient Valaam, after almost two centuries of desolation, by installing the Sarov Rule there. Living such a refined spiritual life he inspired a whole army of holy monks for a century hence, including such saint-disciples as Herman of Alaska and later, Seraphim of Sarov. After sending off the first Orthodox Mission to America, he left Valaam to retire to Sarov, where in the bosom of nature he wandered the forest in a state of ecstasy, truly a monk not of this world. Abbot Nazarius was formed by great luminaries of his time: St Tikhon of Zadonsk, Elder Theodore of Sanaxar and St Paisius Velichkovsky. Even during his lifetime the holy foundress of Diveyevo Convent, Alexandra, would pray before his portrait when in trouble, and he would always hear from afar. Abbot Nazarius possessed a poetic gift of speech, which can be seen from his ‘Counsels’ to monks on daily life. . . . [3]

St Nazarius was a simple, unlearned man, but according to his Life, ‘The reading of the Holy Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers was the daily food of his soul.’ [4] Because of this study of the truly essential writings of the Church, and because of his great spiritual experience and wisdom, he was also able to contribute to one of the most influential literary endeavours in the Orthodox world since the 14th and 15th centuries: the translation and publication of the Philokalia in Slavonic. According to the biography of Metropolitan Gabriel of St Petersburg (1730-1801):

Metropolitan Gabriel, having received from Elder Paisius [Velichkovsky] from Moldavia the translation of the book, the Philokalia, chose Father Theophanes as one of the advisors together with the scholars of the seminary of St Alexander Nevsky. To them he entrusted this 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. [5]

Met. Gabriel himself told the editors, ‘These fathers, although they do not know the Greek language, out of experience know better than you the truths of the spiritual life and therefore understand more correctly the teaching contained in this book.’ [6] Concerning St Nazarius’s rôle, not only in the preparation, but in the dissemination of the Philokalia, Fr Placide (Deseille) writes:

One of the reviewers of the Dobrotoliubie [Philokalia] . . . —designated by Gabriel, the Metropolitan of St Petersburg—was Fr Nazarios . . . When Catherine II charged Metropolitan Gabriel with sending missionaries to Alaska, Gabriel asked hegumen Nazarios to confide this task to some of his monks. They left in 1793, taking with them the Dobrotoliubie, which had just been published. . . .

In 1801 Fr Nazarios gave up his position as hegumen [at Valaam] and retired to Sarov to live in solitude. He brought the Dobrotoliubie to St Seraphim (1759-1833), who was living in the forest as a hermit. [7]

St Nazarius was first and foremost a solitary ascetic and afterwards a father of monks. When he re-established Valaam, he took care to reintroduce all three modes of monastic life: coenobitism, the skete life, and anchoretism. According to his Life, ‘He began the building of the Great Skete in the woods beyond the Monastery enclosure as well as other sketes, and encouraged anchorites—making himself the first example of eremitic life.’ [8] As a ‘monk’s monk’, St Nazarius was different from many of the famous elders of subsequent decades. While St Nectarius of Optina deliberately cultivated an ability to converse on nearly any subject (see this post), the better to relate to the countless lay pilgrims who sought his help, St Nazarius’s Life tells us, ‘As for worldly things, he knew not at all how to speak of them. But if he opened his mouth in order to speak of ascetic labors against the passions, of love for virtue, then his converse was an inexhaustible fount of sweetness.’ [9] But that is not to say that St Nazarius was of ‘no use’ to lay people. A delightful story has come down to us of a trip the great ascetic once made to St Petersburg:

In the reign of Paul I, the Elder Nazarius was once invited in St Petersburg to the house of a certain K., who at that time had fallen into the Tsar’s disfavor. The statesman’s wife begged the Elder: ‘Pray, Father Nazarius, that my husband’s case will end well.’ ‘Very well,’ replied the Elder; ‘one must pray to the Lord to give the Tsar enlightenment. But one must ask also those who are close to him.’ The statesman’s wife, thinking he was referring to her husband’s superiors, said: ‘We’ve already asked all of them, but there is little hope from them.’ ‘No, not them, and one shouldn’t ask in such a way; give me some money.’ She took out several gold coins. ‘No, these a re no good. Haven’t you any copper coins, or small silver ones?’ She ordered both kinds to be given him. Fr Nazarius took the money and left the house.

For a whole day Fr Nazarius walked the streets and places where he supposed poor people and paupers were to be found and distributed the coins to them. Towards evening he appeared at K.’s house and confidently said: ‘Glory be to God, all those close to the Tsar have promised to intercede for you.’ The wife went and with joy informed her husband, who had become ill out of sorrow, and K. himself summoned Fr Nazarius and thanked him for his intercessions with the high officials.

Fr Nazarius had not even left the sick man’s bed when news came of the successful end of K.’s case. Immediately K. in his joy felt already stronger, and he asked Fr Nazarius which of the Tsar’s officials had shown the more favor to him. Here he found out that these ‘officials’ were paupers—those close to the Lord Himself, in the words of Fr Nazarius. Deeply moved by the piety of the Elder, he always kept for him a reverent love. [10]

As was mentioned above, although St Nazarius was an unlearned man, he was ‘a theologian by virtue of thy life in God’, according to a sticheron in his honour by Fr Seraphim (Rose). [11] He had read much in the Scriptures and the Fathers, he had great spiritual experience, and he had ‘a poetic gift of speech’. All of these are on full display in his simple but insightful ‘Counsels’. I shall first offer a quite practical example:

When the time for morning worship arrives, with all zeal arise and hasten to the beginning of the Church’s Divine service; and having come to church for the common prayer, stand in the appropriate place, collect all your mind’s power of thought, so that you will not dream or fly away in every direction, following evil qualities and objects which arouse our passions.

Strive as well as you can to enter deeply with the heart into the church reading and singing and to imprint these on the tablets of the heart.

Pay heed without sloth, do not weaken the body, do not lean against the wall or pillar in church; but put your feet straight and plant them firmly on the ground; keep your hands together; bow your head toward the ground and direct your midn to the heavenly dwellings.

Take care, as well as you can, that you do not dare, not only to speak about anything, but even to look at anyone or anything with the eyes. Pay attention to the church reading and singing, and strive as much as possible not to let your mind grow idle.

If, in listening to the church singing and reading, you cannot understand them, then with reverence say to yourself the Prayer of the Name of Jesus, in this way: Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner. [12]

On the more theoretical side of things, it is interesting to see that, although unlearned, St Nazarius echoes the Socratic injunction to ‘Know thyself’, which was very much affirmed by the Fathers of the Church as an essential component of the true ‘philosophy’ of Christianity: [13]

Self-knowledge is needful; this is the knowledge of oneself and especially of the limitations of one’s talents, one’s failings, and lack of skill. From this it should result that we consider ourselves unworthy of any kind of position, and therefore that we do not desire any special positions, but rather accept what is placed upon us with fear and humility. He who knows himself pays no heed to the sins of others, but looks at his own and is always repenting over them; he reflects concerning himself, and condemns himself, and does not interfere in anything apart from his own position. He who is exercising himself in self-knowledge and has faith, does not trust his faith, does not cease to test it, in order to acquire a great and more perfect one, heeding the word of the Apostle: Examine yourself, whether ye be in the faith (II Cor. 13:5). [14]

Finally, imbued as he was the practice and spirit of hesychasm, it is not surprising to find that a later Abbot of Valaam, Igumen Chariton, included a passage of St Nazarius’s ‘Counsels’ in his famous anthology known as The Art of Prayer:

With reverence call in secret upon the Name of Jesus, thus: ‘Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy upon me, a sinner.’

Try to make this prayer enter ever more deeply into your soul and heart. Pray the prayer with your mind and thought, and do not let it leave your lips even for a moment. Combine it, if possible, with your breathing, and with all your strength try though the prayer to force yourself to a heart-felt contrition, repenting over your sins with tears. If there are no tears, at least there should be contrition and mourning
in the heart. [15]

In conclusion, here are the Troparion for St Nazarius in Tone 2, and three stichera to follow ‘Lord, I have cried’ in Tone 1, composed by Fr Seraphim (Rose):

Troparion, Tone 2

Humility is thy power, * patience thy rampart, * and love crowns all thy ways, * O Nazarius, chieftain leader of Valaam monks. * Call us to duty and order * that we may inherit God’s heavenly realm. [16]

On ‘Lord, I have cried’, Tone 1, to the Special Melody, ‘Rejoicing of the Heavenly Hierarchies’:

Ye islands of Valaam, rejoice, * be glad, ye forest of Sarov, * in you hath shone forth a wondrous teacher, * the glorious Nazarius, * who enlightened a multitude of monks * with the rays of true patristic teaching, * and taught all to wage unceasing warfare * against the world, the flesh, and the devil * unto the salvation of their souls.

Dance for joy, ye waters of Ladoga, * leap up, O brook Sarovka, * by your side walked the wondrous anchorite, * the abbot and instructor of many monks, * the wise Elder Nazarius * who could not be hid in the wilderness, * but was placed upon a candlestand * that he might shine for the salvation of our souls.

Instructor of St Herman, * and conversor with our holy Father Seraphim, * O Nazarius, wise in God, * by thine angelic life and teaching, * thou wast a model for holy men, * a theologian by virtue of thy life in God. * Now dwelling in the choirs of those who praise God without ceasing * do thou entreat Him to save our souls. [17]

[1] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim Rose: His Life & Works (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), p. 429.

[2] Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), ed. & tr., Little Russian Philokalia, Vol. 2: Abbot Nazarius, 2nd ed. (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1996), p. 19.

