The main purpose of the thesis is to offer a critical exposition of the theology of Archimandrite Sophrony Sakharov (1896-1993)Чan outstanding Christian ascetic, monk and mystic of the 20th century. His theological heritage has not yet been approached in such a way as to bring his ideas into a dialogue with a wider range of academic issues . Our thesis is a first attempt to present to the Western academic world a critical study of Fr.Sophrony as a theologian and to situate his СwhereaboutsТ within the vast scope of contemporary and traditional theology by way of critical and comparative analysis. This will determine and thereby assess the extent of his contribution. In order to do so, we shall indicate the most significant areas of Fr.SophronyТs backgroundЧthese are Russian religious thought, the Eastern patristic tradition, the contemporary Athonite tradition and his own ascetic experience. The study consistently reveals the synthetic character of his theology, which integrates these different thought-worlds into a single theoria through the prism of his own mystical experience. Academic requirements do not permit us to extend our research beyond these fields so as to touch on other vast areas of fruitful comparisonЧthose of German philosophy, Indian mysticism, as well as the Western Christian tradition. Rather our aim is to recapitulate the constituting framework of his theology through an analysis of various themes, which would allow us to demonstrate that his unique synthesis revolves around his christocentric approach to the concept of hypostasis in its anthropological and trinitarian dimensions. To deal with these themes we begin our study with a discussion of Fr.SophronyТs theological formation which would provide a necessary insight into the multifarious background of his theological make-up. The nature of our thesis, as well as Fr.SophronyТs own reluctance to speak about his outward history , mean that we shall not attempt to present a historically exhaustive biographyЧthis has yet to be written . For the purpose of our research we confine our interest only to the key points of his theological formation, outlining the factors which influenced his mystical-spiritual and intellectual pilgrimage.
Sergei Symeonovich Sakharov (as Fr.Sophrony was called in the world) was born in Moscow on 22 September 1896 into a bourgeois family, who were practising Orthodox Christians . The fact of being reared in the Orthodox Christian tradition, with its stress on daily prayer, left a life-long impression on him. Sergei became accustomed to this practice so much so that even as a child he Сcould pray easily for three quarters of an hourТ . It undoubtedly deepened his Сmystical sensitivityТ: it is no coincidence that Fr.Sophrony ascribes his first experience of uncreated light to his childhood days .
Student years: his painting career in Moscow (1910-1921)
This intensity continued to be prominent throughout his student years. His spiritual make-up was at this time affected by two factors: his painting and oriental mysticism.
As a child Fr.Sophrony revealed an outstanding artistic talent, and for that reason he went to study during 1915-1917 at the Academy of Arts, and in 1920-1 at the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture (Russian: С¬’”“≈ћј—Т) . The whole atmosphere of Russian art then was marked by a profound search for new forms of artistic expression. M.Egger aptly quotes J.-L. Daval  who envisages the Russian artistic world at the beginning of the 20th century in the following terms:
Tous les systemes apparaissent caducs; lТartiste ne trouve dТautre verite que lТauthenticite de son experience phenomenologique ou spirituelle, la fidelite a son intuition... Percevant au fond dТeux-mÍmes de nouvelles realites, les artistes doivent detruire les habitudes de la figuration pour les rendre perceptibles; en meme temps quТils aspirent a une nouvelle representation, ils doivent fonder un nouveau langage... LТartiste apparaitra desormais comme un prophete; il nТillustre plus, il revele .
In his painting Fr.Sophrony attempted to discover the eternal beauty, the mystery (тайна) of each visible object . For him, art was a powerful means of breaking through present reality, through time, into new horizons of being. These artistic experiences bore a quasi-mystical character. He recalls several experiences of Сfalling outТ of time , and of contemplation of the Сlight of artistic inspirationТ. This would later allow him to draw a clear distinction between the natural light of the human intellect and the uncreated light .
Fr.Sophrony and contemporary Russia
Fr.SophronyТs philosophical and spiritual pilgrimage, as he recalls, was marked by an intensive inner search for the basis of reality . Because of his total dedication to creative work, Fr.SophronyТs artistic isolation limited the scope of his outward involvement in the development of the prevailing intellectual tendencies in contemporary Russia. Yet the whole intellectual climate of pre- and post-revolutionary Russia with its upheaval and instability  undoubtedly created a fertile matrix for new directions of thinking. The emergence of the religious-philosophical societies in 1901-1903 is a notable reflection of this intensive intellectual search . The Russian intelligentsia, in its move towards idealism away from the radicalism, positivism and СnihilismТ of the preceding epoch, sought rapprochement with Christianity and with the ecclesiastical heritage in general . However, in their return to Christianity, Russian thinkers evaluated the Orthodox tradition in different ways. Thus, as a repercussion of L.TolstoyТs evangelical radicalism with its nihilistic tendencies , people of the so-called Сnew religious consciousnessТЧlike D.S.Merezhkovsky (1865-1941), N.Berdyaev (1874-1948), and V.Rozanov (1856-1919)Чattempted to rejuvenate Christianity by stretching its bounds beyond the Church and Tradition . On the other hand, S.Bulgakov (1871-1944) and S.Frank (1877-1950) found Church tradition an adequate expression of the essence of Christianity .
Though a Muscovite, Fr.Sophrony remained alien to the intellectual tendencies of the СMuscovite ethosТ, marked by the romantic emphasis of the Slavophiles on СRussiannessТ in their philosophical principles . If we would СsituateТ Fr.Sophrony on the map of the contemporary intellectual scene, he would have belonged at this time to the first group of thinkers, those who looked beyond Сecclesiastical traditionТ, and advocated a wide-ranging intellectual freedom. This broad and free scope for religious thought provided a necessary background for Fr.Sophrony's bold investigation of non-Christian religious cultures.
It is at this time that Fr.Sophrony became acutely aware of the contrast between the finitude of our present reality and the infinity of divine eternal reality. As a result, his mystical life was marked by profound experiences of mindfulness of death . This contrast (finitude-infinity) aroused in him an urgent longing to penetrate to the heart of divine eternityЧto achieve what he terms Сbreakthrough into eternityТ . He wondered how he, as a human being, related to eternity, to the divine Absolute. In all this, he was convinced that the human spirit cannot accept the idea of death . His search for eternity led him to Indian non-Christian mysticism . Christianity, with its stress on personal love towards a personal Absolute, seemed to him less profound than some strands of Eastern mysticism, which spoke of a supra-personal Absolute. Thus Christianity appeared to him then as a merely psychological moral doctrine that did not account for reality ontologically . Within the Christian framework of beliefs built on faith in the personal-hypostatic Godhead, the concept of the divine Absolute seemed inconceivable, since the concept of person, as he then understood it, implied particularity and, hence, ontological limitation. The Absolute, he thought, must be beyond everything, beyond every concept or measure: it therefore transcends Christian categories.
N.Berdyaev seems to have faced the same dilemma , which demonstrates that such a problematic was familiar in the contemporary Russian thought-world. Berdyaev sees contradictions between the concept of the Christian God in the Bible and that of the divine Absolute; he concludes that the Christian God is neither omnipotent nor omniscient . The divine nothingness of the Absolute of negative theology cannot be the creator of the world .Т
Under the exigency of the Christian Сscandal of particularityТ, which he envisaged as incompatible with the idea of the Absolute, Berdyaev resorted to the concept of real symbolism in his philosophical system . He thus adjusted the Christian framework in the face of philosophical constraints. Fr.SophronyТs solution was to abandon a Christian framework altogether as incompatible with the idea of the Absolute. The catastrophic events of the First World War and the subsequent Revolution in Russia only strengthened his striving towards the other-worldly . His God, the all-transcendent Absolute, could be attained only through divesting the self of all visual and mental images .
Thus his art, his thinking and his inner state combined to drive him insatiably towards the Abstract, that is, the Pan-Transcendent.
In the turmoil of post-revolutionary Russia, LeninТs government in 1922-3 gave an opportunity for non-Marxist intellectuals to leave Russia, amongst whom were N.Berdyaev, S.Bulgakov and N. and V.Lossky. Fr.Sophrony left shortly before, in 1921, so as to continue his artistic career abroad . He spent a few months in Italy and then in Berlin . In 1922 he arrived in Paris. There his artistic career advanced so rapidly as to attract the attention of the French media. He exhibited at the Salon dТAutomne and the even moreelite Salon des Tuileries . At the same time his spiritual and ideological pilgrimage continued. His predominant questions then were those of ontology and gnoseology. On the one hand, he was frustrated at the ineptitude of art to express the pure Other. On the other, he tried to comprehend how man can arrive at the ultimate knowledge of reality . Purely intellectual reasoning could not provide a sufficient answer to his question. As he saw it, purely rational knowledge is inherent to science. It was unable to serve the ultimate aim of Fr.Sophrony's acquisition of knowledge: Сsurmounting the finitude of deathТ. Science, as an intellectual discipline, is relevant only in the sphere of reality where one event is determined by another. But his artistic experience suggested that there are phenomena which belong to Сundetermined realityТ where science is not applicable .
