Door to post. The book of Father Alexander Schmemann in my life

Relatives

Shmeman Alexander Dmitrievich came from a noble family that was forced to leave the Russian Empire after the revolution.

• Grandfather Nikolai Eduardovich Shmeman (1850-1928) was a member of the State Duma.
• Father Dmitry Nikolaevich Shmeman (1893-1958) was an officer in the tsarist army.
• Mother Anna Tikhonovna Shishkova (1895-1981) came from a noble family.

Alexander Schmeman was not the only child in the family. Twin brother Andrei Dmitrievich (1921-2008) served as elder of the temple in honor of the image of the Mother of God “of the Sign”. In addition, he headed the society of Russian cadets in exile. He worked in the Metropolis of the Western-Eastern Exarchate of the Patriarchate of Constantinople, acting as secretary of the diocese and assistant representative of the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

Sister Elena Dmitrievna (1919-1926) died in early childhood, without surviving the various difficulties of life as an emigrant.

Life path: Paris

Alexander Shmeman was born on September 13, 1921 in Estonia in the city of Revel. In 1928, the family moved to Belgrade, and in 1929, like many emigrants, settled in Paris.

In 1938 he graduated from the Russian cadet corps located in Verasle. A year later he graduated from the Carnot Lyceum. In 1943, while a student at the St. Sergius Theological Institute in Paris, Alexander married a relative of Archpriest Mikhail Osorgin. His wife Ulyana Tkachuk became a faithful companion for many years of his life. In 1945, Alexander Shmeman graduated from the St. Sergius Theological Institute. His teacher and supervisor of the dissertation research was Kartashev A.V. Therefore, it is not surprising that the young scientist became interested in the history of the church, following his mentor. His dissertation was written at a high professional level; after its defense, he was invited to remain as a teacher at the educational institution.

In addition to the above-mentioned educational institutions, he graduated from the Sorbonne University. In 1946, Alexander Schmemann was ordained first as a deacon and then as an elder.

The period of his stay in Paris was quite fruitful; in addition to performing the duties of a clergyman and teaching activities, Father Alexander served as editor-in-chief of the diocesan magazine “Church Bulletin”. Even during his student life, he took an active part in the work of the Russian Christian movement among youth and students. At one time he was even its leader and chairman of youth meetings.

Life path: New York

In 1951, Father Alexander and his family moved to America. From 1962 to 1983, he headed the St. Vladimir Theological Seminary. In 1953, priest Alexander Schmeman was elevated to the rank of archpriest. In 1959, in Paris, he defended his doctoral dissertation on the subject of “Liturgical Theology.”

In 1970, he was elevated to the rank of protopresbyter, the highest rank in the Church for white (married) clergy. Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann played a significant role in obtaining ecclesiastical independence (autocephaly) of the American Orthodox Church. Died December 13, 1983 in New York.

Bibliography

• Nivière, Antoine. Orthodox clergy, theologians and church leaders of the Russian emigration in Western and Central Europe. 1920—1995. Biographical reference book. -M.-Paris, 2007. - P. 551-552. — ISBN 978-5-85887-206-1
• Balakshina, Yu. V.
  Art as the resurrection of time: liturgical aspects of the interpretation of Russian poetry in the diaries of Archpriest Alexander Schmemann // Scientific works. V. 28. Problems of development of the fatherland. lawsuit / RAH; St. Petersburg State acad. Institute of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture named after. I. E. Repin; scientific ed. V. A. Lenyashin, comp. O. A. Reznitskaya, A. I. Shamankova. - St. Petersburg, January - March 2014. - pp. 236-244.

Teaching activities

From 1945 to 1951, Alexander held the position of teacher of church history at the St. Sergius Theological Institute. Since 1951, after the invitation he received from St. Vladimir's Theological Seminary, he moved to the USA.

In this educational institution he was offered a teaching position. In addition to teaching at the seminary, Schmemann taught an elective course at Columbia University on the history of Eastern Christianity. For thirty years he hosted a radio program dedicated to the situation of the Church in America.