[3] Valaam Patericon Book of Days (New Valaam Monastery, AK: Valaam Society of America, 1999), p. 25.

[4] Fr Seraphim, Abbot Nazarius, p. 20.

[5] Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), ed. & tr., Blessed Paisius Velichkovsky: The Man Behind the Philokalia (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1994), p. 237.

[6] Fr Seraphim, Abbot Nazarius, p. 24.

[7] Archimandrite Placide (Deseille), Orthodox Spirituality & the Philokalia, tr. Anthony P. Gythiel (Wichita, KS: Eighth Day, 2008), p. 163.

[8] Fr Seraphim, Abbot Nazarius, p. 23

[9] Ibid., p. 22.

[10] Ibid., pp. 26-7.

[11] Ibid., p. 121.

[12] Ibid., p. 56.

[13] On this, see Constantine Cavarnos, The Hellenic-Christian Philosophical Tradition (Belmont, MA: Institute for Byzantine & Modern Greek Studies, 1989), p. 105.

[14] Fr Seraphim, Abbot Nazarius, p. 88.

[15] Igumen Chariton of Valamo, comp., The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology, tr. E. Kadloubovsky & E.M. Palmer, ed. Timothy Ware [now Met. Kallistos of Diokleia] (London: Faber, 1997), p. 279; cf. the equivalent passage in Fr Seraphim, Abbot Nazarius, p. 56.

[16] Ibid., p. 122.

[17] Ibid., p. 121.

Cain & Abel in St Macarius & R.S. Thomas

Last night I read the story of Cain and Abel to my children from a Bible reader (a sort of simplified paraphrase of the text). I think the first murder is a fitting thing to recall as we move more deeply into our Lenten struggle. We are weeping for our sins, for our exile from Paradise. But unlike our First Parents, we were born into exile, and the already fallen world is the theatre in which our own sin takes place. As St Macarius the Great writes in his Fifth Homily, ‘The word spoken to Cain by the Creator, that sentence pronounced upon him with an outward meaning, Groaning and trembling and tossed shalt thou be upon the earth (Gen. iv. 12), is a type and likeness of what all sinners undergo in secret.’ [1]

Patristic interpretations of God’s rejection of Cain’s sacrifice focus on the wickedness of Cain’s heart or his carelessness in choosing his sacrifices. In the ‘Great Letter’, St Macarius writes:

I always remember that it was Abel who offered a sacrifice to God of the fat and firstlings of his flock, while Cain offered gifts of the fruits of the earth, but not of the firstfruits. It is said: ‘And God looked with favor on Abel’s sacrifices, but did not regard the gifts of Cain’ (Gn 4:4). This teaches us that everything that is done in fear and in faith is pleasing to God, not that which is done for display and without love. [2]

But there is another perspective we might take. The Welsh poet, R.S. Thomas, has a second interpretation of Cain’s sacrifices, one which I also think strikes a rather Orthodox—and Lenten—note. Here is the text of his poem, ‘Cain’:

Abel looked at the wound
His brother had dealt him, and loved him
For it. Cain saw that look
And struck him again. The blood cried
On the ground; God listened to it.
He questioned Cain. But Cain answered:
Who made the blood? I offered you
Clean things: the blond hair
Of the corn; the knuckled vegetables; the
Flowers; things that did not publish
Their hurt, that bled
Silently. You would not accept them.

And God said: It was part of myself
He gave me. The lamb was torn
From my own side. The limp head,
The slow fall of red tears—they
Were like a mirror to me in which I beheld
My reflection. I anointed myself
In readiness for the journey
To the doomed tree you were at work upon. [3]

In the words of St Andrew of Crete, ‘By my own free choice have I incurred the guilt of Cain’s murder.’ [4] We too have been at work upon this ‘doomed tree’, and God has anointed Himself in the blood of those whom we have wronged. And this brings us back to St Macarius’s reference to Cain’s torment in Gen. 4:12—‘ Groaning and trembling and tossed shalt thou be upon the earth’. As St Maximus of Turin writes, in Sermons 88.1:

The divine Scripture always cries out and speaks; hence God also says to Cain, ‘The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me.’ Blood, to be sure, has no voice, but innocent blood that has been spilled is said to cry out not by words but by its very existence. [It makes] demands of the Lord not with eloquent discourse but with anger over the crime committed. It does not accuse the wrongdoer with words so much as bind him by the accusation of his own conscience. The evil deed may seem to be excused when it is explained away with words. But it cannot be excused if it is made present to the conscience. For in silence and without contradiction the wrongdoer’s conscience always convicts and judges him. [5]

[1] St Macarius the Great, Fifty Spiritual Homilies, tr. A.J. Mason (Willits, CA: Eastern Orthodox, 1974), p. 39.

[2] St Macarius the Great, The Fifty Spiritual Homilies & the Great Letter, tr. & ed. Fr George A. Maloney (NY: Paulist, 1992), p. 265.

[3] R.S. Thomas, Poems of R.S. Thomas (Fayetteville, AR: U of Arkansas, 1984), pp. 74-5.

[4] The Lenten Triodion, tr. Mother Mary & Archim. [now Metropolitan] Kallistos (Ware) (South Canaan, PA: STS, 1994), p. 218.

[5] Fr Andrew Louth, ed., with Marco Conti, Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture: Old Testament I, Genesis 1-11 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001), p. 107. I was pleased to see that there is a footnote at the end of Fr Louth’s introduction to this volume which reads:

General editor’s note: This volume of the ACCS was prepared and edited—almost completely—before the appearance of Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision by the late Fr Seraphim Rose, with an introduction by Phillip E. Johnson (Plantina [sic], Calif.: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2000), to which the reader is referred for additional patristic selections and interpretations of Genesis. We are grateful for the massive labors of Fr Rose, from which our efforts have belatedly benefited. While his work has directed us to selections we otherwise would have bypassed, all our translations have been checked against their original texts, since Fr Rose worked principally from Russian translations. (p. lii, n. 11)

The general editor is Thomas C. Oden (whose niece, incidentally, was my Church history professor as an undergraduate!). It’s nice to see Fr Seraphim’s work on Genesis—by which even many Orthodox theologians are no doubt somewhat embarrassed—honoured in this way. Now if people would just stop calling him ‘Father Rose’, improperly using his family name instead of his monastic one!

'Tuneful Harps of the Holy Spirit's Mysteries'—Ss Barsanuphius & John

Today, 6 February on the Church’s calendar, we celebrate the memory of the Holy Barsanuphius the Great and John the Prophet (mid-6th c.), who were among ‘the last of the classical tradition of desert saints and elders’. [1] In a Life penned as an introduction to his edition of their letters, St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain writes, ‘The writers of this God-wise and soul-profiting book were truly God-bearing, Christ-bearing and Spirit-bearing Fathers—Barsanuphius and John—examples of asceticism, practitioners of hesychasm, lamps of discernment, sleepless eyes of clairvoyance, treasuries of virtues, and embodiments of the Holy Spirit.’ [2] In the Prologue, St Nicholas (Velimirović) calls them ‘Great ascetics from Gaza, gifted with insight and wonder-working power’. [3] Here is the account of their lives in the Great Horologion:

Saint Barsanuphius the Great, who was from Egypt, and his disciple, Saint John the Prophet, struggled in very strict reclusion during the sixth century at the monastery of Abba Seridus at Gaza of Palestine, and were endowed with amazing gifts of prophecy and spiritual discernment. They are mentioned by Saint Dorotheus of Gaza, their disciple, in his writings. Many of the counsels they sent to Christians who wrote to them are preserved in the book which bears their names. Once certain of the Fathers besought Saint Barsanuphius wrote back that there were ‘three men perfect before God’, whose prayers met at the throne of God and protected the whole world; to them it had been revealed that the wrath of God would not last long. These three, he said, were ‘John of Rome, Elias of Corinth, and another in the diocese of Jerusalem’, concealing the name of the last, since it was himself. [4]

The translator of Ss Barsanuphius’s and John’s complete letters, Fr John Chryssavgis, has clarified somewhat some of the details of the relationships involved here. St Barsanuphius had retired to a cell in Thavatha, and Abba Seridus was abbot of a monastery that happened to be nearby, when he began to visit the Elder. According to Fr Chryssavgis, ‘Seridos was the only person permitted to communicate with Barsanuphius, acting as mediator for those who wished to be counseled by the elder.’ In about 525-527, St John the Prophet settled near the Elder. ‘The two shared the same way of life and supported one another’s ministry (Letters 224-225 and 571-572), with John assuming another monk, Dorotheus, as his mouthpiece. . . . John responded primarily to matters of a practical nature and Barsanuphius to questions of a more spiritual nature.’ [5]

Unfortunately, some modern scholars have begun to speculate that these great Elders of Gaza may have been ‘crypto-Monophysites’, basing themselves in part on questions that arose about the Elders in Byzantium in the 9th century. But St Theodore the Studite concluded at that time, after an investigation of the matter, ‘As for the writings of the above-mentioned Fathers, I did not find even the minutest impiety, but on the contrary much spiritual benefit’, [6] and St Nicodemus writes, ‘This divine Barsanuphius about whom we are writing was a man absolutely Orthodox in everything, and the Church of Christ venerates him as a saint.’ [7] Fr Chryssavgis characterises them as deliberately abstaining from theological disputes, and while St Barsanuphius may use some of the language of Abba Isaiah of Scetis which seems to be based on a Monophysite Christology [8], yet the great Elder of Gaza was simultaneously ‘urging his disciples to follow a Chalcedonian bishop’. [9] Even those who seem inclined to push the issue acknowledge that St Theodore’s argument that the Elders’ slanderers have confused them with other men of the same name is perfectly plausible, specific Monophysite partisans bearing their names being quite well known. [10]

In the end, all admit, ‘The positions of Barsanuphius and John were generally orthodox, although their essential attitude to theology seems to have generated a tolerant stance toward those holding non-orthodox theological views.’ [11] To waste time and ink speculating on the ‘heterodoxy’ of the Orthodox Saints constitutes yet a further example of what Fr Seraphim calls the failure of ‘patristics scholars’ ‘to trust the judgment of Orthodox tradition over his own personal opinions and whims, and to place any “new discoveries” he may make into the context of that tradition.’ [12] So much for such questions!