Return to Christianity
This query coincided with his discovery that ChristТs precept to love God with all oneТs heart, mind and strength is not a moralistic psychology but a profound ontology. Love emerged as an authentic source of cognition. If God is to be known by love, then the divine Absolute is a personal being . For Fr.Sophrony, this personeity is implied in the formula of Ex.3:22: С I AM THAT I AMТ. It is to this moment that M.Egger dates Fr.SophronyТs first experience of uncreated light . We, however, tend to think that this experience was not the first but a СreturnТ of this vision in a more powerful form than during his childhood . It began on Great Saturday in 1924 and remained until the 3rd day of Easter week ; the strength of this experience was never matched in his later visions of light . These experiences and discoveries resulted in his return to Christianity, a volte-face so dramatic that he began to distance himself even from his art .
Orthodoxy in Paris
The life of the Russian community in Paris in those years was marked by dynamism within various spheres of activity . As P.Anderson recalls, it was Сa time of the most intensive creativityТ . The massive return of the intelligentsia to the Orthodox Church within the New Russia in the years 1917-25 had its parallel among the Russian emigrants . P.Anderson observes: СThe basic common feature of Russian refugee society was the Church .Т The year 1922 was marked by the establishment of the Russian Christian Youth Movement, which brought to the forefront the question of theological education . As a result, in 1924 the Orthodox Theological Institute was founded in Paris . That same year Fr.Sophrony was among its first students . There he was surrounded by theelite of Russian theologians and philosophers . As N.Zernov notes: СThe Institute became the main intellectual centre of the Russian Church and an equally important point of contact between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western ChristiansТ . In 1924 the teaching personnel comprised Bp.Veniamin (Fedchenkov), A.Kartashev, K.Bezobrazov and E.Kovalevsky, who in 1925 were joined by S.Bulgakov, V.Zenkovsky, S.Frank. S.Troitsky, V.Ilyin and G.Florovsky .
The most profound influence on Fr.Sophrony in the field of dogmatic theology came from Fr.Sergei Bulgakov . At the Institute Bulgakov taught dogmatics . Apart from being Fr.SophronyТs teacher, Bulgakov was his spiritual father at the same time. It is no coincidence, that his range of theological issues, his vocabulary and style of theologising were determinative for Fr.SophronyТs theological growth. Bulgakov had a rich background in patristic literature as well as in philosophy (notably Kant, Fichte, Feuerbach, Hegel and Schelling  as well as V.Soloviev and P.Florensky) . BulgakovТs theology evolved as a result of his philosophical transition from Marxism to idealism . This synthesis of the Fathers and modern philosophy constitutes the originality of his approach, which sometimes goes beyond the scope of patristic Orthodoxy, as, for example, in his Sophiology . Thus SolovievТs theme ofбогочеловечество (СGodmanhoodТ) made him more attentive to the anthropological implications of Chalcedonian Christology and the trinitarian theology of the Cappadocians . Among BulgakovТs theological ideas which had a direct impact on Fr.Sophrony are trinitarian theology, kenoticism and anthropology. Thus, Bulgakov precedes Fr.Sophrony in elaborating on the relational character of divine hypostases in the Trinity  and the antinomy of the absolute identity and absolute distinction of the divine personae . This absolute unity is ensured by the mode of the divine being, which is love: this unity therefore is not static but dynamic . This love is sacrificial, self-denying love . Bulgakov works out the relational dynamic nature of hypostatic being and arrives at the self-denying character of love within the Trinity. Due to Schellingian influence (A.NicholsТ view) and that of Russian Christology (N.GorodetskyТs view) , Bulgakov works out the kenotic dimension in the very constitution of the Holy Trinity, as well as in the act of creation . Also important for Fr.Sophrony was BulgakovТs view of ChristТs kenosis on the level of the intra-trinitarian being . Kenosis, furthermore, does not exhaust itself with the Resurrection but also concerns the post-Easter glorified Christ , and this is largely related to the sacrament of the Eucharist . This kenotic element in the Eucharist marks Fr.SophronyТs liturgical theology as well. It is noteworthy that Bulgakov works out the idea of the kenosis of the Spirit in his operation (действенности) . This allowed Fr.Sophrony later to apply the idea of the variable measure of operation and perceptibility of the Holy Spirit to his ascetic theory of богооставленность (Godforsakenness) . BulgakovТs anthropology and that of Fr.Sophrony are marked by similar maximalist categories. Bulgakov anticipates Fr.Sophrony in his understanding of the biblical expression dextera Patris, related to ChristТs ascension  as the elevation-deification of humanity to the point of equalityЧ тожества Чwith the divinity . Bulgakov points to the relation between the divine and human modes of being and brings them to close relation in a quasi-platonic manner . Man as image is in fact repetition (повторение) of God ; man is a micro-absolute, an express image of the divine absoluteness . Humankind is a divine СcryptogramТ, a mystery in its hypostasity . As such man and his hypostasis are indefinable . This allows Bulgakov to assert identity (тожество) between man and God: humana natura capax divini .
Later Fr.Sophrony was cautious in making much overt use of Bulgakov. It seems the extent of BulgakovТs influence on Fr.Sophrony was obscured and limited by the controversy over BulgakovТs theology .
Fr.SophronyТs personal contact with Berdyaev undoubtedly left traces on his theological make-up. BerdyaevТs СpersonalismТ crowns the development of the maximalist trend within the Russian philosophy of persona (личность) . Thus, Berdyaev uses a theologically innovative termЧman is microtheos, which was taken up by Fr.Sophrony as a basis for his own framework of thought on anthropology . However, BerdyaevТs influence should not be overestimated. His concepts of persona, and of the freedom and creativity of man, went against the Orthodox ascetic tradition: СMan, who embarks on the path of Christian asceticism, is lost for creative work .Т This difference of wavelength became explicit even in Paris; when Fr.Sophrony announced to Berdyaev his monastic vocation, he met with BerdyaevТs disapproval .
At this stage, though, however fruitful the contact with Bulgakov and Berdyaev may have been, formal theology did not fulfil Fr.SophronyТs hope of being Сtaught how to pray, how to have the right attitude towards God, how to overcome oneТs passions and attain eternityТ. So in 1925 he made his way to Mt Athos .
Mount Athos (1925-1947)
On Mt. Athos Fr.Sophrony joined the Russian Orthodox Monastery of St Panteleimon. During this period the main source of his theological inspiration was his own mystical experience. He states that he underwent profound repentance over his apostasy and the inadequacy of his spiritual condition, of his Сincapability of living according to the precepts of the GospelТ .
The second determinative factor of Fr.SophronyТs theological formation was his contact with an Athonite elder-staretz Silouan, from 1930 until 1938 . SilouanТs ascetic formula СKeep your mind in hell and despair notТ  was matched by Fr.SophronyТs own spiritual motto: СStay on the brink of despair but when you feel you are falling over, step back .Т Fr.Sophrony himself asserts that this parallel experience was the basis of their spiritual contact . SilouanТs concern for an existential, living dimension in the knowledge of God is reflected in Fr.SophronyТs principle of theology: СIt is one thing to believe in God and another thing to know GodТ in the Holy Spirit . B.Gooskens pertinently analyses the implications of SilouanТs stress on the pneumatological dimension in his ascetic theology .
Though Silouan had no distinctive theological system, his simply-expressed theological and ascetic concepts formed an integral basis for Fr.SophronyТs theological development . Among them the most significant are: prayer for the whole world , Christ-like humility, and love towards oneТs enemies.
Silouan pays particular attention to the type of prayer Сfor the whole creationТ : СLet the whole world come to know TheeТ . Silouan precedes Fr.Sophrony in using the expression the whole Adam, which indicates the ontological oneness of the human race. His chapter СAdamТs lamentТ expresses the universal dimension of his range of application of the term СAdamТ: Adam is Сthe father of the universeТ and, as such, he emerges as a collective personality . Christ-like love is the bond which links the whole Adam.
The universality of this love is often expressed by Silouan as Сlove towards oneТs enemiesТ, which was central to his thinking to an unprecedented extent. It became his criterion for the authenticity of any Christian message .ChristТs commandment (Mt.5:44) is a projection of the divine mode of being onto the level of human relationship, since it reflects the absolute character of divine love .
Silouan also precedes Fr.Sophrony in the concept of ’ристово смирение (Christ-like humility) , which he distinguishes from ascetic humility. SilouanТs experience of Christ-like humility reflects ChristТs commandmentЧСLearn of Me for I am lowly in heartТ (Mt.11:29) . Though Silouan does not expound the concept, Fr.Sophrony would discern there the ontological dimension of ChristТs hypostatic being: lowliness of heart signifies the transfer of the focus of existential concern from self to other(s), when СIТ is disregarded for the sake of СThouТ. Thus it implicitly reflects the intra-trinitarian mode of being, where the hypostasis kenotically assimilates the life of the other(s). This christological dimension is implicitly present in Silouan: he expresses this Christ-like re-orientation from self to the other in the following passage: СWhen the soul gives itself over to the will of God, then in the mind there is nothing but God alone... Т It is a supernatural state of participation in the kenotic existential commitment of one hypostasis of the Trinity to the other.
