[email protected] 805-875-5153

The dispute about Rozanov, which happened on the portal Tradition

Spread the love

Today: 224

The dispute about Rozanov, which happened on the portal Tradition

On February 5, 1919, under the walls of the Monastery of St. Sergius, confessing and communing, in peace with the Church died a poor, hungry, sick old man – the great Russian writer and thinker Vasily Vasilyevich Rozanov. Two years ago I ordered Vladimir Davidovich Schneider, who makes Rosenov's “Foliage” for usa-health-online.com. Like many other Christians Vladimir Davidovich, Rozanov's work seemed to be extremely “strange” (to put it mildly). On the day of Rozanov's death, I decided to publish our dispute-correspondence. And at the end I give a list of articles by Christian thinkers about Rozanov.

W. D. Schneider:

“Finished layout 12 volumes of comp. V. Rozanov ("The Apocalypse of Our Time"). Do not take the trouble to read the following my opinion on the feasibility of publishing a book. I would also like to note that I am not a critic, and all of the following is my personal indignant opinion of an Orthodox Christian.

The whole book of Rozanov is imbued with anti-Christianity. The text is a schizophrenic nonsense of an aged author who has turned into a sexually preoccupied marazmatik (God save me from such a fate), who thinks he has the right not only to talk about Christianity and the books of Holy Scripture (not even bothering to reconcile rarely used quotes), but also to judge … The last creation Rozanov is what A. Voznesensky called much later “pornography of the spirit”! That there is only one quote: “CHRIST TURNED ON A NEW HUMAN PERSON … RECURRENT BY CREATING YOUR FATHER. This is the noumenon of the gospel. And why did Christ come to earth. ”This is how crooked vision and what kind of upturned mind one must possess in order to read the Gospel so! ..

Throughout the text, on almost every page, the author seeks (deliberately !!) to humiliate Christ, Christianity, the apostles, oppose Christianity to Judaism, resorting to distortions and direct slander, discarding disagreeable facts and textology, and attracting people to the place and out of place issued as revelations, fabrications.

The fact that the author in the early texts seemed to be self-admiration, originality, self-exaltation, went beyond common sense (“And Christ turned pale before Rozanov, who reminded him of the grain.” (P. 180) in an attempt to interpret the Revelation of John the Theologian in his pro-Semitic tone.

And what a drift! From the disgusting anti-Semitism texts of the process of Beilis to the complete denial of Christian values ​​and fervent pro-Semitism and admiration for the texts of the Talmud.

The author's quote with quotes is not that careless – no! – he attracts them sometimes for the ears, because it is more convenient for him. For example, he allegedly quotes: "Elina, being baptized into Christ …", while in ap. Paul, in the letter to the Galatians, it sounds like: “27 the boes of Christ are baptized in Christ, and in Christ have been nourished”. (Gal.3: 27) And in the author's context, the meaning is completely shifted, but Rozanov does not care. He stubbornly continues to keep the distorted text!

Here is the quintessence of all the fabrications of the author:

“The gospel not only has nothing to do with the Bible, but represents to such an extent the destruction of the entire Bible, its spirit, its inspiration, its“ prophecies ”, its ALL MEANING: that there is absolutely nothing to choose, nothing to choose, nothing to supplement and“ amplify ” , In general – “to adapt one to the other” (the meaning of all “theology”, all of “theology”), but you just need to either “throw out all Moses”, all Abraham, all Chaldeans: and not just “throw out”, but beat them with canes Moses, beat all the prophets, this "Ishua" (Isaiah), Jeremiah AI, Ecclesiastes. To beat, spit, but “spit exactly in the face”, and deliberately “get into the very eye” …

Or, or … we dare not say anything. Awful. You must never open the Bible: or if the Bible is opened, you never need to read the Gospels … Never, never, never. Never these "Sermon on the Mount" and these hypocrisies in parables. Everything from Christ is cold. Nowhere – the flame. He is all lethargic. "Do you want, we will reduce the fire from heaven to burn this village, which did not accept You." “You don't know what kind of spirit you are.” The apostles, by the naivety of the soul, were still the "spirit" of the biblical, hot. But the "sluggish Christ" stopped them. "You must now do everything sluggishly." Nothing – ardently. Nothing. I am dry and dried, and we will conquer the world. Oh, this is no longer Sinai shaking. And not these pipes of the Apocalypse. It will be all the logic of theology. And it will be a great “Began to read”, “Lord Jesus Christ” (foolishness with his titles: “Began to read”) … I am wicked. Tuberculosis. The world ends. The world in general is over. Do not need peace. Oh, do not fire. The world goes out. And only the sun – oh, it is despair, always burning. But after all, it is him who will repay. ”(Pp. 147-148).