St Nicodemus laments that a narrative of the lives of Ss Barsanuphius and John had not come down to him, [13] but it is not unfitting that these great elders have been remembered chiefly for their vast correspondence. As Fr Chryssavgis observes, ‘Sensational miracles and exceptional charismata are neither the most striking nor the most appealing feature of these elders.’ [14] Bitton-Ashkelony & Kofsky point out that Ss Barsanuphius and John do not reflect the image of the ‘holy man as a substitute for the village patron and as a “man of power”’ [15] so much as ‘a new kind of teacher with a new kind of paideia, identifying the central expression of authority within ascetic society as the relationship between master and disciple.’ [16] This paideia is communicated entirely through their letters.

Fr Placide (Deseille) calls the letters ‘a unique document on the practice of spiritual fatherhood in this milieu’. [17] As such, Ss Barsanuphius and John were a great influence, not only on their own disciple, St Dorotheus of Gaza, but on St John Climacus, the Evergetinos, and St Gregory of Sinai, who quotes St Barsanuphius at length in his treatise ‘On Stillness’. [18] St Ignatius (Brianchaninov) includes the letters among the other books that Fr Seraphim (Rose) calls the ‘ABC’s’ of patristic books, [19] and for the coenobitic monk recommends reading ‘the Directions for the Spiritual Life of St Barsanuphius and St John the Prophet, beginning with Answer 216 (the preceding answers are given primarily for hermits and so are less suitable for novices).’ [20]

But it is important to note that the letters are not addressed only to monks, for as Fr Chryssavgis writes, ‘Whereas the study, and indeed the literature, of spiritual direction has traditionally focused on monastic development, the correspondence of Barsanuphius and John redresses a balance in this regard, concentrating much of its attention on the concerns of lay persons.’ [21] Jennifer Havelone-Harper further notes, ‘The questions posed by petitioners reveal the anxieties and hopes of individuals representing a wide cross section of Byzantine society.’ [22]

For this reason, the letters of these two elders have the potential to become useful spiritual reading for laypeople. Many may already be familiar with Fr Seraphim’s translation of selections from the Russian edition published in 1855 by Optina. [23] Many selections from among those in the Russian Philokalia compiled by St Theophan the Recluse can also be found translated from the Russian in Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart. [24] But Fr Chryssavgis has produced the first full translation of all 848 letters, which is also the first translation from the original Greek text. [25] Although this 2-vol. set is not the most affordable of patristic translations, he has also provided a selection in one volume of the much more accessible Popular Patristics Series published by SVS. I strongly recommend that all who can acquire either Fr Seraphim’s or one of Fr Chryssavgis’s versions. As St Nicodemus writes:

For as the tree is, so is its fruit. Truly, any one can understand this from his own experience; for when he will begin reading this book, he will hear the words—uncomplicated and simple. And at the same time, secretly within his own heart, he will feelwondrous grace and the sweetness of the Holy Spirit, which like a magnet actively draws the will to oneness with God’s will, and he will feel undoubting conviction in the truth of the words he reads. He will understand how all these words were brought out of an enlightened and God-bearing mind; how they issued from one heart, in which dwelt Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit of Christ; and how they (these words) came from one soul which was all filled with peace and silence, was all Christ-like, all inspired by the fine wafting of a peace-giving and enlightening Spirit. [26]

I will offer a sample of some of the Elders’ teaching. I am told both of these can be found in Fr Chryssavgis’s Popular Patristics volume, but they certainly are not in Fr Seraphim’s translation of Ss Barsanuphius and John. First comes a question that has particular relevance in our day, when any belief that a particular thing is wrong is considered intolerant and judgemental.

Letter 453

Question: ‘If I notice someone doing something inappropriate, should I not judge this as being inappropriate? And how can I avoid the condemnation of this neighbor of mine?’ Response.

If this matter is truly inappropriate, then we cannot but condemn it as being inappropriate. Otherwise, how can we ever avoid the harm that comes from it, according to the voice of the Lord, who said: ‘Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves; you will know them by their fruits’ (Mt 7.15-16). The one, however, who is actually doing the inappropriate deed should not be condemned, according to the words: ‘Do not judge, so that you may not be judged’ (Mt 7.1), but also because we should regard ourselves as being more sinful than all others. Furthermore, we should not ascribe the sin to our brother but to the devil, who deceived him. For in this caseit is as if someone were to push another person towards a barrier, and we were to blame the person being pushed.

It may even be that someone will do something which appears inappropriate to those watching, but which is really done with a good intention. This happened once to the holy [Great] Old Man [Barsanuphius]. For as he was walking past the hippodrome on one occasion, he entered it, fully conscious of what he was doing. And when he saw each of the competitors striving to overtake and triumph over the others, he said to his thought: ‘Do you see how the followers of the devil eagerly race against each other? How much more so should we, who are heirs of the heavenly kingdom?’ And, as a result of that sight, he left that place more eager in his spiritual journey and ascetic struggle.

Moreover, again, we do not know whether through his repentance, the sinful brother will be more pleasing to God, like the publican who in an instant was saved through humility and confession. For it was the Pharisee who left condemned by his own arrogance. Therefore, in consideration of these things, let usimitate the humility of the publican and condemn ourselves in order to be justified; and let us avoid the arrogance of the Pharisee in order not to be condemned. [27]

The second passage is particularly helpful for those of us liable to be taken advantage of by those in need.

Letter 620

A Christ-loving payperson asked the same Old Man [St John]: ‘If someone is asked to give alms but has nothing to give, is that person obliged to borrow in order to give?’ Response.

If one is asked to give something that one does not have, then there is no need to borrow in order to give. For even the Apostle Peter was asked to give alms and responded: ‘I have no silver or gold’ (Acts 3.6); and he did not borrow any money in order to give some. Indeed, even if one only has the bare necessities, then again there is no need to spend it all, so that he may not later miss it or be afflicted by its absence. Moreover, if the person from whom alms are demanded says to the person making the request: ‘Forgive me, but I have nothing to give you’, then this is not a lie. For someone who has nothing beyond what is necessary does not have anything to give to another person. He should simply say to the person who is asking: ‘Forgive me, but I only have what I need myself.’ Remember the five bridesmaids who asked the others to give them oil for their lamps; the latter replied: ‘There will not be enough for us and for you’ (cf. Mt 25.9). And the Apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Corinthians: ‘May your abundance be for their need’ (cf. 2 Cor 8.14), as well as: ‘I do not intend that there should be relief for others and pressure on you’ (2 Cor 8.13). [28]

As St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain says of the letters of Ss Barsanuphius of John, ‘Therefore, read this book diligently, and become vouchsafed the grace-giving gifts which are locked in it. Draw from it everflowing benefit.’ [29] In conclusion, here are the Troparion and Kontakion of the Saints, taken from the Great Horologion:

Dismissal Hymn of Saints Barsanuphius and John
First Tone. While Gabriel was saying

Divine and tuneful harps of the Holy Spirit’s mysteries, * sounding forth sweet hymns of discernment which soothe all those in sorrows: * ye moved men to cast off passion’s yoke * and trample upon Satan’s loathsome head. * Wherefore, Godlike Barsanuphius and wise John, * deliver us who now cry out: * Glory to Him that hath given you grace. * Glory to Him that hath blessed you. * Glory to Him that hath saved many through your sacred words of counsel. [30]

Kontakion of Saints Barsanuphius and John
Third Tone. On this day the Virgin

O great Barsanuphius, * and John, thou marvellous Prophet, * all the hidden secrets of * men and of God’s dispensation * brightly shone in the clear mirrors * of your most pure hearts; * and with beams of grace divine, ye cast out sin’s shadows * from the souls of men; O Fathers, * lights of discernment, * entreat the Lord for us all. [31]

This post is dedicated to Bishop Savas of Troas, a man of questionable politics, but tremendous generosity. I hope this meets your expectations.


[1] Fr John A. McGuckin, The SCM Press A-Z of Patristic Theology (London: SCM, 2005), p. 44.

[2] St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, ‘The Life of Our Holy Fathers Barsanuphius & John’, Guidance Toward Spiritual Life: Answers to the Questions of Disciples, by Ss Barsanuphius & John, sel. & tr. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1990), p. 21.

[3] St Nicholas (Velimirović), The Prologue from Ochrid, Vol. 1, trans. Mother Maria (Birmingham: Lazarica, 1986), p. 144.

[4] The Great Horologion, tr. Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston: HTM, 1997), p. 410.

[5] Fr John Chryssavgis, ‘Introduction’, Letters, Vol. 1, by Ss Barsanuphius & John, tr. Fr John Chryssavgis (Washington, DC: Catholic U of America, 2006), p. 6.

