N Gumilev Andrey Rublev. Electronic magazine "Orthodox worshiper on the Holy Land"

Nikolay Gumilyov

(1886-1921)

The published poems of Nikolai Stepanovich Gumilyov (1886 - 1921) belong to the last stage of his creative path, when turning to the Bible became for him, as for other Russian writers of the “Silver Age”, a symbol of fidelity to culture Christendom. The entire collection “The Bonfire” (1918), from which the poem “Andrei Rublev” (1916) is taken, is essentially about this. His very first poem, “Trees” (1916), leads the reader to the free, perfect “green peoples” of the earth, where “Moses are among the oaks, Marys are among the palm trees...” and their souls “send a quiet call to each other.” A poem written at a time when the approach of a catastrophe was heard by everyone “with ears” (let’s use biblical expression), is distinguished by the spirit of determination so characteristic of Gumilyov:

Oh, if only I could find a country,
In which I could not cry and sing,
Silently rising to the heights,
Countless millennia!

Apparently, Gumilyov had the opportunity to “find the country” (in the narrow biographical sense): in 1917 - 1918. he lived in Paris and London. But in the spring of 1918 he returned to Petrograd, to the country where he was destined to “Cry and Sing,” and with great energy he took up literary and cultural work (see about this in the first part of the book). The motives that fueled his poetic, translation, educational activities in the remaining three years of the poet’s life, one can guess in many of the poems in the collection, for example, in “Second Canzone” (1918):

...If, Lord, this is so,
If I sing righteously,
Give me, Lord, give me a sign
That I understood Your will.

According to A. A. Blok, Gumilyov told him about this poem: “This is my whole policy.” These words can be understood broadly: the entire life and poetic position, and not just the attitude to the problems of power, state, etc. Moreover, the canzone - in its original meaning - is a song about knightly love. Undoubtedly, chivalry - in a moral sense - is the highest ideal for Gumilyov.

Andrey Rublev

I am firm, I know so sweetly
I am familiar with the art of monks,
That the wife's face is like heaven,
Promised by the creator.

Hoc is a tall tree trunk;
Two thin arches of eyebrows
Spread above him, wide,
The bend of palm branches.

Two prophetic sirens, two eyes,
They sing sweetly beneath them,
The eloquence of the story
All the secrets of the spirit are revealed.

An open forehead is like the vault of heaven,
And curls - clouds above him,
They, probably, with lovely shyness
The gentle seraphim touched.

And right there, at the foot of the tree,
The lips are like some kind of heavenly color,
Why Mother Eve
Blagoy broke the covenant.

All this with a praiseworthy brush
Andrei Rublev drew it for me,
And this life's work is sad
Became a blessing from God.

Word

On that day, when over the new world
God bowed his face, then
Stopped the sun with a word
In short, they destroyed cities.

And the eagle did not flap its wings,
The stars huddled in horror towards the moon,
If, like a pink flame,
The word floated above.

And for the low life there were numbers,
Like livestock, livestock,
Because all shades of meaning
Smart number conveys.

Patriarch gray-haired, under his arm
Conquered both good and evil,
Not daring to turn to sound,
I drew a number in the sand with a cane.

But we forgot that it is shining
Only a word among earthly anxieties,
And in the Gospel of John
It is said that this word is God.

We set a limit for him
The meager limits of nature,
And like bees in an empty hive,
Dead words smell bad.

Comment

Andrey Rublev

Andrei Rublev (about 1370 - about 1430) - painter, creator of the Trinity icon, icons and frescoes of the Moscow and Vladimir cathedrals, founder of the Moscow school of icon painters. The author of the poem, one may assume, does not mean any specific works of the artist where the “face of the wife” is created, for example, his “Annunciation”, “Nativity of Christ”, “Baptism”, written for the Annunciation Cathedral in Moscow, or his icon "Our Lady of Vladimir" The poet conveys his idea of ​​the great master’s painting style, of his work, which “became a blessing from God.” The poem is full of memories of the Book of Genesis, the Song of Solomon.

“Two prophetic sirens, two eyes...” Sirin in Russian mythology is a fantastic creature - a female bird of paradise with the gift of foresight.

Seraphim - according to the Bible, an angel from God’s inner circle, endowed with six wings (about this image, see also in the first part of the book - in reflections on Pushkin’s poem “The Prophet”).

Word

“They stopped the sun with a word...” This refers to the event described in the Book of Joshua, when Joshua, a companion of Moses, a commander, the leader of the people of Israel, in a battle against the army of the five kings of Canaan, stopped the sun over the battlefield with a word: “And the sun stood still, and the moon stood, while the people took revenge on their enemies ." (X, 10 - 14).

« In short, they destroyed cities.” - A reminder of another event from the same Book (VI), when the walls of the city of Jericho fell from the cry of the people and the sound of trumpets.

“In the Gospel of John it is said that the word is God” - Gospel of John (I, 1).

Pech. according to the book: N. S. Gumilyov. Poems and poems. L., Sov. writer, 1988.

THE BIBLE AND RUSSIAN LITERATURE (CHRESTOMATHY)

Edited by M. G. Kachurin

"CARAVEL" ST. PETERSBURG, 1995

In the book of the famous philologist and iconologist V.V. Lepakhin “The image of the icon painter in Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries” (Moscow, 2005) there are several texts devoted to the image of the icon painter Ancient Rus' Rev. Andrei Rublev in the works of Russian poets. Among them, the commentary on Nikolai Gumilyov’s poem “Andrei Rublev” is of particular interest.

Gumilyov's poem was first published in the Apollo magazine in 1916, three years after materials about Russian icon painting appeared in this magazine. In particular, in 1913, N. Punin’s article about the Old Russian icon was published here, and in 1915, his article about Andrei Rublev.

The attention of the Russian public to medieval Russian icon painting is due to the fact that in the early 1910s the legendary “Trinity” by Andrei Rublev was cleared and freed from later layers of painting. The true Rublev letter, revealed to the eyes of contemporaries, shocked everyone with its life-affirming color and spiritual aristocracy. In 1913, an exhibition was held in Moscow for the first time, where, among many ancient icons, one could see Rublev’s not yet fully restored “Trinity” (the first clearing of the “Trinity” was not completed; only in 1918 did restorers carry out a new and final clearing icons, it was carried out in the Trinity Lavra under the supervision of I.E. Grabar).

Nikolai Gumilyov did not remain indifferent to this event. Three years after the exhibition, his poem appeared in print:

ANDREY RUBLEV
I am firm, I know so sweetly
I am familiar with the art of monks,
That the face of the Wife is like heaven,
Promised by the Creator.
The nose is a tall tree trunk;
Two thin arches of eyebrows
Spread above him, wide,
The bend of palm branches.
Two prophetic sirens, two eyes,
They sing sweetly beneath them,
The eloquence of the story
All the secrets of the spirit are revealed.
An open forehead is like the vault of heaven,
And curls - clouds above him,
They, probably, with lovely shyness
The gentle Seraphim touched.
And right there, at the foot of the tree,
The lips are like some kind of heavenly color,
Why Mother Eve
Blagoy broke the covenant.
All this with a praiseworthy brush
Andrei Rublev drew it for me,
And this life's work is sad
Became a blessing from God.

The first reading of this text, indeed, may alert you to some inconsistency of images. When starting to analyze the text, V.V. Lepakhin immediately limits its content, enclosing it within the strict framework of a structural diagram: “Gumilyov set himself the task of describing the structure, morphology of the iconographic face, using for this the image of a tree, the mythologem of the world, or supramundane, tree.” . And then the author of the commentary provides a lengthy description of the mythology of the world tree from various “scientists, writers, artists,” thus including Gumilyov in the same context. Another page and a half of commentary is devoted to describing the symbolic meaning of the tree in Christianity. Having thus prepared the ground for the subsequent sowing of his critical comments, Valery Lepakhin has no shortage of them, because Gumilyov’s text does not fit into the framework prepared for it by the philologist. But there was probably no need to “plow” so deeply. For example, N. Demina, describing Rublev’s “Trinity,” notes: “In Byzantine literature, the “tree of life” is “love from which Adam fell away.” She quotes St. Isaac the Syrian, and it is quite obvious that the “tree of life” here means Christ. St. Silouan of Athos writes: “The tree of life, which is in the middle of paradise, - Christ." V. Lepakhin also quotes many church hymns, where Christ is called the “tree of life,” but then for some reason begins to talk about the face of the Virgin Mary.

