-
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
1/7
Georges Florovsky on reading the life of StSeraphim
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
The following letter was found in the archive of the Fellowship of StAlban and St Sergius, Oxford ('A.F. Dobbie BatemanPapers and
Booklist'). It is written by the Russian Orthodox theologian, historian,ecumenist and early member of the Fellowship, Protopresbyter
Georges Florovsky (1893-1979), who from 1956-64 was the professor
of eastern church history at Harvard Divinity School. The letter iswritten to his old friend, the retired civil servant and Anglican priest,
A.F. Dobbie Bateman (1897-1974), who was also an early leader of
the Fellowship.
Dobbie Bateman is a fascinating and little-known figure. In the
1930s, his knowledge of Russian made him one of the key linksbetween the Russian and Anglican members of the Fellowship, until
his resignation in 1945 after a disagreement with Nicolas Zernovconcerning the plan for a Fellowship centre in London, St Basil's
House.' His role as one of the only English interpreters of Russianthought in his era can be seen in a series of 'footnotes' published in
The Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius and
Sobornost in the 1930s and 1940s, as well as many unpublished lettersand memoranda from the time of the controversy surrounding Sergii
Bulgakov's proposal, in June 1933, for limited intercommunion in the
Fellowship between Anglicans and Orthodox, and the Sophiologicalcontroversy which began in 1935.2 He was a critic and friend of both
Bulgakov (whose important essay, Ipostas' i Ipostasnost' he translatedfor a Fellowship study group in 1932)3 and Florovsky (an extensive
unpublished correspondence exists between them which is scattered
between archives at Princeton Universi ty, St Vladimir's OrthodoxTheological Seminary and the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius
in Oxford).
Dobbie Bateman had a strong devotion to St Seraphim of Sarov.
Indeed, Nicolas Zernov, in his obituary,4 claimed that Dobbie Bateman
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
was responsible for introducing English Christians to Seraphim
through his 1936 work, St Seraphim of Sarov: Concerning the Aim of
Christian Life. This volume included one of the first English
translations of the now famous 'conversation' between Seraphim and
his disciple N.A. Motovilov, in which Seraphim describes the
Christian life as the 'acquisition of the Holy Spirit'.5 Later, following
his retirement from the civil service in 1952 where he was under-
secretary of the ministry of supply (being awarded a Companion of the
Bath in 1948)6 and his ordination to the priesthood on 5 June 1953 by
the bishop of Bath and Wells (after which he ministered at two
parishes around Frome, Somerset),8 he worked on another volume on
St Seraphim, which included a life of the saint and a revised
translation of the 'conversation' and was published in 1970 as The
Return of St Seraphim.''
In his letter to Dobbie Bateman, Florovsky, prompted by a
suggestion of the former in an earlier letter,10 corrects the
conversation's insistence on the role of the Spirit in Christian life (or,
more precisely, both corrects it and offers an alternative christologicalreading), insisting on the 'christoform shape' of everything we are
given as Christians by the Spirit who is the medium of ascetic and
pedagogical achievement as a feat of the creative witness to Christ.