[6] St Nicodemus, p. 36.

[7] Ibid., p. 35.

[8] Brouria Bitton-Ashkelony & Aryeh Kofsky, The Monastic School of Gaza (Leiden: Brill, 2006), pp. 216-7.

[9] Fr Chryssavgis, p. 13, n. 15.

[10] Bitton-Ashkelony & Kofsky, pp. 219-20.

[11] Ibid., p. 217.

[12] Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), ‘A Note on “Pseudo-Macarius” and the “Messalian Origin” of the Spiritual Homilies’, Fifty Spiritual Homilies, by St Macarius the Great, tr. A.J. Mason (Willits, CA: Eastern Orthodox, 1974), p. xxix.

[13] St Nicodemus, p. 21.

[14] Fr Chryssavgis, p. 6.

[15] An image associated with the sociological studies of Peter Brown.

[16] Bitton-Ashkelony & Kofsky, p. 83. Although I am not familiar with him, the authors ascribe this more pedagogical model to Philip Rousseau’s article ‘Ascetics as Mediators & as Teachers’, The Cult of Saints in Late Antiquity & the Middle Ages, ed. J. Howard-Johnson & P.A. Hayward (Oxford: Oxford U, 1999), pp. 45-59. They also cite S. Rubenson, ‘Philosophy & Simplicity: The Problem of Classical Education in Early Christian Biography’, Greek Biography & Panegyric in Late Antiquity, ed. T. Hägg & P. Rousseau (Berkeley, CA: U of California, 2000), pp. 110-39. I do not have these articles, but I would love to read them!

[17] Archimandrite Placide (Deseille), Orthodox Spirituality & the Philokalia, tr. Anthony P. Gythiel (Wichita, KS: Eighth Day, 2008), p. 22.

[18] The Philokalia: The Complete Text, Vol. 4, tr. G.E.H. Palmer, et al. (London: Faber, 1998), p. 266.

[19] Qtd. in Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), ‘Preface’, Ss Barsanuphius & John, Guidance, p. 13.

[20] St Ignatius (Brianchaninov), The Arena: An Offering to Contemporary Monasticism, tr. Archim. Lazarus (Moore) (Jordanville, NY: Holy Trinity Monastery, 1991), p. 22.

[21] Fr Chryssavgis, p. 8.

[22] Jennifer L. Hevelone-Harper, Disciples of the Desert: Monks, Laity, & Spiritual Authority in 6th-c. Gaza (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 2005), p. x.

[23] See n. 2 above for the citation info. The numbering of the letters in Fr Seraphim’s translation is different from that in Fr Chryssavgis’s, and I’ve been finding it difficult to compare them. It’s too bad, because I would like to post—with references to the numbering in the complete translation by Fr Chryssavgis—Fr Damascene’s transcription of Fr Seraphim’s list of ‘subjects which he thought were especially vital for Orthodox Christians of today’ in the Elders’ correspondence (Fr Damascene, p. 17). As it is, it will be fairly time-consuming!

[24] Ss Barsanuphius & John, ‘Directions in Spiritual Work’, Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart, ed. E. Kadloubovsky & G.E.H. Palmer (London: Faber, 1992), pp. 346-81. The translators also present St Theophan’s ‘Short Biographical Note’ on the Saints, ‘Taken from their lives composed by Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain’ (pp. 341-5).

[25] Ss Barsanuphius & John, Letters, 2 vols., tr. Fr John Chryssavgis (Washington, DC: Catholic U of America, 2006).

[26] St Nicodemus, p. 42.

[27] Ss Barsanuphius & John, Letters, Vol. 2, pp. 67-8.

[28] Ibid., p. 209.

[29] St Nicodemus, p. 45.

[30] Great Horologion, p. 411.

[31] Ibid., p. 412.

St Mark of Ephesus on St Gregory of Nyssa

In my post for St Mark of Ephesus last week, I referred to the excellent chapters on the subject of St Mark and his confession at Florence in Fr Seraphim’s The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church [1] and Metropolitan Hierotheos’s Life After Death. [2] But reading these two books carefully, one notices an odd discrepancy between them. In the context of his study of St Augustine, Fr Seraphim is concerned to show that, according to the Orthodox Tradition, it is possible for a Saint and Father of the Church to err. On the subject of St Mark, he translates from the book of Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), St Mark of Ephesus & the Union of Florence: [3]

. . . Here is what St Mark writes:

‘With regard to the words which are quoted of the blessed Gregory of Nyssa [by the Latins arguing for their doctrine of Purgatory], it would be better to give them over to silence, and not at all compel us, for the sake of our own defense, to bring them out into the open. For this Teacher is seen to be clearly in agreement with the dogmas of the Origenists and to introduce an end to torments.’ According to St Gregory (St Mark continues), ‘there will come a final restoration of all, and of the demons themselves, “that God”, he says, “may be all in all”, as the Apostle says. Inasmuch as these words have also been quoted, among others, at first we shall reply regarding them as we have received it from our Fathers. It is possible that these are alterations and insertions by certain heretics and Origenists. . . . But if the Saint was actually of such an opinion, this was when this teaching was a subject of dispute and had not been definitely condemned and rejected by the opposite opinion, which was brought forward at the Fifth Ecumenical Council; so that there is nothing surprising in the fact that he, being human, erred in precision (of truth), when the same thing happened also with many before him, such as Irenaeus of Lyons and Dionysius of Alexandria and others. . . . Thus, these utterances, if they were actually said by the marvellous Gregory concerning that fire, do not indicate a special cleansing [such as purgatory would be—ed. note], but introduce a final cleansing and a final restoration of all; but in no way are they convincing for us, who behold the common judgment of the Church and are guided by the Divine Scriptures, but not beholding what each of the Teachers has written as his personal opinion. And if anyone else has written otherwise about a cleansing fire, we have no need to accept it’ (‘First Homily on Purgatorial Fire’, ch. 11; Pogodin, pp. 68-9). [4]

Fr Seraphim goes on to note that in his ‘Second Homily on Purgatorial Fire’, St Mark ‘goes into great detail, with many citations from his works, to show that St Gregory of Nyssa actually did teach the error ascribed to him (which is nothing less than the denial of eternal torment in hell, and universal salvation)’. [5]

Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos seems to paint a significantly different picture. Pay attention to what His Eminence says about this very issue:

In their dialogue with the Orthodox about the purifying fire at the Council of Ferrara-Florence, the Latins used texts of St Gregory of Nyssa as well as other texts. Therefore St Mark Eugenicus, presenting the orthodox views on this subject in two speeches, overthrew the arguments of the Latins.

Among his other observations, he pointed out two relative passages of St Gregory of Nyssa. First, that when St Gregory speaks of the purifying fire he does not at all mean what the Latins teach. The purgatory of the Latins is in the intermediate state of souls and is created, while the purifying fire of St Gregory of Nyssa is eternal and uncreated. Secondly, St Maximus the Confessor too speaks of a restoration as St Gregory of Nyssa understands it. St Mark says: ‘But also what comfort St Maximus contrives with the wonderful Gregory’s doctrine of the restoration, we shall set forth completely’. And in what follows he quotes the text of St Maximus the Confessor. It is significant here to underline that St Gregory of Nyssa was called ‘wonderful’ by St Mark Eugenicus.

And after quoting St Maximus’ text, St Mark, interpreting the words of both saints, concludes that when in ancient teachings the purifying fire is spoken of, it means the eternal fire and not an intermediate state of souls. Clearly the term purifying fire means the eternal fire, that is, more allegorically, the eternal punishments, just as they call light the eternal vision of God in the righteous. Nor in the future life will there be worms and some kind of reptiles, venomous and flesh-eating, but ‘the torture of punishment by the conscience and that bitter regret’. And the gnashing of teeth is the more allegorical expression for the mania of those fighting fiercely, and the grief about it and the bitter lamentation.

It is in this way that St Mark Eugenicus interprets the so-called purifying fire of St Gregory of Nyssa. It concerns the eternal fire which is neither temporary nor created. It is the punishing energy of God, which those who remain unhealed will experience, through their own choice.

Now we shall look at the way in which St Maximus the Confessor writes about the restoration, as St Gregory of Nyssa understands it. He says that there are three restorations. . . . And the third is the restoration of the powers of the soul to the condition in which they were before the fall. St Gregory of Nyssa means this third restoration, and indeed, as St Maximus characteristically says, he makes exaggerated use of it. It is not an error, but he developed it more than he should. [6]

Met. Hierotheos concludes, ‘It is within the teaching of St Maximus the Confessor that we must look at the teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa about the restoration of all things.’ [7] And finally:

The witnesses and teachings of both St Maximus the Confessor and St Mark Eugenicus, who are pillars of Orthodoxy, show that the teaching of St Gregory of Nyssa concerning the restoration of all things differs clearly from the view of the restoration of all things which we find in ancient philosophy and the Origenist conception, which the Fifth Ecumenical Council condemned. [8]

So, His Eminence’s points seem to be:

1) St Mark interprets the purifying fire of St Gregory of Nyssa as referring to the eternal fire of hell.

2) St Maximus, whom St Mark follows, teaches that when St Gregory speaks of restoration he refers to the restoration of the powers of souls, which teaching he exaggerated but concerning which he did not actually err.

3) We can conclude that St Mark shows that St Gregory’s teaching on restoration differs from that of Origen.

