4 PAVEL FLORENSKY: lCONOSTAS!S

rhe small hours of rhe nighr when rhe Theological Academy and rhe neighboring rown of Sergiev Posad were quier. As he spoke, she would wrire, and occasionally she would ask questions (a process of collaborarive clarificaran rerained in rhe work irself); and rhen he would rewrire rhe whole imo irs presenr form.

Imagine, rhen, rhe Russian aurumn of 1922. While rhe rrium-phanr Bolshevik regime everyday brurally insralled a monstrous new realiry everywhere, in homes and schools and churches and offices and farms and barracks, Fr. Pavel every nighr conrinued rhis complex acr of spirirual arricularion, in rhe nighr-time srill-ness ofhis srudy. Roman Sroicism centuries befare had tried to use rhe slender rrurh of personal goodness as a defense against the powerful les of state violence-and failed rerribly. Now, in com-posing lconostasis, Fr. Pavel found nor a stoic defense againsr civic nighrmare but a deeper stare of being awake: rhe srare, rhat is, of iconic aliveness in God. A short walk from his study rhe grear Rublev iconosrasis conrinued ro proclaim-as ir does rhis day-such permanem aliveness.

A brief bur moving privare documenr enrirled simply "My Will" has come clown ro us from Fr. Pavel's hand. Addressed ro his wife and children, Fr. Pavel begins, "I beg you, my dear ones, ro receive holy communion on rhe very day you bury me .. . and, afrer m y dearh, rake communion more ofren ." Ir is, all of ir, so lid spirirual direcrion; and towards rhe end, he rells his children rhis:

Anyone who does things carelessly also learns ro talk carelessly. But careless, unclear, inexact tal k drags into irs carelessness and unclariry an idea. M y very dear, dear children: don'r ler yourselves rhink carelessly. An idea is God's gifr and it needs ro be raken care of. To be clear in one's ideas, and ro be responsible for them, is a token of spiritual freedom and inrellectual joy.

The rime and place of rhis remarkable book rerribly knew rhe violence of slavery and despair. lts abundanr spirirual freedom and in rellecrual jo y are rherefore purest gifr.

lntroduction 1

Pavel Florensky was born January 9, 1882, in Yevlakh, Azerbai-jan, in T ranscaucasia. His farher was a mechanical engineer employed by rhe Transcaucasian Railroad, and ~orher, born in Armenia, was a woman who gave her husband and rheir seven children rhe gifr (in her son's words) of"beaury and concreteness."

The realiries of pre-revolurionary Russia are roday hard ro grasp. The grear Russian novelisrs, rhough, help us rosee. For ir is againsr rhe background of (for example) Dosroevsky's The Broth-ers Karamazov, where we meer characrers who blend fashionably scienrific arheism wirh deep spiritual yearning, rhar we best un-derstand rhe extraordinary documenr written by Pavel Florensky abour his childhood. For rhe documenr provides a vivid glimpse not only inro Florensky's family bur also inro Ru~sia's spirirual srate ofbeing in the years jusr prior ro rhe Bolshevik revolurion. Ir is rherefore well worrh quoring at sorne lengrh:

M y parents wanted to recreare Paradise in rhe family and, especial! y, rhey wanred the children to rema in in rhe Garden. I, in turn, loved what they wanred, and 1 not only wanred ir, too, but 1 could also comprehend rhe world in rhe parrern of rhe earrhly Paradise. Bur our Paradise had no religion; ar least, it had no historically based religion. So our Paradise was no accidental thing bur, rather, a deliberately constructed wall separaring rhe Garden of our family's life from all orher human realiry. Ir was nor, in rhe metaphysical sense, a denial of religion; my parenrs never, in rheir inner consciousness, saw it as such, and especially rhey never spoke ir as so ....

In my family, rhe essenrial spiritual teaching involved rhe conscious elimination of any and all (eirher positive or negarive) religious under-

5

6 PAVEL H.ORENSKY: ICONOSTASJS standing from beyond our Garden-and even from our parenrs rhem-selves. We were never told rhar rhere is no God, or rhar religion is superstirion, or rhar priesrs are liars; equally, we were never rold rhe opposne.

My morher always kepr silenr abour religion, and in her silence we children could dimly sense so me lighrer meaning in her "No." M y aunr also kepr silenr, but in her silence 1 could feel "Y es."

M y farher, rhrough whom passed the spirirual meridian of our home, was far freer in religious discussion. Somet mes his "No" was equivalenr ro "Yes" while his "Yes" meant "No." Iris essenrial ro remember rhat his Gospel was Goerhe's Faust and his Bible was Shakespeare, for we can then hear arighr his rel igious ron e of voice. I heard in hi m a spiriwal perspecrive expressed mosr ofren as a feeling of inflniry and, parallel wirh ir, a feeling of man's nothingness, of his ethical and menral weakness. Somet mes he wou Id tal k of rhe "Superior Exisrence" or "rhar which is called God, or ro which people give rhe name, God." Sorne-rimes he would give a cosmological proof of God's exisrence: "If rhe whole ofhumankind has always had religion, rhen iris impossible rhar rhis belief has no basis in realiry." He therefore considered rhe mere denial of religion ro be superflcial-but he also believed rhar rhe realiry of God could never be discerned in rhe hisrorically manifesr religions of humankind ....

Farher never opposed rhe religion of anyone, bur he never recognized rhe validiry of any. He rhoughr thar rhe healthiesr were rhe Chinese ancesror-worship and rhe religion of Islam. He saw a lighr in Chrisri-aniry bur rhis very lighr fllled him wirh apprehension, for (as he pur ir) "a religion rh.1t asserrs irs own absoluteness cannor escape being a so urce of in rolerance." ...

Rcligion was rhus, in our family, somerhing indecenr, and 1 carne ro sce ir as rhe mosr indecenr thing of all. The religious life (so I carne ro fecl) was sornerhing essenrially hidden, somerhing nor meanr for orhers ro ;ce. Everyrhing in my upbringing conspired ro insrill in me rhis essenrial diftldence .... So norhing was said, neirher for nor againsr:

"People bel ieve; ler rhem believe."

- "One musr presenr ro rhe world a wholly human face, one wirhour arriflcial syrnbols or forged idenrities."

lntroduction . 1us pressures,

-"A child's mind must be nurtured wirhour any rellg'' , religion he f fl\ so rhar, asan adulr, he may freely choose for himsel 1

wishes." .. . 1, always filled Our furnily kept a few religious cusroms. Our Easter rabie\"'. wedecorared

wirh wonderful dishes all week long; we hada Christmas rree',dunrary-if rhe house wirh green branches at Penrecost. They were all nwillingly (I distanr-contacrs, ones rhar my parents subrnitted ro 11 My parenrs

,,. rhought) because rhey had ro. lt was rhe sarne with bapcisrt ,Jways held at rried ro make rhem as "unofficial" as possible, so rhey were jarher for my home, always hidden from view, and 1 was always rhe Go' and ir surely sisters and brothers. For me, rhe whole rhing was a burdetl did nor rnake me like religion any better ...

So 1 grew up far from any religious connecrions. 11yone about 1 never artended a church service, 1 never spoke ro '1 sign of rhe

religious ideas, and 1 had no idea even how ro .make rh'.1 place filled cross. Nevenheless, 1 always fel t rhat a sphere of extstence .. from every with mysrical meanings and unique acrions, a place t'11 e by myself. human fear-rruly exisred, and I tried ro discover this r1'' eirher had For 1 felr that rhis mystical place had ro become clear, rh'~5 existence, ro conftrm God's exisrence and all the consequences of 1 r could even or-but I never knew the meaning of rhat "or," for 1 ne"e

7

rhink the possibility of the simple negarion of God. . . . . , . . ;tstence m rhe

What JS remarkable here IS the chdd s spmtual peT nce hiding a face of rhe parenrs' spirirual indifference, an indiffer',ms, rhc un-genuine anxiery, even dread. The "unofficial" bapr; che long si-willing "contacrs," rhe distaste and rhe hiding a.ot ro profound lences: all rhis poinrs in rhe Florensky household r's asserrion (and never acknowledged) fear and hosriliry. His ~arP~ despair: an abour Christianiry reveals, in facr, his own spinrtJ:,r escape be-absolureness, masquerading as rolerance, rhar ca.o11 coming inroleranr.

11tdfa rher was Ir is imporranr ro note, roo, rhar Pavel's grear~gr'1er) made a an Orrhodox priesr. His son Ivan (Pavel's grandfJ[ered Orrho-fareful choice. As Pavel wrore, "He successfully coJ11l'

0 enrer rhe

dox seminary . . . bur he conceived rhe desire r

G PAYEL ILORENSK.Y: ICONOSTASIS

standing from beyond our Garden- and even from our parenrs rhem-selves. We were never rold rhat rhere is no God, or rhar religion is superstition, or rhar priesrs are liars; equally, we were never rold che oppos1te.

My morher always kept silent abour religion, and in her silence we children could dimly sense so me lighrer meaning in her "No." M y aunr also kept silent, but in her silence 1 could feel "Y es."

M y farher, rhrough whom passed the spirirual meridian of our home, was far freer in religious discussion. Somerirnes his "No" was equivalen e to "Yes" while his "Yes" meanr "No." Iris essenrial ro rernember rhar his Gospel was Goerhe's Faust and his Bible was Shakespeare, for we can rhen hear arighr his rel igious tone of voice. I heard in him a spiritual perspecrive expressed mosr ofren as a feeling of inflniry and, parallel wirh ir, a feeling of man's norhingness, of his erhical and menral weakness. Somerimes he would tal k of rhe "Superior Existence" or "rhar which is called God, or ro which people give rhe narne, God." Sorne-times he would give a cosrnological proof of God's exisrence: "lf rhe whole ofhumankind has always had religion, rhen iris impossible rhar chis belief has no basis in realiry." He rherefore considered rhe mere denial of religion ro be superficial-bu e he also believed rhar rhe realiry of God could never be discerned in rhe hisrorically manifest religions of humankind ....

Farher never opposed rhe religion of anyone, bur he never recognized rhe validiry of any. He rhoughr rhar rhe healrhiesr were rhe Chinese .mcesror-worship and che religion of Islam. He saw a light in Chrisri-aniry bur chis very light filled him wirh apprehension, for (as he put ir) "a religion rhat asserrs its own absoluceness cannot escape being a so urce ofinrolerance." ...

Religion was chus, in our family, somerhing indecent, and 1 carne ro see ir as che rnosr indecenr rhing of al l. The religious life (so 1 carne ro fcel) was somerhing essenrially Ju'dden, somerhing nor meanr for others to see. Everything in my upbringing conspired ro insrill in me rhis essenrial diffidence .... So norhing was said, neirher for nor againsr:

- "People believe; lec rhem believe."

- One musr presenr ro che world a wholly human face, one wirhour artificial symbols or forged idenriries."