Florovsky's christological reading of Seraphim influenced Dobbie
Bateman's The Return of St Seraphim. There he noted that the
conversation was 'deeply christological', marked as it is by
Seraphim's frequent refrain 'for Christ's sake',12 and he thanked
Florovsky in the work's preface for his assistance in showing him the
conversation's 'christological basis'.'3
The rest of Florovsky's letter discusses a wide variety of subjectsincluding an important section detailing his view of patristic
'authority'. It is not surprising that Florovsky would discuss St
Seraphim in the same breath as patristic authority since he believedthat the saints or fathers are fundamentally witnesses to Christ through
the Spirit and, furthermore, he understood tradition to be 'the witnessof the Spirit; the Spirit's unceasing revelation and preaching of good
tidings'.14 Patristic authority is coextensive with 'tradition', for
Florovsky, and by tradition he meant the charismatic, creative andecclesial power to teach the Word (potestas magisterii) primarily
59
-
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
2/7
FLOROVSKY ON READING THE LIFE OF SERAPHIM
through the exegesis of scripture. This magisterial power is an
authoritative witness or testimony (martyria) by the Church, pre-
eminently embodied in the work of its hierarchy, to the truth of
salvation in Christ (adoption into God's eternal life). It accompanies
the church as it is challenged daily not to pursue authoritative answers
to settled problems before it has brought sharply into focus and
carefully identified its own new theological problems or ecclesial
challenges. The martyria of the saints reveals their creativity, courage
and wisdom and it comes from the inner evidence of catholicity given
to them through their common abiding in the one Spirit in whom they
were all baptised as one body having a concrete oneness of feeling and
thought (a common unity of life). The catholic consciousness or
'patristic mind',15 which we are describing, however, has a cruciform
structure because it is the living, eternal and faithful experience of
Christ being wholly in the midst of the his church in both head and
body. In figures like St Seraphim, we see saints (called 'doc tors and
fathers') who are unique in that they have attained a level of
catholicity, a completeness of the patristic mind, which allows thempersonally to witness for the whole Church 'from the completeness of
a life full of grace'.16 Thus the patristic authority to teach ('trad ition' )
is essentially a matter of the saints' creative spiritual vision of faith or
catholic witness to the Christian gospel of Christ crucified and risen
for us according to the scriptures, rather than a form of what might be
called 'patristicism' or 'Byzantinism'17 where the Greek patristic
corpus is understood, more or less, as inerrant and infallible with
theology as the careful repetition ofthe fathers' words.
The argument that tradition is the creative Christian witness in
the modern context to the truth of Christ or the global gospel vision of
the fathers as 'the constant abiding of the Spirit and not only thememory of words' is the essence of what Florovsky referred to as a
'neo-patristic synthesis'." Yet Florovsky's vision of theology,
understood in this fashion, is shared, in the broadest sense, by other
very different writers in the emigration, such as Vladimir Lossky and
even Bulgakov.20 Although it must be remembered that there were vast
theological differences, particularly between Bulgakov and his
younger colleagues Florovsky and Lossky,21 contemporary scholarship
60
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
is now rightly emphasising that there exists an underlying
commonality of vision in Paris emigre theology.22
A previously unpublished letter of Georges Florovsky to
Dobbie Bateman23
CAMBRIDGE, Mass.
December 12, 1963
Dear Father,
Thank you so much for your letter and for the paper enclosed.24
The paper is excellent. Its first merit is in that it proceeds inductively,
from the concrete cases or episodes. Then the conclusion imposes. I
think you are right about Motovilov. In any case, the Conversation
should not be regarded as a closed unit. It does not say the whole truth.
The Spirit is the Spirit of Christ,25 and is sent by Christ from the
Father in order to remind the Disciples, those of Christ, or Christians,of Him. Pneumatic should not be played against Christological. I am
coming to see it with increasing clarity. The Spirit, and His gifts, the
charismata, can be 'acquired' only in the name of Christ. And, in the
order of Salvation, there is no higher Name. One addresses the Father
in the Name of Christ, the Incarnate Son. The Pentecost is the mystery
of the Crucified Lord, Who rose again to send the Paraclete. Thus,
Cross, Resurrection, Pentecost belong together as aspects of one
mystery, distinct in the dimension of time, but integrated in the one
Divine deed of Redemption. In the image of St. Seraphim all these
aspects are reflected both in their temporal distinction and in their
essential unity. Hardships, humility, joy and gentle charity, anddaring.26 I have discussed this paradoxical synthesis of humility in
daring in my short preface to Father Sophronius's book on Starets
Silouan.27 The Spirit brings joy, but He also bestows authority and
power. Your expression alter Christus is rather strong, but ultimately
correct.28 After all, in the phrase of St. Augustine, Christ is not only in
capite but also in corpore,29 and, according to St. Paul, all 'members'
together are 'One Christ'.30 Imitatio Christi is not just a figure of
speech, and it is not a Western phrase.31 St. Ignatius of Antioch
61
-
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
3/7
FLOROVSKY ON READING THE LIFE OF SERAPHIM
regarded himself as a mimetes Christou, with the special emphasis on
the sharing of the Cross or the martyr's death.32 I do not see muchdifference between mimesis and akolouthia.