Recall Fr Seraphim’s claim however that St Mark ‘goes into great detail, with many citations from his works, to show that St Gregory of Nyssa actually did teach the error ascribed to him (which is nothing less than the denial of eternal torment in hell, and universal salvation [i.e., precisely the errors of Origen!])’. [9] Here it looks to me as though Fr Seraphim directly contradicts each of these points Met. Hierotheos seems to be making.

I have a hard time determining which one is correct. I do not have access at the moment to the primary sources, nor even to a truly in-depth, scholarly study of the Council (if there is such a thing). I usually trust both of these writers. Obviously, Met. Hierotheos has access to the primary sources in their original language. But on the other hand Fr Seraphim, even if he is using a translation of St Mark, is actually quoting from the Ephesian Bishop himself and not merely attempting paraphrase or summarise him. I also can’t help but think that if there really was more of a defense of St Gregory than he has quoted, then Fr Seraphim would have been the first to pick up on this and rally to Nyssen’s side. Finally, and this is perhaps slightly impertinent, in Greece Met. Hierotheos does not seem to be treated as a serious theologian. Despite the value of his works to Anglophone Orthodox, which I am the first to admit, they may not always be as reliable as they seem. Certainly, his citations are often rather scanty.

Could Fr Ambrose somehow have altered the texts, whether deliberately or inadvertently? I know very little of him or his abilities or qualifications. Any further information or opinions are welcome! I will just point out that I am not broaching the question of whether in fact St Gregory of Nyssa was in error and taught the false Origenistic apokatastasis (despite a recent comment that ‘we all know he did’!), merely that of whether or not St Mark of Ephesus believed him to be in this error. Though I do believe the latter point to be relevant to determining the former.


[1] Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1998).

[2] Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, Life After Death, tr. Esther Williams (Levadia, Gr.: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1998).

[3] Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), St Mark of Ephesus & the Union of Florence (Jordanville, NY: 1963).

[4] Fr Seraphim, pp. 71-2.

[5] Ibid., p. 73.

[6] Met. Hierotheos, pp. 307-9.

[7] Ibid., p. 309.

[8] Ibid., p. 310.

[9] Fr Seraphim, p. 73.

'In Thee the Church Found a Great Zealot'—St Mark of Ephesus

Today, 19 January on the Church’s calendar, we celebrate the memory of Saint Mark (Eugenicus), Metropolitan of Ephesus and one of the ‘Pillars of Orthodoxy’ (1392-1444). St Nicholas (Velimirović) notes that he is ‘Famous for his defence of Orthodoxy . . . in the face of the Emperor and the Pope’. [1] According to Chrestos Yannaras, St Mark’s ‘spiritual stature and theological acumen were instrumental in nullifying the decisions of the unionist council of Ferrara-Florence’, [2] and as the account of his life in The Great Horologion points out, ‘Because of this, the holy Church of Christ has ever honoured this man as a benefactor, teacher, sole defender, and invincible champion of the Apostolic Confession.’ [3] Here is that account in full:

The great teacher and invincible defender of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, Saint Mark, was the offspring and scion of the imperial city, Constantinople. Reared by most pious parents, and instructed in secular and spiritual wisdom, he became pre-eminent in both. Saint Mark lived as an ascetic on the Princes’ Islands and later in them monastery of Saint George Magana in Constantinople. He passed through all the degrees of the priesthood, and was finally advanced to the dignity of Archbishop and the lofty throne of the Metropoly of Ephesus. At the insistence of Emperor John Paleologus, the Saint was sent to the council of the Latins in Florence, to unite the churches that had been divided for so many years. He astounded the papal teachers with the divine wisdom of his words, and was the only one who did not sign the blasphemous decree of that false council. Because of this, the holy Church of Christ has ever honoured this man as a benefactor, teacher, sole defender, and invincible champion of the Apostolic Confession. He reposed in 1443. [4]

It should be noted as well that St Mark definitely ended his days as a confessor, having been imprisoned on the island of Lemnos for two years for his uncompromising commitment to the true Faith. [5]

Archimandrite Placide (Deseille) has noted that the holy Hierarch ‘received an excellent education’ and ‘taught sacred letters for a period of time’ before entering a monastery at the age of 26. ‘His piety and learning attracted the esteem of Emperor John VIII Paleologus (1425-1448), and at his request, Mark composed several dogmatic treatises. . . . Informed about trends in Western thought, he incorporated compatible elements with the Orthodox tradition.’ [6] Fr John Meyendorff has written of St Mark’s education, ‘In theology, he had studied with Joseph Bryennios, and in philosophy, with Gemistos Pletho; [7] under Pletho, he had received a much more elaborate philosophical training than was customary in monastic circles.’ [8] All of this was an excellent preparation for his defense of Orthodoxy at the council. Fr Meyendorff continues:

Mark’s view of the Latin West coincided with that of the circle of Cantacuzenos in the preceding century; and he had been willing to recognize the council as ecumenical until he lost hope that what he considered to be the truth would prevail at the assembly. At the beginning of the sessions in Ferrara, prompted by Cardinal Cesarini, Mark delivered to Pope Eugenius a preliminary address in which he called upon the ‘most holy Father’ to receive ‘his children coming from the East’ and ‘seeking his embrace’. But he also stressed the minimum condition for true unity: the removal of the interpolation introduced unilaterally by the Latins into the common creed. As discussions progressed in quite an opposite direction, his attitude, understandably, grew bitter. In the discussions, he and Bessarion were usually the main Greek spokesmen. . . . When Mark refused to sign, the pope is said to have declared: ‘We have accomplished nothing’ [9]. Obviously, Eugenius IV was aware by then of the real situation in the East and knew that Mark represented much better the prevailing mentality of the East than did the other members of the Greek delegation. [10]

Later, Fr Meyendorff delves more deeply into the specific issues raised at the council, as well as, more significantly, the difference in ethos between the Orthodox and the Latins which the council brought to the fore. He concludes:

The Florentine debate on purgatory seems to have been largely improvised on the spot, and both sides used arguments from Scripture and tradition which do not always sound convincing. [11] Still, the difference in the fundamental attitude toward salvation in Christ is easily discernible. Legalism, which applied to individual human destiny the Anselmian doctrine of ‘satisfaction’, is the ratio theological of the Latin doctrine of purgatory. For Mark of Ephesus, however, salvation is communion and ‘deification’. On his way to God, the Christian does not stand alone; he is a member of Christ’s Body. He can achieve this communion even now, before his death as well as afterward, and, in any case, he needs the prayer of the whole Body, at least until the end of time when Christ will be ‘all in all’. [12]

Metropolitan Hierotheos of Nafpaktos comments on St Mark’s confession at Florence that he expressed ‘the orthodox patristic teaching on all the subjects. Anyone studying his teaching will be manifestly convinced that it is an expression of orthodox teaching and in the main is an expression of the theology of St Gregory Palamas.’ [13] Later on, he refers to St Mark as ‘a bearer of the Orthodox tradition and an authentic witness of the Scriptures and the words of the Fathers’, who ‘analyses and interprets all these passages according to Orthodoxy, overthrowing the views of the Latins.’ [14] Finally, he writes, ‘St Mark is an authentic interpreter of the orthodox teaching, because he himself is a bearer of the Orthodox Tradition.’ [15]

But while St Mark is famous for his defense of Orthodoxy against the Latins, his hesychasm is much less well known. Fr Placide tells us:

Among the texts found in the last volume of the Greek Philokalia is an explication of the formula, ‘Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me’, or more succinctly, ‘Lord, have mercy’ (Kyrie eleison). According to the entire manuscript tradition, this unattributed text is actually the work of Mark Eugenikos, Metropolitan of Ephesus (1392-1440). [16]

Further on, Fr Placide continues, ‘The short treatise of Mark on the meaning of Kyrie eleison summarizes the message of the Philokalia by placing it within the entire economy of salvation.’ [17] He also notes, ‘In his writings, Mark appears to be a faithful disciple of hesychast and Palamite doctrine.’ [18] While this text, found on pp. 69-72 of the ‘Astir’ edition of the Greek Philokalia, [19] has not yet appeared in the ongoing Faber edition of the Philokalia, not even being among those texts from Vol. 5 that appeared in translation from the Russian in Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart, [20] it is now available in a volume of Philokalia translations by Constantine Cavarnos called The Philokalia: A Second Volume of Selected Readings (order here).

Fr Seraphim (Rose) quotes an interesting passage from his ‘Second Homily on Purgatorial Fire’, which I offer here as a small sample of St Mark’s writing:

That only the canonical Scriptures have infallibility is testified by Blessed Augustine in the words which he writes to Jerome: ‘It is fitting to bestow such honor and veneration only to the books of Scripture which are called ‘canonical’, for I absolutely believe that none of the authors who wrote them erred in anything. . . . As for other writings, no matter how great was the excellence of their authors in sanctity and learning, in reading them I do not accept their teaching as true solely on the basis that they thus wrote and thought.’ Then in a letter to Fortunatus [St Mark continues in his citations of Augustine] he writes the following: ‘We should not hold the judgment of a man, even though this man might have been orthodox and had a high reputation, as the same kind of authority as the canonical Scriptures, to the extent of considering it inadmissible for us, out of the reverence we owe such men, to disapprove and reject something in their writing if we should happen to discover that they taught other than the truth which, with God’s help, has been attained by others or by ourselves. This is how I am with regard to the writings of other men; and I desire that the reader will act thus with regard to my writings also.’ [21]

In conclusion, here are the Troparion and Kontakion of this holy Hierarch and Confessor:

Dismissal Hymn of Saint Mark
Third Tone. Thy confession

O all-laudable and most divine Mark, * in thee the Church found a great zealot * by thy confession of the holy and sacred faith; * for thou didst champion the doctrines which the Fathers taught * and didst cast down darkness’ boastful pride. * Wherefore pray thou to Christ God for them that honour thee, * that we be granted the forgiveness of sins.