1 n troduction

-"A child's mind muse be nurrured wirhom any religious pressures, so rhar, as an ad ulr, he m ay free! y choose for himself any religion he wishes." ...

Our family kept a few religious customs. Our Easrer cable was always filled wirh wonderful dishes all week long; we hada Christmas cree; we decora red che house wirh green branches ar Penrecosr. They were all volunrary-if disram-conracrs, ones rhat my parenrs submitted ro unwillingly (1 rhoughr) because rhey had ro. Ir was rhe same wirh baptisms. M y parenrs rried ro rnake them as "unofficial" as possible, so rhey were always held ar home, always hidden from view, and 1 was always che Godfather for my sisrers and brorhers. For me, che whole thing was a burden, and ir surely d id not make me like religion any better ...

So 1 grew up far frorn any religious connecrions.

1 never attended a church service, 1 never spoke ro anyone about religious ideas, and 1 had no idea even how ro make che sign of che cross. Neverrheless, 1 always felr chata sphere of existen ce-a place filled with mysrical meanings and unique acrions, a place far from every human fear-truly exisred, and 1 tried ro discover chis p lace by myself. For 1 felr rhat chis mystical place had ro become clear, rhat eirher 1 had ro confirm God 's exisrence and all rhe consequences of H is exisrence, or-but 1 never knew che meaning of rhar "or," for 1 never could even chink che possibiliry of che simple negarion of God.

7

What is remarkable here is the child's spiritual persistence in rhe face of the parenrs' spiritual indifference, an indifference hiding a genuine anxiery, cven dread. The "unofficial" baptisms, the un-willing "contacts," the distaste and the hiding and rhe long si-lences: all this poinrs in the Florensky household ro profound (and never acknowledged) fear and hostiliry. His father's asserrion about Chrisrianiry reveals, in fact, his own spiritual despair: an absoluteness, masquerading as rolerance, that cannot escape be-coming inroleranr.

Ir is imporranr ro note, too, that Pavel's grear-grandfarher was an Orrhodox priesr. His son !van (Pavel's grandfather) made a fareful choice. As Pavel wrote, "He successfully completed Orrho-dox seminary ... bur he conceived the desire ro enrer rhe

8 PAVEL FLORFNSKY: ICONOSTASIS

Milirary-Medical Academy." He did so, moving rhe whole spiri-rual fou ndarion of rhe Florensky family onro a new ground: science. Pavel said, ''Ar rimes I have rhoughr rhis abandonmenr of rhe priesrhood for science was rhe proton pseudos [rhe grear lie] of our whole family and rh ar, unril we rerurn ro rhe priesrhood , God will unrnake all ou r besr attemprs."

Pavel was a quier, srudious boy. A srriking phrase comes clown ro us from a childhood friend: "a young boy plunged inro him-self" He succeeded ar school bu r rhoughr school trivial. His real reacher was rhe natural environmenr, a world he passionarely loved and srudied-"always," he said, "on rhe basis of physics." He carried out experimenrs in physics enrirely on his own, guided and encouraged by his farher, and he assembled knowledge and drew conclusion s far beyond rhe scope of his provincial teachers. "School gave me li rde," he said , "except perhaps rhe knowledge of classical languages." Ar age 17, he grad uared with highest honors.

The surnmer of his graduarion broughr ro a close his child-hood-and, in 1899, rhe ninereenrh century-wirh a gen uine spiritual crisis. H e read Tolsroy and discovered (as he said) "the limirs of physical knowledge." All ar once, and complerely, physics ceased bcing a ground of fairh for Pavel. His response ro chis profound ruprure was complicared and significanr: rhe emprica! sciences increased rheir power ro perform rechnical operations upon rhe world precisely ro rhe exrenr rhey losr rheir capaciry ro explain rhe world. Consequendy, he could see even more finely as he grew eve r more unable ro explain whar he was seeing. In shorr, he began ro experience rhe creared world as Mystery.

Moreover, since his farher had been his mentor in rhe empri-ca! applicarions of science, his summer crisis carried him beyond his farher's reachings. Hence, ro lose fairh in physics was ro lose a spiritu al relarion ro his farher. (Here, rhen, begins his search for rhe true Farher.) Ar firsr, rhough, rhe crisis carried him ro marhe-marics, for he felr thar rhe faws of emprica! science were con-

lntroduction 9

rained in marhemarics "as a first concrete," and rhar rherefore mathematics could reveal rhe principies of all rhinking. He looked for ways ro exrend rhe basis of mathemarics so as ro consrrucr whar he called "marhemarical idealism."

He spenr rhe nexr year in his farher's house engaged in doing rhis. By rhe following Augusr, 1900, he had been accepred inro Moscow Universiry's marhemarics division, in rhe deparrmenr of marh and physics. His universiry career was ar once predicrable and surprising. Predictably, he was a srudenr genius, absorbing highly complex marerials wirh asronishing speed and grace. In h is second year, for example, he composed and published rhe lecrures of his reacher N .V Bugaev under rhe ride Integral Calculus. He was regarded by everyone as one of rhe mosr brillianr srudenrs of science in rhe Universiry's recenr hisrory.

More exrraordinary, however, was rhe deepening of his religious awakening. He said, "My srudies in marh and physics led me ro recognize rhe formal possibiliry rhat universally human religious conremplation had a theorerical foundarion." The mathematical idea of disconrinuiry, the rheory of funcrions, and number rheory were carrying his awareness ro rhe asronishing possibiliry rhar one could ralk (as he said) "nor abour religions bur about a religion ... one belonging ro al! mankind rhough raking a variery of forms ." In 1903, ar age 21, he had become clase friends wirh rhe symbolisr poer Andrei Belyi, who encouraged Pavel's unique search by bring-ing him inro Orrhodox circles and, finally, inro rhe Orrhodox C hurch. Ar 2 1, he enrered fully inro rhe Orrhodox fairh of his grear-grandfarher. Thus, rh is brillianr srudenr of science mer rhe full realiry of Orrhodox rrurh, and he experienced, for rhe firsr rime, rhe full realiry of his childhood dream of"a sphere of existen ce-a place fillcd wirh mysrical meanings and unique acrions, a place far from every human fear." Ir rruly exisred.

His becoming Orrhodox had immediare social effecrs. His srudenr friends and rhe science faculry regarded as bizarre his new

10 PAVFL fLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

religious life, seeing it as a betrayal of scienrific truth for rhe ignorance of superstirion. The ordinary Orrhodox believers, on the orher hand, found this new church member highly unserding because of his passionare intellectual energy and incense verbal depth and precision. He could no longerfir in' rhe world of academic science, nor did rhe parish churches promise immedi-ately ro be a comforrable home for him. He carne rhus to see how, in borh worlds, rourine srandardizarions always berrayed rhe viral-ity of rruth. When, in 1904, he graduared wirh highesr honors (writing a marhemarical rhesis enrirled "On rhe peculiariries of flar curves as places ofinrerrupred disconrinuiry"), he was offered an academic post in rhe Universiry's marh departmem. He de-clined rhe posr and instead enrered, in rhe autumn of 1904, rhe Moscow Theological Academy.

Behind rhis decision !ay a decisive spirirual evenr. The previous March, Pavel had gane ro his spirirual farher and confessor, Bishop Anrhony Florenrsov, ro ask for a blessing ro enrer monasric life. If universiry and parish life were, for differem reasons, equally unfirting, then rhe monasrery seemed ro offer a true spirirual solurion. Moreover, Pavel had p lanned ro visir rhe ancienr Solovki monasrery rhar Bishop Anrhony had so movingly described ro him; and, rhrough Bishop Anrhony's reachings as well as rhrough visirs ro rhe famous Oprina monasrcry, he had fallen in lave wirh rhar profound monasric hiddenness, rhar eradicarion of false earrhly personaliry wherein one achieves rhe simplicity of truc personhood in God. "I am sick of 'culruredness' and sophisrica-tion," he said, "I want simpliciry." Also, in rhis hiddenness in God, rhere could be rhe serring righr of his family's hiding from God: and his childhood fear of religion would become redeemed in rhe immensiry of divine !ove. Bishop Anrhony, however, recog-nized rare genius and righrly discerned rhar rhe severities of mo-nasric life would badly serve Pavel's vibranr, crearive gifrs, and so he refused him his blessing. Pavel was devasrared. Spirirual pur-posiveness had carried him out of rourine academic life, while

Introduction 11

vivid inrellectual and creative powers had rendered him unfir for rhe ordinary Orrhodox lairy. Now, resrlessness, even impatience, had closed rhe monastery ro him. Where was he ro go?

He wenr where Bishop Anrhony suggesred, ro rhe Moscow Theological Academy: and his true parh opened. Very soon, he met rhe man who was profoundly ro shape his whole spirituallife, Elder Isidore of the Gethsemane Hermirage. During the nexr four years, Pavel srudied rheology wirh brillianr disrincrion ar the Academy-and learned compassion, gratitude, and humiliry ar the feet of Elder Isidore. Two faded phorographs of rhe Elder come down to us, and we see in rhem something of whar Pavel called spiritual beauty. To worldly eyes (and rhese also included many in rhe Church), Fr. Isidore Grusinsky was a poor, unedu-cated lour of a peasanr who somcrimes spoke sharply ro rhoughr-less authorities both wirhin and beyond rhe Church; ro spirirual eyes, however, the Elder made manifest every spiritual gift. Pavel wrote: "Everyrhing about him caused one ro marvel-his lovc, meekness and modesry; his unprerenriousness, selflessness and poverty; his clariry, peacefulness and spiritual deportment; and finally, his prayer." From 1904 ro 1908, Pavel spent as much ofhis time as possible wirh rhis remarkable man of God.

The polirical life of Russia in these years became increasingly disrurbed. By 1905 and 1906, the revolutionary currents had reached near tidal srrengrh; and only by the severest authoritarian repression had rhe actual fact of revolution been averted for rhc momenr. Elder Isidore spoke ofrcn wirh prophetic clairvoyance about rhe impending time of darkness wherein rhe Christians of Russia would be hunred and killed ro near exrinction. In March of 1906, Pavel himself was briefly imprisoned for making a speech demanding polirical jusrice. This was his first raste of whar rhe Psalms call "the afflicrions of the righreous. " He did nor rhen, of course, know he would have ro drink rhar cup of suffering down to the bitter dregs of marryrdom. Then, in late January of 1908,

12 PAVEL ~LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

his farher died. Twelve days larer, on February 3, Elder Isidore died. In grear grief, Pavel wrore a shorr, beauriful book abour rhe Elder called Salt of the Earth, beginning:

Father Isidore is no longer with us. He's no longer he re. He blossomed like a flower, and how depressing ir is now that rhis flower has faded away. He shone as bright as a small clear su n and now rhat lighr has gone out. He was a rock offairh-where is our support?