The same christological model is behind SilouanТs teaching on ascetic obedience: he compares the obedient ascetic to Christ in his commitment to the Father . The importance of obedience for Silouan receives its theological justification in Fr.Sophrony when he further highlights the connexion between obedience and the trinitarian mode of being.
These concepts mark a way for Fr.SophronyТs further development in that they lay the foundation for his theological principle of the commensurability and affinity of divine and human existence. In embryo SilouanТs concepts presuppose a (not always explicit) christological and consequently trinitarian perspective for understanding the ascetic life. Though Silouan himself does not pursue this connexion in his writings, he provides for Fr.Sophrony an indispensable starting point for an application of the christo-trinitarian model to the level of human existence.
On Athos Fr.Sophrony became well acquainted with the patristic ascetic heritage. There too he learned Greek, so that he was able to read the patristic sources in the original. Thus, Fr.SophronyТs letters of this period reveal his acquaintance with the writings and ideas of Basil the Great , Macarius the Great , Hesychius of Jerusalem , Diadochus of Photice , Dionysius the Areopagite , Barsanuphius and John , John Climacus , Isaac the Syrian , Symeon the New Theologian , Philotheus of Sinai , Gregory of Sinai , Ignaty Bryanchaninov , Seraphim of Sarov , Paisy Velichkovsky , Theophan the Recluse , and John of Kronstadt , At a later stage he read Gregory Palamas . Fr.Sophrony read many of these Fathers in the Philokalia . Among other books Fr.Sophrony mentionsƒревний патерик , and ќткровенные рассказы странника .
The correspondence (1932-46) with Fr.David Balfour, a Catholic who converted to Orthodoxy, provides a valuable insight into Fr.SophronyТs own spiritual development. It is full of references to and quotations from the patristic writers. The correspondence also touches on the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Western thought, in both Christian and philosophical writings . Thus Fr.Sophrony mentions Schleiermacher, Spinoza and Kant, and St John of the Cross (The Dark Night of the Soul) . He dedicates a few pages to the concepts of the heart and prayer. In Eastern Christianity, he argues, the spiritual heart is not an abstract notion but is linked with our material heart and has its physical location . In opposition to the Western search for some visionary mystical experience, Fr.Sophrony advocates the prayer of repentance, which is the basis of all spiritual life .
In these letters we find, in embryonic form, ideas determinative for Fr.SophronyТs later theological development, particularly: the concept of Godforsakenness, maximalist anthropology, and the interdependence of asceticism and dogmatic vision.
Fr.Sophrony works out a distinction between two types of Godforsakenness. The first one is when Сman deserts GodТ: СTo the extent that we live in this world, to that same extent we are dead in God.Т The second one is when God hides from manЧa horrific state of Godforsakenness. When man has no more life in this world, i.e. cannot live by this world, the memory of the divine world draws him СthereТ, yet despite all this darkness encompasses his soul . He explains: Сthese fluctuations of the presence and absence of grace are our destiny until the end of our earthly life .Т Fr.Sophrony saw suffering as a necessary stage in ascetic development: СDivine grace comes only in the soul which has undergone suffering .Т Fr.Sophrony thus parallels his own experience with that of the Dark Night in St John of the Cross, whose writings assisted his comprehension of ascetic suffering. He calls him a СgeniusТ and admits that Сthe description of states, while being different in methods and terminology from the Eastern Fathers, in its main dogmatic statements is in accord with and on a par with the greatest writers of Eastern asceticism .Т
Fr.Sophrony highlights other important points in St John: (a) determination to follow the hard path, against the utmost resistance; (b) concern to preserve the mind pure of any image in his striving towards the Divine; (c) understanding of the spiritually perfect life as the unity of love. His inspiring book does indeed excite the soul towards determination to follow patiently through the dry and dark wilderness towards the СPromised LandТ .
Despite their common traits Fr.Sophrony also points out differences between Eastern Orthodox spirituality and that of St John : (a) Fr.Sophrony sees St JohnТs spiritual path as a method. In general he himself is not eager to promote any method (not even the СmechanicalТ methods of hesychasm) ; (b) The darkness of abandonment is not envisaged as a positive knowledge of and communion with God (as in St John) but a negative stage on the way towards communion with God who is light . The idea, Fr.Sophrony writes, that immersion into darkness which is divested of any concept or image is of itself a final stage in the communion with God, is alien to the Orthodox ascetic tradition ; (c) St JohnТs prayer, according to Fr.Sophrony, does not start with repentance, but he strives towards visionary imaginative experience, which disagrees with the Eastern practice .
Where Fr.Sophrony raises the question of deification, the maximalism of his anthropology is manifest. He refers to Gregory Palamas who applies the term¥narcoj to the ultimate condition of human deification: СWe long for participation in eternal life. What actually happens is that man becomes not only immortal, but without beginning (безначальным) also .Т
The interdependence of asceticism and dogmatic vision
As a reply to BalfourТs doubt over the importance of specifically Eastern ascetic and dogmatic traditions, Fr.Sophrony asserts the organic integrity and integrality of ascetic life, dogma and the Church. Criticising Schleiermacher in connexion with this issue, he writes:
There are three things I cannot take in: non-dogmatic faith, non-ecclesiological Christianity and non-ascetic Christianity. These threeЧthe Church, dogma and asceticism (подвиг)Чconstitute one single life for me .
As a reply to BalfourТs doubt over the need for Сnegative asceticismТ, Fr.Sophrony argues that positive asceticism (love) necessarily entails negative forms (limitations of oneself) . The positive form is integral to the final goal, but in the initial stages of ascetic growth the negative forms are necessary and fruitful.
His main contention about dogma is that any religious culture has its own ascetic teaching, since asceticism is an ontological (living) expression of oneТs religious vision . He warns that any religious growth has its stages and that it is dangerous to overturn the right order of these stages. Within the framework of Christian belief, pantheistic mysticism (search for the divine Absolute which is above any conceptualisation and particularity) is only a stage in religious development, and should not be seen as superior to the Christian personalistic concept of God . Fr.Sophrony singles out Kant as an example of the confusion of the hierarchical order of these stages. Kant believed that the mind undergoes three stages, which accord with his principle of the development of the mind's perception of the world: theological, metaphysical and positivist . Fr.Sophrony, by contrast, implies that metaphysical and theological (which for Fr.Sophrony implies dogmatic) perception should be seen as superior to positivist intellectualism .
Fr.Sophrony diagnoses BalfourТs concern about Сconfessional limitationsТ as only an initial stage of his spiritual growth. It was SchleiermacherТs error to СdogmatizeТ this initial stageЧthe uncertainty of religious anguish (Angst)Чas something ultimate . This came as a result of his rejection of the dogmatic foundations of religious experience. In Fr.SophronyТs view, Schleiermacher is not far from pantheism: СHis adogmatic (бездогматическое) Christianity and faith led him to define SpinozaТs pantheistic perception of the world as the classic expression of the religious life .Т Also in KantТs theological system the concepts of personal immortality and of the personal God do not play the fundamental role they have in traditional Christianity .
Responding to BalfourТs question СHow important are dogmas for Orthodoxy?Т, Fr.Sophrony emphasises the role of dogma in constituting the Orthodox Tradition: СIf one rejects the Orthodox Creed and the Eastern ascetic experience of life in Christ, which has been acquired throughout the centuries, then Orthodox culture would be left with nothing but the Greek minor [key] and Russian tetraphony .Т
Fr.Sophrony also warns against attributing to intellectual reasoning the status of being the sole basis for religious search:
Historical experience has demonstrated that natural intellectual reasoning, left to its own devices, fatally arrives at pantheistic mysticism with its particular perception of reality. If this takes place in the soul of the Christian who does not want to reject Christ (as in the case of Leo Tolstoy), he arrives at Protestant rationalism or at spiritualism, which stands mystically close to pantheism... I am convinced that the rejection of the Church will lead to the rejection of the Apostolic message about Сthat which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes... and our hands have handled (1Jn.1:1) .
Thus the correspondence with Balfour, by compelling Fr.Sophrony to express himself theologically, became the first stage in Fr.SophronyТs theological articulation. It is both significant and determinative, outlining as it does the range of theological interests and issues which came to be developed in his later writings.
The Desert 1939-47. Spiritual Fatherhood
After the death of StSilouan (Ж24/ix-1938), and following upon his advice, Fr.Sophrony departed from the Monastery of St Panteleimon into the Athonite СdesertТ. He resided first at Karoulia, and afterwards in a cave near St PaulТs Monastery .
