St. Serafim of Sarov: His Clerical and Intellectual Reception in Late Imperial and Early Revolutionary Russia

我的研究将考虑俄罗斯神秘的萨罗夫(1754-1833)的圣塞拉菲姆(St.Serafim)被1901年至1929年在俄罗斯成立的宗教哲学学会的成员接受。Serafim是一位苦行僧侣，他是一位修士和灵性长老。1903年，他在有争议的情况下被封为圣徒，并成为一个邪教的主题，吸引了俄罗斯知识界的主要成员。我将探讨Serafim在那个时代的辩论中所扮演的角色，以及在试图调和知识分子和神职人员阶级方面所起的作用。我的论文将是关于Serafim接待的第一部详细工作。20世纪初的俄罗斯正经历着政治、宗教和社会的动荡，被1905年和1917年的革命事件撕裂了。正是在这种氛围下，接待非专业知识分子和教会人物的宗教-哲学社团成立了，包括圣彼得堡(1901-1903；1907-1917)、莫斯科(1905-1918)、基辅(1908-1919)、基督教知识寻求者圈(1907-1917)和圣塞拉菲姆兄弟会(1921-1929)。知识分子和神职人员阶层已经疏远了几十年。这些社团为两个团体的人物提供了一个接触点，以讨论紧迫的宗教/精神问题，例如关于禁欲主义、长老和圣徒身份的东正教的发展和创新。这些协会出版的期刊使这些辩论能够接触到更广泛的受众。哲学家别尔迪耶夫说，“对真正的东正教的追求”始于会议，知识分子们“努力在圣塞拉普姆·萨罗夫斯基身上找到[真正的东正教]”。我的研究起点将是关于塞拉菲姆的两个圣徒传记文本，《塞拉菲姆-迪维夫斯基修道院的编年史》(1896年)和萨罗夫的圣·塞拉菲姆与N·A·莫托维洛夫的对话(1903年)。这些文本对确立Serafim的受欢迎程度至关重要，我将结合他被封圣的事件来探索它们的影响。我将批判性地评估从1901年第一次会议的日期到1929年苏联压迫加剧的宗教哲学学会成员的工作中对Serafim的表现。我将回顾贝尔里、罗扎诺夫、梅列日科夫斯基、卡尔塔舍夫、布尔加科夫、弗洛伦斯基、辛文茨基、沃尔日斯基、巴赫金等人出版的各种宗教/神学和文学/文化文本。我会参考日记和信件，以更深入地了解他们对Serafim的兴趣，并检查教会学院和圣公会的神学期刊和档案，以获得学术和神职人员的回应。研究问题：(I)知识分子和神职人员在多大程度上对编年史和莫托维洛夫的谈话做出了回应？这些文本在将Serafim构建为苦行者和长老的现代原型方面扮演了什么角色？(2)神职人员和非宗教知识分子如何在他们的作品和个人作品中代表Serafim？这些图像在多大程度上相互重叠、冲突、影响或矛盾？(Iii)Serafim的形象在试图带来世俗文化和教会文化的综合中扮演了什么角色？通过Serafim的案例研究，宗教、创造性和智力文化之间的互动可以说些什么？(Iv)在1901年和1929年之间，宗教和哲学社会的性质和组成是如何发展的，这些发展是否与Serafim的表现形式的变化相吻合？(V)Serafim的表现形式如何回应和/或影响东正教的辩论和发展？宗教哲学学会的成员对他们使用Serafim的这些辩论的反应是否发生了变化？我的研究将建立在冰冻(1996)、尼科尔斯(2000)和肯沃西(2010)的研究基础上。它将补充帕尔特关于精神长老的专著(2010)和迈克尔逊关于俄罗斯禁欲主义的专著(2017)。

My research will consider the reception of the Russian mystic St. Serafim of Sarov (1754-1833) by members of the religious-philosophical societies, formed in Russia between 1901 and 1929. Serafim was an ascetic monk, hesychast and spiritual elder. He was canonised in controversial circumstances in 1903 and was the subject of a cult that attracted leading members of the Russian intelligentsia. I will explore the role played by Serafim in the debates of the era and in the attempts to reconcile the intellectual and clerical classes. My thesis will be the first detailed work on Serafim's reception. Russia in the early twentieth-century was undergoing political, religious and social upheaval, riven by the revolutionary events of 1905 and 1917. It was in this climate that religious-philosophical societies hosting lay intellectual and church figures were established, including those in St. Petersburg (1901-1903; 1907-1917), Moscow (1905-1918), Kiev (1908-1919), and the Circle of Seekers of Christian Knowledge (1907-1917) and the Brotherhood of St. Serafim (1921-1929).The intelligentsia and clerical class had been estranged for decades. The societies provided a point of contact for figures from both groups to discuss urgent religious/spiritual matters, such as the developments and innovations in Orthodoxy concerning asceticism, eldership and sainthood. Journals published by these societies allowed these debates to reach a wider audience. The philosopher Berdiaev stated that the 'quest for true Orthodoxy began' at the meetings and that the intellectuals 'endeavoured to find [true Orthodoxy] in St. Seraphim Sarovsky'.The starting point for my research will be two hagiographical texts on Serafim, the Chronicles of the Serafim-Diveevskii Monastery (1896) and the Conversation of St. Seraphim of Sarov with N.A. Motovilov (1903). These texts were crucial in establishing Serafim's popularity and I will explore their impact alongside the events of his canonisation.I will critically evaluate representations of Serafim in the work of members of the religious-philosophical societies from 1901, the date of the first meetings, to 1929 when Soviet repression intensified. I will review various religious/theological and literary/cultural texts published by Belyi, Rozanov, Merezhkovskii, Kartashev, Bulgakov, Florenskii, Sventitskii, Volzhskii, Bakhtin and others. I will refer to diaries and correspondence for deeper understanding of their interest in Serafim and examine the theological journals and archives of the ecclesiastical academies and Holy Synod for academic and clerical responses. Research Questions:(i) To what extent were the intelligentsia and clergy responding to the Chronicles and Motovilov Conversation? What role did these texts play in constructing Serafim as a modern prototype of an ascetic hesychast and elder? (ii) How did members of the clergy and lay intellectuals represent Serafim in their works and personal writing? To what extent did these images overlap, clash, influence or contradict each other?(iii) What role did the figure of Serafim play in the attempts to bring about a synthesis of lay and ecclesiastical culture? What can be said of the interaction between religion, creative and intellectual culture, through the case-study of Serafim?(iv) How did the nature and composition of the religious and philosophical societies develop between 1901 and 1929 and did the developments coincide with changes in representations of Serafim?(v) How did the representations of Serafim respond to and/or influence the debates and developments in Orthodoxy? Was there an evolution in the responses by members of the religious-philosophical societies to these debates their use of Serafim? My research will build on research by Freeze (1996) and Nichols (2000), and Kenworthy (2010). It will complement Paert's monograph on spiritual eldership (2010) and Michelson's on Russian asceticism (2017).