As rhe Russian polis everywhere began to disinregrare, borh his farhers had vanished. At rhe deprhs of his grief, Pavel found wirhin himself rhe seed of his own yearning for farherhood. The redemprive dream was boro in him ro become a priesr and rhe farher of children. Here, in rhe flowering of farherhood, was rhe way inro his truth and rhus a way pasr rhe les of rhe garhering polirical darkness.

In ]une of 1908, he graduared from rhe Theological Academy, again with honors, writing a thesis entided "On Religious Truth" (rhe first version of his longesr work The Pillar and Foundation of Truth); and, in September, he accepred a posirion ar rhe Academy as a senior lecrurer in philosophy. Bur as professorial life serded abour him, Pavel found himself descending inro a depression rhar was ro lasr almosr rwo years. Ou twardly, he chafed under rhe burdens of a busy academic post; inwardly, he grieved his losr farhers and dreamed of rhe priesrhood and married life. His graduarion from rhe Academy had made him a candidare for ordinarion, but he was no nearer rhe priesrhood because he was srill unmarried (in rhe Orrhodox Church, cusromarily only a monk may be borh unmarried and a priesr). Then he mer rhe 21-year-old sisrer of a clase Academy friend, Anna Mikhailovna Giatsinrov, a quiet, imelligenr, and devour reacher from a peasanr family in Ryasan. After his discipleship wirh Elder Isidore, Pavel found Anna Mikhailovna's Russian peasanr roots to be spirirually true in God. So on August 17, 191 O, rhis extraordinarily brillianr young Academy faculry member surprised everyone who knew him by marrying rhis quiet peasam reacher from Ryasan ; and

lntroduction 13

rheir marriage was a rrue marriage. The following spring, on April 23, 1911, he was ordained to rhe diaconare, and on the next day (in Orrhodox cusrom), he was ordained priest. The proton pseudos (the great lie) of rhe Florensky family began to find its redemption in rhis rerurn ro rhe priesrhood as Fr. Pavel began to find his grear work of living a life fully in God. The following autumn, on September 28, 1911, rheir son Vasily was born. Fr. Pavel had now manifesdy become his dream of farherhood.

Sergius Bulgakov larer said ofFr. Pavel: "The spiritual cenrer of his personality, thar sun by which all his gifts were illumined, was his priesrhood." Though nevera parish priest, Fr. Pavel found rhe living cenrer of true priesthood where al! priests find ir, in rhe celebration of the Eucharist. To carry out rhis essenrial, definitive Christian Mystery, wherein simple bread and wine are conse-crated into Chrisr's holy body and blood, seemed ro Fr. Pavel rhe only true way of union and !ove. "Without !ove," he wrote, "rhe eersonality is broken up inro a murrip1icty of fragmenrary psy-chological momenrs and elements," adding: "rhe !ove of God is rhat which holds the personality togerher." His long depression melred (as Psalm 68 says) "as wax melrs before rhe fire" as rhe burning sun of divine !ove consumed his life bur lefr him inract, whole, healed. As the poli rica! world everywhere hurled irself inro the fiery darkness of the rwentieth cenrury, Fr. Pavel focused ever more deeply on rhe spiritual rrurhs he so vividly saw. His priesr-hood took on its profound iconic srrengrh.

His minisrry had three forms at rhis point. First, he carried on with his professorial tasks with a srronger yer more peaceful quality; and what had earlier seemed an intolerable burden now became easy, even lighr ro bear. Second, he became rhe senior editor of rhe Academy's important journal of rheology, a post rhat gave him a commanding voice in the counrry's urgenr rheological discussions, through borh his own writings (including a second version in 1912 of his Academy dissertarion, now as a book) and

14 I'AVFL f-LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

rhose he published. Third, he carried Chrisr's wirness ro a social-cultural group few saw as being spirirually wounded: the inrelli-gensia. In rhe houses of poers, wrirers, and academic inrellecruals, Fr. Pavel was (Bulgakov rells us) "a desired guesr and a 'knighr interlocutor."' His exrraordinary deprhs of learning-scienrific, rheological, historie, and artisric-were joined ro a comparably profound fairh in Chrisr; and che spirirually srarved inrelligensia of rhis rormenred rime and place hungered for rhe bread of rrurh rhar Fr. Pavel so generously, even passionarely gave rhem. Bul-gakov himself enrered rhe Church under Fr. Pavel, in rime becom-ing a priesr, roo; so did others. What cohered al! his work-indeed, all his Jife-was rhe eucharisric hearr of his priesr-hood.

Russian civic Jife, meanwhile, hasrened irs pi unge inro chaos as rhe possibiliries of historie darkness became increasingly manifesr. In 1914, Euro pe began irs ca rastrophic war while, for rhe next rhree years, Russia srrained ro hold in rhe furies of civil war. The same year, Fr. Pavel presented ro rhe Academy a third and final version of his book as his master's thesis, now called The Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Wirh desperare, almost hysrerical rapidiry, polirical groups and leaders and manifesros sprang up and disap-peared; prisons filled; economies broke; borh calculared and ran-dom killings swirled everywhere; while inside rhe Church, roo, rhe poli ti es of disinregrarion eru pted. Yer Fr. Pavel remained spiritually inregrated. Bulgakov said: "Ara time when che whole counrry dreamed of revolution, and in church circles also polirical organizarions carne and wenr, Fr. Pavel remained aparr from ir ali...The voice of ererniry was more powerful rhan rhe call of che ephemeral." In January of 191 5, his and Anna's son Kirill was born; in May of 1917, rheir daughrer Oiga was born. The rrurhs of farherhood ourweighed rhe lies of dcmonic violence.

In Ocrober of 1917, che Bolsheviks seized power and (in Bulgakov's phrase) "catasrrophic rime" bursr upon Russia. In brief

!ntroduction 15

weeks, revolurionary fury transformed urrerly che face of Russia, including che face of Fr. Pavel's life. The Bolshevik aurhoriries commandeered rhe Academy buildings for rheir own uses, of course shurring clown che journal. The Academy faculry and srudents moved ro orher buildings in rhe ciry, and Fr. Pavel conrinued ro give public lectures, teach rheology courses, and read srudenr papers. Ourwardly, rhese acriviries rhat once were parr of a coherent life seemed now merely survival reacrions, che spasms of an ampurared limb; inwardly, and more fully, they still shone with rhe vivid light given rhem in rhe deprhs of Fr. Pavel's inrellec-rual concenrrarion and spirirual clariry. Bulgakov said, "He re-mained inwardly free of rhe Srare, from which he looked for norhing at all, either befare or after the revolurion." Fr. Pavel had acquired the grace of spiritual dctachment: rhat is, he could give his fullesr, most compassionare attcntion ro what was immedi-ately at hand while remaining wholly unrouched by rhe surround-ing srorms of darkness. The gifr would serve him well.

When rhe inicial furies subsided, rhe aurhorities quickly saw Fr. Pavel's porenrial value ro rhem. His value !ay in rhe facr rhat, since his 1904 graduarion in marh and physics, Fr. Pavel had kepr up his exrraordinary scienrific work, doing original research and publishing significanr essays in borh rechnical subjecrs and rheo-retical explorarions, essays rhar soughr ro integrare specificiries and rheory in new and powerful ways. Ifhe could be compelled ro work as a scientisr for rhc regimc, rhen his religious beliefs (ren-dered mure by rhe new laws) would be irrelevanr: so, undoubr-edly, reasoned rhe aurhoriries. They pur rhe choice ro Fr. Pavel of eirher doing scienrific work for rhem or going inro permanent exile. Here, plainly, was rhe supreme decision of his life: where and how was he ro 'fir in'?

His response was fareful. He chose rhe work-bur on his own spirirual rerms. Pardy, che choice arase from somerhing few out-side Russia can ever fully comprehend, rhat is, from a profound

16 PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

!ove of rhe Russian homeland, irs land, clima re, people, language, hisrory, culture, and spirirual rrurh. For many Russians, ro choose permanenr exile would be, for us, roughly comparable ro choos-ing ro live in a space capsule orbiring rhe moon: how soon we would be crushingly overwhelmed wirh longings ro see rrees and green grass and brighr sun and blue sky! In choosing againsr permanenr exile, Fr. Pavel chose for a grounded realiry of !ove. Moreover, in rhe firsr years of rhe Soviet regime, scienrific work had a previously undreamed-of energy and purposiveness, a viral-iry born of rhe revolurionary arrempr ro esrablish new and deeper inregrarions berween long-separared fields of research. Fr. Pavel saw rhe immense porenrialiries of rhe work and knew he could make irs rrurh manifesr. Bur, above all , he chose rhe work because he would do ir as he had done everyrhing in his life since April 23, 1911: as a priesr of God.

So began Fr. Pavel's mosr asrounding minisrry. By 1919, he was head of research ar a plasrics planr in Moscow, and by 1921, he was appoinred ro a professorship in physics and engineering in rhe new rechnical instirure. Berween 1921 and 1927, he held a series of imporranr posrs in borh research insritures and universi-ries, direcring an asronishing ser of programs of borh a practica! and a rheorerical narure. In rhis period, severa! imporranr discov-eries and invenrions are also direcrly arrribured ro him. His scien-rific creariviry seemed almost boundless. The Kremlin aurhoriries were, on one leve!, delighred.

On anorher, rhey were greatly disrressed. Fr. Pavel Looked every inch rhe priesr. In exemplary defiance of powerful arheisr masrers, Fr. Pavel would srride inro crowded lecrure halls dressed in cas-sock, cross, and priesr's cap. The scienrific vigor of his lecrure could nor, for rhe aurhoriries, eradicare the image rhey saw befare rhem; for even rhe mosr rigid of arheisrs could nor gainsay rhe iconic realiry of his priesrhood. In such conrexrs, he did nor need ro say or do anyrhing; his simply being rhere as he rruly was

Jntroduction 17

achieved rhe spirirual end. In rhis dilemma of delighr and disrress, rhe aurhoriries menacingly hesirated, while Fr. Pavel carried on wirh his exrraordinary work. Also rhough he could no longer publish any of ir, he conrinued ro wrire rheological works, rhe final one being rhe 1922 monograph, lconostasis. Also in 1921, rheir fourrh child Michael was born, while in 1924 rheir lasr child Maria was born. Farherhood was indeed his pillar and foundarion of rrurh.

In March of 1922, rhe Soviet aurhorities banished al! dissidenr inrellectuals, scholars, and scienrisrs-bur rhey did nor exile Fr. Pavel. By 1926, sorne 9000 priesrs, monks, and nuns had been killed-bur nor Fr. Pavel. Yer his persisrenr refusal ro 'fir in' earned him everywhere rhe conrempruous epirhet of "rhe scholarly pop" (rhe Russian word is nor endearing but vicious); and ir is always highly dangerous ro earn rhe conrempr of brutal aurhoriries. Bishop Anrhony's insighr sorne 23 years earlier began now ro rake on a propheric implication: rhe young Pavel who did not 'fit in' anywhere (not in the universiry, nor in rhe lairy, not in the monastery) had become, by 1928, rhe priest whose spiritual pur-pose !ay precisely in his volunrary refusal ro 'fit in.' The menacing hesitation of rhe authoriries wenr on.