Kontakion of Saint Mark. Third Tone
On this day the Virgin

Clad, O godly-minded one, * with an invincible armour, * thou didst dash to pieces the pride of the Western rebellion; * thou wast brought forth as the champion * of Orthodoxy, * as the Comforter’s own instrument and pure vessel. * For this cause, to thee, we cry out: * Rejoice, O Mark, thou * boast of the Orthodox flock. [22]

[1] St Nicholas (Velimirović), The Prologue from Ochrid, Vol. 1, trans. Mother Maria (Birmingham: Lazarica, 1986), p. 77.

[2] Chrestos Yannaras, Orthodoxy & the West: Hellenic Self-Identity in the Modern Age, trans. Fr Peter Chamberas & Norman Russell (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross, 2006), p. 51.

[3] The Great Horologion, trans. Holy Transfiguration Monastery (Boston: HTM, 1997), p. 391.

[4] Ibid., p. 391.

[5] Archimandrite Placide (Deseille), Orthodox Spirituality & the Philokalia, trans. Anthony P. Gythiel (Wichita, KS: Eighth Day, 2008), p. 41.

[6] Ibid., p. 40.

[7] George Gemistos Plethon is an extremely odd figure. In their fascinating Scribes & Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek & Latin Literature, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford U, 1974), p. 133, L.D. Reynolds & N.G. Wilson refer to him as a ‘freethinker’, and indeed, he seems to have been the first known neo-dodekatheist in Greece.

[8] Fr John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology: Historical Trends & Doctrinal Themes, 2nd ed. (NY: Fordham U, 1979), p. 111.

[9] Fr Meyendorff quotes this from Sylvestre Syropoulos, Mémoire, X, 15; Les ‘Mémoires’ du Grand Ecclesiarque de l’Eglise de Constantinople Sylvestre Syropoulos (Paris: Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, 1971), p. 496.

[10] Fr Meyendorff, pp. 111-2.

[11] This comment seems to be contradicted, in the case of St Mark, by the testimony of Sylvestre Syropoulos when he writes, ‘We wondered how the Ephesian immediately gave the solutions with graphic descriptions, without knowing beforehand what John intended to propose’ (qtd. in Met. Hierotheos of Nafpaktos, Life After Death, tr. Esther Williams [Levadia, Gr.: Birth of the Theotokos Monastery, 1998], p. 153).

[12] Fr Meyendorff, p. 221.

[13] Met. Hierotheos, p. 162.

[14] Ibid., p. 183.

[15] Ibid., p. 192.

[16] Fr Placide, p. 40.

[17] Ibid., p. 41.

[18] Ibid., p. 40.

[19] Ss Macarius of Corinth & Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, eds., Φιλοκαλία των Ιερών Νηπτικών (Athens: Astir, 1982), pp. 69-72.

[20] E. Kadloubovsky & G.E.H. Palmer, trans., Writings from the Philokalia on Prayer of the Heart (London: Faber, 1992).

[21] St Mark, ‘Second Homily on Purgatorial Fire’, chs. 15-6, qtd. in Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose), The Place of Blessed Augustine in the Orthodox Church (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 1998), pp. 73-4. Fr Seraphim is quoting from the Russian text of Archimandrite Ambrose (Pogodin), St Mark of Ephesus & the Union of Florence (Jordanville, NY: 1963), pp. 127-32. Fr Seraphim adds in a note that this book ‘contains full Russian translations of St Mark’s Writings’ (p. 70).

[22] Horologion, pp. 391-2.

'The World's Best Culture Refines the Soul'

I have recently found it necessary to make explicit something I wished to be assumed about this blog. I have all along taken for granted the teaching of St Basil the Great in his Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature, which I first encountered back in college through Constantine Cavarnos’s superb study, The Hellenic-Christian Philosophical Tradition. St Basil writes:

Into the life eternal the Holy Scriptures lead us, which teach us through divine words. But so long as our immaturity forbids our understanding their deep thought, we exercise our spiritual perceptions upon profane writings, which are not altogether different, and in which we perceive the truth as it were in shadows and in mirrors. . . . Consequently we must be conversant with poets, with historians, with orators, indeed with all men who may further our soul’s salvation. . . . Now, then, altogether after the manner of bees must we use these writings, for the bees do not visit all the flowers without discrimination, nor indeed do they seek to carry away entire those upon which they light, but rather, having taken so much as is adapted to their needs, they let the rest go. So we, if wise, shall take from heathen books whatever befits us and is allied to the truth, and shall pass over the rest. . . . Since we must needs attain to the life to come through virtue, our attention is to be chiefly fastened upon those many passages from the poets, from the historians, and especially from the philosophers, in which virtue itself is praised. [1]

This text is crucial in my mind to all that I have to say about literature and philosophy. All the great classics of world literature and philosophy have something useful to our soul’s salvation and to the acquisition of virtue. But, naturally, if they are not inspired by God there is always the admixture of man’s fallen nature. We must be cautious in reading them, practicing critical thinking shaped by a Christian worldview. That this reading is good and necessary, however, must not be in doubt. As St Gregory the Theologian says in his Funeral Oration on the Great St Basil:

11. I take it as admitted by men of sense, that the first of our advantages is education [paideusis]; and not only this our more noble form of it, which disregards rhetorical ornaments and glory, and holds to salvation, and beauty in the objects of our contemplation: but even that external culture which many Christians ill-judgingly abhor, as treacherous and dangerous, and keeping us afar from God. For as we ought not to neglect the heavens, and earth, and air, and all such things, because some have wrongly seized upon them, and honour God’s works instead of God: but to reap what advantage we can from them for our life and enjoyment, while we avoid their dangers; not raising creation, as foolish men do, in revolt against the Creator, but from the works of nature apprehending the Worker (Rom. i. 20, 25), and, as the divine apostle says, bringing into captivity every thought to Christ: (2 Cor. x. 5) and again, as we know that neither fire, nor food, nor iron, nor any other of the elements, is of itself most useful, or most harmful, except according to the will of those who use it; and as we have compounded healthful drugs from certain of the reptiles; so from secular literature we have received principles of enquiry and speculation, while we have rejected their idolatry, terror, and pit of destruction. Nay, even these have aided us in our religion, by our perception of the contrast between what is worse and what is better, and by gaining strength for our doctrine from the weakness of theirs. We must not then dishonour education, because some men are pleased to do so, but rather suppose such men to be boorish and uneducated, desiring all men to be as they themselves are, in order to hide themselves in the general, and escape the detection of their want of culture. [2]

I cannot help but think that many Orthodox Christians of a traditional bent, overreacting to the evils of the modern world and the pitfalls of heresy and worldliness, have in our day become the very boors that St Gregory mentions here. Many seem not to realise the extent to which the Holy Fathers of the Church were conversant in the learning of their day, and not just conversant, but even enthusiastic for it. Concerning St Gregory himself, for example, Werner Jaeger has observed, ‘His homilies are full of classical allusions; he has a full command of Homer, Hesiod, the tragic poets, Pindar, Aristophanes, the Attic orators, the Alexandrian modernists, but also of Plutarch and Lucian and the writers of the Second Sophistic movement, who are the direct models of his style.’ [3]

The irony of course is that many of these Orthodox boors, while they are ignorant of or care little for the great classical poets and writers, have not remained unaffected by the worthless ‘culture’ of the modern West. In other words, they have been spiritually stunted simply by virtue of having been brought up in an era strikingly empty of truth, goodness, and beauty. Yet they intend to proceed straight to the depths of Orthodoxy without the kind of paideia of which the Cappadocian Fathers speak. In our own day, such a stalwart traditionalist as Fr Seraphim (Rose), who can hardly be accused of being too fond of secular culture, has for this reason observed:

In general, the person who is well acquainted with the best products of secular culture—which in the West almost always have definite religious and Christian overtones—has a much better chance of leading a normal, fruitful Orthodox life than someone who knows only the popular culture of today. . . . The world’s best culture, properly received, refines and develops the soul; today’s popular culture cripples and deforms the soul and hinders it from having a full and normal response to the message of Orthodoxy.