This approach to Gumilyov’s poem does not seem successful. In addition, the source of the imagery of Gumilyov’s poem could not be the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, but another iconographic image, which V. Lepakhin does not think about, recklessly taking on faith the “face of the Wife” declared by Gumilyov in the first stanza of the poem.

Before offering some of our observations on Gumilyov’s text, let us briefly remind the reader of the main provisions of V. Lepakhin’s commentary.

“In the poem “Andrei Rublev” we see an attempt to describe the morphology of the iconographic face of the Virgin Mary through the image of a tree. “The face of the Wife is like heaven,” writes the poet. This image is inspired by Orthodox chants" .

Apparently, it is no coincidence that it is not specified who this image was “inspired by” - Gumilyov or his commentator, an Orthodox and church-going person. Yes, undoubtedly, every person who attends Orthodox services will hear these motives from Gumilyov. But it should be borne in mind that the Akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos, the lines from which V. Lepakhin quotes, citing them as arguments, can be heard in church only on Saturday of the fifth week of Lent (Saturday of the Akathist), that is, once a year. If we assume that the poet Nikolai Gumilyov’s motif of the tree was “inspired” by the classical akathist to the Most Holy Theotokos, then at the same time we include Gumilyov either in the context of the Orthodox Lenten service, or in the context of church hymnography, the texts of which the poet could familiarize himself with independently and outside the church. And then it's already separate topic for conversation. We will not delve deeply into this topic here; we will only refer to some evidence from the poet’s contemporaries about his involvement in the culture of church chants. For example, in the memoirs of R. Pletnev there is a story about Nikolai Gumilyov’s prayer at the front (during the battle he “muttered a prayer to the Mother of God”), about his participation in a prayer service: “On vacation, he remembers the bright joy of a field prayer service. In an open field, a priest in a golden robe “spoke eternal and sweet(emphasis added by us. - M.M.) words, serving a prayer service... The vast sky instead of a dome... We prayed well that day. In the entire regiment, although they were not forced to go to the prayer service, there was not a single person who would not go.” This was in 1914-1916, i.e. before writing the poem "Andrei Rublev". Also, a certain Rosmer, reviewing Gumilyov’s collection “Pearls,” on the contrary, does not believe the author’s religiosity. However, it is important that he talks about it at all, whether he believes it or not. V.F. Khodasevich was also suspicious of the poet’s religiosity: “Gumilyov did not forget to be baptized in all churches, but I have rarely seen people so unaware of what religion is” [ibid., p. 304]. The remark is vague and unconvincing, since it first requires clarification to what extent Khodasevich himself “suspects what religion is.” Yu.I. Aikhenwald, without touching upon the poet’s actual religiosity, nevertheless characterizes him as “the prodigal son of Russian culture,” precisely in connection with the poem “Andrei Rublev”: “Gumilyov did not escape the usual fate of the prodigal son, that from under a foreign sky he returned to his own that longing for a foreign land met in his soul with longing for his homeland. Exoticism has given way to patriotism.” And further Aikhenvald writes: “...Russia of the spirit looks at him from the icon of Andrei Rublev.” The text of the poem “Andrei Rublev”, first and last stanzas, is quoted below. That's all. Not a single mention of this poem in the entire almost 700-page collection about the poet. By the way, Aikhenvald writes the word “wife” with lowercase letter. At the same time, the noun “Creator” and the adjective “God” are written with capital letters. This may mean that the critic did not intend the word “wife” to refer to the Virgin Mary.

Valery Lepakhin does not continue the theme of the poet’s religiosity. In addition, the very categorical nature of combining the poetic image (“the face of the Wife”) with the Orthodox iconographic face of the Blessed Virgin Mary immediately cuts off all other possible associations, and this means the impossibility of further perception of the text of the poem on a positive level, because the “face” written by the poet does not at all correspond traditional iconographic. Lepakhin also notices this: “If you bring to mind the iconographic faces of the Mother of God in Russian and Byzantine images, then it is not only difficult, but impossible to remember on them such eyes that would “sing sweetly.” In the eyes of the Mother of God one can read sorrow, sadness, sometimes light sadness, prayer, peace, tenderness, but not singing, much less sweet.”. Thus, the face that Gumilyov is talking about is not the face of the Mother of God at all, but the iconologist continues to adhere to his analogy and note the inconsistencies between what he sees on the icon and what the poet depicted (perhaps looking at a completely different icon!) . And, of course, there are a great many such inconsistencies.

“Open forehead” - we read from the poet in the next quatrain and begin to doubt whether he is talking about icon painting? Where and on what icon could the poet see the open forehead of the Mother of God? On the contrary, the first thing that catches your eye is the dark cherry maforium and blue cap of the Virgin Mary, which cover Her forehead almost to the eyebrows.” .

Indeed, if you look through many albums on iconography, you are convinced that neither the Mother of God nor the holy wives are depicted with an open forehead (on the canonical icon, of course). Only male faces have open foreheads on icons. Even the angelic faces are covered almost to the eyebrows with curls. By the way, it is the faces of angels (for example, the famous image of the “Golden Hair Angel”) that are most associated with feminine softness and tenderness of appearance. These are the features that are most characteristic of Byzantine iconography of angels. This observation will be useful to us later.

Let's return to Gumilyov's poem. When the poet has already mentioned these “curls” above the open forehead, it seems inappropriate to continue the conversation about the Mother of God. Meanwhile, Valery Lepakhin is convinced that Gumilyov simply “wrongly” depicted the Virgin Mary. He continues to be “surprised” at the cultural ignorance of the Russian poet: “The reader, who knows at least a little of the Orthodox iconography of the Mother of God, is no less surprised by the “curls” above the forehead, likened to clouds. According to ancient Eastern custom, a woman's hair should be covered. In the New Testament, the holy Apostle Paul reminds us of this rule as mandatory (1 Cor. 4:16). In addition, according to legend, known to all icon painters, the Mother of God’s hair was smooth and combed in the middle. Surprise grows when we read that the hair of the Blessed Virgin was touched “with lovely timidity” by a “gentle seraphim.” This Renaissance playfulness and even familiarity is completely alien to the spiritual sobriety of the Orthodox icon.”. V. Lepakhin is right: it is unthinkable for a poet to depict the face of the Most Holy Theotokos in such a “renaissance” manner, unless... he had in mind the icon of Andrei Rublev.

It is known that to this day there is not a single convincing evidence according to which the brush of the holy icon painter could be attributed to at least one of the medieval images of the Blessed Virgin Mary known to us. Only “Trinity” and the Zvenigorod rite are unambiguously attributed to Andrei Rublev by the majority of art historians. It is clear that Nikolai Gumilyov could not have known these subtleties of art history at that time. But he could not help but know, if he wrote poems about Rublev, and the main icon of the entire Russian Middle Ages, the icon for which, perhaps, the 1913 exhibition in Moscow was organized. And if only we, leaving aside the categoricalness of V. Lepakhin, let us assume that the poet, contemplating the “face of the Woman,” turned his gaze not to the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, but to another icon, then everything falls into place.

Since in different publications the word WIFE is written differently (sometimes with a capital letter, sometimes with a lowercase letter), we cannot clearly say that this word refers to that one and only Wife Who is always called the Wife with capital letter. In the poet’s poems, the word “wife” may well denote the essence of the feminine gender: Wisdom, Beauty, Angel-likeness, even the Glory of God - all these are words of the feminine gender, replaced, if necessary, by the pronoun “she”.

Very minor errors remain, revealing the poet’s inexperience in matters of dogmatic theology and Church Slavonic language. For example, Gumilyov loses sight of the fact that words "lovely", "lovely" in Church Slavonic they do not mean something beautiful and touching, but have a moral meaning: “beauty » - delusion, seduction, deception; " charming » - flattering, insidious, seductive.

Therefore, V. Lepakhin, having a theological education (St. Sergius Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris), reads Gumilyov’s lines - They were probably touched with lovely timidity by the gentle Seraphim- with unequivocal rejection. He perceives them in the spirit of Pushkin’s blasphemous “Gabrieliad”: Seraphim touches the hair of the Most Holy Theotokos with seductive tenderness. In this case, the critic’s conclusion is logical: “It remains to admit that the “open forehead”, and “curls”, and “charm”, and “gentle seraphim” migrated into Gumilyov’s poem from Italian painting of the late Renaissance and were inspired by it, and not by the icon of St. Andrew”.