Then, in the summer of 1928, rhe blow seemed ro fall. Fr. Pavel was removed from al! his imporranr scienrific posts and relegared ro a trivial laborarory job in Nizhni-Novgorod. But apparendy rhar was done merely ro make space for more indeci-sion; for rhe following year he was reinstated ro his Moscow post and, moreover, appoinred assisranr director of a prestigious tech-nical institure. Plainly, rhe authorities were badly conflicted. Fr. Pavel's scienrific brilliance conrinued from 1929 ro 1933; equally, he conrinued to be a living icon of Orrhodox realiry, everywhere radiating and (when any would listen) declaring spiritual rrurh wirh a fervent deprh of hearr and mind. In a world srruck dumb by rhe slaughter of ravaged innocence, his words-equally elo-

18 PAVEI FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

q uenr whether spoken or silenr-were food and drink ro the spiritually starved. On May 4, 1932, he was made a member of one of rhe highest scienrific committees. Nine monrhs later, the real blow fell: on February 25, 1933, Fr. Pavel was arrested. Thus, rhe conflicted authorities resolved rheir dilemma in the way ruth-less powers always do: by exterminaring rhe one who makes them experience rheir inner hesitarion.

The tangle of violence and fraud behind his arrest has only recendy become known. If the realities of pre-revolutionary Rus-sia are hard ro grasp, even more unimaginable are the exact processes of rhe Soviet nighrmare-and for decades, they were official secrets. But the deep perestroika thaw in the 1980s, and the regime's August 1991 collapse, opened secret KG B files w a firsr full scruriny: and the sight is quite terrible. In the 1930s, one of rhe regime's primary domesric aims was to eliminare every social elemenr deemed (and doomed) "religious and monarchist." Es-senta! ro this policy, rhough, was rhc regime's overarching need for irs victims ro declare themselves ro be socially conremptible. For rhe regime sought, above all rhings, ro avoid institutionalizing marryrdom. The presence of marryrs was nor merely poor public rclarions. Rather, marryrs were tactically threarening in rheir power to intensif)r social resistance. Thus, the Soviets had to make all vicrims inro vermin worrhy of exterminaran. In Fr. Pavel's case, rhe way to achieving this end was found in Pavel Vasilievich Gudulianov, a professor of law at Moscow Universiry.

First, consider the regime's success: on February 28, three days afrer his arrest, Fr. Pavel signed a one-page documenr whose crucial scntence reads: "Having realized my many crimes against Soviet power and the Parry, with these words I deeply repent my crime of organizing a nationalist-fascist cenrer." Now, by 1933, historie Rus-sian anxiery about German militarism (Tolsroy's War and Peace is eloquenr on rhe subject) had, wirh rhe Nazi rriumph, raken on an alarming confirmaran; and rhe worsr imaginable evil for a Rus-

!ntroduction 19

sian (and not merely a Soviet) cmzen ro comm1t 111 the early 1930s was active participation in Germany's fascist insaniry. Thus, Fr. Pavel's words-"1 deeply repenr my crime of organizing a narionalist-fascist cenrer"-struck rhe right rerrif)ring chord, for any man saying this in the Russia of 1933 was indeed not helpless vicrim bur dangerous vermin. What lay behind this destructive admission?

The instrument ofFr. Pavel's destruction was Professor Gudulianov. The KGB (then the OGPU) had arrested Gudulianov five years earlier, in January of 1928, and had scnr him inro interna! exile. In 1932, they recalled him ro Moscow and proposed a deal: if he would confess ro "counter-revolutionary convicrions" and would implicate others they would name, he and his family could escape prison; if he refused, rhey would sign his name ro rhe documents of accusa-tion, and his family would suffer wirh him. In his OGPU file, Gudulianov's lengthy secrer letter to his courtroom prosecutor says 111 pan:

So began a sorrowful rime for me when 1 was forced ro define myself as a parricipanr in a counrer-revolurionary organizarion ruled by rhree professors, S.A. Chaplighin, N.N. Lusin, and P.A. Florensky. Of rhese rhree, I had never mer Florensky.

Gudulianov initially resisted, holding on (as he says) "steadfasdy." Then rhe racrics were swirchcd, and he was rold rhat he was a victim (that is rhe very word used by rhe OGPU inrerrogator Shupeiko) and that he would be released and returned to his family and work-"but first I have to submit completely to the OGPU." What does submission mean? "I have to announce that T am a real member of rhis counter-revolutionary organizaran; and if 1 accuse myself of even more scrious crimes, my repenrance will rhen be considered e ven more tru rhful."

This configuraran of reward and rhreat proved irresistible. Gudulianov now claimed to have been rhe organizer of the ficri-tious center (dubbed "The Narionalisr Cenrer for Russian Re-newal" by Shupeiko), saying rhar he himself had appoinred its

20 PAVEL RORENSKY: ICONOSTAS!S

governing commirree of Chaplighin, Lusin, and Florensky. Gudulianov said in his public restimony, "The ideologue who arriculared our narionalisr vision of an ancienr Orrhodox stare was our righr-wing commirree member, rhe famous philosopher and rheologian, Professor Florensky." This murderous fanrasy also included cerrain rheological derails ro make ir sound plausible: "Florensky organized cerrain Moscow priesrs and orher provincial monasrics inro rriads similar ro rhe angelic orders in rhe celestial hierarchy." As he wrore in his secret lerrer, rhe OGPU demanded of him "nor rrurh bur verisimilirude." Neverrheless, Gudulianov confessed, "my tesrimony is pure ficrion and, ar rhe very first review, ir will all collapse like a house of cards." Bur such a review would nor come unril 1958. In 1933, rhe resrimony served well rhe regime's inrenrion: rhe immediate desrrucrion of Fr. Pavel, along wirh severa! score orhers whom Gudulianov named (or was ordered ro name) as parricipanrs in rhe non-exisrenr Narionalisr Cenrer for Russian Renewal.

Informed of rhese accusarions at his arresr, Fr. Pavel instanrly denied rhem. Bur rhe next day Shupeiko arranged for Fr. Pavel ro meer his accuser for rhe first time: alone. In abare OGPU room, Gudulianov rold Fr. Pavel the enrire circumsrances, and he ended wirh a plea thar Fr. Pavel follow suir by publicly repenring of rhese "crimes." For by conrinuing ro den y rhe les, Fr. Pavel would only guaranrce rhe conrinued imprisonmenr and likely dearh of borh Gudulianov himself and his whole family.

A momenr of supreme spiritual crisis had arrived for Fr. Pavel. He would well have known rhat ro participare in rhe les of srare violence robs rhe soul of every shred of spiritual inregriry, and rhar once rruly begun, rhe desrrucrion of inregriry is nearly impossible ro hale. Yer he would also know rhar spirirual inregriry in Chrisr has unfarhomable deprhs, for in rhar bare OGPU room in late February, 1933, Fr. Pavel could nor have helped bur discern in rhe faces of rhe Soviet aurhorities rhe very faces of rhe Jerusalem rulers

lntroduction 21

who had crucified Chrisr. And whar is rhe Crucifixion aparr from rhe willingness ro accept in uncondirionallove rhe violence rhat is given? Moreover, Fr. Pavel would have seen before him rhe face of his false accuser begging him for life. And if Christ in crucified agony had prayed for his implacable murderers ro be forgiven, whar was he todo wirh rhis cringing accuser? The universe holds its brearh in every single spirirual crisis. Then Fr. Pavel agreed ro sign rhe confession rhey had wrirren for him. Things now moved briskly along rhe precise paths of state violence. A tria! was held, and, on J une 26, 1933, he was senrenced ro ten years in the dreaded labor camps, those places (in Solzhenitsyn's phrase) "in-venced for destruction."

Gudu lianov's sorry fate is worth noring. He concluded his secrer letter ro rhe prosecuror rhis way:

This present letter is my secret confession, and I beg you to preserve rhe secrecy of a confession and to keep silent. 1 am writing rhis as my only copy, and ler ir all stay a secret and die wirh me ... Please forgive my frankness. You know rhar 1 am always at your service.

Despite rhis plea, the prosecutor immediarely forwarded the lerrer ro the OG PU, and there in 1990 ir was found stapled ro Gudulianov's file. lnreresringly, Gudulianov had penned at the bottom rhe Larin psalmic phrase, "I have spoken and uplifted my soul" (dixi et animam levavz). Bur while rhe confession may have relieved his soul, ir also sealed his doom. For in 1937, he was rearrested, and rhe lerrer was used as crucial evidence against him. He was execured. Yer without rhe crucialletter, we would roday know lirrle of the tangle of murderous lies behind Fr. Pavel's arres c.

On June 27, 1933, Fr. Pavel was transponed under guard ro Siberia. The Soviet insrirurionalizarion of sadism in the labor camps-sysrematic torture, crushing physical labor, unceasing semi-srarvarion, terror and lies-constirures the rheory and prac-rice of He!!. When Fr. Pavel began his life in Hell at age 51, his priesrhood was undoubtedly rhe primary target, for rhar is what

22 PAVEL Fl ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

had broughr him rhere. His immecliare lor cbuld only have been physical torture for refusal and glirrering rewarcls for compliance. Srripped of cassock, cross ancl cap, rhe priesr's shoulder-lengrh hair ancl beard shavecl, he submirred ro neirher pain nor pleasure; he helcl fast, deepening inro Christ, clown pasr rhe ourward im-ages of priesrhood and roward rhe deprhs of Chrisr's agony. For only such heroic enclurance woulcl a year larer have earned him imprisonmenr in rhe one camp designared for rhe incorrigible: rhe ancienr Solovki monasrery, rhe one rhar Bishop Anrhony had described ro rhe young Pavel in 1904 ancl now become a clreaded gulag.

There, in 1934, Fr. Pavel found his final minisrry. The aurhori-ties squeezed from him rhe lasr drops of scienrific creariviry, compelling him ro work on rechnical problems of extracring useful elemenrs from seaweed. Lerrers in rhe mid-1930s speak of exhausring schedules of rechnical work wherein he neverrheless rerains a nearly inexringuishable inrellectual curiosiry. In May, 1937, he wrires his morher rhat rhe "deep meaning" of rhis work is "rhe lesson of unselfishness," hearrbreakingly adding, "bur srill ir is exhausring."

Bur rhe deeper work of his lasr minisrry was hidden from rhe eyes of rhe aurhoriries: he served rhe needs of rhe pooresr, mosr ravaged prisoners. A crucial image survives rhe darkness-Fr. Pavel saved rhe scraps ofbread from his own meagre meals ancl fed rhem ro rhe starving ancl dying. Everything had been srripped away from him-social meaning, digniry, freedom, family, psy-chological well-being, and physical healrh-excepr rhis irreduc-ible core of priesrhood in Chrisr: rhis is my body; rake, eat.