Essays

• Church and church structure. - Paris, 1949. 24 p.
• The sacrament of baptism. - Paris: Publication of the “Church Bulletin”, 1951. 31 p. (2nd edition - M.; Paris: Krutitskoye Compound; YMCA-Press; Russian Way, 1996. 46 p.).
• The historical path of Orthodoxy. New York: Publishing house im. Chekhov, 1954. 388 p. (2nd edition - Paris: YMCA-Press, 1985; 3rd edition - Paris: YMCA-Press, 1989; 4th edition, reprint - M.: Pilgrim, 1993) (English translation - London: Harvill Press, 1963. 359 p.).
• Introduction to Liturgical Theology. - Paris, 1961. 247 p. (2nd edition - M.: Krutitskoye Compound, 1996. 247 p.) (English translation (London; Portland (Me.): The Faith Press; The American Orthodox Press, 1966. 170 p.); 2nd edition (Leighton Buzzard (Beds.): The Faith Press; New York: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1975. 170 p.)).
• For the Life of the World. - New York, 1963 (Russian translation - For the Life of the World. - New York: Religious Books for Russia, 1983. 103 pp.; 2nd edition - Vilnius: News, [199_]. - 103 pp.; 3rd edition edition - Elektrostal: Polygram, 2001. 89 p.).
• Ultimate Questions: An Anthology of Modern Russian Religious Thought. - New York etc.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. 310 p. (composition, introductory article).
• Sacraments and Orthodoxy. - New York, 1965 (English translation - The World as Sacrament. - London, 1965. 142 p.).
• Great Lent. — Crestwood (NY): St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1969. 124 p. (Russian translation - Great Lent - M.: Moskovsky Rabochiy, 1993. - 111 p.) (French (Le Grand Careme. - Begrolles-en-Mauges: Bellefontaine, 1974), Dutch (1976) translations).
• Of Water and the Spirit: A Liturgical Study of Baptism. — Crestwood (NY): St. Vladimir Seminary Press, 1974 (London: SPCK, 1976. 169 p.) (By Water and Spirit: On the Sacrament of Baptism / Trans. - M.: Gnosis; Pilgrim, 1993. - 224 p.; 2nd edition - M.: St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, 2000. 199 pp.; 3rd edition - M.: Palomnik, 2001. -223 pp.). (French translation - D'Eau et d'Esprit. - Paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1988. 212 p.).
• Eucharist: The Sacrament of the Kingdom. - Paris: UMSA-Press, 1984. 304 p. (2nd edition, reprint - M.: Palomnik, 1992; 3rd edition - M.: Palomnik, 2001). (French (L'Eucharistie, sacrement du Royaume. - Paris: UMSA-Press; OEIL, 1985. 276 p.), English translations).
• Church, world, mission: Thoughts on Orthodoxy in the West / Translation from English. -M.: St. Tikhon's Theological Institute, 1996. -267 p.
• Sermons and conversations. -M.: Pilgrim, 2000. -207 p.
• Introduction to theology: A course of lectures on dogmatic theology. - M.; Paris: Orthodox St. Tikhon's Theological Institute; Orthodox St. Sergius Theological Institute; 1993. 48 p. (2nd edition - Klin: Christian Life, 2001. 62 p.).
• The Journals of Father Alexander Schmemann: 1973-1983. — Crestwood: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 2002 (Russian edition, expanded and supplemented - Diaries: 1973-1983. - M.: Russian Path, 2005. - 717 pp.).

Literary heritage

The legacy of this scientist attracts the attention of not only domestic readers, but is also an interesting source for Westerners, because it introduces the latter to the eastern ascetic tradition, which has its roots in the desert and dates back to the ancient anchorites.

It is indisputable that the Western branch of Christianity, Catholicism, and after it Protestantism, have lost this connection, succumbing to various secular trends, and have lost the connecting thread between the mystical life of the church and everyday realities. Alexander Shmeman also spoke about this.

The books on which he worked are largely devoted to liturgical issues, because it is in the liturgy and the Eucharist that the greatest contact between man and God occurs, and therefore this is what should attract a Christian and becomes the center of his worldview.

In his works, Alexander Dmitrievich understands the process of evolution of the Christian cult. From the imitation of the liturgical formulas of the Essenes and Therapetians to the unification of liturgical life in the 8th century, there lies a whole abyss of various attempts to create uniformity and verified dogmatic formulas in the sacrament. Alexander Schmemann examines the structure of Christianity in his books. "Great Lent" - an essay devoted exclusively to a mystical rethinking of Christian life, aroused many different opinions in the scientific community.

It is precisely this historical process that is one of the main points of the scientific activity of Alexander Schmemann. Analysis of liturgical monuments can help today's Christians understand modern worship and understand the mystical meaning of this action.