My remark on the preference for 'settled problems', in the article
on Old Russia, was not just a casual remark. This preference is still
the major predicament of modern man. It is so conspicuous in the
theological field. Just yesterday the question was put to me, in myPatristic seminar, by one of the participants: we enjoy immensely, he
said, the reading of the Fathers, but what is their 'authority'? Are we
supposed to accept from them even that in which they obviously were
'situation-conditioned' and probably inaccurate, inadequate, and even
wrong? My answer was obviously, No. Not only because, as it is
persistently urged, only the consensus patrum is bindingand, as to
myself, I do not like this phrase. The 'authority' of the Fathers is not a
dictatus papae. They are guides and witnesses, no more. Their vision
is 'of authority', not necessarily their words. By studying the Fathers
we are compelled to face the problems, and then we can follow them
but creatively, not in the mood of repetition. I mentioned this alreadyin the brief preface to my 'Eastern Fathers of the IV century',34 and
provoked a fiery indignation of the late Dom Clement Lialine.35 So
many in our time are still looking for authoritative answers, even
before they have encountered any problem. I am fortunate to have in
my seminars students who are studying Fathers because they are
interested in creative theology, and not just in history or archaeology.
I am very glad that you found M. Philaret simple and not unduly
rhetorical. On the other hand, his sermons were always thoroughly
prepared and probably written in advance. Not all of them are on the
same level, especially in his early years, when he was under theinfluence of'evangelical mysticism' of the time.36
I was glad to learn Father Salmon is still active. I remember him
very well. It is an excellent idea to produce a 'Western edition' of the
Damascene. It is a good sign that such a project could be initiated in
our time. What is needed is, of course, not a scientific edition, but a
kind of working book.37 You can do it, and it will be of great help in
the age of John Woolwich.38 By the way, in the recent catalogue of
James Thin, of Edinburgh, I found a new book of Oliver Clark, a reply
62
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
to Robinson. Have you seen the book? Oliver does not seem to have
written much recently.39
You are the only man who can do what Chitty has asked you to
prepare for the projected Festschrift. And I shall be very grateful to
you. And I am grateful to Chitty for the idea to ask you to do it.
I have sent you a new article of mine on Tradition. Next to me
you will find also an article of Allchin, on the same subject. Themagazine is Lutheran, and the manager is a pupil of mine, a bright
scholarly minister.
With best greetings of ours to you both
Yours ever,
Georges Florovslcy
* I am indebted to the hospitality and generosity of the staff (the Revd StephenPlatt and Dr M.C. Steenberg) of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius inOxford, UK who gave me access to the archives of the Fellowship; the tirelesswork on my behalf of Margaret Rich, Archivist, the Department of Rare Booksand Special Collections, Princeton University Library (by whose gracious
permission I have published extracts of documents from the archive); ClareBrown and the staff of Lambeth Palace Library; Dr Cliff Davies, Keeper of theArchives, Wadham College, Oxon., Rt Revd Kallistos (Ware) of Diokleia, RevdCanon Donald Allchin, Revd Prof Michael Plekon, Prof Andrew Blane, ProfPaul Valliere and Irina Kukota.
1 Dobbie Bateman felt that Zemov's plan to set up a Fellowship centre inLondon ('St Basil's House') was a financially unsound move (letter of A.F.Dobbie Bateman to Nicolas Zernov, 2 August 1943, archive ofthe Fellowship ofSt Alban and St Sergius f=FASOxon], in folder 'St Basil HouseOxford 1932-London 1943'). He believed Zemov's 'dream' departed from the original visionof the Fellowship and, furthermore, the Fellowship did not have the necessaryfinancial backing for investing in house property. The following year heresigned his membership (letter to N. Zernov, 16 April 1945, FASOxon, ibid.)postponing his decision to resign until contact had been resumed after the warbetween the London and Paris branches after the pleas of Zernov and PaulAnderson (see the letter ofN. Zernov to A.F. Dobbie Bateman, 24 April 1945;
63
-
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
4/7
FLOROVSKY ON READING THE LIFE OF SERAPHIM
and the letter of Dobbie Bateman to Zernov, 17 June 1945, FASOxon, ibid.)