Therefore, in our battle against the spirit of this world, we can use the best things the world has to offer in order to go beyond them; everything good in the world, if we are only wise enough to see it, points to God, and to Orthodoxy, and we have to make use
of it. [4]

Thus, Fr Damascene talks about how Archbishop Andrei of Novo-Diveevo would turn ‘the topic of conversation to some character or idea in the works of Dostoevsky, Goncharev, etc.’ when the young Gleb Podmoshensky would prematurely try to discuss ‘spirituality’ with him. [5]

This is how I view much of the talk about literature, philosophy, and books generally here on Logismoi. Of course I also offer stories about and teachings of the Saints and Fathers, who are the embodiment of the Orthodox Tradition, but apart from this I don’t devote all of my attention to strictly ‘spiritual’ or ‘theological’ matters. I try to talk about what interests me in and what I find good about ‘the best products of secular culture’—keeping in mind that this good is not undiluted—in a way that may often subtly point toward Orthodoxy, but may simply be a reasonable way to pass my time. If secular culture is, as St Basil explicitly says, a preparation for the Gospel, then the study of it, even at a basic level, must at the very least be a respectable hobby. I have quoted before—but the time has surely come to do so again—the thirteenth saying of St Anthony in the Gerontikon:

13. A hunter in the desert saw Abba Anthony enjoying himself with the brethren and he was shocked. Wanting to show him that it was necessary sometimes to meet the needs of the brethren, the old man said to him, ‘Put an arrow in your bow and shoot it.’ So he did. The old man then said, ‘Shoot another,’ and he did so. Then the old man said, ‘Shoot yet again,’ and the hunter replied ‘If I bend my bow so much I will break it.’ Then the old man said to him, ‘It is the same with the work of God. If we stretch the brethren beyond measure they will soon break. Sometimes it is necessary to come down to meet their needs.’ When he heard these words the hunter was pierced by compunction and, greatly edified by the old man, he went away. As for the brethren, they went home strengthened. [6]

I take this to mean those of us who have not attained to St Anthony’s height are not able to maintain his level of focus on spiritual endeavour. As C.S. Lewis says in his apology for culture, ‘we must rest and play’, and ‘where can we do so better than here—in the suburbs of Jerusalem?’ [7]

In conclusion, my adherence to this approach is non-negotiable. Unless I am ordered by my spiritual father or my bishop to cease and desist, I will continue on this blog to seek out, discuss, and recommend ‘the best products of secular culture’, and I see no need constantly to go out of my way to qualify myself with pronouncements about how un-Orthodox these things are. Those who share my views or are at least sympathetic to them, are welcome to comment on specific issues in my posts on ‘the best products of secular culture’, but I do not wish this to be a forum for debating this approach itself. Logismoi is, as a quick glance at the top of the page reveals, a ‘refuge’ for those tired of the worst of secular culture and a ‘treasury’ of the best of secular and Christian culture, not a modern college classroom where everything is up for grabs. Those who insist on wasting my time by trying to provoke such debates will find their comments summarily deleted, and will make things less enjoyable for everyone by causing comments on specific posts to be closed.


[1] St Basil the Great, Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature 2, 4, & 5; from the translation by Frederick Morgan Padelford (here).

[2] St Gregory the Theologian, Funeral Oration for the Great S. Basil (here).

[3] Werner Jaeger, Early Christianity and Greek Paideia (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1961), p. 78.

[4] Qtd. in Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim (Rose): His Life & Works (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), pp. 964-5.

[5] Fr Damascene, p. 960.

[6] Benedicta Ward, trans., The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection, rev. ed. (Kalamazoo, MI: Cistercian, 1984), pp. 3-4.

[7] C.S. Lewis, ‘Christianity & Culture’, The Collected Works of C.S. Lewis (NY: Inspirational, 1996), p. 189.

More on St Theophan & Tradition

In the very first paragraph of my post on St Theophan the Recluse, I mentioned the view of Fr Seraphim (Rose) that St Theophan and St Ignatius (Brianchaninov) were important figures for modern Orthodox. In making that observation, I cited a passage from Fr Seraphim’s biography that I believe is worth citing at greater length. Here at Logismoi, I have chosen deliberately to focus much of my attention on the past, but in this passage Fr Damascene, citing Fr Seraphim, reminds us that there must be a bridge from the past to the present:

Fr Seraphim emphasized that ‘the genuine, unchanging teaching of Christianity is handed down in unbroken succession both orally and by the written word, from spiritual father to spiritual son, from teacher to disciple.’ There was never a time, he said, when the Church was without Holy Fathers, or when it was necessary to discover a ‘lost’ Patristic teaching: ‘Even when many Orthodox Christians may have neglected this teaching (as is the case, for example, in our own day), its true representatives were still handing it down to those who hungered to receive it.’ He spoke of how important it is for us, the last Christians, ‘to take guidance and inspiration from the Holy Fathers of our own and recent times, those who lived in conditions similar to our own and yet kept unchanged the same ever-fresh teaching.’ There were two key figures whom he especially stressed in this regard: the Russian spiritual writers Bishop Ignatius Brianchaninov (1867) and Bishop Theophan the Recluse (1894). . . .

‘We have to look to ourselves: if we see that we have zeal for Orthodoxy and yet are not “linked” with the line that goes back to Ignatius Brianchaninov and Theophan the Recluse, [1] there is a danger that we might not be linked up to all the Fathers. There should be a continuous line.’

It was by being a devoted son of the Fathers of his own time (beginning with Archbishop John) and of recent centuries (Ignatius, Theophan, Paisius, etc.) that Fr Seraphim became a true son of the ancients. Linked to the transmission, he became a transmitter of ancient Patristic wisdom in our days. [2]

St Theophan is a particularly apt example in this regard, because of the clear example of the great figures of the Russian Church Abroad in passing on his legacy. Although one must always be wary of his personal testimony, it seems to me there is little reason to mistrust the former ‘Fr Herman’ (Gleb Podmoshensky)—I’m not sure what to call him now—when he illustrates this observation in his Preface to The Path to Salvation:

My spiritual fathers and instructors, Archbishop Averky [of Jordanville], Bishop Nektary [of Seattle] and Fr Adrian [later Archbishop Andrei of Novo-Diveevo], were deeply indebted in their spiritual formation to the holy Recluse Theophan. They read and re-read his voluminous teachings, not only studying his words but engrossing themselves in his advice on prayer and involuntarily likening themselves to him to some extent. These men had actual mystical ties to St Theophan and possessed insights into the spiritual life that would otherwise have remained highly concealed from modern man. Their love for him made him alive and vibrant in their lives and teachings: they truly became his disciples, and clung to him as a lifeline. St Theophan governed the tenor of their archpastoral defense of their flock. They constantly referred to him, and treasured the patristic fragrance of his writings, which stemmed from ancient times. St Theophan turned them away from the Renovationist hierarchs of today who, disregarding that ancient model, follow a spirit alien to Orthodoxy and install foreign elements into their governance of the flock, cutting them off from the influence of Fathers such as St Theophan.

I remember how my Fr Adrian [Archbishop Andrei] would often quote from St Theophan’s Commentary on the 118th Psalm, and how once he told me that the mere remembrance of St Theophan’s Love for the Law of God had at one time miraculously resurrected hope and faith in his soul, whereas before that he had been literally robbed of faith and in deep despair because of the horrible reality of life under the communist yoke. I also recall how Archbishop Averky, a former cell-attendant of Theophan of Poltava, gave a sermon with tears streaming down his face, as he revealed the divine method—transmitted to him through the ‘Theophanic’ line—of softening one’s being with contrition of heart (umilenie), which draws God’s attention and eventually transfigures man’s whole being so that his naked eyes can behold divine light. Again I recall the many times in which Bishop Nektary, as well as his brother Ivan Kontzevitch and his wife Helen (also a disciple of Archbishop Theophan of Poltava), would draw unexpected answers from St Theophan the Recluse’s writings, which came like flashed of illumination. Sometimes, as in the case of Fr Adrian, only the remembrance of the power of St Theophan’s wisdom was enough to dissolve whole dramas of seemingly insoluble problems. Behold St Theophan’s power to ignite a mystic tie with the other world. [3]

It is precisely for this reason that I try to adhere to the spirit and guidance of the great figures of our Church Abroad, of whom Fr Seraphim is surely one, even as I blog about the Saints and writings of ages long since past.

Addendum: It is interesting to note that St Ignatius (Brianchaninov) himself has said something rather similar to Fr Seraphim. As Timothy Ware (now Met. Kallistos of Diokleia) points out, ‘(of course he is not in fact speaking of himself, but what he says applies also to him and Theophan): “The writings of the Russian Fathers are more accessible tous than those of the Greek authorities, owing to their particular clarity and simplicity of exposition, and also because they are closer to us in time.”’ [4]


[1] Obviously, for those outside the Russian tradition, one need not take these two Saints as the sole litmus test. The Greeks have their own such figures, starting with the Kollyvades and even including such lay figures as Papadiamandis and Kontoglou. Constantine Cavarnos’s books have much to say about the transmission of the Patristic legacy in modern Greece. I’m sure other Orthodox, like the Romanians, have their own figures to point to.

[2] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim (Rose): His Life & Works (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), pp. 467-8.

[3] Herman Podmoshensky, Preface, The Path to Salvation: A Manual of Spiritual Transformation, trans. Hieromonk Seraphim (Rose) & the St Herman Brotherhood (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Monastery, 1998), pp. 17-8.

[4] Timothy Ware [Met. Kallistos], Introduction, The Art of Prayer: An Orthodox Anthology, comp. Igumen Chariton of Valamo, trans. E. Kadloubovsky & G.E.H. Palmer, ed. Timothy Ware (London: Faber, 1997], p. 16.

'A Genuine Continuer of Patristic Tradition'—St Theophan the Recluse

Today, 10 January on the Church’s calendar, we celebrate the memory of the Holy Hierarch Theophan the Recluse (1815-1894). Fr Georges Florovsky introduces him as a ‘genuine and typical continuer of patristic tradition in asceticism and theology’. [1] Fr Placide (Deseille) writes that he was ‘[g]ifted with great pastoral zeal and deep discernment’. [2] Along with St Ignatius (Brianchaninov), St Theophan was one of ‘two key figures’ whom Fr Seraphim (Rose) ‘especially stressed’ as ‘Holy Fathers of our own and recent times’ from whom contemporary Christians ought particularly ‘to take guidance and inspiration’. [3] As I do not possess a good, brief hagiography of St Theophan in print, I offer here the account of his life from the Holy Trinity calendar page:

This modern-day Church Father was born in Chernavsk in central Russia. The son of a priest, he entered seminary at a young age, then completed the four-year course in theology at the Academy of Kiev. Though he distinguished himself as a student, his heart turned increasingly toward the monastic life, and he was tonsured a monk and ordained a priest upon completion of his studies. During his time at the Academy he often visited the Lavra of the Caves, and there became a spiritual child of Father Parthenius (March 25).

