Miracle of Glorification

His Eminence Bishop Nikodim was born in 1803, September 5, in the village of Komlevo, Russian Uyezd, Moscow Province, from the sexton Ivan Ivanovich Kazantsev. In holy baptism he was named Nikita. On August 23, 1872, he wrote about his childhood: “I was a baby. There was illumination in the master's courtyard of our village. My mother (Evdokia), then a young woman, begged her husband, and my parent, to allow her to go see the illuminations, asking him to stay at home and look after me. Father rocked me in the cradle: I fell asleep. Then he also had a desire to see the illumination. He slowly got ready and left the house. “Father did not have the caution to first find mother to send her home, and then admire the illumination: they came together by chance. Mother asked him about me. Father said: “I rocked him to sleep; he fell asleep." Mother ran home and found me barely breathing; I had already cried my tears and my voice, moaned hoarsely and turned black. “From there, both mine and my mother’s suffering began: I groaned days and nights. My mother’s vision began to fade from sleep deprivation while caring for me. “This is how the autumn, winter and part of the spring of 1803–1804 were spent. “In May, both my parents made a vow to go on foot to Mozhaisk (25 versts) with me, and there to pray before the icon of St. Nicholas, located in the Cathedral, for me and for themselves 1 . Having fulfilled this vow, I soon recovered, and my mother’s clouded vision disappeared. “Together with my parents, I believe and confess that this wonderful mercy of God was accomplished over us through the prayers of the saint of God, Nicholas the Wonderworker, through the prayers of my parents before his holy icon that exists in the Mozhaisk Cathedral. “My parent, sending me to school when I was only seven years old, blessed me with an icon of St. Nicholas, although not in the image of Mozhaisk. This holy icon has accompanied me from then on to this day, and I have repeatedly seen and felt the protection and protection of the saint of God Nicholas the Wonderworker, which I also confess strongly and gratefully.” The Right Reverend was educated first at the Zvenigorod Theological School, then (from 1818) at the Bethany Seminary, located three and a half miles southeast of the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius. He entered the Moscow Academy 2 in 1826 and graduated from the course (seventh) in 1830, 5th Master. In 1829, March 31, already a senior student, he was tonsured a monk; July 5 ordained hierodeacon; a year later he was ordained by Bishop Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, as a hieromonk. At the end of the course, in 1830, he was appointed Inspector at the Tula Seminary, the second Professor of Theology and teaching the Hebrew language. In 1832 he was transferred to the Novgorod Seminary as Inspector and Professor of Philosophy, in October 1833 he was returned to the Tula Seminary, as before. In 1835, on April 17, he was ordained Archimandrite and appointed Rector of the Vyatka Seminary and Abbot of the Vyatka Dormition Trifonov Monastery. In 1837, at the suggestion of the Synodal Chief Prosecutor, Count N.A. Pratasov, the Commission of Theological Schools ordered all Rectors (Seminaries) to write freely, according to everyone’s understanding, a Theological Note. The Abstract submitted by the late Bishop Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow 3, was approved and an opinion was given about its compiler to the then Commission of Theological Schools, so beneficial and interesting for him that he was placed higher and more militant than other Rectors of that time. This was the reason for the summoning, by the Highest command, of the Most Reverend Nicodemus to St. Petersburg, at the disposal of the Chief Prosecutor, to study the transformation of spiritual teaching and administration. He was under the orders of the Chief Prosecutor from June 15, 1838, to July 1, 1839. Remaining part of the orders of G. Chief Prosecutor, the Holy Synod assigned him to serve as a priest and preach the word of God, which service he continued for two years. Then he was appointed Rector of the Kherson Seminary, in Odessa, and the Abbot of the Odessa Assumption Monastery, where he arrived on October 5, 1841. In 1845, he was moved to the Kursk Seminary, in Belgorod, and the Rector and Abbot of the Rylsky Nikolaev Monastery. In 1850, he was also transferred as Rector to the Yaroslavl Seminary, with an appointment to the management of the Rostov Epiphany Abrahamic Monastery. At the end of 1853, by Decree of St. Synod, was summoned to St. Petersburg for the second time to correct the sequence of sacred service and preach the word of God; the following year, on January 29, he was elected by the Holy Synod, and on the 30th he was Highly confirmed as Bishop of Cheboksary, Vicar of the Kazan Diocese. He was consecrated as Bishop on February 14, the same year 1851, by St. Petersburg Metropolitan Nikanor with the participation of 5 Bishops. He arrived in Kazan on March 21 and settled in the Spaso-Preobrazhensky Monastery, where he lived for almost 7 years, until 1861, under two Archbishops of Kazan Gregory and Athanasius 4. In 1859, by order of the Holy Synod, he ruled the Vyatka Diocese for 10 months, on the occasion of the departure of Elpidiphoros, Bishop of Vyatka, to the Synod. 