Those years were marked by two significant happenings. Firstly, in 1941 Fr.Sophrony was ordained a priest. On becoming confessor and spiritual guide for many ascetics on Mt Athos, Fr.Sophrony had unique access to the personal experiences of all those who confessed to him. This allowed him to observe and analyse certain regularly-repeated patterns in monastic spiritual life. These observations became the basis for his ascetic teaching. The idea came to him of writing a book about the Athonite ascetic tradition, to record its principles and describe living examples which would help others to find their bearings.
Secondly, the 2nd World War was a time of prayer for the world so intense that Fr.SophronyТs health was affected . Through such prayer he came to discover directly the interdependence of his own being and that of the whole of mankind, whose ontological unity became a central feature of his anthropology . In prayer for the whole world Fr.Sophrony understood the principles of what he later wrote about as hypostatic being. He came to realise that persona is the opposite of individuum: it does not exclude that which is Сnot-IТ but, on the contrary, takes everything Сnot-IТ into СIТ .
Return to Paris (1947-1959)
In the post-war years Fr.Sophrony resumed contact with Balfour. The latter helped Fr.Sophrony to obtain a visa to go to France . It is difficult to establish any single cause for Fr.SophronyТs departure from Mt. Athos in 1947 . On the one hand, Fr.Sophrony had been entrusted by Silouan with the task of publishing his writings, if, as Silouan had put it, Сyou think they could be usefulТ. Paris, as the cultural heart of the Russian emigration, would be the best place for this, and could provide resources unavailable on Athos. On the other hand he wished to complete his theological studies at St Sergius; the Institute agreed to allow him to sit examinations for the whole 4-year course, and to provide him with accommodation and food . Other possible reasons are Fr.Sophrony's deteriorating health and the difficulties he faced as a non-Greek in post-war Greece: Сthe [political] situation is deteriorating as time goes byТ, he writes to Balfour .
Fr.Sophrony and the Institute of St Sergius
On his arrival in Paris, the Institute questioned Fr.Sophrony about his attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church. They had previously demanded СconfirmationТ from Fr.Sophrony that he would not Сundertake propaganda of the views of [the Moscow Patriarchate]Т, giving as a motive for their demand the explanation that Сthe Church had entered a period of ecclesiastical instabilityТ after the death of Metropolitan Evlogy (Ж8.viii.1946) . Their fear of any sympathy on Fr.SophronyТs part towards the Russian Patriarchate was not unjustified. Metropolitan SergiusТ ecclesiology was in accord with that of Fr.Sophrony: Sergius disagreed with the tendency among Russian Slavophile emigrants to deny the legitimacy of the СSoviet' or 'Red ChurchТ as an Orthodox Church, and, thus to propagate a distorted conception of the institution of the Church. The Slavophiles saw the Russian Church as unbreakably bound to its cultural roots. Metropolitan Sergius saw the Church as a heavenly as well as an earthly institution, which was not ultimately conditioned by earthly historical reality. This view is in line with Fr.SophronyТs universalistic vision .
After Metropolitan Evlogy's excommunication from the Russian Patriarchal Church in 1930 , he went under the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1931. The following years were marked by intense controversy between the supporters of Metropolitan Evlogy (notably the Institute of St Sergius) and adherents to the Russian Patriarchate (the Brotherhood of St Photius, including V.Lossky). The controversy reached a pinnacle in 1935-6 over the condemnation of BulgakovТs sophianic teaching . Despite EvlogyТs attempt at re-union with Moscow in 1945 , the appointment by Moscow in 1946 of Bishop Seraphim, a renowned collaborator with the Nazis, as successor of Evlogy only aggravated the situation . In this situation, Fr.Sophrony not only recognised the Moscow Patriarchate, but considered its Church as the Church of the living martyrs . He was far from sharing slavophilic nostalgia and never СcanonisedТ the Old Russia as a theological or ideological concept : such nationalism contradicts his concern with universal categories and personal asceticism. He gave preference to the patristic tradition, whereas many slavophilic Russians drew on Dostoyevsky as a theological source .
Naturally, Fr.SophronyТs sympathies towards the Russian Church became an obstacle for his acceptance at St Sergius . Yet he was not left without moral support: his new friends Vladimir Lossky and Fr.Boris Stark wholeheartedly shared his sympathies. Two years later Fr.Sophrony collaborated with Lossky on the magazine Messager de lТExarchat du Patriarche Russe en Europe Occidentale. To assert his allegiance to the Russian Patriarchate, in 1951 Fr.Sophrony published an article in which he paid glowing tribute to the memory of Patriarch Sergius, calling him an Сoutstanding pastorТ and comparing him to the greatest hierarchs of the Eastern ChurchЧBasil the Great, Athanasius of Alexandria, Photius of Constantinople . In response to the attacks of the anti-Soviet СcampТ against the СRed ChurchТ and its СRed leaderТ, he vigorously argues in favour of Patriarch SergiusТ approach, which recognises the twofold structure of the Church, comprising two levels: heavenly and earthly .
Having been rejected by St Sergius Institute, Fr.Sophrony never completed any formal theological training. He settled in the Russian House in the small suburb of StGenevieve-des-Bois, which had a Russian church . There he continued his ministry as a celebrating priest and father confessor . His health deteriorating, he underwent major surgery on a stomach ulcer .
His poor health did not however arrest his theological development. In Paris Fr.Sophrony was plunged once again into the Russian theological milieu. By now, however, he had acquired distinction as someone who possessed a living knowledge of monasticism, gained through his own ascetic practice, his acquaintance with St Silouan, and his experience as a spiritual guide. He continued widening his intellectual horizons by reading contemporary theological literature: it was then that he became more closely acquainted with the published works of S.Bulgakov, C.Kern , G.Florovsky , N.Berdyaev , V.Lossky , and N.Glubokovsky . Reading these writers Fr.Sophrony came to a deeper appreciation of his own living experience as a basis to counter the distorted conceptions of the monastic ascetic tradition which had begun to spread amongst Russian thinkers in Paris . His thought underwent a process of theological synthesis, as he evaluated the heritage of Russian theology and philosophy through the prism of his own ascetic experience.
These years proved most productive in terms of theological writings. He thus wrote his first major book Staretz Silouan and produced a hand-roneo edition in 1948 ; it came out as a СprofessionalТ edition in 1952 and brought about his fame. Later the book was translated into more than 22 languages. Its impact was world-wide: veneration of the Staretz grew, and he was numbered among the Saints by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 1987 . In this book Fr.Sophrony articulates the foundations of his later theological elaborations. He outlines the principles of his theology , and explains many of the concepts fundamental to his theological framework: prayer for the whole world, Godforsakenness, the principle of hypostatic being (СLove assimilates the life of the belovedТЧthe mutual coinherence of being) .
Fr.Sophrony and V.Lossky
Fr.Sophrony established contact with V.Lossky, to whom he first showed the writings of St Silouan. Despite common grounds in their position (their attitude to Russia, their deep roots in the patristic and СecclesiasticalТ traditions), they had different points of view on various theological issues. Thus, although Lossky appreciated the piety demonstrated in SilouanТs writings, he claimed they lacked theological value . The dismissive attitude of Lossky and others compelled Fr.Sophrony to write a theological introduction to the writings of Silouan, to explain the principles underlying his simple language. Once more we see Fr.Sophrony's theology as a bridge between thought-worlds.
There emerged two major points where Fr.SophronyТs views diverged from those of V.Lossky:
i) Whereas Lossky made much of the Dionysius the AreopagiteТs concept of Сdivine darknessТ , Fr.Sophrony is reserved in using the term СdarknessТ, and disagrees with a literal interpretation of the term on the basis of his own ascetic experience of divine light: СThis manner of expression is wholly abstract, since God is light... and always makes himself manifest as light.Т  He situates СdarknessТ on the verge between the entire divestment of the mind (the pure mind) and the apparition of divine light, and warns that there is no God in that darkness . This darkness signifies divine absence, while divine presence implies light. As for the СdarknessТ language in Gregory of Nyssa and Dionysius the Areopagite, it is not an existential event, but a figure of speech, a theological image, used by the Cappadocians as a weapon against Eunomian claims to see God's essence . From the mystical/existential point of view Fr.Sophrony would wholly agree with Dionysius and the Cappadocians, for whom divine darkness is an overwhelming light which Сexceedingly illuminatesТ . It is to Parisian misconceptions of the term that he objects. Their literalism in interpretation of and theological focus on God as darkness open the doors to confusion between the dereliction of the Carmelite Dark Night and the Сdarkness of theophanyТ .
ii) By drawing this sharp distinction between darkness/absence and light/presence, Fr.Sophrony, in contrast to Lossky, provides a clearer ground for a theological integration of the experience of Godforsakenness. Lossky sees Godforsakenness as a Western conception (derelictio). For him the loss of grace and Gethsemane-like experience results from dogmatic deviations (especially the filioque), as was the case, he believes, with St John of the Cross in his СDark Night of the SoulТ. Fr.Sophrony asserts that periods of the loss of grace are necessary stages in ascetic growth, and are in fact paradoxically a manifestation of divine love . The experience of Godforsakenness contains life-generating divine power .