What is it?! IMHO – brain syphilis – paranoid psychosis with delusions of persecution and grandeur, but this is for medical specialists.

Rozanov's perfect bestiality:

“And here – I, secondly. I have already drawn the Dark Face of Christ. I no longer find Him bright and Earth-healing .. "

Good as a writer, owning a word – and except for the last work, where the hatred of Christianity and the pursuit of self-affirmation completely depresses his writing talent.
(Even without taking into account the meaning of the text – where is the refinement of early works? Where is the polished construction of phrases?) ”

Here is my answer:

“I remembered that I didn’t answer you anything about Rozanov. Something like this, dotted:

Anti-Christianity Rozanov. Not at all, I think. He said very different things about Christianity, often as it seems really blasphemous – but how often accurate, loyal, beautiful. And most importantly: his very constant turn around the faith, attraction-repulsion is more interesting than other theology, here at least for real, without hypocrisy. Not empty reasoning, an essay on the degree of theology, but something important for him. He felt and accurately fixed that. In any case, he is definitely not an “anti-Christian”; all his texts undoubtedly testify to heartfelt faith. Another question, alarming that he believed in God, in the Church, but missed by Christ. There is a lot to say. For example: he did not fight against Christ, but against the laskish Jesus, against the strange, rickety, who raised his eyes to the top of many of the paintings (the "dried Christ" from the quotation you quoted), about which I don’t know what to say, besides that this is not Christ. Or in other words: is it not a frequent illness: to accept God, the Church, but not Christ? Rozanov at least provided us with an honest self-report (unlike, for example, from the very crafty Florensky, whose extremely ambiguous philosophy is hidden behind the cassock and mocking churchliness). (Or even more frequent illness: to think that the Church "destroys the joy of the world" – in this spirit of stupidity; but stupidity has its own reasons and they need to be thought through). Christians are those who recognized God in Jesus, because “it is not quite simple” (most people did not recognize …). Rozanov does not let go of this moment, does not close the imaginary confidence (atheistic, churchly or whatever) of this abyss. Rozanov is a CHRISTIAN thinker, because he either thinks from within the faith, or if from the outside, then about her.

The point is the unique position of Rozanov – a philo-man in the street. “Why does Christianity say all these terrible, serious things when I want to sleep with my wife, give birth to children and eat soup?” – do not many, and many, think so about themselves? But only Rozanov asked so philosophically. It is only necessary to see that he asks, but does not approve.

Anti-Semitism and Judophilia of Rozanov. Approximately the same situation. Rozanov is neither the first nor the last anti-Semite, unfortunately. Even so: Dostoevsky is an anti-Semite, and this is bad, but it does not force us to throw out his novels. Everyone is mistaken. More seriously: anti-Semitism is too old and serious a disease to brush aside. God's chosen people and other peoples who have received faith from him. The crack between the Christians of the Greeks and the Christians of the Jews, etc., etc. A similar love-attraction-repulsion. And here, too, if Rozanov could not clearly conceive this strange phenomenon, then in any case he provided interesting evidence. The same story with the Old and New Testaments: it was not Rozanov who created the gap between them (or it was not to him first that such a gap exists to be). No one has canceled the problem of Marcion (although Rozanov is just such a funny anti-marcionite). Rozanov "hates" Israel, "loves" Israel "… rather, he dances around some very important topic in Christianity. The main thing is that he did not force himself to stop artificially, he continued to peer, never closed his eyes. And, I repeat, everyone is mistaken, but by no means everyone will be involved in it, reflecting on their inconsistency.

Erotomania Rozanov. There are a lot of stupidities slandered about R. He himself warned: "Kuprin, describing" with might and main "publ. d., “passed away,” and Rozanov, who cried from the fear of the grave (“Ued.”), was accused of pornography. “Anything but Rozanov is not a pornographer. He did not invent sacral prostitution, worship of the genitals, leviratnaya marriages, Onan's history, circumcision, etc. Orthodoxy is a monastic religion, that is, people, by the way, chose celibacy, which negatively underlines the powerful presence of the sexual in life. He did not weave a very ambiguous knot of everything related to the floor. He did not invent homosexuality. He did not come up with the idea of ​​discriminating illegitimate children. He did not at all talk about eunuchs from the womb of the mother, i.e., all the same about people without genitalia (literal reading, as you understand). The main theme of the "Solitary" is his tender, wonderful love for his dying wife. If you read it carefully, he certainly defended the ideal of a Christian family, with the love of spouses, with love for children (and the collapse of the family was terrified – the topic is more contemporary than ever). This ideal should be thought out, if only because it is rare in itself, more often – its failure, and what is more important – it is located in the middle between such phenomena as brothels, monasteries, gay clubs – and the latter have in common that the ideal — the ideal of the Christian family, the ideal of Rozanov — they reject. If the Church celebrates a celebration, the sacrament of marriage, then indeed, the copulation of the spouses really celebrates. God created not a "man", but a man and a woman. The ambiguity of prostitution, perversion and asceticism remains. These are just facts that Rozanov pays attention to. Tenderness, the joy of love, the joy of birth remains – Rozanov is the main thing. If philosophy thinks about war, for example, this does not mean that it is preaching it. Rozanov "debauchery" does not preach, he thinks it out.

