For the first time, the book attempts to collect into a single whole little-known and practically inaccessible texts by Russian philosophers, which could clarify for the reader the history of apocalyptic moods, the history of bit and philosophical mysticism. Reflecting on the manifestations of the Antichrist, the Russian people comprehended the realities of national history and predicted the future.

The articles accompanying the publication reveal the plot of the Antichrist against the background of philosophical predilections of different eras of Russian history. The "Commentary" provides detailed biographical information about the authors of the texts, clarifies "dark places", and deciphers historical realities.

ru Tatyana Trushova If you found an error - write to e-mail saphyana@inbox.ru ExportToFB21 26.12.2011 OOoFBTools-2011-12-26-18-11-55-209 1.0 Higher school Moscow 1995 Antichrist (From the History of Russian Spirituality): Anthology

Antichrist

(From the History of Russian Spirituality)

K. G. Isupov. Russian Antichrist: Dystopia Coming True

Responding to the traditional Russian mentality of the "end of the century", our time is busy with the intensive production of new ones, as well as the restoration of old social myths. As in the era of I. Novikov, and then Alexander I, then at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, many people, from philistines to academicians, are now fascinated by the comprehension of the "secrets of nature" (in the modern version of "non-rational objects", "unidentified phenomena", etc.). The fashion for occult knowledge, supersensual comprehension, and Freemasonry returned. When permanent catastrophe becomes the norm of life's rhythm, the horizon of historical hope is immediately narrowed into an eschatological perspective, along the central axis of which the familiar and invariably impressive signs of the end times are drawn. The composition of the symbolic testimonies of the "end of history" is constructed in different ways, but according to a certain national habit, the image of the Antichrist is drawn more and more clearly in the foreground of the apocalyptic "iconostasis" with a constancy worthy of special commentary[1]. Like any ancient symbol, this image has a self-sufficient persuasiveness. All the less should one be surprised at its prompt exploitation in the journalistic and political "topical issues of the day"[2], and as a rhetorical argument in historical journalism[3].

There are many detailed reviews of patristic monuments interpreting the Antichrist[4]. With the appearance in Russia of translations of Greek and Latin patristics devoted to the image and timing of the appearance of the "man of lawlessness" [5], the search for contenders for the black throne began and does not stop. By the 18th century, this process acquired an explosive character: the era of Peter the Great was flooded with an avalanche of eschatological works (their number was specified more than once, starting with the "Catalog..." Paul the Curious [6] and ending with modern historians of the schism[7]). No universal opponent of God, including the most conspicuous characters of demonology and the Prince of Darkness himself, no personification of the World's Evil, has attracted as much attention as the Antichrist. Very soon recognized as a permanent historical threat, about which the texts of the highest degrees of sacred authority repeat [8], the obscure figure of the Antichrist is perceived as just a "figure": its outlines easily overlapped and coincided with the images of the operatively sought historical claimants. The most popular person in this series is, of course, Peter I.

Hundreds of schismatics, who denounced the sovereign-Antichrist, passed through the Transfiguration Order. Peter's decree on religious tolerance of 1702 was crossed out by the decree of 1716, according to which the priestless were to be chained "in cages of double salary".

It is not difficult to imagine what feelings Catherine's adoption of Orthodoxy evoked: she had Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich as her spiritual successor, "therefore, she was a granddaughter of Peter himself. And spiritual kinship was valued by Russians much higher than blood kinship." Therefore, the marriage of Peter and Catherine "caused a stir", and the subsequent execution of his son "struck the Russians to the very heart" [9].

Here is one of the innumerable "negatives" of Peter the Great, which we find in the work of the Kerzhensk preacher Kozma Andreyev (died in a dungeon in 1716): "In his very flesh, on his face, and on his forehead, and on all his ears, even to his feet, is the image and mark of the abomination of desolation, Latinism, like abominable barbery, and the brow is naked, and the veil is on the head, according to the custom of the filthy Germans and Luthors, and all the rest of his clothes are Latin, and even more so demonic.<... >For there is Satan and hell, that is, the evil spirit, Latin and Roman." [10]

The dramatic life of the monk Samuel (Tambov sacristan Osip Vymorkov), compiled by S. M. Solovyov [11] and later expanded into a detailed essay by M. I. Semeisky [12], testifies to the special stability of the theme of the Tsar-Antichrist, which brings to mind the name of another Tsar-Antichrist, Nero. The First Rome and the City of Antichrist – Petersburg ("Fourth Rome") merge in the consciousness of people of the old faith with the image of "papacy" Europe. The Moscow deanery of the "Third Rome" and the "of Babylon" on the Neva River formed an antithetical theme in the early stages of the dialogue between the two capitals. The reputation of St. Petersburg as the City of the Doomed owes its 6th birth to the apocalyptic plot; it survived until the beginning of the 20th century.[13]

Orthodox church publicists were aware of the possible social consequences of the spread of the heresy about the Emperor-Antichrist. The authority of Stefan Yavorsky was needed to oppose Grigory Vasilyevich Talitsky and his followers. To this end, Yavorsky wrote the treatise "The Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist" (Moscow, 1703) and "Exhortation", in which the signs of the Antichrist in the deeds of Peter are disputed [14].