But the poem is named very specifically - “Andrei Rublev,” and then why does Gumilyov need this “playful” imagery, this sentimental mood that is not in tune with the ascetic spirit of the Russian icon? The poet could not have known the articles by academician D.S. Likhachev about the “pre-revival” and “pre-renaissance” of Ancient Rus'; it had not yet been written. N. Punin’s article, published as a separate edition in the same year of 1916, when the poet’s poem was written, could have been familiar to him. But Punin pointed to the Byzantine iconographic elements of the “Trinity”, and not to the image of the Virgin Mary (we will talk about this in more detail below).

It seems that Lepakhin mentally replaces Gumilyov with Pushkin from the era of the Gabrieliad, which leads to the corresponding perception of the text: “Reading the poem, instead of the expected veneration of the Mother of God, the reader sees male admiration that is inappropriate in relation to the Mother of God and Her icon physical beauty young woman. And only" .

If everything were so simple, Gumilyov would seem to us a flat, fussy poet, rushing to respond to the topic of the day (to write “impressions” from the exhibition of icons) and quickly submit this text to the next issue of Apollo. After all, if his text is really so inappropriately playful and deliberately unfair in relation to the art of the Rev. Andrei Rublev, what is left to think about the poet?!

It is obvious that for a religious person the situation is unacceptable when a saint can be judged from the point of view of his external physical attractiveness. The Holy Great Martyrs Marina and Catherine were dazzlingly beautiful in appearance, but it would not occur to a believer to admire perishable beauty more than the spiritual courage of its owners. It is difficult to admit that a Russian poet was so non-Russian so revivalistically poisoned, so that, contemplating the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, look at the face depicted on it with a feeling of “male admiration of the physical beauty of a young woman.” V. Lepakhin assigns to the poet precisely the Renaissance vision of the iconographic image. This is how the Renaissance theorist, philosopher A.F. Losev characterizes this vision: “... in the era of the Renaissance, which was the era of the spontaneous revelry of the secularized individual, ... subjectivism affected itself in an unprecedentedly sharp form. All unavailable items religious veneration, which in medieval Christianity demanded an absolutely chaste attitude towards themselves, become in the Renaissance something very accessible and psychologically extremely close, so that the depiction of this kind of sublime objects often acquires a naturalistic and familiar character here in a very real sense.”

It would be nice if the wind of fallen nature suddenly flashed by, drove away the seduction - and that’s all. But there's a whole poem here! It seems that there is no such evidence in the works of Nikolai Gumilyov that would allow us to assume such moral cynicism in him - to admire the Mother of God as an ordinary “young woman”, while declaring himself Orthodox, and even putting in the title of his poem the name of the holy monk-icon painter who performed the prayer in colors. Raphael's Madonnas allowed feelings of pleasure in physical beauty; reverence for holiness was not expected from these paintings. But so that the icons brushed by the Rev. Andrei Rublev could evoke a movement of sensual delight and enjoyment of “physical beauty” - this is impossible by the very nature of the Russian icon. " The medieval icon painter had little interest in the real proportions of the human body, since the body was for him the carrier of the spirit; For him, the harmony of the body consisted rather in an ascetic outline, in the flat reflection of the supercorporeal world on it.”.

Thus, one should be aware of how serious the accusation against Nikolai Gumilyov is. In essence, what V.V. said Lepakhin means that the poet artistically lied, hiding behind the name of Andrei Rublev.

Further V. Lepakhin writes: “The brush of the holy icon painter is praiseworthy, worthy of praise,” the poet asserts, and here one cannot but agree with him; only the work described by the poet, for many reasons, cannot in any way belong to the brush of Andrei Rublev. Returning to the beginning of the poem, one cannot help but argue with the author; his “Andrei Rublev” testifies that the poet is not familiar with “the art of monks” and does not know it “firmly,” even superficially.”.

Of course, if you look at Gumilyov’s poem as a description of the icon of the Most Holy Theotokos, then it is impossible to believe the poet. But to understand the poet, you need to change your point of view. Let's try to stand next to the poet and imagine that before us is not an icon of the Mother of God, but... the brilliant and praiseworthy “Trinity”. At the same time, we honestly admit: much of what we see will belong only to our vision, but not to the poet’s vision. But there is no other way out. We can “reconstruct” the content of his view only to the extent that the images proposed by the poet and our understanding of all possible associative connections, going deep into the traditions of pictorial art and focused at one starting point - the face of the middle Angel of Andrei Rublev's "Trinity" - allow us to do this. .

At the same time, individual thoughts of the poet will remain not entirely understandable due to their imagery complicated by individual associations. For example, something like this: “...the mouth is like a certain flower of paradise, because of which the good mother Eve broke the covenant...” It is difficult to understand why the poet used these semantic parallels: the red fruit of the forbidden tree - the lips of an Angel the color of cinnabar. What did he need here - the motive for violating the ban on the knowledge of good and evil or the motive for not h the passion of an Angel, indifference to the emotional sensitivity that people often show in relation to the Divine? Or does Mother Eve appear here as a symbolic image, pointing to the poet’s internal struggle with himself, to a meaningful and “forced” renunciation of the “too human” in himself at the moment of contemplation of the Divine? The following understanding is possible: Eve connects the past, present and future. It unites time into eternity. How? From the foremother Eve - to Christ as the New Adam. It was necessary for the poet to remember Eve in order, without naming Adam and Christ, to indicate their presence in the subtext of the poem. It is the “humanity” (incarnation) of the New Adam that allows the poet to introduce his own “humanity” into the fabric of the poem through the memory of Eve.

Unless Gumilyov resorted to this associative connection not for the sake of rhyme, the appearance of Eve with the forbidden fruit is not accidental in a text describing a work of art (and Rublev’s icon was, first of all, a masterpiece of world art throughout the twentieth century), created in the late Middle Ages , when the ideas of the Renaissance had already fully captured the minds of Western Europe and penetrated Rus' through verbal and artistic art.

(D.S. Likhachev, M.V. Alpatov and other art historians wrote a lot about this influence in their time. Without entering into polemics with them, we nevertheless do not want to understand the mood of the Rublev icon as “Renaissance” or “pre-Renaissance” ", as D.S. Likhachev suggests in famous work about the art of the era of Andrei Rublev. We are closer to the point of view of N.A. Demina, who convincingly noted the reason for the “Renaissance” delight of scientists Soviet period: “Admiring the “Trinity” ... they saw in it the features of Italian Renaissance art, which was for them the measure of all that is beautiful”)

If Gumilyov relied on any ideological subtext in choosing the image of the foremother Eve, then these were most likely the ideas of returning to man the closeness of the Divine through iconographic images. Eve was the first person to forget about the closeness of God, about her kinship with Him. The further history of mankind after the expulsion from paradise (Eden) represents a sad fading of the memory of God, a severance of man’s connection with God and the gradual “savagery” of man in his feelings, alienation from the “likeness of God” in himself. The Renaissance, along with the fact that it gave a surge of sensuality and free-thinking outside of God (in Western Europe), also returned to man the feeling of closeness to the Divine (in Ancient Rus'), once lost by Mother Eve. Therefore, those cheerful colors that we see on Rublev’s icons, and later on the frescoes of Dionysius, do not mean human sensuality introduced into the iconographic face, but testify to the bright joy of finding the Divine, testify to a change in human vision, its renewal. Man allowed himself to express in relation to God all his joy and love of which he is only capable, and at the same time all objects of human vision, including the anthropomorphic faces of the Divine, lit up with pure colors. The bright blush on the cheeks of the middle Angel of Rublev’s “Trinity” and His scarlet (cinnabar) lips are indeed “like some kind of heavenly color,” which can be understood and accepted only with chaste joy, pure reckless trust, so as not to break the “good covenant” with God, as it happened with Eve. Yes, V. Lepakhin correctly objects to the poet, there was no “covenant” with God yet, the covenant was given only to Moses at Sinai in the form of the Tablets of the Covenant. But it is hardly worth taking such a literalistic approach to the text of an Acmeist poet who does not theologize, but artistically expresses his state at the moment of contemplation of the iconographic Divine Face.

It is difficult to say whether Gumilev knew the church hymns dedicated to the Second Hypostasis of the Holy Trinity, the Lord Jesus Christ, but those who are familiar with them will not be embarrassed by the expression “sweet lips” in relation to the Divine. Yes, the middle Angel of the Rublev Trinity has lips sweetly beautiful, mouth - “like some kind of heavenly color”, but at the same time we have a memory not of Eve, carried away by the external beauty of the fruit, but of Jesus, “most sweet” and “most sweet,” as the Akathist to Jesus the Sweetest calls Him. Gumilyov may not have known this canonical text, but only intuitively, in response to the state inspired by the icon, used the words “sweet” and “sweet” in the context of a poem on a religious theme. And we cannot blame him for this. Because in the first ikos of the Akathist we read: O sweet Jesus, magnification of the patriarchs! Most merciful Jesus, sweetness to the elders! Most sweet Jesus, joy to the saints! And further: Jesus, sweetness of the heart (ikos 8), Jesus, fragrant flower(ikos 12), that is, the same “paradise color” that is remembered when contemplating the face of an Angel on Rublev’s icon (irrespective of the subsequent two lines about “Mother Eve”).