Neve rth ele ss, he reco nfirmed the follo wing year: am unwilling to be an
absentee member of a society with which I am out of sympathy [...]. ^
happiness of the past must be its own inspiration without the burden of
insincerity' (letter to N. Zernov, 6 January 1946, FASOxon, ibid.). However
Dobbie Bateman's lack of sympathy for the Fellowship did not last and he later
rejoined, although in a much diminished role due to his age, in February of I960(see his membership card, FASOxon).
See Gallaher, Anastassy, 'Bulgakov and intercommunion', Sobornost 24.2
(2002), pp. 9-28; Geffert, Bryn, 'Sergii Bulgakov, The Fellowship of St Alban
and St Sergius, Intercommunion and Sofiology', Revolutionary Russia 17.1
(2004), pp. 105-41; Klimoff, Alexis, 'Georges Florovsky and the Sophiological
Controversy', St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 49.1-2 (2005), pp. 67-100;
and Nikolaev, Sergei V., 'Spritual Unity: The Role of Religious Authority in the
Disputes between Sergii Bulgakov and Georges Florovsky Concerning
Intercommunion', St Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 49.1-2 (2005), pp. 101-
23.
Dobbie Bateman translated the title of Bulgakov's famous essay (Bulgakov,
Sergii., 'Ipostas' i Ipostasnost' (Scholia k Svetu Nevechernemu)' in Sbornik
statei posviashchennykh Petru Berngardovichu Struve ko dniu tridtsatipiatiletiia
ego nauchno-publits isticheskoi deiatel'nosti, 1890-1925 (Prague 1925), pp. 353-
71) rather fancifully as ' Pers on and Person ality' (translati on done in London in
April 1932 for November 1932 Fellowship study group; in FASOxon folder
'Documents About Fellowship and Correspondence'). English translation:
'Protopresbyter Sergii Bulgakov: Hypostasis and Hypostaticity: Scholia to the
Unfading Light', revised trans., ed. and intro. of A. F. Dobbie Bateman by
Anastassy Brandon Gallaher and Irina Kukota, St Vladimir's Theological
Quarterly 49.1-2 (2005), pp. 5-46. See Bishop, Frank H., 'Editorial, News,
Comments, Correspondence etc.', Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St
Sergius 18 (1932), p. 3; and 'Editorial, News, Comments, etc.', Journal of the
Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius 19 (1933), p. 4).
Zernov, Nicolas, Obituary of The Reverend Arthur Fitzroy Dobbie Bateman',
Sobornost 7.1 (1975), pp. 47-9.
Dobbie Bateman, A.F., Conversation of St Seraphim of Sarov with
Nic holas Motovi lov Conc erni ng the Aim of the Chri sti an Li fe' , St Seraphim of i
Sarov: Concerning the Aim of Christian Life (London 1936), pp. 42-60. An )
earlier abridged translation of the conversation, which appears to be by the hand
of Oliver Fielding [Bernard] Clarke, was published a few years earlier:
Conversation of St Seraphim of Sarov with N. A. Motovilov concernin the Aim
of the Christian Life (1831)', The Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St
64
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
Sergius 22 (1933), pp. 29-38. See Clarke's introduction to the conversation:
'Things New and Old', The Journal of the Fellowship of St Alban and St Sergius
22 (1933), pp. 21-8.
6 'Acta Majorum', Wadham College Gazette no. 123 (1948), p. 9. Many thanks
to Dr Cliff Davies, keeper of the archives, Wa dham Coll ege, Oxford for
providing me with refer ences to Dob bie Bat eman in the archi ves of his old
college (BA, 1920 and MA, 1952).8 ibid., no. 133 (1953), p. 100.