In the years 1950-7 as the main editor of Messager Fr.Sophrony worked side by side with V.Lossky and naturally the themes of Fr.SophronyТs theology of that time show signs of exposure to LosskyТs interests. Among other articles  he published his famous texts on С≈динство ÷ерквиТ (1950) and Сќб основах православного подвижничестваТ (1952).
The article СThe Unity of the ChurchТ in particular reflects the influence of current theological debates: many themes are paralleled in contemporary theologians, notably Lossky . The first part is particularly important for tracing the new theological perspectives in Fr.SophronyТs development. (The other three parts of the article are dedicated to the question of contemporary Church politics.) The first section is devoted to the question of trinitarian theology. It is from that time that the trinitarian model became ever-present as the background of Fr.SophronyТs writings. For the first time this article presents in clearly developed form his perception of the Trinity as the model for the human being. The article uses the trinitarian model for human ontological principles to justify Fr.SophronyТs view on the jurisdictional organisation of the Body of the Church . Later, a new version of the article was published in French , where the trinitarian model was applied not to the Church alone but to the whole of mankind, and the context of intra-ecclesiastical polemics was completely removed.
Lossky remained important to Fr.Sophrony; in later years he recommended his explanations of the hypostasis and his forthright accounts of the filioque. Comparison between them is still illuminating for Fr.Sophrony's later writings. In his later books another difference emerges more explicitly: Fr.Sophrony's maximalist view of human nature. In His Life is Mine and We Shall See Him as He Is, he asserts the equality (тожество) of the divine and deified human nature . Lossky was not inclined to bridge the gulf between God and man in such a bold manner.
Great Britain (1959-93)
While Fr.Sophrony was living at the Church in St.Genevieve-des-Bois, in the late 50s many people used to come to him for spiritual guidance. By 1958 Fr.Sophrony had a permanent group of people, living near him and seeking the monastic life . By that time Fr.Sophrony had already been enjoying considerable popularity in the UK. His book Staretz Silouan had been partially translated into English and was published in 1958 under the title The Undistorted Image: Staretz Silouan, 1866-1938 . It had a favourable reception by the British ecclesiastical press . Fr.Sophrony had already visited the UK and delivered a number of talks, papers and homilies . For example, he gave a talk at Oxford on the occasion of the commemoration of V.Lossky .
Thus Fr.Sophrony, with the help of people in the UK , succeeded in buying a property in Essex (at Tolleshunt Knights, Maldon) which he had first inspected in 1958. He moved there in 1959 to form a religious community with a group from France which then numbered 6 people . That is how the present Community of St John the Baptist came into being. The Russian Patriarchate gave a positive answer to Fr.SophronyТs request to move under the jurisdiction of Metr. Anthony of Sourozh . In 1965 the monastery with Patriarch AlexyТs blessing became subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, who later granted the Monastery the status of СstavropegicТ.
To this community Fr.Sophrony dedicated himself until his death in 1993. In his monastery Fr.Sophrony attempted to restore the deepest principles of monastic life, so as to avoid distorted conceptions of the coenobitic life and its purpose. His main concern was primarily inner asceticism: inner perfection is more valuable than perfect outward conformity. The monastery does not have a written code of monastic rules, which would regulate the hours of sleep, fasting, etc. His teaching was largely focused on cultivation of the mind and the heart . While he was far from indifferent to everyday details and mundane tasks, he tended to integrate them within the wider spectrum of his theological framework.
It is notable that circumstances were such that the community included both monks and nuns, since Fr.Sophrony could not run two separate communities. The Typikon (prayer rule) of the monastery is distinct from the traditional Eastern Orthodox monastery. Instead of the service books with their daily cycle, the monastery often uses the Jesus prayer in the form of common worshipЧinvocation of the divine name, usually adding up to 4 hours each day. The liturgy is celebrated three or four times per week. On the one hand this way was more appropriate to a small multinational community: reading services in one particular language would have excluded some (members or visitors) from full participation in the service. On the other hand, this was Fr.SophronyТs own practice during his life in the desert and the same rule that he once recommended to D.Balfour . When applying such a practice, Fr.Sophrony found precedents for replacing daily offices by the Jesus Prayer (recited in the Church in common) in the Athonite scete practice, notably in the Vita of Nicodemus of Mt. Athos and in Paisy VelichkovskyТs monastery .
During this period Fr.SophronyТs writing moves onto another theological level. They reflect his effort to build a theological bridge between oneТs ascetic experience and dogmatic vision. Naturally, he subjected his own ascetic experience to further theological analysis. His theology was now ever more firmly controlled by christo-trinitarian implications of the notion of persona.
This shift can be detected, for example, in his correspondence with various people. One of the longest-running series (1958-1986) in his СtheologicalТ correspondence is addressed to his sister in Moscow M.Kalashnikova : his letter of 7/i-1968 is one of his first attempts to formulate the principle of persona .
The further exigency for a firmer theological grounding of his message came as a result of his interactive dialogue with the Western world. He delivered a number of papers on various occasions: meetings, assemblies, receptions, where he expounded his viewpoint on numerous ecclesiastical questions of our time to a non-orthodox audience: feminism , the relationship between the East and the West , the concept of sanctity, iconography and other subjects. In 1962 he took part in the 2nd Patristic conference in Oxford, where he delivered a paper СDe la necessite des trois renoncements chez St.Cassien le Romain et St.Jean ClimaqueТ.
The slightly fuller translation of Staretz Silouan came out as Monk of Mt. Athos (1973), which comprised a selection from Fr.SophronyТs explanation of SilouanТs life and teaching, and Wisdom from Mt. Athos (1975) Ч the writings of Silouan himself. His new introduction to this book reflects his growing theological attention to the concept of hypostasis .
His second major work, His Life Is Mine (1977), proved a watershed in his theological thought. This first 'autobiographical' book is actually addressed to a wider circle in the spiritual situation of the 1970s. In it we see the quintessence of the theological ideas of his old age. He writes about such concepts as persona , the cognition of God  and anthropology , while developing further his earlier themes of prayer for the whole world (the prayer of Gethsemane), suffering, and the contemplation of the uncreated light. In this book Fr.Sophrony asserts commensurability between the Creator and his creation, which constitutes the core of his anthropology . This allowed him to develop even further the application of the divine model (both the Trinity-model and Christ-model) to human beings.
This book prepared the ground for his final work "¬идеть Ѕога как ќн есть" (Essex, 1985). It had a mixed reception. In the West the book was welcomed: some found the book to be an event  and even a breakthrough in Christian ascetic theology . On the Orthodox side, with a few exceptions , the reception was less than supportive, especially from Russian readers . The main points of criticism were his ambitious frankness in putting on paper his personal experience of God , his blatantly high opinion of himself , his Сfamiliarity with GodТ , his mystical sensitivity (visionary aspect) , his allegedly over-exuberant language . Some criticism was so bitter that, together with his declining strength, it discouraged Fr.Sophrony from producing any other theological writing. We Shall See Him is marked by a deeper analysis of the dogmatic inheritance of the Church. It marks the completion of Fr.SophronyТs theological formulation, and contains his boldest theological ideas. On the one hand Fr.Sophrony develops, especially by further self-description than previously, themes already touched upon in the previous books: uncreated light, liturgical prayer, cognition of God, and others. On the other hand he undertakes a more articulate theological presentation of various themes: kenosis and Godforsakenness, the remembrance of death, persona, love to the point of self-hatred.
In the years preceding his death Fr.Sophrony delivered a number of talks to his monastic community on a regular basis. These talks provide valuable evidence of the full merging of his dogmatic and ascetic ideas. His Testament issued in 1991 sets the trinitarian model as a principle of life for the monastic community . This was his final written theological farewell before his death on 11th July 1993. Fr.Sophrony entrusted to the community his considerable archive, which is yet to be published. His community continues his theological message through its pastoral and publishing activity. M.Egger thus describes its present situation:
Today it numbers 25 monks and nuns of twelve different nationalities. It is a place where hundreds of pilgrims from all over the world are welcomed: it is not only one of the main centres from which Orthodoxy is radiated in the West, but also one of the strongest affirmations of the universality of Orthodoxy .
Fr.SophronyТs theological formation determined the originality of his theological method, marked by active dialogue between various thought-worlds, such as current religious philosophy, the patristic tradition, and reflection on his personal mystical experience. The synthetic character of his theology is controlled by an exigency to create a bridge between differing worlds: the modern Western world, the Russian intellectual elite in Paris, with its intense intellectual search, and Athonite monasticism, with its ancient patristic tradition and concern for the existential (practical-ascetic) relevance of theology. Fr.SophronyТs theology evolves as an integration of these various strands of approach to theological questions into an organic synthesis through the prism of his own mystical experience. This is reflected in the principles of his theology, to which we now turn.