V. Lepakhin calls such epithets in Gumilev’s poem “accidental” and arising from the general “effeminacy” of the Silver Age: “In the first stanza, the poet writes that he knows “firmly and sweetly”... And this combination of masculinity and the delicacy inherent in the Silver Age is somewhat jarring to the ear.”.

The Orthodox philologist seems to forget that the same epithet is often used by the holy fathers when describing their spiritual experience, calling the state of transcendental experience “spiritual pleasure”24. Expressing their spiritual experience in verbal prayer, they resort to the concept of “sweetness,” emphasizing the out-of-body nature of this feeling, as, for example, St. Basil the Great in his prayer: Let us not fall and become lazy, but watchful and raised up for the work that is to come, prepare us for the joy and divine palace of His glory, where those who celebrate the unceasing voice and ineffable sweetness of those who behold Your face, the ineffable kindness(Orthodox prayer book, 5th morning prayer or first prayer for Holy Communion).

Contemporary of Gumilyov, St. Silouan of Athos loved this word so much that in “The Lamentations of Adam” alone (only 5 pages of text) he used it 10 times. Here are some examples from his writings: “Adam, the father of the universe, knew in paradise the sweetness of God's love…», « The Holy Spirit is love and sweetness soul, mind and body. And those who know God through the Holy Spirit are insatiably eager day and night for the living God, for God's love is very sweet", "Oh, Adam, our father, tell us, your sons, about the Lord. (...) Tell us how our Lord is glorified for His sufferings, and how songs are sung in heaven, and how much these songs are sweet, for they are sung by the Holy Spirit,” “From the beauty of paradise and sweets of the Holy Spirit I can no longer remember the earth” (“Lamentation of Adam”); “...and the soul and body of the novice were filled with indescribable sweets, and the soul knew the Lord through the Holy Spirit...", "... for sweetness of the Holy Spirit surpasses all the sweetness of the world" ("Narratives of Experience..."); “A sinful life is the death of the soul, and the love of God is sweets heaven, in which our father Adam lived before the fall,” “... the name of the Lord is sweet and desirable for the soul of the one praying...", "Oh, Christ humility how is it sweet and it’s nice!” (“Missing God”); “Oh, man, learn the humility of Christ, and the Lord will give you a taste sweets of prayer"; “...He is very merciful and grace His sweet above all" (“A Word on Prayer”).

Quotes like this spiritual sweetness can be multiplied endlessly, leafing through the writings of St. Silouan. One of them tells us the correct understanding of the state named in the verses: “... I went to church for Vespers and, looking at the icon of the Savior, said: Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, a sinner. And with these words I saw the icon of the living Lord in place, and the grace of the Holy Spirit filled my soul and whole body. And so I knew by the Holy Spirit that Jesus Christ is God, and I wished sweetly suffering for Christ."

“It is sweet to know” that the face of God is like paradise, and it is “sweet to desire” the love of God, contemplating His iconographic face.

How else can we feel the sweetness of God’s gaze, if not by feeling this “ineffable sweetness” in our own feelings, or more precisely, in our minds. Gumilyov loved this word - “sweetness” - not because of effeminacy, but perhaps for the reason that behind this word stood for him a certain spiritual reality, a certain state of mind, which he, apparently, knew not only from his writings about Russian saints, but also from my own experience. See, for example, his poems about the war:

And it’s so sweet to dress Victory,
Like a girl in pearls,
Following a trail of smoke
Retreating enemy.
"Offensive"

G.I. Chulkov appreciated the “magnificent combination of words” and “solemn rhythm” here. What is important for us here is the word “sweet” in a context that can be understood in an emotional sense, especially in combination with the image of a girl in pearls, but also in the sense of a certain triumph of the spirit, not emotional (that would be somewhat aggressive), but deeper, metaphysical. In order to somehow supplement this explanation, let us recall the words of the poet from the acmeistic manifesto “Hyperborea”, which also speaks of a certain “sweetness” of the spiritual order: “The childishly wise, painfully sweet feeling of our own ignorance is what the unknown gives us...”.

It is surprising that the restorer used the same concept of “sweetness” when he saw the pristine “Trinity” cleared of soot. I.E. Grabar, under whose leadership the restoration work was carried out, did not avoid in his report this “dubious” epithet “sweet” in relation to the ascetic spirit of the Russian icon. Here is his impression of the colors of the Rublev icon: “The colors of the Trinity are a rare example of bright colors united in a subtly felt harmony of relationships.” And this exquisite range of colors is capable, according to the restoration artist, “of evoking in the viewer a sweet memory of a green, slightly browning rye field dotted with cornflowers.” Of course, “sweet memory” and “sweet knowledge” are not exactly the same, but what is important here is not the coincidence of semantic contexts, but the very fact of word use. It is quite obvious that the words “sweet”, “sweet” are the best suited for expressing various shades of emotional and spiritual experiences, and to talk about the “effeminacy” of these words means to impose one’s purely individual, personal vision, which runs counter to the tradition of quite serious, deep, spiritually justified usage of words.

Of course, there is a danger for the unchurched consciousness to introduce a certain sensory element into the understanding of the spiritual context. Rev. Silouan of Athos writes about this danger as follows: “... a beginner needs a leader, because before the grace of the Holy Spirit, the soul has a great battle with enemies, and it cannot figure it out if the enemy brings it his sweetness. Only one who has experienced the grace of the Holy Spirit can understand this. He who has tasted the Holy Spirit to taste recognizes grace." Maybe that’s why Lepakhin denies Gumilyov the right to use the epithet “sweet” in relation to the Orthodox icon. Apparently, he does not envisage such an opportunity for Gumilyov - an experienced taste of grace and the memory of its taste. But the associative connection of this epithet with the theme of “effeminacy” remains on the conscience of the literary critic. Gumilyov repeated this epithet twice, which cannot be considered an accident or an involuntary tribute to sensual delicacy. This reference to the sensuality of the Silver Age looks too contrasting against the background of that thoughtful philosophical excursion with which the analysis of the “woody” motif in Gumilyov’s poem turned out to be overloaded. It turns out, on the one hand, the poet delved into the jungle of cosmogonic philosophy, and on the other, the skeleton of his superficial thinking was exposed, capable of connecting the “sweet singing” of the Angel’s thoughtfully lowered eyes not with spiritual sweetness (which is what Gumilyov discusses further, only Lepakhin does not wanted to hear), but with “pampered” sensuality, some kind of carnal “sweetness”.

Too much licentiousness will have to be assumed in a poet if he is capable of giving such free your feelings at the moment of contemplation of the icon. And therefore, with all evidence, one can see and hear here only spiritual sweetness, consonant with Orthodox prayer"Jesus sweetest, have mercy on us!” or Easter joy, expressed in the ninth song of the Easter canon: “O divine, oh dear, oh sweetest Your voice! You truly promised to be with us until the end of the age, O Christ!

V. Lepakhin also did not want to hear in another place of the poem a consonance with the Orthodox ascetic tradition, which, by the way, Gumilyov could recognize precisely in connection with artistic creativity Andrey Rublev. When the poet comes to describe the eyes of angels (under the arches of the eyebrows), he resorts to the following imagery:

Two prophetic sirens, two eyes,
They sing sweetly beneath them,
The eloquence of the story
All the secrets of the spirit are revealed.

This stanza was given such a literal interpretation by the philologist that one feels sorry for the poet. “Yes, the bird Sirin flies to the sinful earth,- writes V. Lepakhin, - to “give away the secrets of the spirit”, to tell people about heavenly life waiting for the righteous. But why is the poet’s story of the Sirin bird eloquent? Eloquence is verbosity, verbosity, understood in negative sense. Scripture warns: “Let great talk come from your mouth” (1 Sam. 2:3). The verb “talk” is sometimes used to mean “slander” and even “slander”. Perhaps the poet meant eloquence?.