9 Dobbie Bateman, A.F., The Return of St Seraphim: A Western Interpretation
(London 1970).
10 started with the view [in his paper sent to Florovsky, 'The Maturity of St
Seraphim'] (prompted by your critique of Lossky in 1054-1954 [Florovsky,
Georges, 'Christ and His Church: Suggestions and Comments' in 1054-1954:
L'Eglise et Les eglisesneuf siecles de doloureuse separation entre orient et
IOccident:Etudes et travaux sur Vunite Chretienne offerts a Dom Lambert
Beauduin, Vol. 2; Chevetogne 1954-55, pp. 168-70]) that Seraphim should be
interpreted christologically. This met the gap which I felt strongly but did not
sufficiently pr obe in my book of 1936. Also I have long felt that theconversation tells more about Motovilov than about Seraphim. It reads as if
Motovilov had written him up; and merely made him discursive. Not till I had
sorted all this into its proper time sequence did the post-resurrection theme
emerge. So the Pentecostal interpretation seems to lose its disturbing, almost
sectarian, vagueness. If this makes sense to you, then it gives an approach to
Seraphim's long years of recollection and preparation and a clearer meaning to
the attack of the robbers' (letter to Georges Florovsky, 27 November 1963,
George Florovsky Papers, box 26, folder 2).
" Blane, Andrew (ed.), Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox
Churchman (Crest wood 1993), p. 297.
12 Dobbie Bateman, The Return of St Seraphim, p. 30.
13 ibid., 'preface'.
14 Florovsky, Georges, 'Sobornost: The Catholicity of the Church' in The
Church of God: An Anglo-Russian Symposium By Members of the Fellowship of
St Alban and St Sergius, ed. E. L. Mascal l (London 1934), p. 64.
15 Florovsky, Georges, 'Patristics and Modern Theology', Diakonia 4.3 (1969
[1936]), p. 229.
16 ibid., p. 231.
65
-
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
5/7
FLOROVSKY ON READING THE LIFE OF SERAPHIM
'' Florovsky, however, fell himself into a form of Byzantine romanticism which
can be seen in The Ways of Russian Theology (Paris 1937), his history of the
'western captivity' or 'pseudo-morphosis' of Russian theology from its true
Byzantine form. St Seraphim, who is favourably compared to the Byzantine
'visionary' St Symeon the New Theologian, is said to be outwardly Russian but
'inwardly belongs to the Byzantine tradition which once again fully came to life
in him' (Florovsky, Georges, Ways of Russian Theology, Part Two in TheCollected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 6, ed. Richard Haugh and tr. Robert
L. Nichols (Vaduz 1987), p. 165). Florovsky believed that the Christian message
could not be separated, without deforming it, from the Greek categories in which
it was formulated ('a new Christian Hellenism [...] Hellenism is a standing
category of Christian experience') and so the creativity of modern Orthodox
theology was dependent on a 'spiritual Hellenisation (or re-Hellenisation)': 'let
us be more Greek to be truly catholic, to be truly Ort hodox ' (Florovsky,
'Patristics and Modern Theology', p. 232, and see Blane, Georges Florovsky:
Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman, p. 155). The complete
inadequacy of this position both theologically (Orthodox ethnicism and patristic
fundamentalism being encouraged) and scientifically (with its ignoring of the
witness of countless non-Hellenistic fathers such as Ephrem the Syrian,
Shenoute of Atripe, Mesrob, etc.) cannot be underestimated (See Maloney,
George A., 'The Ecclesiology of Father Georges Florovsky', Diakonia 4.1
(1969), pp. 23 ff; and bishop Hilarion Alfeev' s ' The patristi c heritage and
modernity' paper delivered at the 9th International Conference on Russian
monasticism and spirituality, Bose Monastery, 20 September 2001
, last accessed 27 June
2005).