5 Finally, in 1861, by the Highest command at the report of the Holy Synod, he was appointed Bishop to the newly discovered Yenisei Diocese, with the location of the Bishop's See in Krasnoyarsk, where the late Bishop arrived on January 5, 1862. During this time of severe frost, riding almost always day and night, the Right Reverend received terrible rheumatism, which tormented him the rest of his life. In 1870, according to the petition, due to poor health, His Highness was dismissed from the administration of the Diocese, with permission to reside in one of the monasteries of the Moscow Diocese by agreement with the Metropolitan of Moscow. The Perervinsky Nikolaevsky Monastery in the vicinity of Moscow was chosen as such a monastery, where the Right Reverend arrived in early August 1870, and where he lived in retirement until his almost death, nowhere except Moscow, and then occasionally, without leaving. On May 19, 1874, the Right Reverend, completely unexpectedly, at least without any warning, arrived in the city of Dmitrov and wanted to receive treatment in the free air, among his relatives 6 . But dropsy, which had developed to its utmost limits, combined with a leg disease, so exhausted his weak strength that there was no way to maintain his health. The Right Reverend died on the 11th of June of the same year, in front of and almost in the arms of his own sister. The funeral service was performed by the Bishop of Dmitrov, His Grace Leonid, Vicar of Moscow, on the 14th, in the Dmitrov Dormition Cathedral, where the body of the deceased Saint was buried, in the chapel of St. Mitrophan of Voronezh 7 . I borrowed information from the life of the late Right Reverend from his service record and partly from the notes left after the deceased, which he began in Krasnoyarsk, May 30, 1868, and finished in the same year, October 6. They are entitled: “About Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory. The writer conveys, for the most part, his personal memories about him, and therefore inevitably concerns his service and his diverse relationships with other persons. Of what he reports about the famous hierarch, some was written down in a timely manner, soon, that is, after meetings with the Bishop, and everything else was written from memory, which did not always correctly convey what was entrusted to it in a long-past time, especially oral speeches that were not recorded at the time. Despite his devotion to Filaret, his benefactor, he occasionally allows himself careless comments about him, under the pretext, of course, of impartiality and freedom of judgment. He writes sharply and with undisguised annoyance about some other persons, but excluding those high in the church hierarchy, not excluding former comrades at the Academy, which makes a regrettable impression. In explanation of this, we note that others did something against him, and in general the service of the Right Reverend was not very enviable: twice he was Inspector of the Tula Seminary, for almost 20 years he served as Rector in other cities, from 1861 he ruled the remote Yenisei Diocese... The reasons for his not brilliant position lay, one must assume, in himself, in the fact that, despite the apparent simplicity and Due to his angelic kindness, he somehow did not get along, did not get along with people, probably as a result of carelessness, intractability and instability of character, which are shortcomings that the Right Reverend himself admits to himself. Hence the dissatisfaction with oneself, especially with painful rheumatism; and the excess of one’s own displeasure spilled onto others: this seemed to take out on others a feeling of grief and annoyance at oneself. Regardless of this, the Notes of the Right Reverend, written with a masterful pen, are not without dignity and are extremely entertaining; The most important episode seems to me to be from Chapter XVII to Chapter XXIII inclusive; and for the biography of Metropolitan Philaret, he concludes with precious and abundant material, for which one cannot help but thank the venerable writer with wishes of peace to his soul. About Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory I. Before Filaret entered the Moscow See 8, I, while still a youth, heard from my grandfather, the Priest in the city of Ruza, at the Church of the Intercession, Boris Gavrilovich, the following speech about Filaret: “They say that this Filaret sees right through a person.” I understood this literally then, that is, I