1) Z.Zakharou's thesis `H pragmatwsh tAj OpostatikAj ?rcAj st? theologia toa Arcimandritou Sofroniou (University of Thessaloniki, 1998) is the first exposition of Fr.Sophrony's teaching. However, it is addressed primarily to the Greek academic world with its particular theological concerns. It does not aim at comparative-critical analysis of his background, and of his dialogue with various spheres of contemporary and traditional theology.
2) In Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, ed. N. Sakharov (Moscow, 1997), p.17, Fr.Sophrony stresses his lack of interest in relating an exterior biographical account.
3) M.Egger's 'Moine' (I, II and III) (Egger M. СArchimandrite Sophrony, Moine pour le MondeТ, Buisson Ardent: Cahiers Saint-Silouane lТAthonite (Pully). 1 (1996), pp. 23-41; 2 (1996), pp. 40-53; 3, pp. 17-30) contains the fullest biographical account. Yet being neither historically accurate nor exhaustive, it also does not account fully for Fr.Sophrony's theological formation. On other historical reviews of Fr.Sophrony's life, see Edmonds R. СForewordТ, in Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine (Oxford, 1977), pp.7-13; Steer P. СObituary: Sophrony (Sakharov) (1896-93)Т, Sobornost XVI, 1 (1994), pp.44-8; Egger M. СArchimandrite Sophrony, Moine pour le mondeТ, Contacts 163 (1993), pp.163-77.
4) M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), p.27; cf. Steer P. СObituaryТ, p.44.
5) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.18.
6) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога как ќн есть (Essex, 1985), p.34.
7) See Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма близким люд¤м: ѕереписка с семьей протоиере¤ Ѕориса —тарка, ed. N. Stark (Moscow, 1997), p.94; ѕисьма в –оссию, p.24; cf.M.Egger, 'Moine'(I), p.33.
8) M.Egger, 'Moine'(I), p.34.
9) Daval J.-L. Journal de lТart moderne 1884-1914: Les annees decisives (Geneve, 1979), p.12.
10) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.22.
11) Ibid. p.21.
12) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.147.
13) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, pp.19, 23.
14) See Bori P. & Bettiolo P. Movimenti religiosi in Russa prima della rivoluzione (1900-1917), p.52.
15) On the religious-philosophical societies, see Scherrer J. СLes УSociétés philosophico-religieusesФ et la quête idéologique de lТintelligentsia russe avant 1917Т, Cahiers du monde russe et soviétique XV (1974), pp. 297-314.
16) Zernov N. Russian Religious Renaissance of the Twentieth Century (London, 1963), pp.210ff.
17) See P.Bori, 'Il radicalism evangelico tolstojano, e i movimenti settari', in op.cit., pp.83-113. For the summary of L.Tolstoy's approach to Christianity, see Weisbein N. LТevolution religieuse de Tolstoi (Paris, 1960).
18) P.Bori, 'La nuova "conscienza religiosa" e i circoli filosofico-religiosi', in op.cit., pp.114ff.
19) P.Bori, 'S.Bulgakov: A proposito del cristianesimo primitive', in op.cit., pp.179ff., esp.pp.185ff.
20) On the Slavophiles, see Riasanovsky N. Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles: a Study of Romantic Ideology (Cambridge, Mass., 1952)..
21) See Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.11ff.
22) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.21.
23) Ibid. p.19.
24) M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), pp.32-3; Edmonds R. СForewordТ, p.7.
25) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, pp.20-1; cf.¬идеть Ѕога, p.55.
26) See 'The Origin of Good and Evil', in Berdyaev N. Destiny of Man, trans. N. Duddington (London, 1937), pp.23-44.
27) See Lossky N. »стори¤ русской философии (Moscow, 1991), p.302.
28) N.Berdyaev, op.cit., p.25.
29) N.Lossky, »стори¤, p.300.
30) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.8.
31) Ibid. p.24.
32) Edmonds R. СForewordТ, p.8; M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), p.36.
33) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.13; cf.M.Egger, 'Moine' (I), p.36.
34) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.25.
35) Ibid. p.22.
37) Ibid. pp.22-3.
38) M.Egger, 'Moine' (II), p.48. Fr.Sophrony's experience in his childhood is recorded in Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.34.
39) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.179.
40) Archimandrite Sophrony. Correspondence with D. Balfour (Gennadios Library, Athens), C16 (18/iv-1935), p.4.
41) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.14.
42) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, pp.23-4.
43) See Anderson P. No East or West (Paris, 1985), pp.40ff.
44) Ibid. p.48.
45) See N.Zernov, Renaissance, p.210; P.Anderson, op.cit., p.47.
46) P.Anderson, op.cit., p.44.
47) Lowrie D. St Sergius in Paris (London, 1954), pp.14ff.; P.Anderson, op.cit., p.63; Kniazeff A. LТInstitute Saint-Serge. De LТacademie dТautrefois au rayonnement dТaujourdТhui, Le Point Theologique 14 (Paris, 1974), pp.42-3.
48) See N.Zernov, op.cit., p.231; A.Kniazeff, Saint-Serge, p.43. For the history of the Institute, see D.Lowrie, St Sergius; A.Kniazeff, op.cit.
49) M.Egger, 'Moine', (II), p.50. D.Lowrie, St.Sergius, p.20, and A.Kniazeff, Saint-Serge, p.43, mention 29 students in the first year.
50) Fr.Sophrony recalls it in Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.26; cf.P.Anderson, op.cit., pp.58.
51) N.Zernov, op.cit., p.231.
52) D.Lowrie, op.cit., pp.19-21.
53) For S.Bulgakov's biography, see Bulgakov S. јвтобиографические заметки (ѕосмертное издание) (Paris, 1946); idem, С»з дневникаТ, ¬естник –усского ’ристианского ƒвижени¤ 129 (1979), pp.237-268; Antonov N. –усские светские богословы и их религиозно-общественное миросозерцание (St Petersburg, 1912), pp.209-90; L.Zander, Сќтец —ергий Ѕулгаков. раткий очерк его жизни и творчестваТ, in Bulgakov S., ѕравославие. ќчерки учени¤ ѕравославной ÷еркви (Paris 1965), pp.5-26; Schultze B. Russische Denker. Ihre Stellung zu Christus, Kirche und Papsttum (Wien 1950), pp.335-58; J.Scherrer, 'Vereinigungen', pp.86-90, 213-14; Zenkovsky V. »стори¤ русской философии, 2 vols. (Paris, 1950), vol. II, pp.430-57; Świerkosz S. LТEglise visible selon Serge Bulgakov. Structure hierarchique et sacramentelle, Orientalia Christiana Analecta 211 (Roma, 1980), pp.7-15; Crum W. СSergius N. Bulgakov: from Marxism to SophiologyТ, St VladimirТs Theological Quarterly (New York), 27 (1983), pp.3-26.
54) D.Lowrie, op.cit., p.21.
55) Graves C. The Holy Spirit in the Theology of Sergei Bulgakov (Geneva, 1972), p.3. We deliberately leave out the analysis of Bulgakov's philosophical roots as this theme is too vast to be covered within the present research.
56) Nichols A. Light from the East (1995, London), p.59.
57) See P.Bori, 'Dal marxismo all'idealismo', in Movimenti, pp.226-32; cf. Zander L. Ѕог и мир. ћиросозерцание отца —ерги¤ Ѕулгакова, 2 vols. (Paris, 1948), vol. I, pp.29-41.
58) On Bulgakov's concept of Sophia, see Litva A. La УSophiaФ dans la creation selon la doctrine de S. Bulgakoff (Rome, 1951); L.Zander, Ѕог и мир (1), pp.181-230; idem, СVater Sergius BulgakoffТ, Internationale Kirchliche Zeitschrift 36 (1946), pp.17-30; Newman B. СSergius Bulgakov and the Theology of Divine WisdomТ, SVTQ 22 (1978), pp.39-73. On criticism of Bulgakov's concept of Sophia, see Lossky V. —пор о —офии (Paris, 1936), pp.23ff.
59) Bulgakov S. јгнец Ѕожий (Paris, 1937), p.207.
60) Bulgakov S. ”тешитель (Paris, 1936), p.66.
61) Ibid. p.67.
62) Ibid. pp.67-8; јгнец Ѕожий, p.118.
63) Bulgakov S. ”тешитель, p.79.
64) A.Nichols, Light, p.59; cf. Gorodetsky N. The Humiliated Christ in Modern Russian Thought (London, 1938), pp.156ff.
65) Bulgakov S. јгнец Ѕожий, pp.121-22; ”тешитель, p.253.
66) Bulgakov S. јгнец Ѕожий, p.252.
67) Ibid. pp.348ff.
68) Ibid. pp.434ff.
69) Bulgakov S. ”тешитель, p.289; cf.јгнец Ѕожий, p.345.
70) See infra.
71) Bulgakov S. јгнец Ѕожий, pp.421ff.
72) Ibid. pp.427.
73) Bulgakov S. —вет Ќевечерний: —озерцани¤ и умозрени¤ (Moscow, 1917), pp.278, 283; јгнец Ѕожий, pp.158-61, 115-17, 209, 258.