18 Florovsky, Georges, 'Sobornost: The Catholicity of the Church', p. 65.
Blane, Georges Florovslcy: Russian Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman,
pp. 153-5 and see Florovsky, Georges, 'Sobornost: The Catholicity of the
Church', pp. 53-74, 'Patristics and Modern Theology', pp. 227-32 and 'Saint
Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers', Sobornost 4.4 (1961), pp.165-76; for commentary on the meaning of this phrase see bishop Hilarion
Alfeev's 'The patristic heritage and modernity'.
Bulgakov, Sergii, 'Dogmat i dogmatica' in Zhivoie Priedanie: pravoslavie v
sovremennosti (Pravoslavnaia mysl' v.3) (Paris 1937), pp. 9-24, tr. as 'Dogma
and Dogmatic Theology', Peter Bouteneff in Tradition Alive: On the Church
and the Christian Life in Our TimeReadings from the Eastern Church, ed.
Michael Plekon (Lanham 2003), pp. 67-80; and Lossky, Vladimir, 'Tradition
and Traditions', tr. G.E.H. Palmer and E. Kadloubovsky in In the Image and
Likeness of God, eds. J. Erickson and T.E. Bird (Crestwood 1974), pp. 141-68.
66
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
21 See Valliere, Paul, 'The "Paris School" of Theology: Unity or Multiplicity?',
unpublished conference paper, 'La Teologia ortodossa e l'Occidente nel xx
secolo: Storia di un incontro' (Seriate, October 2004). I am grateful to Prof
Valliere for sharing his paper with me (found at
, last accessed
27 June 2005).
22 See Arjakovsky, Antoine, 'Personne, Sagesse, Hypostase, une visionrenouvelee de la divino-humanite',
, last
accessed 27 June 2005. Also see Arjakovsky, Antoine, La generation des
penseurs religieux de Vemigration Russe: La Revue La Voie' (Put'), 1925-1940
(Kiev/Paris 2002), pp. 517-22.
23 Editorial note: We have retained herein the capitalisation and punctuation of
the original letter.24 This paper is 'The Maturity of St Seraphim' (George Florovsky papers, box
59, folder 2) and Dobbie Bateman had given it that year at the Fellowship
conference (Ryan, Edward and Ronald Smythe, 'Impressions of the Conference
II' Sobornost 4.10 (1964), p. 594). It would later serve, in a much revised form,
as chapter one ofThe Return of St Seraphim (1970).
25 Rom 8.9.26 In a much e arlier portrait from 1937 in The Ways of Russian Theology,
Florovsky writes that Seraphim 'testifies to the mysteries of the Spirit with an
unexpected daring. He was more of a witness than a teacher, but even more than
that, his being and his whole life are manifestations of the Spirit' (Florovsk y,
Georges, Ways of Russian Theology, p. 165).
2 Florovsky, Georges, 'Foreword' to Archim. Sophrony (Sakharov)'s The
Undistorted Image: Starets Silouan, 1866-1938 (London 1958), pp. 5-6;
Florovsky had come to know St Silouan personally on Mt Athos and his
photogra ph had hun g in his study (Blane, Georges Florovsky: Russian
Intellectual and Orthodox Churchman, p. 298).
28 'What the Holy Spirit revealed in Saint Seraphim was Christ in him. The life,
the piety and the glory of Saint Seraphim are fundamentally christocentric. He
who had withdrawn the Lord of his life from the imaginative exchange of vision
into the secret night of a reserved and recollected mind, has disclosed thereby
the operation of the Christ-life. He is alter Christus (Dobbie Bateman, 'The
Maturity of St Seraphim', George Florovsky papers, box 59, folder 2, p. 12).