V. Lepakhin still cannot find an answer to this question. Because with such a literal understanding of poetic imagery, it is impossible not to get lost in the labyrinths of metaphorical and symbolic parallels. Isn’t it enough to simply take note of this figurative comparison - and that’s all. These “two sirens”, written, by the way, with a lowercase letter, like common nouns, are intended only to create a mood, to “turn on” the mechanism for realizing the associative connection: then this imaginative connection works in parallel with the main content of the text. And the main content is the silent gaze of wide-open, thoughtfully concentrated eyes, in the depths of which “all the secrets of the spirit” are accomplished, accessible only to the same silent and concentrated contemplation that the angelic face shows us. What does “the eloquence of a story” mean in relation to silent lips and eyes focused in self-absorbed vision? Nothing but significance, boundless and boundless capacity in this look of all humanity and the entire Universe. The Spirit of God contemplates Its depths and the depths of the world created by God - hence “all the secrets of the spirit” that we know through penetration into this Divine silent gaze. The secrets of the human spirit are “revealed” to humanity by this Divine gaze. "Silence is the secret of the future century." All three Angels are silent, revealing the secrets of the spirit with this silence. That’s all the “magnificence of the story.”

Regarding the “magnificent story” of the angelic eyes in Rublev’s “Trinity,” P. A. Florensky said wonderfully: “The enmity and hatred reigning in the earthly world was opposed by mutual love, flowing in eternal harmony, in eternal silent conversation, in the eternal unity of the heavenly spheres. It is this inexplicable peace, flowing in a wide stream directly into the soul of Rublev who contemplates the Trinity... this premium silence of wordlessness, this endless submission to each other - we consider the creative content of the Trinity. Human culture, represented by chambers, the world of life - by a tree and the earth - by a rock - everything is small and insignificant before this COMMUNICATION (emphasis added by us - M.M.) of inexhaustible endless love.” Also B.I. Purishev writes about Rublev’s angels that they “conduct a sacred conversation with each other.” Almost all art historians write that the content of the icon is the silent conversation of Angels [see: 4]. So “grandeur”, i.e. the eloquence and significance of the story of the angelic eyes, revealed to the poet, does not in the least contradict the icon painter’s plan, for the same meaningful eloquence of the silent conversation of the Angels was subsequently seen by almost all researchers of the iconography of the Rublev Trinity. At the same time, almost everyone clarifies that the conversation of angels is “wordless,” but in the expression of P. Florensky, and in the words of N.A. Demina, “the communication of angels is silent, it is only mental.”

The silent ascetic has only a majestic look; the entire depth of his spirit is in his eyes. If Gumilev was at least superficially acquainted with the biography of the icon painter, he could find out that Rublev was a monk who labored in the feat of silent prayer. And if we delve deeper into this topic, we should recall the practice of hesychasm - the so-called “smart doing”, “smart silence”, “Jesus prayer”, highest degree which is heartfelt, silent prayer. But, I think, there is no need to go to this level - Gumilyov’s poem only assumes taking into account this context, without deep semantic sections, otherwise we will overload, make the text heavier, which in essence represents a light musical sketch, “written” by Rublev’s brush in creative imagination poet. There is no need to accuse the poet of distorting icon painting or attributing to Rublev those motives that the poet himself saw. The poet’s consciousness could respond with lightning speed to the shock that was experienced by vision and all the senses at the moment of contemplating the icon or its reproduction. Therefore, it is not worthwhile to demand from a lightning-fast impression, a contour sketch, the entire palette of colors, much less the dogmatic correspondence of all poetic tropes to the Orthodox theology of the Holy Trinity. It is enough to take Gumilyov’s text and place next to it an enlarged image of the face of the middle Angel of Rublev’s “Trinity” - a verbal image, although schematic, is still consonant with the iconographic one.

Let's return to other critical remarks of Valery Lepakhin. He was embarrassed by the “curls”, “open forehead” and “charming timidity” of the “gentle Seraphim”. If we look at the Angels of Rublev’s “Trinity”, then the open forehead with falling curls will not surprise us if we keep in mind the features of the Byzantine iconography of angels, from the traditions of which the Russian icon painter did not consider it necessary to deviate. These high hairstyles with curls and a satin ribbon above the forehead, the ends of which flutter behind the backs of the angels, were inherited by Byzantine iconography from the Constantinople court ceremonial. “In the Middle Byzantine era until the 14th century, angels were depicted with hair ribbons...consular and court dresses of Eastern Roman and Byzantine emperors…» .

There is no doubt that the poet could not say anything similar about the face of the Mother of God, for in Russian iconography there is not a single such image of the Mother of God. Is it perhaps the image “Saving the Dead”, where Mother of God is depicted with a youthful face and curly hair flowing over the shoulders, but this icon is late, and in connection with Rublev there is no point in talking about it.

If we talk about the “tender seraphim” who could touch the angel’s curls with “lovely timidity”, then it is really difficult to immediately identify the origins of this motif. But it is worth noting that the word “tenderness” is often used by authors writing about Rublev’s Trinity. N. Punin’s article, which Nikolai Gumilyov could also read, talks about the tenderness of the movements of the hands of the angels on the icon, and about the “tender grace” of the icon as a whole. Published in 1915 in the Apollo magazine, and in 1916 published as a separate edition, this article was probably known to Gumilyov. Punin was the first to talk about the “poetics of the Russian icon”, pointing out the Byzantine iconographic elements of the “Trinity”: “the heads of the Angels adorned with lush, high hairstyles, the general sophistication of the appearance of the Angels, thin wrists, “gentle grace”, “gentle movements”... .

All these moments could be the reason for the appearance of the “tender Seraphim”, who did not dare to touch (“lovely timidity”) the angelic curls. It is curious that Punin, discussing the Trinity, noted: “even if it is one soul, but it has three forms, and it trembles differently in these forms.” These considerations about the Trinity not as the Deity, which is usually spoken of in the masculine gender, but as a single soul, which is characterized by the designation of the feminine gender, could also serve as an indirect reason for the ease with which the poet replaces the description of the Deity with a description of the “face of the Woman.”

By the way, Rev. Silouan of Athos wrote: “The Holy Spirit is very similar to a dear, dear mother.” Of course, this is not about something external, but about the manifestation of love and care. But even in the case of Gumilev’s poem, we cannot in any way imagine that the “face of a wife” was “like paradise” only in some external way, outside the emotional and spiritual context, outside the manifestations of the internal properties of this “face” and this “paradise.”

Could the poet, looking at the angelic features, think that the face of the Angel is inexpressibly beautiful and feminine, so feminine that the poet, as if unconsciously, burst out the words: the wife's face is like heaven... Then he thinks over the poem and decides to leave everything as it was in the first seconds of the impression. Logic should have canceled the first impression, for the Angel on Rublev’s icon is God, Whom can be spoken of as the Unit in Three Hypostases, but it is inappropriate to speak of as the Wife. However, the poem is not a theological treatise, and the poet decides to leave everything as it is, as it was in the first moment of contemplation. And in the first moment - and not only Gumilyov did this! - there was this involuntary internal exclamation: the wife’s face is like paradise, the Angel’s face is inexpressibly feminine and divinely beautiful!

In the memoirs of O.A. Mochalova about Nikolai Gumilev, the poet’s words are given that, in his opinion, there is an image of an angel in a woman. If the poet put it this way: “in a woman there is image of an angel“, this indicates that he did not have in mind the banal “angelic beauty” of a woman (cf. the usual way men address a woman: “my angel”), but precisely what he saw on Rublev’s icon: the image of an Angel as the image of a Woman (biblically - Wife). In other words, the artistic image of an Angel will inevitably contain the image of a perfect wife (or a femininely sophisticated young man, as established in Byzantine iconography).

Leafing through the anthology of Rublev’s “Trinity”, you find in almost every review traces of such a perception: Rublev’s Angels are, first of all, feminine, beautiful creatures, to whom the definition of young men is not entirely applicable due to this extreme refined femininity, but they also cannot be called wives, because this would be dogmatically incorrect. However, it is equally incorrect to call Angels youths, since angels are incorporeal and, therefore, have no gender. In this case, only tradition remains figurative likening angels to beautiful young men. Against the background of another iconographic scheme - the image of Sophia the Wisdom of God in the image of an Angel with a female form in a crown and with wings - the figurative likening of Rublev's Angel to the beautiful Woman does not contain any absurdity.