For three years at Solovki, Fr. Pavel so endured. Then in rhe first days of December, 1937, rhcre was delivered at rhe camp headquarrers a narrow piece of paper folded in half-and found tlfry ycars larer in the KGB file on fr. Pavel. One half has merely rhe idenrifying number and namc, "190, Florensky, Pavel Alexan-

In troduction 23

clrovich." Bur on rhe other half are rhe clread words, "Florensky, Pavel Alexandrovich is ro be shor." The paper's reverse side reads:

Extraer from the minutes of rhe meeting of the Special Triad of the UNKVD, Leningrad region no. 199, 25 November 1937. Unaminous decision.

Secrerary ro the Triad: Lt. G. B. Sorokin, Chief 3rd Div. UNKVD

We now know the names of his killers. The last tem in rhe file is a brief official statemenr: "The senrence of rhe Special Triad of rhe UNKVD concerning Florensky, Pavel Alexandrovich was carriecl out 8 Oecember 1937." Ir is signecl by rhe UNKVD Commandanr of rhe Leningrad region, Lr. Polikarpov. The mode of execurion was undoubtedly rhat favored by rhe OGPU in rhe 1930s: a single shor in rhe back of rhe head; and Fr. Pavel was probably kneeling. His body was never recovered. Ir was most likely (along wirh hundreds of orhers) rhrown off rhe Solovki cliffs inro rhe freezing White Sea.

One final image comes clown to us from a Solovki survivor. When, on December 8, Fr. Pavel's body was being carried rhrough rhe camp ro the prison gates, hundreds of prisoners risked rhe rage of rheir caprors ro kneel as rheir spiritual farher passed by. Ten monrhs earlier, on February 13, Fr. Pavel had written in one ofhis last lerrers an extraordinary paragraph:

The destiny of grearness is suffering, both from rhe externa! world and from one's own inner world. This always was, is, and will be so. Why iris so is clear: ir is always ro be one step behind-sociery behind its social greamess, and oneselfbehind one's own personal greamess. This is clear; and rhe world is constitured in this way: one can give ro rhe world only by paying for one's giving in suffering and persecurion. The more selfless rhe giving, the severer the persecution and the harsher the suffering.

By deliberare! y in Christ stepping back from manifesring grearness, a person and a sociery enrer inro suffering-and rhereby inro rhe only conclirion wherein one may rruly give ro rhe world not one's "grearness" (i.e., one's vainglorious fanrasy) bur one's only rrue

24 PAVEL. F!ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

gift: oneself. The prisoners kneeling in the Solovki yard knew that Fr. Pavel had wholly given them the supreme gift of himself. And because one rruly possesses only what one wholly gives away, Fr. Pavel had, in turn, been given back in Christ the very self he had surrendered, now purified and radiant. As ifbefore the very Cross itself, the Solovki prisoners on December 8, 1937 knelt in the presence of this accomplished Mystery.

For a half cenrury, rhe Soviet regime lied first abour the fact and then about the date of his dearh. For six years, his family were told merely that they could no longer correspond with an incorri-gible. Then early in 1944, his wife was informed that her husband had died on December 15, 1943-just the bare fact, wirh no explanation. By then, of course, Russian social realiry had drasti-cally changed, for the armies of the Nazi destroyers were now on Russian soil. In rhis new conrext of a noble war of patrioric defense, one prisoner's death was merely an unfortunate incidenr in a dark but heroic time-and not (as ir was in 1937) a vicious murder deliberarely committed ro perpetuare a systemic policy of vasr evil. In 1937 in fact, tens of rhousands of ecclesiasrical and academic persons were so murdered; and rhe final figure for all state polirical murders in rhe dozen years prior ro rhe German invasion may well run ro seven million. Ir is rhis monsrrous fact thar the Soviet aurhorities in the late 1930s soughr ro hide, and, unril 1992, were successful in hiding. Bur, srrangely, rhe KGB kept scrupulous files derailing every ourrage rhey commirred, clown ro rhe leasr lie and most graruirous acr of violence. Ir was as if the mere logic and rore discipline of record keeping could somehow creare a comprehensible and therefore acceptable realiry where, in fact, only demonic darkness reigned.

On M ay 5, 1958, rhe municipal courr of the ciry of Moscow exonerated Fr. Pavel of all charges, fulfilling Gudulianov's 1933 predicrion thar rhe "pure fiction" ofhis restimony would "collapse like a house of cards."

1 ntroduction 25

Today, his grandson Pavel is a monk in Moscow's Danielov monastery, helping fulfi ll his grandfather's penirenrial "return ro rhe priesthood." As T.S. Eliot wrote in The Four Quartets, "The communication of the dead is rongued with fire beyond the language of the living."

II

A powerful meaning ammg from Fr. Pavel's life informs the essenrial meaning of his book lconostasis. We can approach rhe meaning rhis way: a life in God resembles an icon in rhar borh are creared not by rheir material causes in emprica! hisrory bur by rheir final causes in sacred realiry. In this sense, we may say rhar a life in God is 'fronr-loaded,' rhat is, ir rakes irs shape from rhe teleological end-poinr roward which rhe whole life is moving and within which (when ir arrives rhere) the life will reveal irs long hidden but always dererminative purposiveness. The end-point of Fr. Pavel's life reveals rhe shaping purposiveness mosr plainly in his feeding rhe bread of his own scant meals ro his srarving fellow-prisoners. Ar rhis end-poinr, everything has been stripped mercilessly from him, and rhere is norhing he can any longer do, or even say; he musr now simply and only be. And in rhis simplic-ity of being, he reveals who he rruly is in Christ. Just so, rhe icon in Fr. Pavel's undersranding is 'fronr-loaded' from final cause: such is rhe guiding principie of lconostasis.

From this principie, rhe book uniquely seeks ro do rwo rhings simulraneously: ro comprehend iconography in and through irs final cause in rhe vision of God; and ro situare the icon in borh its material and its historie dimensions in the light of this final cause. Now, whi le rhese rwo aims have long independent histories, rhey havc never been envisioned as achievable simultaneously-and for undersrandable reasons. As ro the first, the cenruries of wrir-ings by the Orrhodox sainrs, fathers, and iconographers have bcautifully shed lighr on rhe spiritual economia of rhe icon; while

26 PAVE! I"LORENSKY: ICONOSTAS!S

as ro rhe second, rhe lasr cenrury or so of work by arr historians of rhe West has described something of the icon's historie and tech-nical processes. In arrempting borh ar once, Iconostasis runs rhe double risk of, on the one hand, offending rraditional piety by dragging in rhe 'world,' and, on rhe orher, seeming quite incom-prehensible ro Western assumprions abour rhe causes of history and rhe significance of arrisric marerials. As Fr. Pavel himselffor so long did nor 'fir in,' so Iconostasis faces rhe same challenge.

Irs great success in meeting rhis challenge arises from three relared areas. The first is prose sryle. In rhis final work of rheology, Fr. Pavel brings ro perfecrion his well known (nor ro say, norori-ous) prose style, one characrerized by exccedingly complicared synrax and densely complex connecrions, borh conceptual and verbal. He himself knew full wcll rhe problems his prose pre-sentcd. Roben Slesinski quores a 1906 lerrer in which rhe young Pavel wrore rhar, in rhe painful rejecrion of his prose because ir does not 'fir in' anywhere ("for one ir is too scholarly, for anorher roo much 'in rhe new sryle'; for one iris roo marhemarical and so forrh, ro anorher rhe mysrical and rheological elemenrs are loarh-some"), he neverrheless sees "an acknowledgmenr rhar coincides wirh my secret desires":

1 cannor please anyone, and ro change thar method, which forme seems ro be my presenr path (rhe invesrigarion of conceprs and rhe synrhesis of hererogeneous marerials), 1 cannot do in conscience.

This 1906 parh of conceptual synrhesis lcads srraight inro the 1922 rext of lconostasis: and rhere finds irs full flowering. For a senrence in 1922 serves always rhe high and wholly conscious spirirual end of affirming rhe full realiry of final cause in God.

Thus, as an issue of deepesr "conscience," rhe dynamic srruc-rure of a senrence is never for Fr. Pavel a superficial marrer; insread, rhe morions of rhinking rhe spaces of rhoughr musr always perfecrly fir rhe rhyrhms of rhe senrence. We, in turn, are always being challenged ro fir cach senrence inro a region of ideas

lntroduction 27

we may not be ar all used ro inhabiring but which, once we do, will be seen ro shine wirh an exrraordinary deprh of lighr. In realizing rhe "secrer desires" of 1906, rhe prose sryle of lconostasis achieves a grear end.

The second area of the work's success les in irs subjecr. In aniculating the final cause of iconography, lconostasis can concen-trare on rhe icon's spirirual focticity-and so avoid the risks of his earlier, longer work, The Pillar and Foundation ofTruth, where rhe subjecr is spirirual ideation. The icon's irreducible facticiry gives Fr. Pavel an unshakable foundation upon which ro erecta brearh-raking structure of revelations-and, as al! good foundarions do, ro 'rrue' rhe structure al! rhe way up. Thus, Iconostasis can show how final cause acrs so powerfully in rhe icon that ir transfigures inro sacred realiry even rhe leasr of rhe icon's material causes. Board, glue, gesso, gold leaf, painrs, as well as rhe rechniques of brushwork and gilding, participare in rhe plenum of infinire being endowed by and in final cause. Onhodox iconography has always known rhis hallowing of rradirional materials and rech-niques; whar lconostasis uniquely shows is rhe ground of rhis hallowing.

Bur sryle and subjecr are finally ancillary ro rhe rhird area of rhe book's success: irs spirirual inregriry. This inregrity of !conosta-sis can be perhaps besr approached by a crucialline in Psalm 78:

For rhey provoked Him ro anger wirh rheir high places, and moved llim ro jealousy wirh rheir graven images.

This cchoes, in part, rhe powerful line from Deureronomy: "For rhe Lord rhy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God" (4:24). Why is God jealous; rhar is, why is jealousy an essenrial, indeed defini-rive ami bu re of God? To be su re, rhe Hebrew verb kanna carries rhe meaning of being zealous as well as being jealous; but rhe explicir currenrs of angcr in both meanings leave rhe puzzle unsolved. How is God's violenr jealousy a mode of His divine grace?

28 l'AVH ILORf.NSKY: ICONOSTASIS

In The Pillar and Foundation of Truth, Fr. Pavel addresses rhis question wirh powerful insighr: jealousy is rhe concrerizing force of !ove. Thar is, rhe jealous God !oves this people, nor anorher; this man or this woman or this child, not thar one. Furrher, God's !ove is absolurely disrinct from desire in rhe same way rrue praise shares norhing at alt wirh flarrery. Desire and flarrery seek ro appropriare rhe orher person ro one's own uses, while !ove and praise confer irreducible personhood on rhe orher at rhe very instant rhey esrablish absolure relarion berween self and orher. The force rhar drives divine love and praise is, says Fr. Pavel, jealousy, for it alone is dynamicalty specific enough ro overcome isolarion and establish vital relation. Roben Slesinski concludes his fine discussion of rhis imporranr point by saying, "In sum, jealousy is anyrhing but egoistic; ir is rarher rhe rrue pledge of !ove."