Rozanov-writer. Really ingenious. But since this is literature, then it should be interpreted as literature, and not as a philosophical treatise, much less as a catechism.

Rozanov-thinker. But he is still a philosopher, and an exact philosopher. The question is in his method. He does not think Russian as Greek or German. Not even a tie of evidence, but “weaving of words” (real Russian thought is literature, as you yourself know). Dostoevsky portrays the Grand Inquisitor, but we do not attribute the Inquisitor’s thoughts to its creator, and all the more do not deprive the “Poem” of philosophical power. Who does Rozanov portray? Secondly, Rozanov is clearly a fool. Why the holy fool goes naked, publicly defecates, brawls in the temple, goes to the brothel – this is a question. Such a question should be asked to Rozanov, and not accuse him of pornography, blasphemy, etc. (the fool provokes in fact the detection of sin, his exit from the hypocrisy of external piety, and Rozanov; he is not an erotoman, but he who sees in him "Dirty" issued himself). Here is an example of the soundness of his philosophy. Rozanov is foolish: “I don’t even know,” morality ”is written through“ yat ”or“ e ”. And who her dad was – I don’t know, and who is mom, and if there were children, and I don’t know where her address is.” That is what he read and accused of immoralism. However, let us remember Plato with his “illegitimate knowledge”, in general, the ancient theme of “doxa”, the power of opinion, whose logo is not known. "Illegitimate" – i. "Dad" and "mother" are not known. How do people know what they know or think they know. How to get genuine, logos knowledge. Rozanov asks exactly the same thing, only in Russian, weaving words and idioms. “Illegitimate,” however, clearly refers to childbirth, sex, sex. Socrates is the midwife, and the “idea” must be born. But the Platonic idea itself is a “genus”. Rozanov – strong, classic, solid philosophy. It is quite antique, but played in Russian. In this “sheet” he does not reject morality, but raises the question of its grounds, asks about how we know what is “good” and what is “bad” (after all, it only seems to us that we know, in fact, mud and confusion are the most terrible). In the end, the Apostle Paul also spoke on this subject more frightening things. The Old Testament with its example indicating in the case of bestiality to kill the brute and the animal also requires the most thoughtful reading. Provocation remains a completely legitimate tool of philosophy, you just need to see that provocation is a provocation, and not a Symbol of the philosopher’s faith. This is how it should be read, it is not fiction at all. In addition, Rozanov's philosophy is a phenomenology, fixing what is, what seems to be, it seems, not generalizations, not a system, etc. Another example. The famous "in Christ the rancid world." It seems an insult. However, it is really progork, because why do we need the world of Caesars, Pharisees, brothels, Colosseum, etc., if we have a completely different, everlasting bliss? This is a provocation, but who ?: let's say "modernists" who do not want to recognize the war of the Church and the world, but how can it not be war if they crucified God, if war is so vividly described in the Apocalypse? If thousands go to the desert? If we are to leave the dead to bury our own dead (it was a question of a dead father, as you remember, and this is very, very remarkable), and follow Christ without looking back. “The world is progork in Christ” – this phrase is a slap in the face that reminds the very essence of the Message.

How, for example, did the Israelites perceive, for whom the family is of the greatest value, the words of Christ about “dead people burying their dead”, about forbidding the son to bury his father? So did Rozanov: it seemed monstrous to them. "Family values" are flying into the abyss. On such things, eyes can not be closed.

And the main thing about Rozanov. Losev, a researcher of ancient thought, a Christian philosopher, etc., etc., accuses Rozanov: “Rozanov is a mystic in petty bourgeoisism, having in mind the exact sociological meaning of this last word. It deifies all the philistine “foundations” – soup, cigarettes, restrooms, bedding and “family comfort”. ” Losev, however, is further from the divine and philosophy than Rozanov. According to Heraclitus: "The gods are here in the kitchen." No need to go anywhere. Rozanov knows that it is not necessary to rush into high thinking, to fly away in the distance to leave the kitchen, to throw out soup, cigarettes and restrooms, in order to see the divine. Rozanov in his kitchen: Russian Heraclitus, communicates with the gods. Let others in conceit fly away into the distance, and the most difficult goal of philosophy, according to Heidegger, is to think the nearest.