Florovsky alludes to a passage of Augustine which is the locus classicus of the
phra se 'totu s Chr is tus ': In Iohannis evangelium tractatus CXXIV, 28.1 (PL 35.
c.1622). This notion is crucial for understanding Florovsky's theology. See
67
http://orthodoxia.org/hilarion/articles/patrherit.htmhttp://orthodoxia.org/hilarion/articles/patrherit.htmhttp://www.livejournal.com/users/seraphimsigrist/2004/09/20/http://www.livejournal.com/users/seraphimsigrist/2004/09/20/http://www.ucu.edu.ua/fr/seminars/2004/personne.sagesse.hypostase/http://www.ucu.edu.ua/fr/seminars/2004/personne.sagesse.hypostase/http://www.ucu.edu.ua/fr/seminars/2004/personne.sagesse.hypostase/http://www.livejournal.com/users/seraphimsigrist/2004/09/20/http://orthodoxia.org/hilarion/articles/patrherit.htm -
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
6/7
FLOROVSKY ON READING THE LIFE OF SERAPHIM
commentary at Kiinkel, Christoph, Totus Christus. Die Theologie Georges V.
Florovskys (Gottingen 1991), pp. 14-15 and 185-7.
30 Rom 12.5 and 1 Cor 12.12.
The allusion is to Thomas a Kempis' (c. 1380-1471) Imitation of Christ.
'Allow me to be an imitator of the suffering of my God' (Ignatius of Antioch
Rom 6.3)
Florovsky, Georges, 'The Problem of Old Russian Culture. A discussion with
comments by Nikolai Andreev and James H. Billington', Slavic Review 21
(1962) , pp. 1-42.
'This book was compiled from academic lectures. In the series of studies or
chapters I strived to delineate and depict the images [obrazy] of the great
teachers and Fathers of the Church. To us they appear, first of all, as witnesses
of the catholic faith, as custodians of universal tradition. But the patristic corpus
of writings is not only an inviolable treasure-trove of tradition. For tradition is
life; and the traditions are really being preserved only in their living
reproduction and empathy [for them]. The Fathers give evidence concerning this
in their own works. They show how the truths of the faith revive and transfigure
the human spirit, how human thought is renewed and revitalized in the
experience of faith. They develop the truths of the faith into the integral and
creative Christian worldview. In this respect, the patristic works are for us the
source of creative inspiration, an example of Christian courage and wisdom.
This is a school of Christian thought, of Christian philosophy. And first of all in
my own lectures, I strived to enter into and to introduce [the reader/listener] into
that creative world, into that eternal world of unaging experience and
contemplation, in the world of unflickering light. I believe and I know that only
in it and from it is revealed the straight and true way towards a new Christian
synthesis, about which the contemporary age longs for and thirsts after. The time
has arrived to en-church our own mind and to resurrect for ourselves the holy
and blessed sources of ecclesial thought' (Florovsky, Georges, preface to
Vostochnye Ottsy IV-go Veka (Paris 1931)). Florovsky never completed hisprojected five-volume study of the father s, only two volumes of the full work
were ever completed (Blane, Georges Florovsky: Russian Intellectual and
Orthodox Churchman, p. 154).
Lialine criticized Florovsky's lectures as lacking a scientific erudition both in
their literary point of view and their lack of concern for scholarly precision
(Lialine, Clement, Review of' Vostocn ye Otcy IV veca', Irenikon 10.1 (1933), p.
84). His analysis and account of the sophiology controversy of 1935 is still a
major source for contemporary historians (Lialine, 'Le Debat Sophiologique',
Irenikon 13.2 (1936), pp. 168-205; 'Chronique Religieuse', Irenikon 13.3
68
ANASTASSY BRANDON GALLAHER
(1936), pp. 328-9; 'L'Affaire Sophiologique', Irenikon 13.6 (1936), pp. 704-5).
For his obituary see Rousseau, Dom Olivier, 'In Memoriam: Dom Clement
Lialine (1901-1958) ', Irenikon 31 (1958), pp. 165-82.
36 Metropolitan Philaret (Drozdov) of Moscow (1782-1867) was an eminent
19th-century Russian theologian and churchman (best known in the west for
1823's Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Greco-Catholic
Church and in Russia for his sermons, for which see Philaret, Slova i rechi, fivevolumes [Moscow 1873-85]).
