Вестник Екатеринбургской духовной семинарии (Oct 2022)
Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) and St. Philaret (Drozdov): Concepts of “Academic Monasticism”
Abstract
The article is devoted to the scientific-monastic concepts of two great representatives of academic monasticism and the episcopate of the Orthodox Russian Church in the second half of the 18th — first half of the 19th century: Metropolitan Platon (Levshin; 1737–1812) and St. Philaret (Drozdov; 1782–1867). The phenomenon of learned monasticism is extremely complicated in the history of the Russian Church of the 18–20 centuries and has been associated with a lot of problems in different periods. A gradual departure of academic monasticism from the monastery and the challenging conditions to advance science have been repeatedly discussed in recent years. However, there was no detailed comparison of how Metropolitan Platon and St. Philaret saw these problems and ways to solve them. And this would be of great interest not only because of the significance of these personalities, but also because both of them thought a lot about the best arrangement of the life and activities of academic monasticism. In addition, Metropolitan Platon and St. Philaret can be defined in a certain sense as the teacher and student; still their views on the theological school coincide just partially. Having highlighted the main provisions of the two concepts, the author of the article compares them and comes to certain conclusions. For both bishops, it was academic monasticism that became the «backbone» of spiritual education and further academic ministry — no matter how this academic ministry was understood: as scientific works or spiritual enlightenment through service to the word of God. But if Metropolitan Platon managed forming Moscow corporations mainly of monks, St. Philaret understood the doubtfulness of this possibility in the changed conditions. The projects of «monastic academies» and «learned monasteries» had failed to be a reality that time and would become relevant again at the beginning of the 20th century, in the aspirations of academic monasticism of new generations. However, the monastic arrangement of life for each monk, such as frequent solitude and silence, stay in hermitages, and «spiritual reclusion», as the author believes, is more important for St. Philaret, than for Metropolitan Platon. Thus, if Metropolitan Platon tried to introduce scholarship into the monastery — through educated Superiors and the establishment of special monasteries «for schooling», whereas St. Philaret called on scholars to venerate monasteries and church monastic tradition, as well as the great ancient ascetics with due reverence, and to strive for spiritual communion with the ascetics of the present.
Keywords