74) Bulgakov S. —вет Ќевечерний, pp.277-78; јгнец Ѕожий, p.160.
75) Bulgakov S. —вет Ќевечерний, pp.278, 281; јгнец Ѕожий, p.114.
76) Bulgakov S. јгнец Ѕожий, p.138; —вет Ќевечерний, p.282.
77) Ibid. pp.278, 281.
78) Bulgakov S. јгнец Ѕожий, pp.160, 215, 258, 279.
79) On the controversy over Bulgakov's theology, see Lialine C. СLe debat sophiologiqueТ, Irenikon 13 (1936), pp.168-205; V.Lossky, —пор.
80) For a summary of this development, see Clement O. Berdiaev. Un philosophe russe en France (Paris, 1991), pp.39-62.
81) Berdyaev N. Сѕроблема человекаТ, ѕуть 50 (1936), p.7; cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. His Life Is Mine, p.77.
82) N.Berdyaev, op.cit., pp.15-6; cf. Vysheslavtsev B. Сќбраз Ѕожий в существе человекаТ, ѕуть 49 (1935), p.67.
83) Archimandrite Sophrony. Ascetic Discourses (1989-93), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex), A-7.
84) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.25; ќ молитве (Paris, 1991), p.35.
85) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.26.
86) See ibid.
87) For the analysis of the formula, see Larchet J.-C. СLa formule УTiens ton esprit en enfer et ne desespere pasФ a la lumiere de la tradition patristiqueТ, Buisson Ardent 1 (1996), pp.51-68.
88) This was the spiritual advice given by Fr.Sophrony to an Athonite monk (Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.27); cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. Ascetic Discourses (1989-93), A-30.
89) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.14.
90) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан (Paris, 1952), p.38.
91) Gooskens B. LТexperience de lТEsprit Saint chez le Staretz Silouane (Paris, 1971), passim.
92) For the studies of Silouan's spirituality, see Buisson Ardent vols.I-III. For the bibliography of the studies on Silouan, see P.Stange, 'Bibliographie' Buisson Ardent vol. I, pp.95-8; vol. II, pp.121-22. The most significant are B.Gooskens, op.cit.; Cervera C. СSilvano del Monte Athos, il monaco che amavo teneramente la Madre di DioТ, Mater Ecclesiæ 16 (1980), pp.45-54; Cremaschi L. СLa vergogna di stare ogli inferi secondo Silvano del Monte AthosТ, Parola Spirito e Vita 20 (1989), pp.285-303.
93) For the analysis of the patristic precedents, see Ware K. СУWe Must Pray For AllФ: Salvation According to St SilouanТ, Sobornost XIX, 1 (1997), pp.34-55. On Silouan's approach, see Fr.Sophrony's analysis in Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, 22ff.
94) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, pp.45, 111, 147.
95) Ibid. p.22.
96) Ibid. p.175. On the concept of 'Adam our father' ('total Adam'), see K.Ware, op.cit., pp.44-50.
97) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, pp.100, 192. See Larchet J.-C. СLТamour des ennemis selon saint Silouan lТAthonite et dans la tradition patristiqueТ, Buisson Ardent 2 (1996), p.91. For the patristic precedents, see J.-C.Larchet, op.cit., pp.66-95. On the scriptural background, see Bobrinskoy B. СLТamour des ennemis dans les EvangilesТ, Buisson Ardent 2 (1996), pp.54-58, pp.54-8. For Fr.Sophrony's analysis of Silouan's teaching, see Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, pp.49-50. See also Forest J. Making Enemies Friends: Reflections on the Teaching of Jesus about the Love of Enemies (Basingstoke, 1987), pp.61-5.
98) See infra.
99) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, p.131.
100) Ibid. pp.120, 129.
101) Ibid. p.131.
102) Ibid. p.175.
103) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.18.
104) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 14 (21/i-1933), p.2.
105) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.8.
106) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.18.
107) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13.
108) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (12-18/xii-1932), p.9.
109) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), pp.8, 12.
110) Ibid. p.15; Balfour, 111 (12-18/xii-1932), p.7; Balfour, 112 (14/xii-1932), p.6.
111) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.11; Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.15; Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.4; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-32), p.6.
112) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.8.
113) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13; Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.9; Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), p.25.
114) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.14; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), p.7.
115) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13.
116) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.17.
117) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.13; Balfour, 18 (22/x-1932), p.14; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), p.8.
118) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 17 (15/viii-1932), p.10.
119) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C16 (18/iv-1935), p.3.
120) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), p.5.
121) Ibid. p.27.
122) Ibid. p.8.
123) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 10 (3/xii-1932), pp.23-4.
124) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (12-18/xii-1932), p.1.
125) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), pp.19ff.
126) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (12/xii-1932), pp.6ff.
127) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C11 (19/iv-1936), pp.12-3.
128) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C4 (16/i-1935), p.3.
129) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C1 (10/viii-1934), p.3.
130) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C12 (7/v-1936), p.18.
131) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C13 (26/ix-1936), p.11.
132) See infra.
133) In Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, p.115, Fr.Sophrony advises against being carried away by 'artificial tech-niques'.
134) See Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, pp.78-9.
135) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C13 (19/ix-1936), pp.22-3.
136) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (18/xii-1932), pp.6-7; Balfour, 12 (14/xii-1932), pp.27-8.
137) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, C6 (26/v-1935), p.3.
138) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D4 (21/viii-1945), p.12.
139) Ibid. p.17.
140) Ibid. p.14.
141) Ibid. pp.14-5.
143) See infra.
144) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D4 (21/viii-1945), p.21.
145) Ibid. p.5.
146) Ibid. p.23.
147) Ibid. p.24.
148) Ibid. p.26.
149) Fr.Sophrony refers to his life in the desert in Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.48, 105, 115, 139-40, 144, 171, 200; cf.Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, pp.44-5 (footnote 139).
150) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.104-5, 200; Balfour, D1 (6/v-1945), pp.1-2; Balfour, D5 (4/xii-1945), p.1; Balfour, 17 (1/i-1947), p.3.
151) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D5 (4/xii-1945), p.1.
152) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.200.
153) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D7 (1/i-1947), p.3.
154) In Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, p.171, Fr.Sophrony refers to 'circumstances' that made him leave Athos, but he does not specify them.
155) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, D6 (30/x-1946), p.3.
156) Ibid. p.4.
157) Quoted ibid.
158) See infra.
159) On the history of this rift, see Georgievsky E. ѕуть моей жизни, ed. T. Manoukhina (Paris, 1947), pp.618-22.
160) See Nichols A. СBulgakov and SophiologyТ, Sobornost XIII, 2 (1992), p.25; cf. Starogorodsky S. С”каз ћосковской ѕатриархии ѕреосв¤щенному ћитрополиту Ћитовскому и ¬иленскому ≈левôериюТ, in ќ —офии ѕремудрости Ѕожией (Paris, 1935), pp.5-19; V.Lossky, —пор.
161) See Gillet L. СMetropolitan EvlogiТ, Sobornost 34 (1946), p.5.
162) See Mascall E., ed. СConcerning JurisdictionsТ, Sobornost 34 (1946), pp.6-7; Alexy I, Patriarch Сѕостановление —в¤щенного —инода ѕравославной ÷еркви от 9 августа 1946 г.Т, ∆урнал —в¤щенного —инода –усской ѕравославной ÷еркви (Moscow) 24 (1946), p.13; also in —корбное дело (Paris, 1952), p.32.
163) For Fr.Sophrony's opinion about the Russian Church, see Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 15 (18/ii-1933), p.170; Balfour, C1 (10/viii-1934), p.185.
164) Cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.167.
165) For N.Berdyaev and P.Evdokimov for example, the ideas of Dostoyevsky acquired a quasi-theological authority. See N.Berdyaev, Dostoyevsky, trans. D. Attwater (London, 1934), passim; cf.idem, Destiny of Man, trans. N. Duddington (London, 1937), pp.42, 74. Also A.Nichols (Light, p.196) notes that 'Evdokimov portrayed Dostoyevsky... as the prophet of Christianity renewed by the experience of atheism'.
166) See V.Zenkovsky, Letter (1947), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
167) Archimandrite Sophrony Сƒес¤тилетие кончины св¤т. ѕатриарха —ерги¤Т, Messager 19 (1954), pp.98ff. This article reaffirmed V.Lossky's attitude to Patriarch Sergius, expressed in V.Lossky's СЋичность и мысль св¤т. ѕатриарха —ерги¤Т, in ƒуховное наследие ѕатр. —ерги¤ (Moscow, 1947), pp.263-70.
168) Ibid. pp.101ff.
169) For the history of the house, see —корбное дело, pp.3ff.
170) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма близким люд¤м, p.28.
171) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.71; cf.ѕисьма близким люд¤м, pp.28, 35.
172) In Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.125, Fr.Sophrony refers to Bulgakov's ideas from Bulgakov S. упина Ќеопалима¤ (Paris, 1927), p.49, and јгнец Ѕожий, p.164; cf. Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, p.28.