37 Harold Bryant Salmon (1891-1965), then prebendary of Whittackington in
Wells Cathedral and formerly principal (1931-47) at Wells Theological College
(1840-1971), had suggested to Dobbie Bateman, in conjunction with a lecturer
of Arabic, the production of a 'Western edition' of St John of Damascus' De
Fide Orthodoxa. Dobbie Bateman felt that others more capable than him might
already have taken up the project and the preparation of a critical text was
outside his range and, therefore, asked Florovsky what he advised (letter to
Georges Florovsky, 27 November 1963, George Florovsky Pa pers, box 26,
folder 2).
38 John Robinson (1919-83) was Anglican Bishop of Woolich. He had just
publi shed his then contr overs ial book, Honest to God (London 1963), which
launched the 'God is dead' movement in theology.
39 Florovsky refers to Oliver Fielding Clarke's For Christ's Sake: a reply to the
Bishop of Woolich's Honest to God and a positive continuation of the discussion
(second ed., Wallington 1963).
40 Derwas J. Chitty (1901-71), Anglican rector for many years of the parish of
Upton in the diocese of Oxford, was a longstanding and formative early member
of the Fellowship, and a specialist in ancient Christian monasticism (cf. The
Desert a City: an introduction to the study of Egyptian and Palestinian
monasticism under the Christian Empire [repr. Crestwood, NY 1995]; Every,
Edward, 'Derwas James Chitty, 1901-1971' and Allchin, A. M. 'D. J. Chitty: A
Tribute', Sobornost 6.3 (1971), pp. 178-81; and Ware, Kallistos, 'Derwas JamesChitty (1901-1971)', Eastern Churches Review 6 (1974), pp. 1-21). He appears
to have started a project to collect a festschrift in honour of Florovsky, to which
he wanted Dobbie Bateman to contribute (cf. George Florovsky Papers, box 60,
folder 5). However, as happened many times in his life (e.g. his unfinished
English translation of John Climacus' Ladder of Divine Ascent: Ware, Kallistos
and Sebastian Brock., 'The Library of the House of St Gregory and St Macrina,
Oxford: The D.J. Chitty Papers', Sobornost 4.1 (1982): 57 [56-58]), this venture
was eventually put aside.
69
-
7/28/2019 Georges Florovsky on Reading the Life of St Seraphim--SobECR 27-1 Gallaher
7/7
FLOROVSKY ON READING THE LIFE OF SERAPHIM
Cf. Florovsky, Georges, 'Scripture and tradition: an Orthodox point of view'Dialog2 (1963), pp. 288-93.
Canon A. M. Allchin was at that period a librarian of Pusey House, Oxford.See Allchin, A.M., 'Anglican view on Scripture and tradition', Dialog 2 (1963),
pp. 295-9.
The reference is to Charles S. Anderson, who was then managing editor ofDialogand taught at Luther Theological Seminary (St Paul, Minnesota).
*
70
Obituaries
SERGEI HACKEL (1931-2005)
One of my first vivid memories of Fr Sergei was in 1960. We were
together on the first pilgrimage from our diocese to the Soviet Union.It was a very mixed group: Nicholas Zernov, Shura Pickersgill and
myself from England, some others from Switzerland and Holland. Fr
Sergei, although far from the oldest, was chosen as leader since he was
the only ordained clergyman among us, he was a deacon. The trip was
not an easy one. The Church in Russia was undergoing the first stages
in Khruschev's campaign to eradicate religion. The purpose of our
visit was to reassure us as representatives of the Moscow Patriarchate
abroad that all was well, and to allay our fears regarding any
persecution. Our visits were carefully stage-managed and movements
were carefully controlled. The priest from the department of external
church relations assigned to escort us had to lie. We stayed in the
Ukraina hotel, were feasted on champagne and caviar, given presents
and a substantial gift in roubles. On our visits to various churches a
small number of clergy and some ordinary parishioners told us,
usually in a whisper, what was really happening. It was a very painful
experience, and I am sure that the trip played a very important part in
Fr Sergei's outlook and attitude to the Moscow Patriarchate.