thought that Filaret saw the inside of a person like water in a crystal glass. II. I first saw Philaret at the Bethany Seminary in December 1821, that is, in the first year of his admission to the Moscow department. He took exams at the Academy (in the Lavra) and in Bethany (with us). Then they attributed this untimely visit to the Lavra and Bethany to his impatience to show off his brilliant scholarship before the Academy and Seminary. Now I think differently: Philaret was drawn to the Lavra by feelings of piety and sweet memories of his entire youth spent here and the first color of courage. The scientific review was only a plausible excuse. Filaret was a truly pious man. Then the weather was bad: the snow melted; rode on wheels. Filaret neglected this weather too. Then I was in the Lower Division of the Seminary. With others, I listened with my ear attached, but more importantly I looked through the crack through the door at Filaret when he attended the Philosophy exam in the Middle Department. Professor, Pavel Nikolaevich Naumov, also the Inspector, was a student of Filaret, 1st year at the St. Petersburg Academy (1809–1814), Candidate, a proud man, but of small mind, although very diligent. Filaret was angry with him 9. Sitting with Philaret was Damascene, Bishop of Tula, who was traveling at that time from Novgorod to Tula, where he was appointed; he was silent 10. I looked with reverence and, perhaps, touched the warm cassock of the Metropolitan, lying in the front room: the cover was dark brown, and the fur was either marten or sable. I also went to the Lower Branch of Filaret. He only gave us a question: “Name from Christian History the Sovereign whom the pagans praise and the Christians revile.” Understood - Julian the Apostate. It seems they answered him. At that time he had in his hands a cane with a golden round head. It flashed into my eyes: I was touched. As a reminder of this, I have a similar name on my black cane, made back in Odessa. Filaret seemed so thin and thin to me then that I thought: “He will die tomorrow,” and I regretted it. Accepting his blessing and kissing his right hand, I found his hand and then smaller than mine. His Grace Evgeniy Yaroslavsky 11 told me Philaret’s confession: “When I first entered the Metropolitan’s rooms in the Lavra of St. Series, tears rolled down my eyes, bitter and sweet. For 12 years before this, I entered here with trepidation, as one of the small subordinates of Metropolitan Plato 12. Could I imagine that I myself would be in his place? Filaret and Evgeniy, like comrades, were in constant brotherhood. III. Almost every year Filaret came to the Lavra in mid-June for exams at the Academy. The public exam was on one day. During this time, outsiders were also allowed to be in the examination hall. I was a constant listener to them from 9 o'clock in the morning until 2 and 3, even sometimes until 4 o'clock in the afternoon; I stood in the crowd of townsfolk, at the stove and doors, listening reverently to what was happening: the questions of the Professors, the answers of the Students; Filaret's questions, answers from Students and Professors. Filaret's questions are always sedate, interesting, appropriate, and directly relevant to the matter. The Lord had enough patience to listen to answers, even weak, easy, lateral ones; his denunciations and refutations are mostly dispassionate, always thorough, irrefutable. After several attempts to resolve the issue by the minds of Students and Professors, with Filaret adding to the objection to increase the importance of the answer, the Bishop himself finally covers the matter, giving a complete, clear, bright, restrictive answer to his question. At this time, my little mind saw in Filaret the sun of the mind, illuminating the entire neighborhood. The brilliant answers of the Students and the thorough speeches of the Professors in the presence of this luminary seem to be a slight flicker of truth. I have always stood such exams to the end, and sometimes I can barely stand on my feet from fatigue and exhaustion, but my soul trembles sweetly, being filled with lofty thoughts. After the Academic exams, Filaret attended the exam with us, in Bethany, three days, or even a week after the Academic exams. The exam is public for one day and one sitting. Of the three hours of the meeting, more than two hours were spent on Theology and in general on subjects of the Higher Division; the remaining hour is for the Middle and Lower Divisions, in the main subjects. And here Filaret was Filaret: the luminary of the mind; subtle reasoning, clear, brilliant presentation of thoughts, fiery gaze, purity: benevolence, virtue, as if you smell the holiness of God in the presence of Philaret. I cannot praise, and I have always regretted, the cowardice and commotion of the profession and the Academic and Seminar authorities in the face of the great Philaret. They were timid, miserable, humiliating, barely