Now, rhe spirirual inregrity of Iconostasis is besr comprehended as a jealous !ove of rhe icon. For rhe !ove shining in rhe book's every senrence acrs ro manifest rhe onrological fullness of both icon and beholder. This mutual fullness simulraneously includes, for borh, rhe specificalty historie and rhe infinirely spiritual (i.e., material and final causes), a fullness rhar affirms rhar borh icon and beholder owe rheir inrense aliveness ro rhe same immense Love. And in rhe face of rhis Love, no leasr shadow of falsehood is even remorely tolerable: "l hare every false way," says rhe Psalmisr (119:104). And from rhis Love arises rhe spirirual inregrity of Iconostasis. Herein lies irs triumph.

! ! ! !

In translaring !conostasis we have had one overarching aim: inreltigibiliry. We have felt rhar rhe work's difficulries are ulrimately spiritual in nature, nor linguisric. Hence, we have soughr ro pro-duce a verbal surface in English rhar, while inrellecrually challeng-ing in ways resembling rhe original Russian , would neverrheless

T lntroduction 29

permir access inro rhe work's real challenge: comprehending rhe icon-hence, the world-in rhe fullness of spirirual inregrity.

Thar exrraordinary period called rhe Russian Renaissance or Silver Age (roughly, 1905 ro 1922) awairs irs rrue historian. The narrarive rask is formidable, for ir demands connecring arr, cul-ture, polirics, and religion wirh scholarly exactness and inrellec-rual courage-qualiries rarely found rogerher. Our belief as rranslarors of Iconostasis is rhat when rhis great hisrory finally comes ro be written, Fr. Pavel Florensky's li fe and work will be seen as essenrial ro borh rhe tale rhat is rold and rhe true way to rell ir. In being so, his work and his life will, like rhe icon, help renew rhe spirituallife of Russia and rhe world.

Bibliographica1 Note Much of che biographical material in chis inrroduccion is drawn primarily from one sourcc: Sobrnnie sochrnemi/Pavel Flormskir, vol. l; pod obshchei redalmiei N.A. Srruvc (YMCA Press: Paris. 1985). Also Roben Slesinski's splendid Pavel florensky: A Meta-physics ofLove (St. Vladimir\ Press: Crcsrwood, NY, 1984) provided addicional marcri-als. Also. Aleksandr l. Solzhcnirsyn's The Culag Archipelogo 111-IV. crans. Thomas P. Whimey (Harper and Row: New York, 1975) conrains a bricf ycr powerful discussion ofl'lorcnsky-as well as, of cou rse, an exrensive and tccronically powerful descriprion of rhc Soviet gulogs. Also, sorne information, and a fcw phrascs, as wcll as che opcning scnrenccs from Sa!t of the Earth, are raken from Richard Bem' cranslacion of char work, publishcd hy rhe St. Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (Piarina CA, 1987). Finally, information abour Horensky's arrcst and dcach is drawn from an anide in rhe maguine Ogoniok (Moscow, Novembcr 1990). "'The Destiny of Creacness," by Vi cal y Shentalin-sky. as well as from convcrsanons wirh Fr. Roben Slcsinski, Sergei Khorujy. and George Kline in Julv 1992. at a confcrcncc

-r;.....~ J

lntroduction: The Spiritual Structure of Dreams

I n the beginning of Genesis-"God crea red the heavens and the earrh"-we have always recognized as basic this division of all creation into two. J ust so, when wc pray the Apostles' Creed, we name Godas "Maker of all rhings visible and invisible." These rwo worlds-the visible and rhe invisible-are incimately connected, bu "('(he ir reciproca! differences are so immense that the inescapable question arises: what is their boundary? Their b~

34 I'AVI L II.ORFNSI\.l': ICONOSTASIS Dream: rhis is our first and simplcsr (in rhe sense rhar we are

fully habiruared ro ir) entry inro rhe invisible world. This entry is, more ofren rhan nor, rhe lowesr. Yer even rhe mosr chaoric and crude dream leads our sou l inro rhe invisible, giving even ro rhe leasr sensitive of us rhe insighr rhar rhere is somerhing in us very differem from what we uniquely calllife. And we know this, roo: when we stand on rhe rhreshold berween sleep and waking, when we stand ar rhe boundary berween rhe rwo worlds, our soul is engulfed wirh dreams.

We need not prove rhe point. Long ago ir was shown that our deepesr sleep-whar we call sleep irself-is wholly wirhour dreaming. Ir is only when wc sleep lighrly ar rhe boundary be-rwecn sleep and waking rhat we are in rhe rime-more preciscly, in rhe temporal environment-wherc dream images are born. One undersranding (and ir is almosr righr) says rhat dream images correspond ro rhe immediare passage from one area of psychic acriviry ro another. And as we begin ro awaken, we begin ro rranspose rhese dream imagcs inro daylighr consciousness where rhcy can unfold in rhe temporal sequcnce of our visible world. Bur, raken in rhemselvcs, rhese drcam images have a unique, incomparable rime, a rime rhar cannor be mcasured in rhe terms of rhe visible world, a "rranscendcnral" rime. Ler us rccall a brief proa f.

"The sleep was brief bur rhc dream was long": such is rhe simple formula of dream images. We al! know rhis. We sleep for, say, a brief few minutcs-yer in rhose few minutes, we pass rhrough days, months, even years, somerimcs even cemuries and millennia. There can be no doubr wharcver abour rhis: sleeping is scaled off from rhe visible world . Thus, a dreamer passes inro .morher sysrem, anorher dimension, anorher measure wherein rime is undersrood and experienced in ways complerely unlike rhe ways of rime in rhe visible world. In rhis ncw experience of rime,

lntroduction: The Spirituaf Structure of Dreams 35 rhe dreamer's rime, compared ro rime in rhe visible world, runs ar infinire speed.

Many would agree, rhen, evcn wirh knowing norhing whar-ever about rhe principie of relariviry, rhar in differem dimensions rhere is different rime and ir moves in differenr speeds and differ-enr measures. Few have sufficienrly considered, however, rhe infi-nire speed of rhe dream-time, rhe rime rhar rurns inside out, rhe time rhat flows backward. For, indeed, very long sequences of visible time can, in rhe dream, be wholly insranraneous-and can flow from furure ro pasr, from effecrs ro causes. This happens in ') our dreams precisely when we are moving from rhe visible world ro rhe invisible, berween rhe actual and rhe imaginary.

The firsr undersranding of insranraneous rime was advanced by Baron Carl Duprel. A young man ar rhe rime, he rook rhe firsr imporranr sreps in rhe righr direcrion, rhe mosr subsranrial srep being rhe arricularion of rhe foct of ir. Bur rhe even more substan-cial discovery-rhat rime flows backwards as well as forwards-he failed ro make. He approached rhis discovery; bur he grew always more and more uncerrain; he finally did not comprehend rhe invisible rhar !ay befare him.

We can schemarize our undersranding of dreams rhis way. We all know the dreams-we have had rhem rimes beyond all counr-ing (rhough we have never reflecred upon rhem deeply enough)-when some tiny externa! srimulus causes rhe dreams. A sharp noise, or orher sound, a loudly spoken word, a blanker rhar has slipped away, a sudden odor, a ray of lighr, and so on: anyrhing wharever can provoke a sequence of dream images. Ir mighr be wise, rhen, ro recognize rhar all dreams are exrernally caused. Bur ro rhis recognirion (or asserrion) we rarely compare rhe composirion of rhe actual dream. Mosr ofren, we do nor even arrend ro rhe dream's conrenr, lerring our inarrenriveness be fed by rhe opinion rhar dreams are empry and unworrhy of considera-ran and rhoughr. Bur even rhe mosr "occasional" of dreams is, in

36 PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

fact, construcred on quite differenr lines. Ler us look at such a construcnon.

We dream (ler us say) a sequence of persons, places and evenrs whose causal linkages reside nor in sorne 'deep comprehension' of rhose persons, places and evenrs bur, insread, are found in rhe emprica! surfaces of rhe dream. We plainly understand, in rhe dream, how one evenr causes another, and how (possibly quite absurdly) rwo or more evenrs are connecred because rhe firsr one is causing rhe nexr ones ro occur; moreover, as rhe dream unfolds for us, we see plainly how the whole chain of causation is leading roward sorne conclusive evenr, sorne denouement ro rhe dream's enrire sysrem of cause-effect. Ler us call rhis conclusive evenr X; and ler us say, roo, rhat X occurred beca use of sorne previous evenr T, which, in turn, was caused by S, whose cause was R, and so on: going from effecr ro cause, from larrer ro prior, from presenr ro pasr, unril we arrive ar rhe dream's srarring poinr, sorne usually quite insignificanr, even meaningless evenr A: and iris rhis evenr A rhar is undersrood in the dream as rhe firsr cause of rhe enrire sysrem. Bur whar abour rhe riny externa! srimulus, rhe quick sharp noise, rhe brief ray of lighr? To waking consciousness, rhis externa! srimulus is rhe cause of rhe whole composirion: rhe cause, rhar is, of rhe whole causally inrerlocked sysrem in which persons, places and evenrs arose in rhe dream. Ler us call rhis externa! cause O.

Now, whar makes rhe dreamer awaken? When we look ar rhis quesrion from rhe viewpoinr of waking consciousness, we mighr wanr ro say rhar ir is O (rhe noise or rhe lighr) rhar awakens us. From wirhin rhe dream, however, ir is plainly rhe conclusive dream evenr X-rhe denouement- rhat, precisely because ir ends rhe dream, awakens us. Taken rogerher, we can see rhar O and X almost perfecrly coincide in such a way rhar rhe dreamed-content and rhe wakened-cause are one and rhe same. This coincidence is usually so exacr rhar we never even wonder abour rhe relarion ofX

......

lntroduction: The SpirituaL Structure of Dreams 37 and 0: rhe denouement is unquesrionably a 'dream-paraphrase' of sorne externa! srimulus invading our dream from wirhour.

For example, 1 dream rhar a pisrol shor goes off, and in rhe room near me someone is really shor, or somebody has slammed a door. So rhere is no doubr rhar rhe dream was accidental; of course rhe pisto! shor in rhe dream is a spiritual echo of a shot in rhe outer world. The rwo shors are, if you wish, rhe double perception-by rhe dreaming ear and by rhe sober ear-of one and rhe same physical process. lf in a dream 1 should see a mulrirude of fragrant flowers at rhe very moment someone puts a borde of perfume under my nose, then once more it would be wholly unnatural ro rhink thar rhe coincidence of rhe rwo fra-grances (the flowers' fragrance in the dream and rhe perfume's in the world) is accidental. Or 1 dream that someone falls upon me and begins ro strangle me, and I awake in terror ro find that a pillow has fallen on my chest. Or I dream I am attacked by a dog, and I awake the find rhat a mosquito has birren me. There are uncountable rhousands of such instances; in all of them, rhe coincidence of X and 0-of, again, rhe dream's denouement and irs externa! cause-is under no circumsrances an accidental coin-cidence.