In this case, the imagery of Gumilyov’s poem is motivated not only by the author’s unique poetic vision, but also by the presence of precedents in Russian iconography of the 15th-18th centuries. For example, on the icon “Sophia the Wisdom of God with the Mother of God and John the Baptist” (18th century), the personification of the Wisdom of God is a female figure sitting on a throne, dressed in royal robes, wearing a crown and holding a staff. The ends of Sophia's raised wings reach the clouds, where angels with covered hands hover. The Mother of God and John the Baptist stand on the sides of this female figure, reminiscent of the Deesis rite, where Christ is always in the center, to whom the prayer of those present is addressed. Thus, here one can clearly see that the female figure serves as the personification of the Divine. At the 1913 exhibition in Moscow there were similar icons (in particular, “Sophia-Wisdom” from the second half of the 16th century) [see: 26; 27; 20; 17], and if Gumilev visited the exhibition, he could draw the appropriate conclusions for himself.

After all these controversial moments for religious perception, the poet confidently reports:

All this with a praiseworthy brush
Andrei Rublev drew it for me,
And this life's work is sad
Became a blessing from God.

Gumilyov does not say: “for me it became...”, no, the Trinity icon became a blessing of God for the entire Christian world. This work is “sad” not because the process of icon painting itself is sad, as Lepakhin suggested and reproached the poet for this inappropriate “sadness.” And again, this superficial assessment of a critic versed in theology is incomprehensible. Even among secular scientists and art critics we find a deeper explanation of the sadness present in the icon: “The mood of “tenderness” characteristic of the “Trinity” was defined by Byzantine authors as “sadness aroused by compassionate mercy” (N. Demina). This is if we see sadness in the faces of the Angels and assign it to these faces themselves. If we attribute sadness to the icon painter, under whose hand the faces acquired a sad expression, then there is nothing inappropriate here either. The stamp of earthly sadness remained on the faces of the Angels not because the icon painter was sad, but because the very connection of man with Heaven, the connection of the world below with the world above cannot be realized without this combination of joy and sadness: joy about the longed-for heaven and sadness about the abandoned earth . God knows about these feelings of His creation, He knows from the experience of kenosis, condescension and incarnation. And the Church Slavonic language knows about this experience, which is why we find in the language a word that unites these two opposing feelings - joyful sadness . The colors of the icon testify to joy, the appearance of Angels, outward expression their faces indicate sadness. And all together, with silent, meek contemplation, gives rise to this inexpressible feeling of joyful sadness. The poet began the story about the face he saw with a mention of sweetness, the eyes of Rublev’s Angel “sang sweetly” to him, but he ends with “sadness” as a blessing from God. And it is impossible to limit the meaning of the last lines of the poem only to the connection with the “work” of icon painting by Andrei Rublev. We all bear “the sad work of this life,” and each of us, having seen at least once “The Trinity” by Andrei Rublev, cannot help but feel in this icon the blessing of God sent down to him for the further carrying of “this life of sad work,” but without melancholy and despondency, but with joyful sadness, with that sadness about one’s imperfection, which at the end of the path is transformed into the joy of finding the Divine.

Nikolai Gumilyov, reflecting on the icon of St. Andrei Rublev, enters the field of Orthodox iconography, whether he himself realizes it or not, it does not matter. So, entering this area, the poet risks falling into a dogmatic error, delusion. The Orthodox writer and icon theorist Valery Lepakhin counted enough such mistakes in Nikolai Gumilyov to accuse the poet of heresy. But the reason for this was the wrong point of view of the critic himself, he looked at another icon, he wrote about another face, which is not in Gumilyov’s poem.

N.A. Demina repeatedly speaks in her work about the femininity of the Angels of the “Trinity,” which leads her to a logical conclusion: “The Trinity appeared to Rublev in a feminine rather than masculine image.” And then she writes about the similarity of the images of Angels with the image of the Mother of God of Vladimir, a copy of which, according to some art historians, Andrei Rublev could have painted, although this cannot be documented. “In the Trinity,” writes N. Demina, “the general structure of submissive femininity, which finds the fullness of its harmony in the combination of sadness and love, is close to the image of Vladimirskaya. They are brought together by the idea of ​​sacrifice and love. Vladimirskaya is the greatest maternal mercy, sacrificing her Son for the sake of love for the world. In the Trinity there is God the Father, who also sacrifices the “beloved Son.” In both works, the “bow of love” is expressed by the same gentle bow of the head. In both works, the deeply personal takes on the meaning of the universal and truly monumental. This quality has become hallmark Rublev's style".

Was it not Gumilyov who was the first to look at the Trinity as a “feminine Divinity” (words by N. Demina)? Wasn’t he the first to see the similarity between the face of the Wife - the Mother of God of Vladimir and the face of the Angel on the icon of the “Trinity” and immediately united these images in his mind, comprehending their unity not in the external, but in the internal - in the idea of ​​“admiration of love” (again words N. Demina), expressed by “equally tender” bowing of the head for both the Angels and the Mother of God?

By the way, we can list more than a dozen authors who mention the tenderness of Angels and their movements, so that the “gentle Seraphim” of Gumilyov’s poem received long life in articles by Soviet art critics. Of course, coincidences in word usage can be called an accident. But we cannot turn away from the fact that all these coincidences confirm that Gumilev did not use any “inappropriate” words in relation to the icon. Otherwise, we will be forced to bring the charge of “sensual effeminacy”, at the initiative of V. Lepakhin, to the entire domestic art and literary criticism, in addition, bearing in mind B.I. Purishev’s involvement in this topic.

So, comparisons of the Angels of the “Trinity” with wives are often found in art criticism articles. M.V. Alpatov, for example, for a better understanding of the angels of the “Trinity” even mentions such literary images, like Pushkin’s Tatiana, Turgenev’s Asya and Liza, Dostoevsky’s heroines. That is, he recalls the best female characters in our classical literature. Almost all of the early researchers of the Trinity wrote about the femininity of the Angels. Here are a few views: “The left angel... expresses passivity, almost femininity” (Yu.A. Olsufiev). “The folds of the left angel’s clothing, falling vertically, with the rhythm of their lines, draw the calm, feminine, lyrical appearance of this angel...” (N.M. Tarabukin). N.M. Shchekotov compares Rublev’s angels with others and notes that “many angels... are carriers of this (feminine - M.M.) principle, but not to such an acute, so to speak, degree.” Shchekotov claims that the “grace of effeminate angels” was not borrowed by the icon painter from the surrounding reality, but “revealed to us from the intelligible realm,” and this statement comes close to the point of view of P.P. Muratov, who believes that “the faces of angels express the subtlest and noblest idea beauty"; and further: “The ancient sketch of angelic faces was for the Russian artist a vision of purely ideal, unearthly beauty...” [ibid., p.47].

I would like to agree with this, but it is not entirely clear how it happened that “unearthly” ideal beauty turned out to be so understandable to us precisely as earthly, human, real feminine beauty. And no matter how much we talk about unearthly ideal perfection, we can see it - and the icon painter is no exception - only in the image of real earthly beauty, which in Russian culture is primarily feminine, silent, humble and meek.

It is important to take into account that Pavel Muratov’s article “Russian painting until the mid-17th century” was published in I. Grabar’s book “History of Russian Art” in 1914 in Moscow, so Gumilyov, who conceived a poem-impression of the images of the medieval Russian icon painter, with all necessity could turn to this source on the history of Russian medieval painting. In 1916, Evgeny Trubetskoy’s book “Two Worlds in Old Russian Icon Painting” was published, where Gumilyov could glean information about the peculiarities of the iconography of Sophia of the Wisdom of God, and in a very inspired, poetic presentation. And Trubetskoy’s brochure “Speculation in Colors” has been available to Gumilyov since 1915, when it was first published in Moscow. Here he could also borrow something about the symbolism of the Russian icon, about the consonance of the architectural and iconographic design; remarks about the “extraordinary architectural quality” of the iconographic lines could give impetus to the perception of the face through the image of a tree. The motive of grief and sadness, along with the joy present in the Russian icon, is here, in Trubetskoy’s article.

The situation with the replacement of the Divine name masculine on feminine gender naming can be illustrated by observations modern authors. “In general, the theme of pre-eternal existence is associated in the Bible with the Wisdom of God. Compare: “The Lord had me as the beginning of His path, before His creatures, from time immemorial. From the beginning I have been anointed, from the beginning, before the existence of the earth” (Proverbs 8:22-23 and further to 8:31); “Before the world began He made me, and I will never end” (Sir. 24:10). In biblical teaching literature the image of Divine wisdom can act as a substitute for the image of the Messiah"(emphasis added - M..M.).

Of course, we cannot be sure that Gumilyov was so familiar with the “teaching literature” that he took advantage of the happy opportunity for him to call the Divine face “the face of the Wife.” Nevertheless, knowing about the very possibility of such a “substitution,” we leave the poet the right to intuition and prophetic thought.