Finally, on the admissibility of his presence in the Christian library. But he is still a Christian thinker. He had a great influence on the Christian thought of the 20th century and the influence continues. Philosophy does not have to be “true”, and it never happens. We do not offer it in the section for beginners, do not put it on the main page, do not declare it Holy Father, but it would be strange if it were not in “Philosophy”. Rozanov – a large figure that would not think about it. One can argue with him, resent (which he constantly does with himself), but at the depth of his thought (or the surface of his letter) he remains one of the most wonderful writers: tenderness, wonder of the world, courage and honesty of thought. Standing in front of God, such as it is, "not in uniform." All the same, no matter what nonsense he sometimes carried, he brings it all the same to God. Sadness, loneliness really. Admiration for Creation, the vision of its strange (it is indeed strange). Always – affection. As for his last book, one should understand that this is not something like a “natural outcome of a long degradation”, but pieces of thought dictated by a deeply sick, starving old man. The fact that this is really "thought" must be seen and surprised that he was capable of it. So there are insights, and a Christian character: “Nihil is in his secret. Monstrous, inscrutable … The darkness of history. All over. Silence. Sigh. Prayer. Growth … Ah: so that's where the Bible is so strange, ‘end on before’, it was said: бы and there was evening (darkness, darkness, death) and there was morning – First Day ’. The structure of the Day and together the device of the World. God God … what secrets. What a fate. What a consolation. And I grieve, as in a grave. And this grave is my Resurrection. "". “Apocalypse” in general was written to them in the feeling of the collapse of Christianity, and it was close to the truth – only non-Christianity collapsed – “the gates of hell will not prevail”! – and the Christian world, as it became after Constantine (the last Christian empire fell). Он пытался как мог думать над этим… Во всяком случае, он умер в мире с Церковью и – на что надо обратить внимание – хотел умереть – его слова – «не писателем Розановым, а рабом Божьим Василием». Он разделал фигуру говорящего в своих текстах и себя. Осознанная авторская стратегия, которую надо заметить. И, как минимум, я не знаю, чтобы Розанов соблазнил кого-нибудь, он не опасен «для веры».

Кстати последние идиотические события вроде Пуси Райт, законах о гомосексуализме у нас и во Франции, вообще вся дурацкая шумиха вокруг Церкви (переписка — начало 2013 г.) подтверждают «актуальность» Розанова, и это не удивительно  раз философия о том что «всегда»: государство, Церковь, секс  и пр.  и пр. и пр. Розанова все таки не худо было бы прочесть и прочесть правильно. (Кстати прекрасные статьи Бибихина о нем, я даю ссылки на авторской страничке Розанова у нас на Предании).

Ну вот как то так.

P.S. ««Ты не прошла мимо мира, девушка… Ты испуганным и искристым глазком смотрела на него. Задумчиво смотрела… И сердце стучало. И ты томилась и ждала. И шли в мире богатые и знатные. И говорили речи. Учили и учились. И всё было так красиво… И тебе хотелось подойти и пристать к чему-нибудь… Но никто тебя не заметил и песен твоих не взяли. И вот ты стоишь у колонны. Не пойду и я с миром. Не хочу. Я лучше останусь с тобой. Вот я возьму твои руки и буду стоять. И когда мир кончится, я всё буду стоять с тобою и никогда не уйду.»» — Вот такой скажем «лист» — к слову, поздний. Ну причем здесь антихристианство, антисемитизм, эротомания и пр.? "

В. Д. Шнейдер:

“Особая   благодарность   Вам   за  ваше  замечательное  эссе-апологию  Розанова. Замечательно  написано.  Мне  бы  очень хотелось, чтобы этот текст Ваш предварял страницу  с  предлагаемыми  сочинениями  Розанова.”

«Листва», с работы над которой начался наш спор содержит в себе главное, что создал Розанов — его «листья» — от самых ранних («Эмбрионы») до предсмертных («Апокалипсис наших дней»).

Статьи Бибихина, о которых шла речь в переписке, — лучшее как мне кажется, что было сказано о Розанове: «Голос Розанова», «Каменный Розанов», «Розанов, Леонтьев и монастырь»

Еще о Розанове:

Зеньковский «К. Леонтьев. В. Розанов»
Н. Лосский «Философские идеи поэтов символистов»
Левицкий в«Василий Розанов»
Бердяев в «Русской идее», «О “вечно бабьем” в русской душе», «Христос и мир (Ответ В.В. Розанову)»
Мочульский «Заметки о Розанове»
В видеоцикле «Библейский сюжет» Апокалипсис наших дней (Василий Розанов)
Аудиостатья Д. (Першина) «О Василии Васильевиче Розанове»
Лекция Пименова в аудиозаписях «История русской философии»

Андрей В. Штаммлер «В. В. Розанов»

Подписывайтесь на канал Предание.ру в Telegram, чтобы не пропускать интересные новости и статьи!