But note whar we are saying: rhe same evenr is being di ffer-enrly seen by rwo consciousness: by waking consciousness, iris O, whi le by dream consciousness, ir is X. This would scarcely be worrh our notice at all exccpt for the exrraordinary fact that X has a contradicrory double statC~s: in waking consciousness, ir is a dream effect of externa! cause O while, in the dream, it is rhe fina l effect of the dream's srrongly welded causal chain begun by trivial evenr A. Thus, X concludes rwo entirely distinct lines of causa-tion, lines whose respective starring poinrs (the externa! noise and dream evenr A) have no connecrion wharever: plainly, O cannor in any sense cause A ro occur. Bur we can say that if A and all its chain of circumsrances did not exist, then the whole dream would

38 l'AVEL ILORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

nor occur, and consequenrly rhere would be no X-which means rhar O did nor reach our consciousness.

Thus, while X is a reAecrion ofO in rhe imagery of rhe dream, ir is clearly not sorne deus ex machina wirh no connection ro rhe dream's logic of evenrs, sorne alien inrruder who senselessly termi-nares rhe srream of inner imagery. No, X is a rrue denouement: ir genuinely concludes rhe dream. In dreams, evenrs do not happen rhe way people who are insensirive ro God's providence rhink rhey happen, as rhe rrain crash or rhe pisrol shor terminares rhe prom-ising life. In dreams, everyrhing happens as in a perfecr drama, and the denouement comes because all rhe prior evems of rhe dream have fully ripened and because ir rherefore fulfills and unifies rhe dream's enrire drama and mcaning. The dream denoue-ment is rherefore nor sorne indcpendenr evenr glued from rhe ourside onro rhc dream's causal chain; in sorne unfarhomable way, ir never inrerruprs the dream's logic and shape and whole parrern of inrerlocked derails. A dream is unquesrionably a complete rrurh, a self-enclosed coherence, in which rhe denouement is pre-derermined from rhe very srarr in such a way rhar we may say rhat the end determines borh rhe beginning and everything rhar occurs berween rhe beginning and rhe end. A dream, in orher words, is wholly coherenr; ir cannot be sundered anywhere wirhout de-stroying it enrirely. Justas is always the case with the well-written play, where a plor wirhout irs conclusive conscquences lacks al! significance, so we may say that rhe composirion of the dream is teleological: irs events occur because of irs denouement, in such a way rhar rhe denouement will nor be lefr hanging in rhe air bur will, insrcad, exhibir deep programmaric rarionaliry.

Ler us look ar sorne dreams. Here are rhose drcams rhar srem fiom the same externa! srimulus, rhe ringing of an alarm dock (rhese are Gilderbrand's observarions).

lntroduction: The SpirituaL Structure of Dreams 39

l. lr's a spring morning and l'm going for a walk rhrough green

meadows, and l come ro rhe neighboring village. I see rhe villagers dressed in Sunday clorhes, carrying rheir prayerbooks, a big crowd of rhem all heading for rhe church. Today is Sunday and Divine Lirurgy will soon begin. l decide ro go ro Lirurgy bur l'm a bit warm from walking, so 1 decide firsr ro rest in the cemerery next ro rhe church. l starr ro read rhe epitaphs, and rhen 1 norice rhe bell ringer srart ro go u p rhe bell rower. The bell musr be rung ro srart rhe service, bur ir srill hangs unmoving. Then rhe bell begins ro sway and suddenly ir peals out in loud, piercing sounds-so piercing, in fact, rhar 1 awake ro find rhar rhe piercing sound is m y alarm dock ringing.

2. lr's a clear wimer day, and rhe srreers are covered wirh snow.

I've promised ro go on a sleigh ride, bur 1 have ro wair a long rime. Then l'm rold rhar rhe sleigh is ready at rhe gate. 1 make ready to leave-1 put on my heavy fur coar; a footbag is raken our-and at last I sir clown in the sleigh. Bur rhere's more waiting now, unril final ly the impatienr horses are given the reins. The sleigh bells on rhe reins starr rrembling wirh rheir famous "yanichar" music; rhey ring out louder and ever more vigorously-unril the dream tears open and I find rhar rhe srrong sound of sleigh bells is my alarm dock ringing.

3. I see rhe kirchen maid going clown the hallway ro rhe dining

room, and she's carrying a stack of rwo or three dozen porcelain piares. 1 sense rhar rhe stack is ripping out of her hands . "Warch out," I cry. "The whole load will fall." She argues back-inevira-bly. "Ir's not rhe first time I've carried piares, you know. I'm used ro ir." But I'm keeping an anxious eye on her as she goes ro the dining room. On the threshold she rrips, and all the dishes fall from her hands, cracking and ringing out in hundreds of Aying

40 PAVEL I'LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

pieces. Bur rhe sound keeps on, and ir's nor rhe dishes crashing bur rhe sound-I'm now awake-of my alarm dock ringing.

Ler us rake one more example, a famous one in rhe psychology rexrs. In rhis one, rhe dreamer experiences rhe French Revolurion, parriciparing in rhe very beginnings of rhe Revolurion and-for over a year inside rhe dream-goes rhrough a long, complicared series of advenrures: persecurion, pursuir, terror, rhe execurion of rhe King, and so on. Finally, rhe dreamer is arresred wirh rhe Girondisrs, rhrown inro prison, inrerrogared, and rhen condemned by rhe Revolurionary Council ro die. The wagon rolls rhrough rhe srreers ro rhe guillotine, and he is raken from rhe wagon and his head is flrmly placed on rhe headresr, and rhen rhe guillotine blade falls heavily onro his neck: and he awakens in horror.

Ir is rhe final evenr rhar inreresrs us: rhe rouch of rhe blade on his neck. Can anyone doubr rhis: rhar rhe whole dream sequence, from rhe first srirrings of Revolurion ro rhe conclusive fall of rhe guillotine blade, is one seamless whole? Doesn'r rhe enrire chain direcr irself precisely ro rhar conclusive evenr (rouch of cold sreel) rhar we termed X? To doubr rhis toral, inrerlocked coherence is ro deny rhe very dream irself.-an improbable supposirion.

And yer rhe dreamer found, in rhe momenr of his rerrified awakening, rhar rhe mera! bedsread of his bed had somehow broken and had heavily srruck his bare neck. We cannor doubr rhe coherenr wholeness of his dream, a coherence rhar srarrs from rhe Revolurion's firsr srirrings (A) and concludes wirh rhe guillotine blade falling (X). Equally, we cannor doubr rhar rhe sensarion of rhe blade (X) and rhe rouch of bedsread mera! (O) are rhe very same event: bur perceived by rwo disrinct orders of consciousness, dream and wakened.

None of rhis would, I repear, be ar all exrraordinary if rhe rouch of rhe bedsread (O) had awakened rhe sleeper and, in rhe insranr of rhis awakening, rhe rouch had been enfolded by rhe symbolic image of rhe rouch, and if rhis symbolic image (ampli-

lntroduction: The Spiritual Structure of Dreams 41 fled by rhemaric associarions wirh rhe French Revolurion) had unfolded inro a dream of sufficienr lengrh. Bur in actual facr rhis drearn, as wirh coundess orhers of rhe same rype, flows reversely ro whar we expecr when we rhink in rhe Kanrian sense of rime. We say rhar the externa! cause (0) of rhe dream (which is a single, coherenr unir) is the rouch of rhe bedsread on rhe dreamer's neck, and that rhis rouch is symbolized by rhe image of rhe guillotine blade's rouch (X). Hence, rhe spirirual cause of rhe whole dream is rhis evenr X. Thus, in daylighr consciousness and according ro rhe scherne of daylighr causaran, rhis evenr musr precede A, which spiritually flows from rhis evenr X. In orher words, in rhe rime of rhe daylighr world, evenr X should be rhe srart of rhe dream's drama and evenr A irs denouement. Bur here, in rhe rime of rhe invisible world, ir happens inside out, and cause X appears nor prior ro all rhe consequences of A and (in general) nor prior ro rhe entire series of consequences (b, e, d ... r, s, r) but following rhem, concluding rhe whole row and derermining ir nor as irs efficienr cause bur irs final cause: TAOS.

Thus, time in rhe dream runs, and acceleraredly runs, rowards rhe actual and against rhe movemenr of rime in waking conscious-ness. Oream rime is turned inside out, which means rhar all irs concrete images are also rurned inside out wirh ir: and rhar means we have enrered rhe domain of imaginary space. The very same evenr rhar is perceived from rhe area of actual space as actual is seen from rhe arca of imaginary space as imaginary, i.e., as occur-ring befare everyrhing clse in releological rime, as rhe goal or objecr of our purposiveness. Conrrarily, rhe goal seen from here appears (in our failure ro appreciare goals righrly) as somerhing cherished bur lacking rhe energy of rhe ideal; bur seen from there, rhrough rhe orher consciousness, rhe goal is comprehended as living energy rhar shapes acrualiry as irs crearive form. So, in general, runs rhe inner rime of organic life, rhe flow of which is diverred from consequences ro cause-goal. Bur usually rhis inner rime only very dimly reaches our waking consciousness.

42 PAVEL FLORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

A person I knew very well once dreamed (afrer rhe dearh of close relarives) rhat he was walking along a cemerery, and che orher world seemed ro him dark and gloomy. Bur all at once rhe deceased in the cemetery--or perhaps he himself somehow un-dersrood (1 don't remember how)-explained ro him how very wrong such a rhought was; for, directly benearh rhe surface of rhe earrh, foliage was growing but wirh its roots up, not clown, so that rhe same green and succulent foliage and grass were rhere, justas in rhe cemetery-bur even more green and succulenr; and rhe same crees were rhere, and rheir great crowns grew clown and their roors reached up, and rhe same birds sang in the same azure sky where rhe same sun shone-all of ir more radiandy beauriful than in our world on chis side.

Don't we recognize in rhis reverse world, in rhis onrological mirror reflection of our world, rhe sphere of rhe imaginary, an imaginary which is neverrheless actual for one who is oneself rurned upside clown, who reaches inro rhe world's spirirual den-siry-an imaginary rruly real in rhe way one is oneself real? Yes, this realm is real in essence-and not in a way complerely differ-ent from the reality of our world, for wharever God creares is blessed inro uniry; rarher whar rhe journeyer ro rhe orher side sees and what rhe deceased also contemplares is rhe same existence as here. The rrue counrenances and spirirual forms of rhings are seen by one who has himself realized his own true, original counte-nance, thar counrenance which is rhe image of God (and the Greek for which is LOa); for rhe ideas of rhe Existing One see, having been themselves illumined by rhe Idea, and rhereby in and rhrough rhemselves rhey reveal ro our world here rhe ideas of the supreme world.