If we nevertheless abandon the face of the Angel and take into account the “face of the Wife” as the face of the Most Holy Theotokos, the bewilderment expressed by V. Lepakhin remains insoluble: “...in the first stanza the poet likens the face of the Wife to paradise, “promised by the Creator.” But the paradise in which the first parents lived is not the promised one, that is, promised, but planted by God in Eden (Gen. 2:8). The expression “promised paradise” means the Kingdom of Heaven (1 Cor. 2:9), the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev. 21:2), promised by the Lord to the righteous. The poet is talking about Eden, but he calls it inaccurately - the promised one.” .

Did Gumilyov really not know the expression “promised heaven”, which is synonymous with the Kingdom of Heaven, which is only yet to come for humanity? Did he really so carelessly use the word “promised” in relation to paradise, already given to man and rejected by him? If the text of the poem is understood in the sense that the face of the Woman is beautiful, just as the garden of Eden was beautiful, then this face - with all the inevitability of the biblical order of things - will be rejected, despite all its perfection, just as the paradise “planted by God in Eden” was rejected by man " It is difficult to accept that Gumilyov is depicting such admiration of his Wife’s face, which will inevitably lead to rejection. In general, this sensory-emotional admiration is somehow inappropriate here next to the mention of “the art of monks” and “firmness of knowledge”:

I am firm, I know so sweetly
I am familiar with the art of monks,
That the face of the Wife is like heaven,
Promised by the Creator.

How hardness and sweetness are combined in spiritual experience has already been said. “The art of monks,” in our opinion, cannot be understood narrowly - only as icon painting; here may be a reference to the art of prayer in general and the prayer of silent “smart doing” in particular. The book “Frank Tales of a Wanderer to His Spiritual Father” was widely known at the beginning of the twentieth century, because by 1884 it had been reprinted four times. In 1911, a manuscript supplement to the stories was published. By the way, in this book the words “sweetness”, “pleasure”, “sweet” are used (in connection with the description of spiritual experience) on almost every page, and on some pages two or three times. For example, in the fifth story, on one page there are the expressions “firmness of faith”, “firms in faith” and “imbued with the sweetness of exclamation Jesus Christ!”, “without special delight and sweetness I could not even hear the name Jesus» .

Thus, “firmly and sweetly knowing,” as Gumilev puts it, means firmly believing and knowing that your faith, while remaining firm, “hardening,” i.e. strengthening, it will fill you with the sweet hope of union with God (according to the content of the story, a person strengthened in faith “feels hope in God’s mercy and abhors his own falls” [ibid., p. 345]).

In addition to the question of the possibility of combining the meanings of “hard” and “sweet” when applied to one subject of speech, without the shade of a certain “effeminacy” allegedly contained in the word “sweetly” (according to V. Lepakhin), we would also like to note that to Nikolai Stepanovich Gumilev, a soldier with military experience, was not at all alien to the state of firmness and heroic spirit. Therefore, for him it was harmonious to combine hardness and sweetness in one context: hardness - from the heroic military spirit, sweetness - from involvement in the spiritual experience of struggle (we do not imagine the poet as an Orthodox ascetic, but the struggle even with one’s own cowardice is already a spiritual struggle), from prayers and participation in church sacraments.

In the article by the modern religious philosopher K. Skouteris “Theology of Hope” we read: “Aspiration has hope in itself not as a probability, but as a certainty. This is the consciousness of coexistence firm hope and aspirations in church experience are surprisingly reflected in one text of the 4th century, which says: “We not only expect the hope of future bliss, but in some way already have it.” The same faith is expressed by St. Basil the Great, saying that “ sweet and life without torment is offered in pleasure, not expected later, but already in the present.”

I firmly, I know so sweetly... Firm hope and sweet aspiration.

In our opinion, Gumilyov knew the contents of the book “Frank Stories of a Wanderer...”. Either he read it himself, or someone told him about it. Because it is more natural to assume precisely this knowledge than Gumilev’s knowledge of the contents of voluminous theological treatises or equally voluminous works of the Holy Fathers of the Church. The little book, reprinted many times and accessible to any literate peasant, could not go unnoticed by the Russian poet.

Here are some quotes from her that are striking for our topic.

“Now you have already learned the path of silence and intelligent action and have tasted the sweetness that comes from it.”
“But those who have tasted the sweetness that it (“smart work”) has, and have enjoyed it in the depths of their hearts, these cry out to St. Paul and they say: who will separate us from the love of Christ (Rom. 8:35).
“If you always remain in your heart with humble wisdom ... and the invocation of Jesus Christ, and with these tools you walk your mental path every day,-cramped, but joyful and sweet, then you will enter into the holy contemplation of the saints, and you will be enlightened by the knowledge of the deep mysteries from Christ...”
“Just as sensual salt sweetens bread and all food, protects meat from rotting..., so understand the intelligent preservation of mental sweetness and wondrous deeds in the heart.”
“The incessant invocation of Jesus, with a certain warm desire, full of sweetness and joy, causes the air of the heart to be filled with a gratifying silence from extreme attention.”
“This solitude comforted me, and the sweetness of prayer was much more palpable in it than in crowds.”
“Sweet memory of God, i.e. Jesus Christ, with heartfelt anger and saving hostility towards everything sinful, usually destroys all the charms of thoughts, various suggestions, words and dreams, shameful imaginations, and, in short, everything with which the all-destructive enemy is armed and with which he boldly comes forward, seeking to devour our souls.” .
“He who strives and achieves closeness to God... enjoys the Lord... incomprehensible spiritual joy, as the Divine Psalm says: Delight yourself in the Lord, and He will grant you the petitions of your heart...” (Ps. 36:4).

This series can be continued for more than one page of our article; to conclude this series, we give a quote reminding you that acceptance or rejection of the word “sweetness” in a particular context depends on the level of understanding of this “sweetness”:

“For when our soul delights in the contemplation of true good, it no longer returns to any of the passions excited by sinful pleasures, but having turned away from all bodily sensuality, with a pure and undefiled thought it accepts the appearance of God” (Patristic instructions on inner heartfelt prayer. Row three. A very useful word about Abba Philemon).

By the way, the “tree” motif, combined with the image of the foremother Eve, can also be clarified in some way thanks to “Frank Stories...”. In the same section “Patristic instructions...”, in the “First Row”, in the “Instructions of Nicephorus the Monk” we read:

“Through the fall we went outside; Let us return to ourselves, turning away from external things. Reconciliation and kinship with God is impossible for us if we do not first return to ourselves and go inside from outside. Only inner life there is a true Christian life. All the Fathers testify to this. So, “...the brother asked Abba Agathon, what is more important - bodily labor or guarding the heart?” The elder replied: “Man is like a tree; bodily labor is leaves, but keeping the heart is fruit.”.

Literally a page later we encounter the actual motive of Eve’s “violation of the covenant,” which is why man was expelled from paradise. “Ever since man was expelled from paradise and alienated himself from God, the devil and his demons received freedom day and night to invisibly shake the mental power of every person. The mind can be protected from this in no other way than by the constant memory of God. Whoever is impressed by the memory of God can keep his mental power from fermenting.”[ibid., p.212].

“The good Mother Eve broke the covenant,” as evidenced by Gumilyov’s verse, because of “a certain heavenly color,” which was “impressed” in her consciousness with a defiled thought, and if she had kept the memory of God and had accepted the words of the tempter with an “undefiled thought,” “The color of paradise” would not have become a “stumbling block” for her (“... his carelessness is the foundation ...”), i.e. trust in God would not allow the devil to shake her mental power and present the “color of heaven” as forbidden, while in fact she was in close proximity to this “color of heaven” and in close connection with it, in the daily “tasting of sweetness” from this supposedly “forbidden” tree. Bye mental power Eve was not shaken, she did not perceive the tree of paradise with its flowers and fruits as “forbidden”, it simply did not arouse in her a desire to taste it externally, for the integrity of her thoughts allowed her to enjoy its fruits internally, through the state of kinship with God. And only bringing mental filth into her internal state made the tree clearly “forbidden” for her, and therefore gave rise to distrust of God. It is known that someone who loves God keeps the commandments not because they cannot be broken, but because he cannot do otherwise, because he does not want to lose love.