uttering words, at a time when the Lord, like the Angel of God, wanted peace, shone with benevolence, love, sympathy, wanted to rejoice in us and with us, wanted to encourage and encourage feasible labors and worthwhile successes. True, Filaret did not like either the Rector of our Bethansky, Nikanor 13, or the Inspector - Theodotius 14, or the Rector of the Academic - Polycarp 15. Nikanor was almost Philaret’s comrade, an exemplary administrator, impeccable in life, a zealous and conscientious servant, but a weak mentor. It seems that Filaret in Nikanor despised only his learned weakness, and he thought that Filaret despised all of him and all of his service. (Nikanor himself later became Metropolitan of St. Petersburg). Theodotius was smart, but obstinate, arrogant and uneven in character, and especially had the weakness of ridiculing others. Filaret hated this about him. (Theodotius died as Archbishop of Simbirsk). Polycarp had the weakness of drunkenness. Filaret despised him for this. (Polycarp died in retirement as Archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery in Moscow). But Filaret did not like their weaknesses, and he spared and tolerated them. I'll tell you a few adventures. First. Filaret came to the Lavra, for the Lavra or for the Academy, but in the middle of school hours, and not for exams. After staying for three days in the Lavra, he made it known that he intended to be in Bethany today, and ordered everyone to be in their place and do their job. It was about 11 o'clock in the afternoon. Filaret has arrived. Straight to the Seminary. Straight to the Upper Division classroom. At this time Church History. Teacher – Inspector, Master, Hieromonk Jerome. 16 Filaret entered the hall. Jerome ran up to him for a blessing, and immediately, turning away from him, sat down in the Professor's chair. Pupils stand at their desks. Jerome waved his hand at them and said: “Sit down!” The disciples don't dare. Jerome repeats: “Sit down!” Don’t be shy: it’s a harvester.” (Pointing to Filaret, who is standing in the middle of the hall, looking at the stage). The disciples, however, do not dare sit down. Filaret, with a gentle and soft smile and a slight bow of his head, made it clear that he agreed for the students to sit down. We sat down. Meanwhile, Filaret, having no place to sit, went to the side and sat down on an empty bench at an empty desk, silently waiting for what would happen. Jerome, sitting importantly in an armchair, and having in front of him a small table on which lay a closed book, spoke loudly (without waiting for an order): “Ecclesiastical History is, based on solid evidence, raised from particular narratives to general considerations and directed towards active instruction, an account of the origin of the Church of God on earth, and the changes in its external and internal state that followed, and its continuous existence under the special providence of preservation, from the beginning of the world to the present day.” This is the beginning of the introduction to Church history, Op. Philareta, classic book. 17 The closed book on the table was this very story. Jerome then read this entire introduction, quite a lot literally and solemnly. Having finished reading, he stood up importantly, prayed to God and ran up to Philaret for a blessing. Philaret, with a smile mixed with pleasure (for this was his History) and disdain (for this was slavery, senselessness, flattery and hypocrisy), blessed Jerome, and then sent him a book with the inscription: “3a timid teaching of a lecture.” (The Hieron died in the rank of Archimandrite, in St. Petersburg, during the course, in December 1834, having almost completed it). Second. Filaret, having completed the exam at the Academy, on a certain day gave the order that on that day there should be an exam at the Bethany Seminary, and sent here, as a kind of chairman, the Rector of the Academy, saying: “Start the exam at 9 o’clock, and I will come when I have time.” Our exam began exactly at this time (in the Higher Division, in Theology). At 11 o'clock the messengers let us know that Filaret was on his way. Our Authorities stopped the exam and hurried to meet Filaret. They walked quite far, about 30 fathoms from the meeting hall. Filaret arrived. The attendant opened the carriage doors: The authorities bow, but Filaret is sitting in the carriage and does not come out. Filaret finally came out. The authorities are rushing to accept the blessing. The Lord walks past them. Entered the hall. Sat down. Then he addresses the Authorities with the following speech: “Why did you run out to me? Don't I know you're busy? Did they want to rob me, or did they think of defending themselves from me as a robber? The authorities bowed down. The Lord is angry and anxious. Started the exam again again. At this time, two adventures are noteworthy, of which one is close to me: 1) On the eve of this day, the Rector called me (I