And so dreams are rhe images rhar separare rhe visible world from rhe invisible-and at the same rime join rhem. This bound-ary-space of rhe dream establishes rhe relarionship of rhe dream images ro rhis world as well as ro thatworld. From rhe perspective

J. .J.

-t.

lntroduction: The Spirituaf Structure of Dreams 43

of che visible world and irs ordinary images (i.e., what we call 'acrualiry'), a dream is 'mere! y a dream,' noching-nihil visible, yes nihil, bur visible norhing, visible and perceptible and rherefore always approaching che images of this 'acrualiry.' Bur rime in rhe dream-i.e. its mosr general characrerisric-runs reversely ro rime in rhe visible world. And rherefore alrhough ir is something perceived, che dream is wholly releological, sarurared with rhe meanings of rhe invisible world, meanings rhat are invisible, immaterial, eterna! yer neverrheless visibly manifest and (as ir were) vividly material. A dream is therefore pure meaning wrapped in the rhinnest membrane of marerialiry; ir is almosr wholly _a -phenom.enon of che other world. The dream is rhe common limir of bth rhe sequence of earrhly srares and rhe sequence of heavenly srates, che boundary where rhe final derer-minarions of earrh meet che increasing densificarions of heaven. The dream makes inro symbols chis meeting of che lowest experi-ences of rhe highest world with che highest experiences of rhe lowest world; thus, che dream is che last splashes of che higher world inro rhe lower-alrhough che perceptible patterns of rhese heavenly splashes are prederermined by our earrhly circumstances. For rhis reason, rhe kind and qualiry of our dreaming changes rhrough a nighr of sleeping. Early on, our dreams are primarily psycho-physiological in kind, garhering imagery from everyday waking experience (usually immediare); larer on, and especially roward dawn, our dreams are cleansed of such emprica! obses-sions and, filled wirh nighr-consciousness, grow ever more mysri-cally purified.

A dream, rhen, is a sign of a movement berween rwo realms-and also a symbol: of whar? From rhe heavenly view, rhe dream symbol-izes earrh; from rhe earrhly perspecrive, ir symbolizes heaven. A dream rherefore occurs when-simulraneously bur with differing orders of clariry-borh shores of exisrence are given ro conscious-ness. We mighr say, rhen, rhar a dream happens whenever we cross from one shore ro rhe orher: bur ir may be more accurate ro say rhat

1

,.

, 1 44 I'AVEL 1-LORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

che dream...happens whenever our consciousness hugs the boundary ofthe crossing and cherefore suscains che double percepriveness rhar occurs whenever we eirher lighdy dream or drowsily keep awake. For rhere is where all sign ificanr dreaming occurs: in rhe lighr dream or in rhe sudden separation from ordinary waking realiry. There are, ir is true, orher possible phenomena of rhe invisible realm. Bur for such phenomena ro occur in us, iris necessary thar sorne powerful inward shock cake place, sorne essenrial separaran of oneself from oneself-as if we were ro be plunged inro sorne rwilighr of consciousness wherein we would wander rhe borders of che two worlds bur would lack rhe power ro penetrare deeper inro either one.

Spirtual Sobriety and the Iconic Face

Whar we say abou t rhe dream holds true (wirh minar changes) abou r any movemenr from one sphere ro anorher.Tn crearinga work of arr, rhe psyche or soul of rhe arrisr ascends from rhe earrhly realm inro rhe heavenly; there, free of all images, rhe soul is fed In conremplafion by rhe essences of rhe highesr realm, knowing rhe permanenr noumena of rhings; then, sariared wirh chis knowing, ir descends aga in ro rhe earrhly realm. And precisely ar rhe boundary berween rhe rwo worlds, rhe so ul's spirirual knowledge assumes rhe shapes of symbolic imagery: and iris rhese images rhar make permanenr rhe work of arr. Arr is chus marerial-ized dream, separared from rhe ordinary consciousness of waking Ji fe.

In chis separaran, rhere are rwo momenrs rhar yield, in rhe arrwork, two rypes of imagery: rhe momenr of ascenr inro rhe heavenly realm, and rhe momenr of descenr inro rhe earrhly world. Ar rhe crossing of rhe boundary inro rhe upper world, rhe soul sheds-like ourworn clorhes-rhe images of our everyday empriness, rhe psychic effluvia rhar cannor find a place above, rhose elemenrs of our being rhar are noc spirirually grounded. Ar

Spiritual Sobriety and the Iconic Face 45

rhe point of descenr and re-entry, on che orher hand, the images are experiences of myscicallife crysrallized out on the boundary of rwo worlds. Thus, an arrist misundersrands (and so causes us to misundersrand) when he puts inro his arr rhose images that come ro him during che uprushing of his inspiracion-if, that is, it is only rhe imagery of rhe soul's ascenr. We need, insread, his early morning dreams, those dreams rhar carry che coolness of rhe eterna! azure. The orher imagery is merely psychic raw material, no matter how powerfully ir affecrs him (and us), no matter how artistically and tascefully developed in rhe arrwork. Once we understand chis difference, we can easily disringuish the 'momenr' of an arrisric image: che descending image, even if incoherently mocivared in che work, is nevcrrheless abundantly releological; hence, ir is a crysral of rime in an imagina! space. The image of ascenr, on the other hand, even ifbursting wirh arristic coherence, is merely a mechanism construcred in accordance wirh che mo-menr of irs psychic genesis. When we pass from ordinary realiry in ro che imagina! space, naturalism generares imaginary portrayals whose similariry ro everyday life creares an empry image of che real. The opposire arr-symbolism-born of rhe descenr, incar-nares in real images che experience of che highest realm; hence, ) chis imagery-which is symbolic imagery-~tains a super-realiry.

What is true of art and dream is also rrue of mysrical experience: a common pattern holds cvcrywhere. In mysrical experience, che sou l is raised up from rhe visible rcalm ro where visibiliry itself vanishes and che field of rhe invisible opens: such is rhe Dionysian sundering of rhe bonds of rhe visible. And after soaring up into rhe invisible, rhe soul descends again inro rhe visible-and rhen and rhere, befare its very eyes, are rhose real appearances of rhings: ideas. This is rhe Apollonian perspecrive on rhe spirirual world.

How rempring ir is ro cal! 'spirirual' rhose images-rhose soul-confusing, soul-absorbing, sou l-consuming dreamings-rhar firsr appear ro us when our soul finds ics way in ro che orher world.

46 I'AVEI. 1-l.ORENSKY: ICONOSTASIS

Such images are, in facr, rhe spirirs of rhe presenr age rhar seek ro trap our consciousness in their realm. Thcse spirirs inhabir rhe boundary berween rhe worlds; and rhough rhey are earrhly in nature, rhey rake on rhe appearances of rhe spirirual realm. When we approach rhe limirs of rhe ordinary world, we enrer inro condirions rhar (like rhe ordinary) are conrinuously new bur rhar have parrerns which differ enrirely from rhose of ordinary exisr-ence. Here, rhen, is rhe area of our grearesr spirirual danger: ro approach rhis boundary while srill willing earrhly arrachmenrs; or ro approach ir wirhour a spirirual mind-eirher one's own or a spirirual direcror's; or ro approach ir befare we are, in rhe spiritual sense, rruly grown-up. Whar happens, ar such an encounrer of rhe boundary, is rhar rhe seeker is engulfed in les and self-deceprions. The world rhen ensnares rhe seeker in rhar ner of remprarion in which-by granting him an apparenr enrry inro rhe spirirual realm-ir acrually enslaves him ro rhe world. For iris nor at all the case rhat every spirir guarding rhese poinrs of enrry is a true Guardian of rhe Threshold, i.e., a good defender of rhe sacred realms; for a spirir may well be nor a genuine being of rhe higher realm bur rarher an accomplice of (in rhe Aposrle's phrase) "rhe prince of rhe power of rhe air"; for such spirirs are rhe ones who keep rhe soul on rhe boundary of rhe worlds, tangled in the seducrions of spirirual inroxicarion.

A day of spirirual sobriery, when ir holds our soul in its power, is so sharply differenr from rhe spirirual real m rhat ir cannot even prerend ro be seducrive, and irs marerialiry is cxperienced nor only as a burden bur also as a yoke good for us in rhe way graviry is good for earrh, a yoke resrricring our movemenrs bur giving us a fulcrum, a yoke reining in rhe swifrness wirh which our will acrs in self-dererminarion (for both good and bad) and in general exrcnding in rhe will irs insranr of rhc eterna!, i.e., rhe will's angclic self-dererminarion roward rhis side or rhar, an insranr lasring our whole life and making our carrhy life nor an empry exisrence passively manifesring evcry possibiliry bur, rarher, rhe

T 1

SpirituaL Sobriety and the lconic Face 47 asceric exercise of aurhenric self-organizarion, rhe art of sculpting and 'chasing our' our essence. This lor, or fare, or destiny, d.wp-1-LVT], . .w'Lpa, i.e., rharwhich was decided from above,fotum from fori-rhis desriny of our simulraneous weakness and srrengrh, rhis gifr of our divine creariviry, is time-space.

Time-space sobriery on earrh is never seducrive, rhen; ncirher is rhe angelic realm when rhc soul comes direcrly into conracr wirh ir. Bur in berween, ar rhe boundary of rhis world, are concenrrared a11 rhc remprarions and seducrions: rhese are rhe phantoms rhar Tasso depicrs in dcscribing rhe Enchamed Wood. If one only possesses rhe spirirual sreadfasrness of will ro go rhrough rhem, neirher fcarful of nor yielding ro rheir seducrions, rhen one finds rhar rhey will lose enrircly rheir power over rhc soul, becoming mere shadows of scnsualiry, empry dreamings of no value ar al!. Bur if, insread, onc's fairh in God weakens in rhe midsr of such a spirirual siegc, rhen one looks back ar rhese phanroms-and in so doing, one pours the realiry of one's own soul inro rhem. Then rhc phanroms will gain grear power, seizing rhe soul and sucking from her rhe powcr ro materialize srill more, rhereby weakening rhe soul inro furrhcr fcar and more yielding. In such a srare, ir is exrremely difficulr-almost impossible-ro break rheir grip wirhout rhc imervemion of anorher spiritual powcr. Such, rhen, are rhe elemental swamps ar rhe boundary of rhe worlds.

This disasrrous enslavemcnr is called by rhe asceric rradirion prelest: ir means spirirual pride or conceir, and ir is rhe direst spirirual srare a person can be in. In commirring any orhcr sin, a pcrson acrs in such a way rhar he falls inro a relarion wirh rhe externa) world, wirh irs objecrive properries and laws, wirhin which he is