Priest Vladimir Zelinsky in the article “Christ and the Transfiguration of Time” said words consonant with our topic: “ The life of Jesus of Nazareth reaches into our existence and is grafted into the tree of every human life that is born, grows, dies, falls, to be raised at the last day by the call of the trumpet, by the power of the Word.". And then the most significant thing, for here the “Great Angel of the Council” - Christ - becomes the Hodegetria-Guide, and this is what the Mother of God is called on the corresponding icon: “... The truth is revealed and recognized by us in order to become Hodegetria, leading us through life. The truth will finally be revealed on the Day of Judgment, but it makes itself known every day, calling out to us from afar from everywhere, for it bears many names and makes itself recognizable in many faces"[ibid., p.70].

“I am the Way, True and Life,” said Christ.

“The Face of the Woman,” that is, the face of the middle Angel of Andrei Rublev’s “Trinity,” is so harmonious and perfect that, coupled with the thought of the incomprehensible perfection of the Divine, it gives rise to the idea of ​​the correlation of this external angelic perfection with the spiritual perfection of the “promised paradise,” the sweetness of which can be expressed human language I can't. In Gumilyov’s lines, somehow elusive and inaccessible to concretization, the idea sounds that the face of the Divine, when contemplating Him, is capable of giving us an idea of ​​the spiritual bliss that is promised to the righteous in heaven.

The Woman's face is like heaven,
Promised by the Creator...

"Wife" here is just a concession human perception and a tribute to the iconographic tradition. Seeing the face of an angel-like wife or a femininely beautiful young man, we see through this face of the unknowable God, and the heart is filled with jubilant joy, because the beginningless and incomprehensible God is comprehended by us not only as a masculine, creative beginning (mind), but also as a feminine, giving birth ( thought).

Literature

1. Alekseev A. Messianic eschatology // Eschatological teaching of the Church. Materials. M., Synodal Theological Commission, 2007.
2. Alpatov M.V. Andrey Rublev. M., Art, 1959.
3. Alpatov M.V. Andrei Rublev and Russian culture //Andrei Rublev and his era. M., Art, 1971.
4. Andrei Rublev and his era. Collection of articles edited by M.V. Alpatova. M., Art, 1971.
5. Benchev I. Icons of Angels. Images of heavenly messengers. M., 2005.
6. Buslaev F.I. Historical essays. T.2. St. Petersburg, 1861.
7. Bychkov V.V. Russian medieval aesthetics. 11th-17th centuries. M., Mysl, 1995.
8. Grabar I. Andrey Rublev. Essay on the artist's work based on restoration work of 1918-1925. Restoration issues. Issue 1. M., 1926.
9. Demina N.A. "Trinity" by Andrei Rublev. M., 1963.
10. Dyachenko G., prot. Full Church Slavonic dictionary. M., 2004.
11. Zelinsky V. Christ and the Transfiguration of Time // Eschatological Teaching of the Church.
12. Likhachev D.S. The culture of Rus' in the time of Andrei Rublev and Epiphanius the Wise. M.-L., publishing house of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1962.
13. Lepakhin V.V. The image of an icon painter in Russian literature of the 11th-20th centuries. M., Russian way, 2005.
14. Losev A.F. Renaissance aesthetics. The historical meaning of Renaissance aesthetics. M., Mysl, 1998.
15. Mochalova O.A. Nikolay Gumilyov // N.S. Gumilev: pro et contra. The personality and creativity of Nikolai Gumilev in the assessment of Russian thinkers and researchers. Anthology. St. Petersburg, 1995.
16. N.S. Gumilev: pro et contra. The personality and creativity of Nikolai Gumilev in the assessment of Russian thinkers and researchers. Anthology. St. Petersburg, 1995.
17. Onash K., Shniper A. Icons: The Miracle of Spiritual Transfiguration. M., 2001.
18. Candid stories of a wanderer to his spiritual father. M., Lestvitsa, 2003.
19. Pletnev R.N.S.Gumilev (1886-1921): With an open visor // N.S. Gumilev: pro et contra. The personality and creativity of Nikolai Gumilev in the assessment of Russian thinkers and researchers. Anthology. St. Petersburg, 1995.
20. Minutes of seminars about. Sergius Bulgakov about Sophia, the Wisdom of God // “Brotherhood of St. Sofia." Materials and documents. 1923-1939. Comp. N.A. Struve. Moscow-Paris, 2000.
21. Punin N. Andrey Rublev. //Apollo. 1915. No. 2. pp. 1-23.
22. Purishev B.N. Andrey Rublev and general questions development of ancient Russian art of the 14th-17th centuries. // Mikhailovsky B.V., Purishev B.I. Essays on the history of ancient Russian monumental painting. M.-L., 1941.
23. Skouteris K. Theology of aspiration // Eschatological teaching of the Church. Materials. M., Synodal Theological Commission, 2007.
24. Sophrony Sakharov, priest. Venerable Silouan of Athos. Life, teaching and writings. Mn., Rays of Sofia, 2003.
25. "Trinity" by Andrei Rublev. Anthology. Comp. G.I.Vzdornov. Ed. 2nd. M., Art, 1989.
26. Trubetskoy E.N. Speculation in colors. The question of the meaning of life in ancient Russian religious painting. Public lecture. M., 1916.
27. Trubetskoy E.N. Two worlds in ancient Russian icon painting. M., 1916.
28. Philosophy of Russian religious art of the 16th-20th centuries. Anthology. M., Progress-Culture, 1993.
29. Florensky P. Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius and Russia. // Trinity Sergius Lavra. Sergiev Posad, 1919.
30. Yakovleva A.I. “The Image of the World” in the icon “Sophia the Wisdom of God” // Old Russian Art. M., 1977.

Archangel Michael.
Icon of the Zvenigorod rank

Middle Angel of Andrei Rublev's icon
"Holy Trinity"

Published
in the scientific and theological almanac
Kursk Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church "Mikrokosmos"
and in the collection of materials,
II International scientific-practical conference
"East Slavic philology in the cross-cultural world",
which took place on May 19, 2016 in Gorlovka (DPR).

N.S. Gumilyov analysis of the poem “Andrei Rublev” N.S. GUMILEV ANALYSIS
POEMS
"ANDREY RUBLEV"
Prepared
11th grade student
Piyanzova Anastasia
Teacher:
Piyanzova S.M.

Andrey Rublev

“And curls are clouds above him”

“The mouth is like some kind of heavenly color”

CONCLUSION:

literature

I am firm, I know so sweetly
I am familiar with the art of monks,
That the wife's face is like heaven,
№4 Promised by the Creator.

The nose is a tall tree trunk;
Two thin arches of eyebrows
Spread above him, wide,
№8 The bend of palm branches.

Two prophetic sirens, two eyes,
They sing sweetly beneath them,
The eloquence of the story
№12 All the secrets of the spirit are revealed.

An open forehead is like the vault of heaven,
And curls are clouds above him;
They, probably, with lovely shyness
№16 The gentle seraphim touched.

And right there, at the foot of the tree,
The lips are like some kind of heavenly color,
Why Mother Eve
№20 Blagoy broke the covenant.

All this with a praiseworthy brush
Andrei Rublev drew it for me,
And this life's work is sad
№24 Became a blessing from God.

Ya hard, ya so sweet I know,
S iskusstvom inokov znakom,
What lik zheny podoben rayu,
Promised Tvortsom.

Nos - eto dreva trunk high;
Dve tonkiye dugi eyebrows
Above nim raskinulis, shiroki,
Izgibom palmovykh vetvey.

Dva veshchikh sirina, dva glaza,
Pod nimi sweetestno poyut,
Velerechivostyu rasskaza
All tayny dukha vydayut.

Otkryty lob - kak svod nebesny,
I kudri - oblaka nad nim;
Ikh, verno, s robostyu prelestnoy
Kasalsya nezhny serafim.

I tut zhe, u podnozhya dreva,
Usta - kak neky raysky tsvet,
Iz-za kakogo mater Yeva
Blagoy narushila zavet.

All eto kistyu dostokhvalnoy
Andrey Rublev mne nachertal,
I etoy zhizni trud sad
Blagoslovenyem Bozhyim st.

Z ndthlj, z nfr ckflrj pyf/,
C bcreccndjv byjrjd pyfrjv,
Xnj kbr ;tys gjlj,ty hf/,
J,tnjdfyyjve Ndjhwjv/

Yjc - "nj lhtdf cndjk dscjrbq;
Ldt njyrbt leub ,hjdtq
Yfl ybv hfcrbyekbcm, ibhjrb,
Bpub,jv gfkmvjds[dtndtq/

Ldf dtob[ cbhbyf, ldf ukfpf,
Gjl ybvb ckfljcnyj gj/n,
Dtkthtxbdjcnm/ hfccrfpf
Dct nfqys le)