173) See Archimandrite Sophrony. La felicite de connaitre la voie (Geneve, 1988), p.55.
174) See supra.
175) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Felicite, pp.51, 53.
176) See Archimandrite Sophrony. On the Ecumenical Dialogue (Colchester, 1961), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex), p.11.
177) N.Berdyaev ('The aim of asceticism', in Spirit and Reality, trans. George Reavey (London, 1939), pp.72-99) argues that monasticism contradicts the spirit of Christ's commandments (p.78), 'perverts the very idea of obedience' (p.85). See Spidlik T. LТidee russe: une autre vision de lТhomme (Rome, 1994), pp.252-53.
178) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма близким люд¤м, p.39.
179) For the documents of Silouan's canonisation, see Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕреподобный —илуан јфонский (Essex, 1990), pp.i-iii.
180) See 'Ѕлагодать и догматическое сознание', in Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, pp.81-84.
181) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, p.53.
182) In Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, p.52, Fr.Sophrony gives Lossky's opinion on the subject.
183) V.Lossky, 'Divine Darkness', in The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, trans. the Fellowship of St Albans and St Sergius (Cambridge, 1991), pp.23-43.
184) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, p.79; cf.ibid. p.58; see 'ќ мраке совлечени¤', in —тарец —илуан, pp.78-80.
185) Ibid. p.78. See infra.
186) Archimandrite Sophrony. Felicite, p.38.
187) Dionysius the Areopagite. De mystica theologia, in Corpus Dionysiacum II: Pseudo-Dionysius Areopagita, De coelesti hierarchia, De ecclesiastica hierarchia, De mystica theologia, Epistulae, ed. G. Heil and A. M. Ritter, Patristische Texte und Studien (PTS), ed. K. Aland and E. Mühlenberg (Berlin-New York). 36 (1991), p.142; cf. Dionysius the Areopagite. Epistulae, in Corpus Dionysiacum II, p.162.
188) Some Western scholars (for example Graef H. The Light and the Rainbow; a Study in Christian Spirituality from Its Roots in the Old Testament and Its Development through the New Testament and the Fathers to Recent Times (London, 1959), pp.158ff.) see the Carmelites as heirs of Dionysius and Gregory of Nyssa. See infra.
189) Archimandrite Sophrony. —тарец —илуан, pp.14, 20-1, 69, 79, 90, 97.
190) Ibid. p.90.
191) Archimandrite Sophrony. Сѕ¤тилетие »нтронизации —в¤тейшего јлекси¤, ѕатриарха ћосковского и все¤ –усиТ, Messager 1 (1950), pp.7-10; С—в¤тое молчаниеТ, Messager 1 (1950), pp.10-6; С«аметка к новому переводу Ѕожественных √имнов преп. —имеона Ќового ЅогословаТ, Messager 17 (1954), pp.20-4; Сќтзыв на книгу јрхим. —пиридона Ућои миссии в —ибириФТ, Messager 9 (1952), pp.28-9; 'јвтокефали¤ „ехословацкой ÷еркви', Messager 9 (1952), pp.21-2; Сјпостольское служение епископовТ, Messager 12 (1952), pp.12-3; Сƒес¤тилетие кончины —в¤т. ѕатриарха —ерги¤Т, Messager 19 (1954), pp.98-105; С—лово на ѕреображение √осподне. ќ —вете ‘аворскомТ, Messager 19 (1954), pp.127-35.
192) The article stirred theological debate: cf. Dejaifve G. СSobornost or PapacyТ, ECQ 10 (1953-4), Part I: СThe Idea of Sobornost in Contemporary OrthodoxyТ, esp.pp.81ff.; Ruppert H.-J., - СDas Prinzip der SobornostТ in der russischen OrthodoxieТ, Kirche im Osten 16 (Göttingen 1973), pp.47ff.
193) See infra.
194) See Archimandrite Sophrony. Felicite, pp.11-55.
195) Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.107, 164, 184 etc. See infra.
196) See Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.62.
197) Ibid. p.66.
198) Notably N.Mosley ('Introduction', p.38) sees Silouan's writings as having not only theological but also artistic literary value. J.-R.Lewis ('Reviews', p.61) writes that an anthology of Russian literature is 'no longer conceivable without "Adam's lament" by Silouan the Athonite'.
199) Archimandrite Sophrony. Homily at the Church of St Sergius of Radonezh (London, 1952), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
200) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕодвиг богословской защиты догмата ÷екрви (Oxford, 1958), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
201) See Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, p.67.
202) Ibid. pp.64-5.
203) See Patr.Alexii I, 'Letter', in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
204) For Fr.Sophony's emphasis on 'inner asceticism', see Archimandrite Sophrony. Ascetic Discourses (1989-93), B-12, C-3 etc.
205) Archimandrite Sophrony. Balfour, 11 (11-18/xii-1932), pp.14ff.
206) Cf. Karambelas C. Contemporary Ascetics of Mount Athos (Platina, Cal., 1992), p.467. On Nicodemus' similar practice, see Kotsonis I.'Athonikon gerontikon (Thessaloniki, 1992), p.332. On Paisy's rule, see Chetverikov S. —тарец ѕаисий ¬еличковский (Paris, 1976), pp.80ff.
207) He also maintained correspondence with Russian clergy and various lay people (Anthony Bloom; Basil Krivoshein; G.Florovsky; Cassian Bezobrazov; ѕисьма близким люд¤м; R.Edmonds; Koulomzin).
208) Archimandrite Sophrony. ѕисьма в –оссию, pp.114-16.
209) Archimandrite Sophrony. On Feminism. Talk at Young Wives' Fellowship (Halstead, 1965), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
210) Archimandrite Sophrony. On the Ecumenical Dialogue; Archimandrite Sophrony. The West and The East: Talk at Witham Deanery Clerical Association (Witham, 1962), in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex).
211) See 'Foreword', pp.8ff.
212) Archimandrite Sophrony, His Life Is Mine, pp.43ff.
213) Ibid. pp.17ff.
214) Ibid. pp.37ff.
215) Ibid. p.77.
216) Cf. Gimenez M. СVoir Dieu tel quТil est by Archimandrite SophronyТ, Sobornost VII, 1 (1985), pp.72-3; Moore H. СRadical RedemptionТ, Christian Missionary Society Newsletter 484 (1988), pp.1-2; Halleux A., de. СArchimandrite Sophrony СVoir Dieu tel quТil estТ, Revue théologique de Louvain 16, 3 (1985), pp.361-363; Miguel J., de. СArchimandrite Sophrony, СVoir Dieu tel quТil estТ, Comunidades 48 (1985), p.93.
217) Cf. Franquesa A. СArchimandrite Sophrony, Voir Dieu tel quТil estТ, Questions de Vida Christiana 124 (1984), pp.130-31; Luis P., de. СArchimandrite Sophrony, СVoir Dieu tel quТil estТ, Estudio Agustiniano 3 (1984), p.49.
218) In the Letter to Archimandrite Sophrony (13.vii.84), p.1 (in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex)), K.Ware wrote that 'it is a remarkable book'.
219) Thus strong criticism came from B.Krivoshein, Letter.1 (4/iv-1986); cf. Letter.2 (24/v-1986) (in the Archive of the Monastery of St John the Baptist (Essex)).
220) B.Krivoshein, Letter.2 (24/v-1986).
221) See Khodanov M. СУ¬идеть Ѕога как ќн естьФ схимархимандрита —офрони¤ —ахарова в свете св¤тоотеческой традицииТ, ƒуховный мир: сборник работ учашихс¤ ћосковских духовных школ 2 (Sergiev Posad, 1996), pp.59, 64-65 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.35, 45); Osipov A. СѕредисловиеТ, in ѕравильное состо¤ние духа (смирение, внимательность, молитва): »з творений св¤тител¤ »гнати¤ (Ѕр¤нчанинова) (Moscow, 1998), p.7; idem, Сƒуховна¤ жизнь христианина: »нтервьюТ, ѕравославна¤ ћосква 8-9 (1997), p.10.
222) M.Khodanov, op.cit., pp.68-70 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.102, 200, 244); A.Osipov, 'ѕредисловие', p.7; idem, 'ƒуховна¤ жизнь христианина', p.10.
223) M.Khodanov, op.cit., pp.62-5 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.139-40, 56, 66-7); A.Osipov, 'ѕредисловие', pp.6-7; idem, 'ƒуховна¤ жизнь христианина', p.10.
224) M.Khodanov, op.cit., p.68 (cf. Archimandrite Sophrony. ¬идеть Ѕога, pp.118, 127, 102); A.Osipov, 'ѕредисловие', pp.6-7; idem, 'ƒуховна¤ жизнь христианина', p.10.
225) See infra.
226) Egger M. СPrefaceТ, in Archimandrite Sophrony, Words of Life, trans. by Sr. Magdalene (Essex, 1996), p.5.