An excerpt characterizing Shmeman, Alexander Dmitrievich

Alexander refused all negotiations because he personally felt insulted. Barclay de Tolly tried to manage the army in the best possible way in order to fulfill his duty and earn the glory of a great commander. Rostov galloped to attack the French because he could not resist the desire to gallop across a flat field. And so exactly, due to their personal properties, habits, conditions and goals, all those innumerable persons who took part in this war acted. They were afraid, they were conceited, they rejoiced, they were indignant, they reasoned, believing that they knew what they were doing and that they were doing it for themselves, and all were involuntary instruments of history and carried out work hidden from them, but understandable to us. This is the unchangeable fate of all practical figures, and the higher they stand in the human hierarchy, the more free they are. Now the figures of 1812 have long since left their places, their personal interests have disappeared without a trace, and only the historical results of that time are before us. But let’s assume that the people of Europe, under the leadership of Napoleon, had to go deep into Russia and die there, and all the self-contradictory, senseless, cruel activities of the people participating in this war become clear to us. Providence forced all these people, striving to achieve their personal goals, to contribute to the fulfillment of one huge result, about which not a single person (neither Napoleon, nor Alexander, nor even less any of the participants in the war) had the slightest aspiration. Now it is clear to us what was the cause of the death of the French army in 1812. No one will argue that the reason for the death of Napoleon’s French troops was, on the one hand, their entry at a late time without preparation for a winter campaign deep into Russia, and on the other hand, the nature that the war took on from the burning of Russian cities and the incitement of hatred towards the enemy in the Russian people. But then not only did no one foresee that (which now seems obvious) that only in this way could the army of eight hundred thousand, the best in the world and led by the best commander, die in a clash with the Russian army, which was twice as weak, inexperienced and led by inexperienced commanders; not only did no one foresee this, but all efforts on the part of the Russians were constantly aimed at preventing the fact that only one could save Russia, and on the part of the French, despite the experience and so-called military genius of Napoleon, all efforts were directed towards this to stretch out to Moscow at the end of summer, that is, to do the very thing that should have destroyed them. In historical works about 1812, French authors are very fond of talking about how Napoleon felt the danger of stretching his line, how he was looking for a battle, how his marshals advised him to stop in Smolensk, and give other similar arguments proving that it was already understood there was danger of the campaign; and Russian authors are even more fond of talking about how from the beginning of the campaign there was a plan for the Scythian war to lure Napoleon into the depths of Russia, and they attribute this plan to some Pfuel, some to some Frenchman, some to Tolya, some to Emperor Alexander himself, pointing to notes, projects and letters that actually contain hints of this course of action. But all these hints of foreknowledge of what happened, both on the part of the French and on the part of the Russians, are now exhibited only because the event justified them. If the event had not happened, then these hints would have been forgotten, just as thousands and millions of opposing hints and assumptions that were in use then, but turned out to be unfair and therefore forgotten, are now forgotten. There are always so many assumptions about the outcome of every event that takes place that, no matter how it ends, there will always be people who will say: “I said then that it would be like this,” completely forgetting that among the countless assumptions, completely opposite. Assumptions about Napoleon's awareness of the danger of stretching the line and on the part of the Russians - about luring the enemy into the depths of Russia - obviously belong to this category, and historians can only attribute such considerations to Napoleon and his marshals and such plans to Russian military leaders only with great reserve. All the facts completely contradict such assumptions. Not only throughout the war was there no desire on the part of the Russians to lure the French into the depths of Russia, but everything was done to stop them from their first entry into Russia, and not only was Napoleon not afraid of stretching his line, but he rejoiced at how triumph, every step forward, and very lazily, unlike in his previous campaigns, he looked for battle. At the very beginning of the campaign, our armies are cut up, and the only goal to which we strive is to unite them, although in order to retreat and lure the enemy into the interior of the country, there does not seem to be any advantage in uniting the armies. The emperor is with the army to inspire it to defend every step of the Russian land, and not to retreat. The huge Dries camp is being built according to Pfuel's plan and it is not intended to retreat further. The Emperor reproaches the commander-in-chief for every step of retreat. Not only the burning of Moscow, but the admission of the enemy to Smolensk cannot even be imagined by the emperor, and when the armies unite, the sovereign is indignant because Smolensk was taken and