His desire for monastic life was not fulfilled immediately, for the Church felt need of his intellectual gifts. He served as a professor at the Theological Academy in St Petersburg, then worked for seven years in the Russian Mission to the Near East, mostly in Palestine. During this time he gained a perfect mastery of Greek and studied the works of the Church Fathers in the original languages. [4] Returning to Russia, he was soon consecrated a bishop; but after seven years of episcopal service, he at last achieved his heart’s desire, resigning as bishop and retiring to a small monastery at Vyschen [Vysha], where he spent the rest of his days.

After taking full part in the liturgical and communal life of the monastery for several years, he took up the life of a recluse in 1872. He lived in two small rooms, subsisting almost entirely on bread and tea, visited only by his confessor and the abbot of the monastery. He celebrated the Divine Liturgy every day in his cell. All of his time not taken up by inner prayer was devoted to translating the works of the Fathers into Russian and, increasingly, to writings of his own. Most importantly, he prepared a Russian-language edition of the Philokalia which had a deep impact upon Russian spiritual life.

Though he received no visitors, St Theophan entered into correspondence with many earnest Christians who sought his counsel, and so in time became the spiritual father of many believers throughout Russia. He reposed in peace in 1894.

To the details of his death, an article from The Orthodox Word has this to add: ‘The Saint’s body remained in the small church in his cell for three days, and for three days it was in the Cathedral—and there was no corruption. When he was clothed in his Bishop’s vestments, the face of the dead man was brightened by a joyful smile.’ [5]

Concerning St Theophan’s life as a recluse, the same article comments, ‘In reclusion, invisible to people, he became a public figure of enormous magnitude. . . . He seemed to be no longer a man, but an angel with a childlike meekness and gentleness.’ The article also describes his cell:

Everything was extremely simple in Bishop Theophan’s cell. The walls were bare, the furniture old. There was a trunk with instruments for lathe-work, carpentry, bookbinding; photographic equipment, a bench for sawing, a joiner’s bench, and numerous books written in Russian, Slavonic, Greek, French, German, and English. Among them were: a complete collection of the Holy Fathers; a theological encyclopaedia in French in 150 volumes, the works of the philosophers Hegel, Fichte, Jacobi, and others; works on natural history by Humboldt, Darwin, Fichte, and others. One calls to mind his words, ‘It is good to understand the structure of plants, of animals, especially of man, and the laws of life; in them is revealed the wisdom of God, which is great in everything’.

Fr Florovsky, taking St Theophan’s own words about himself at face value, plays down the significance of his withdrawal:

He led a strict life at the hermitage, and after several years there he confined himself to nearly total isolation, refusing to receive anyone. Hence he is usually regarded as a recluse [zatvornik]. However, Feofan himself very much disliked it when people spoke of his ‘seclusion’. ‘They have made my cloister into a place of seclusion. There is nothing of the solitary hermit about it. I have locked myself away so that I would not be bothered—not with a view to the strictest asceticism, but in order to ceaselessly concern myself with books.’ He always insisted that he refused to receive others ‘because of a preoccupation with books.’ ‘Hence it comes out that I am discovered to be a bookworm and nothing more.’ Characteristically, in his petition to be tonsured, written while still at the academy, he made reference to theological studies: ‘Possessing an unflagging zeal for studying theological subjects and for the solitary life, I have taken a vow to dedicate my life to the monastic calling so that in my future service to the Church I can combine the one and the other.’ [6]

Finally, Fr Florovsky quotes one of St Theophan’s letters:

When your prayer is so strong that everything will give you sustenance in the heart before God, then you will have seclusion without the solitary’s life. . . . Seek this seclusion, but do not make a fuss over it. Behind the doors of solitude one can range over the whole world, or admit the whole world into one’s room. [7]

But it hardly seems wise to trust entirely that a Saint’s humility will not attempt to mask his ascesis. The OW article offers some fairly plausible reasons of a more spiritual nature for his withdrawal:

It was difficult for Bishop Theophan in the midst of the world and those demands to which one must yield because of human corruption. This was one reason that induced him to leave his Diocese and retire into solitude. In addition, his unlimited goodness of heart, meekness as a dove’s, his trust of people and indulgence of them—all this indicated that it was not for him to live amidst the irreconcilable quarrels of vain worldly life. It was very difficult for him to be a leader, especially in such an important position as that of Bishop. His trust could be abused; he could never give necessary reprimands. Besides this, he felt the call to devote all his energies to spiritual writing. As for himself personally, he wished to give up all his thoughts to God alone, Whom he loved absolutely. He desired that nothing might disturb the complete communion with God that was so dear to him, and so he left the world to be alone with God.

Concerning St Theophan’s writings, H.A. Hodges has noted, ‘[I]t is in the field of ascetic theology that his chief eminence lies, by virtue both of his personal wisdom and also of his spiritual writings and translations.’ [8] The HT account lists several of his works:

In addition to the Philokalia, St Theophan produced (among other works): a Spiritual Psalter of selections from St Ephraim the Syrian; The Path to Salvation, an exposition of Orthodox Spirituality written in clear, plain language for those living in the world; collections of his letters to spiritual children; and Unseen Warfare, a treatise on prayer and the ascetical life. . . . They are almost unique in presenting the undiluted hesychastic spirituality of the Orthodox Church in plain, straightforward language accessible to most people.

Fr Florovsky summarises the significance of these writings thusly:

He only wished to outline the contours of the Christian life and point the way along the spiritual path, and in this lies his incomparable historical significance. He continued and completed starets Paisii [Velichkovsky]’s spiritual exploit by bringing the Russian Philokalia to realization and by constructing his living worldview in a fully patristic style and spirit. [9]

In the spirit, then, of this last comment, I offer a passage from St Theophan’s great spiritual work, The Path to Salvation, on the subject of education and the Orthodox worldview:

It should be placed as an unfailing law that every kind of learning which is taught to a Christian should be permeated with Christian principles and, more precisely, Orthodox ones. Every branch of learning is capable of this approach, and it will be a true kind of learning only when this condition is fulfilled. Christian principles are true beyond doubt. Therefore, without any doubting, make them the general measuring stick of truth. It is a most dangerous error among us that subjects of learning are taught without any attention to the true faith; one allows oneself freethinking and even lying under the supposition that faith and learning are two spheres which are quite distinct.

On the contrary, we have a single spirit. It receives learning and is imbued with its principles just as it receives faith is penetrated by it. How is it then possible that these two spheres should not come into contact here, whether favorable or unfavorable? At the same time, the sphere of truth is one. Therefore, why pound into the head that which is not from this sphere? [10]

In conclusion, here is the conclusion of the excellent Orthodox Word article on this great Hierarch and Teacher:

The great Hierarch is hidden from us in body, but his spirit lives in the divinely wise printed works that he left. Archbishop Nicander of Vilna described Bishop Theophan as a universal Christian teacher, even though he did not speak; a public figure, though in reclusion; a preacher of the Church who was heard everywhere, even though in his last years he appeared in no Church See. A bright lamp of Christ’s teaching for Orthodox people, even though he concealed himself from the people’s gaze; possessing scarcely a sufficiency of earthly goods, yet enriching all with the spiritual wealth of his teaching. He sought after no temporal, earthly glory, yet glorified now by all those who have been inspired by his writings to follow this holy recluse on the path to salvation, a path that leads to constant prayer and the state of being alone in one’s heart with God.

Be sure to see last year’s post, where I also made brief mention of St Gregory of Nyssa & St Paul of Obnora, whom we also commemorate today. Finally, I wish many years on his nameday to Mr Spruance.


[1] Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, Ways of Russian Theology, Part 2, trans. Robert L. Nichols, Vol. 6 in The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky (Vaduz: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), p. 169.

[2] Archimandrite Placide (Deseille), Orthodox Spirituality & the Philokalia, trans. Anthony P. Gythiel (Wichita: Eighth Day, 2008), p. 167.

[3] Hieromonk Damascene (Christensen), Father Seraphim (Rose): His Life & Works (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2003), p. 467.

[4] Concerning this period of his life, Fr Florovsky offers the interesting observation, ‘The journey to the East proved to be a major event in Feofan’s life, extending his ecclesiastical horizons and endowing his worldview with an ecumenical courage, a great spiritual freedom and suppleness, a freedom from cultural context’ (Fr Florovsky, p. 170).

[5] The Orthodox Word, July-August, 1966 (here). Concerning the last observation, we have seen a very similar phenomenon quite recently (here).

[6] Fr Florovsky, p. 169.

[7] Ibid., p. 169. The insight contained in the last statement here may well be the reason for the inclusion of St Theophan's troparion in the clever 'Prayers at the Use of the Internet' here.

[8] H.A. Hodges, Introduction, Unseen Warfare, ed. St Nicodemus of the Holy Mountain, rev. St Theophan the Recluse, trans. E. Kadloubovsky & G.E.H. Palmer (Crestwood, NY: SVS, 2000), p. 59.

[9] Fr Florovsky, p. 174.

[10] St Theophan the Recluse, The Path to Salvation: A Manual of Spiritual Transformation, trans. Fr Seraphim (Rose) & the St Herman Brotherhood (Platina, CA: St Herman of Alaska Monastery, 1998), p. 64.