was the first then), and begged me to prepare for good answers, and he instilled this in me with such timidity and cowardice that I humiliated him in my soul. Meanwhile, knowing that my comrades confirmed the lessons of the Theologian very well, I dared Fr. Let the rector put it this way: “Don’t be embarrassed, oh. Rector: let’s ask the dust,” i.e., we’ll answer perfectly. So what? The students answered smartly, except for me. I became completely silent. And that's the problem. As the first one, Filaret asked me first. Meanwhile, we have not studied the first question; but you must answer in Latin. I was at a dead end. To answer this question, it was necessary to calculate the six days of the creation of the world. (The rector rightly dismissed this question by saying: “You know this from Biblical History.”) I had two jobs to do: remember what God created every day, and translate it into Latin. I said: “Deus creavit bunc mundum sex dierum spatio,” and stopped, working with both my memory and my mind for the future. Filaret, seeing that I hesitated, says to me: “Quare?” “He, of course, wanted to free me from embarrassment; but the question was so difficult that even now I would not soon be able to answer it with anything tolerable. The rector, standing next to me, completely confused and shaking, repeats in my ear: “Quare? Quare? “This only confused and annoyed me.” I said something, approaching the opinion of Philaret in his Biblical History, namely, that through this God wanted to show his freedom and omnipotence, and allowed creatures to test their strength and perfection. Filaret sat me down, seeing that I was embarrassed and could not answer further. (Wonderful, subtle and true prudence!) Then the other disciples answered learnedly, and, therefore, answered perfectly. Thus, only I was embarrassed: this is how God humbles the arrogant! However, to restore my honor, I began to listen carefully to Filaret’s questions in order to give at least one decent answer. Filaret asked: “Was there heaven and hell before the coming of Christ? According to Christ’s parable about the Rich Man and Lazarus, which some interpreters regard as history, one must think that before Christ there were heaven and hell, separated. Meanwhile, the Old Testament righteous, dying, usually said: “I’m going to hell”; and, it seems, it is impossible for there to be heaven before redemption.” There were many different speeches and answers. Filaret supported the question, weakening the answers given, which were also given by the Authorities themselves. I, having waited for a convenient moment, stood up and said: “Perhaps Jesus Christ spoke a parable, or told a story, about the Rich Man and Lazarus, in anticipation, knowing that after he had completed his atonement, what was stated in the parable would happen to the Rich Man and Lazarus!” Filaret said: “You answer well.” Then he began to sparkle with his brilliant speech, as bright as the sun, adhering to the essence of what I said, but taking matters more broadly and condensing his speech on the firmest foundations. I forgot my embarrassment and my grief: so in small things the Lord is great! 2) The Bethany Monastery is under the leadership of the Viceroy of the Lavra. Then there was Archimandrite Athanasius the Viceroy, a completely unlearned man, but a good painter, living a strictly monastic life 18 . He stood in vestments and with a cross at the gates of the monastery, just in case, for example, Filaret had decided to visit the monastery first on his way to the Seminary. Since Filaret went straight to the Seminary, Fr. The governor, having taken off his vestments, went to the Seminary and entered the hall where the exam had already begun. We all stood up immediately. The authorities also stood up. The Viceroy, taking two steps from the door, gave Filaret a deep bow: Filaret silently, with his left hand over his shoulder, indicated to the Viceroy the place where to sit. The governor either didn’t see it or didn’t understand it quickly, took another two or three steps, and again bowed deeply. Filaret again silently makes a movement with his left hand. The Viceroy guessed; went to the place and sat down, and everyone sat down, and we sat down. Then Filaret began such a stern and angry speech: “Why did you jump up? The Viceroy of the Lavra has arrived: and for him it is necessary to drop the matter and everyone jump up? - Great man, the Viceroy of the Trinity Lavra! We are busy with business: Let the governor, if he wants, listen, taking a quiet place for himself.” “You have taught your disciples well how to flatter; but teach me how to do things less diligently.” The governor, due to his simplicity and complete devotion to Filaret before his disappearance, seems not to have been offended by the speech that was unattractive to him; but the authorities were ashamed, although, to tell the truth, only we are to blame, because we were the first to stand up