burned and was not given a general battle before the walls of it. The sovereign thinks so, but the Russian military leaders and all Russian people are even more indignant at the thought that ours are retreating into the interior of the country. Napoleon, having cut up the armies, moves inland and misses several occasions of battle. In August he is in Smolensk and thinks only about how he can move on, although, as we now see, this movement forward is obviously detrimental for him. The facts clearly show that neither Napoleon foresaw the danger in moving towards Moscow, nor Alexander and the Russian military leaders then thought about luring Napoleon, but thought about the opposite. The luring of Napoleon into the interior of the country did not happen according to anyone’s plan (no one believed in the possibility of this), but occurred from the most complex game of intrigues, goals, desires of people - participants in the war, who did not guess what should be, and what was the only salvation of Russia. Everything happens by accident. The armies are cut up at the start of the campaign. We are trying to unite them with the obvious goal of giving battle and holding off the enemy’s advance, but even in this desire to unite, avoiding battles with the strongest enemy and involuntarily retreating at an acute angle, we lead the French to Smolensk. But it’s not enough to say that we are retreating at an acute angle because the French are moving between both armies - this angle is becoming even sharper, and we are moving even further because Barclay de Tolly, an unpopular German, is hated by Bagration (who will become under his command ), and Bagration, commanding the 2nd Army, tries not to join Barclay for as long as possible, so as not to become under his command. Bagration does not join for a long time (although this is the main goal of all commanders) because it seems to him that he is putting his army in danger on this march and that it is most profitable for him to retreat to the left and south, harassing the enemy from the flank and rear and recruiting his army in Ukraine. But it seems that he came up with this because he did not want to obey the hated and junior German Barclay. The emperor is with the army to inspire it, and his presence and lack of knowledge of what to decide on, and a huge number of advisers and plans destroy the energy of the 1st army’s actions, and the army retreats. It is planned to stop at the Dris camp; but unexpectedly Paulucci, aiming to become commander-in-chief, influences Alexander with his energy, and Pfuel’s entire plan is abandoned, and the whole matter is entrusted to Barclay. But since Barclay does not inspire confidence, his power is limited. The armies are fragmented, there is no unity of leadership, Barclay is not popular; but from this confusion, fragmentation and unpopularity of the German commander-in-chief, on the one hand, follows indecision and avoidance of battle (which could not be resisted if the armies were together and Barclay was not the commander), on the other hand, more and more indignation against the Germans and excitement of the patriotic spirit. Finally, the sovereign leaves the army, and as the only and most convenient pretext for his departure, the idea is chosen that he needs to inspire the people in the capitals to initiate a people's war. And this trip of the sovereign and Moscow triples the strength of the Russian army. The sovereign leaves the army in order not to hamper the unity of power of the commander-in-chief, and hopes that more decisive measures will be taken; but the position of the army command is even more confused and weakened. Bennigsen, the Grand Duke and a swarm of adjutant generals remain with the army in order to monitor the actions of the commander-in-chief and arouse him to energy, and Barclay, feeling even less free under the eyes of all these sovereign eyes, becomes even more careful for decisive actions and avoids battles. Barclay stands for caution. The Tsarevich hints at treason and demands a general battle. Lyubomirsky, Branitsky, Wlotsky and the like are inflating all this noise so much that Barclay, under the pretext of delivering papers to the sovereign, sends the Poles as adjutant generals to St. Petersburg and enters into an open fight with Bennigsen and the Grand Duke. In Smolensk, finally, no matter how Bagration wished it, the armies are united. Bagration drives up in a carriage to the house occupied by Barclay. Barclay puts on a scarf, goes out to meet him and reports to the senior rank of Bagration. Bagration, in the struggle of generosity, despite the seniority of his rank, submits to Barclay; but, having submitted, she agrees with him even less. Bagration personally, by order of the sovereign, informs him. He writes to Arakcheev: “The will of my sovereign, I cannot do it together with the minister (Barclay). For God's sake, send me somewhere, even to command a regiment, but I can’t be here; and the entire main apartment is filled with Germans, so it’s impossible for a Russian to live, and there’s no point. I thought I was truly serving the sovereign and the fatherland, but in reality it turns out that I am serving Barclay. I admit, I don’t want to.” The swarm of Branitskys, Wintzingerodes and the like further poisons the relations of the commanders-in-chief, and even less unity emerges. They are planning to attack the French in front of Smolensk. A general is sent to inspect the position. This general, hating Barclay, goes to his friend, the corps commander, and, after sitting with him for a day, returns to Barclay and condemns on all counts the future battlefield, which he has not seen.

Publishing diaries

In 1973, the first entry was made in a large notebook. Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann made it after reading the work of F.M. Dostoevsky. "The Brothers Karamazov". In his diaries, he not only describes his experiences regarding various incidents in his personal life, but also talks about the events taking place in the church life of that difficult period. It is undeniable that many church figures found their place in his records.

In addition to all this, the published works contain reflections on the events that the Schmemann family experienced after emigrating from Russia. The publication of his diaries took place in 2002 in English, and only in 2005 his entries were translated into Russian.

Church historian

In the minds of most people who have read or at least heard about Father Alexander Schmemann, he is clearly associated with liturgical theology. Yes, it is true. Liturgics is the main direction of his interests. “My subject in theology is liturgics,” [3] says Schmemann about himself.

By the way, Father Alexander himself loved one interesting intellectual game: he “rated” Russian writers. That is, he analyzed excerpts from works in which weddings, funerals and everything related to religious rites are found, and checked how accurately they were described from the point of view of worship. Surprisingly, there is only one “five” - Chekhov. All the rest failed or passed poorly. So, on the day of the Holy Trinity, Pushkin spoke about a prayer service, although according to the rules, vespers, not a prayer service, are prescribed. On the deathbed of the nihilist Bazarov, Turgenev performs Confirmation, not Unction, and so on.

But Schmemann began as a Church historian. Moreover, he even translated the work of St. Mark of Ephesus as a text for a doctoral exam. The treatise “On the Resurrection” [4] in Schmemann’s translation and with his comments was even published and is now available. What remains from a serious passion for history is the book “The Historical Path of Orthodoxy,” which is a must-read for anyone interested in this aspect of the life of the Church, as well as individual lectures, for example, “Dogmatic Union. Introductory lecture to the course on the history of the Byzantine Church, given on October 11, 1945.”[5].

But then Father Alexander changed his attitude towards Byzantium.

“I love Orthodoxy and am more and more convinced of its truth, and more and more I do not like Byzantium, Ancient Rus', Athos, that is, everything that for everyone is synonymous with Orthodoxy”[6].

This phrase can be understood in different ways. But if you carefully read the works of Father Alexander, one thing becomes clear:

he really didn't like substitutions. Substitution of Orthodoxy with something else: Russia, Athos, rosary, whatever, but substitution and departure from the main thing - from Christ. And in his uncritical attitude towards Byzantium, in its idealization, father Alexander saw a substitution of the eternal truths of Orthodoxy.

By the way, Father Alexander planned to defend his doctoral dissertation on history, but it turned out that he had to write a second thesis, this time on liturgics.

What exactly happened in the views and judgments of Father Alexander and why the attitude towards Byzantium changed so much is a question that deserves separate study.

Negative attitude

It is undeniable that Alexander Schmemann's position towards the Soviet Union was rather unfriendly. In his reports and radio broadcasts, he repeatedly accused the country's leaders of having a negative attitude towards the Russian Orthodox Church. It should be noted that the situation between the Russian Orthodox Church and the ZROC was quite precarious. Therefore, the author’s works could not get into the USSR.

The situation did not change after the collapse of the Soviet Union. A number of bishops of the Orthodox Church, belonging to the most conservative party, consider Protopresbyter Alexander Schmemann a heretic and prohibit reading his scientific works.

The most striking example is the ban on reading his works at the Yekaterinburg Theological School. The ruling bishop Nikon anathematized Alexander Schmemann and forbade students to read his works. The reason that led to this decision still remains unknown. In spite of everything, Alexander Schmemann, whose biography remains an example of pastoral service, is the standard for the life of a clergyman.

Write a book and die

The death of Alexander's father says a lot about his life.

He died of cancer, which was diagnosed at an inoperable stage. Father Alexander knew about his diagnosis and the inevitability. Until the last days of his life, he remained as dean of the seminary, and devoted the time between the news of his illness and the transition to eternity to writing the most important book of his life - “The Eucharist. The Mystery of the Kingdom." Next time we will talk about his works and analyze them.

“ Alexander had lung cancer, which had already metastasized to the brain ” [13]. Despite the difficult situation, Father Alexander continued to write. “ The chemotherapy sessions made him feel faint and he felt worse and worse. After a year of treatment, in mid-November 1983, Alexander wrote a text for Radio Liberty, which was supposed to be broadcast on the feast of the Presentation of the Lord ”[14].

And, returning to the topic of Russian emigration, I note that Father Alexander’s last diary entry was dedicated to Russia:

“the first months - until Easter - I wrote, worked, suddenly I really wanted my English books to be published in Russian, although, alas, they were not written in the Russian tone and it is unlikely that the translation conveys what I thought needed to be said"[15] .

Did you like it? Support us financially by sending any amount to the following details:

5536 9138 4633 0682 (Danilov Alexander Sergeevich)

We offer you other articles from the “Russian Abroad” series:

"Russian Abroad"

“Russian Abroad: Politics and the Church”

"Russian Abroad and Fa