and forced the authorities to stand up. Filaret’s remark is completely fair and reasonable. It has always served me as a lesson in life and continues to do so. If I am not the first in society, then I always get up when the first one gets up. Otherwise, I would order the first one to do what I do, and it may still not be true. Filaret, to tell the truth, treated the authorities a little mercilessly, moreover publicly and in front of us boys, but one can also excuse: a) his years - he was then 44 years old (in 1826); b) the base cowardice of the authorities, false servility, worse than slavishness; c) too serious mistakes on their part; d) truth is on Filaret’s side; d) his incomparable surface above them in intelligence, knowledge and talents. Staying for about thirty days in the Lavra, Filaret fed his soul with everything that occupied it, namely: learning, holiness, silence. Philaret prolonged the Academic exams and languished in them, sitting motionless from five to seven hours every day, not because he considered it his duty, or to boast of his superiority over the most learned (as others reproachfully reprimanded), but because he enjoyed learning, grew with it, together with us, wanted to unenviably squander the wealth of his mind on us, and from us to receive encouragement for new expansions spirit and acquisition: this is the property of great souls. At least I think so. As great as he was in intelligence and talents, Philaret was just as devoted to holiness. Reverence before God was an urgent and dominant need for him. He magnified St. Sergius as sincerely as a gentle son is devoted to kind parents. He honored him as his educator, guardian, leader; he clung to all traces of him and taught himself to be like him. And the entire Holy Lavra, so many churches, each of which has a holy history, even the entire area of ​​the Lavra, its ashes and what was hidden and buried under it for five centuries, aroused him to great reverence. In the Lavra, I always saw Filaret in raptures and delight. It was clear that he carried heaven in his soul. The Lavra is especially filled with pilgrims at this time. These are not idle people wandering along the boulevards, streets, squares, gardens, markets, and parks. The most absent-minded here thinks, the most free shrinks, lowers his gaze, barely dares to breathe. The pious freely pour out their feelings of reverence, bow down, and shed tears. Is it possible for a God-fearing Archpastor to see all this and not sympathize, or, even worse, not give the highest examples of piety with his personality? Despite so many thousands of reverent and constantly changing people, the Vladyka remained to himself, alone in the elegant chambers of the Superior: he was not disturbed by some impudent, idle talker, arrogant, unbeliever. There are none here. He only has those here whom he allows, and when he appoints them. Therefore, here he is the King of his time. Matins extended at 4 o'clock in the morning, followed by nine liturgies in nine churches, and then vespers, and always with people filling all the churches to the point of crowding: this is what the Bishop sees and hears in the Lavra. His table here was surprisingly modest, childlike: not on fasting days, he ate milk, berries that ripened at that time, strawberries, blueberries, and raspberries. When I was in the Lavra at this time (from 1826 to 30), or near it (1818–26), it seemed to me that during Philaret’s stay here, the Lavra was twice holy, and I looked at Philaret himself as a holy mind, and not just a learned person. IV. During my studies at the Moscow Theological Academy, I was asked twice by Philaret during the exams: a) in 1828, at the end of the course in the Lower Division; b) in 1830, at the end of the entire Academic course. Both times my answers were unsuccessful; but both times I was spared by the Lord, and somehow escaped condemnation. In the Lower Section I was asked about Philosophical History, about the Greek philosophers Anaximander and Anaximenes, and about a third one after them. Latin lessons were taught long ago, even in the first year, and were poorly repeated. That’s why I was the first to ask, when usually you need to have more presence of mind than later: I went out in front of Philaret and stood silently. I recalled that one philosopher recognized water as the beginning of all things, and another considered fire; but which recognized fire, which water, and how each of them reached his conviction, I could not say. He said only these initial provisions and fell silent. Bachelor 19 directed me to continue the speech, but I was not able to continue it. Filaret fixed his gaze on me, searching, but also merciful, turned to the Bachelor, and ordered to ask the next one (suddenly three of us were called); others answered well and said a lot. We were released. I returned to my place with sadness. In the Higher Division, before finishing the course, I was already a monk. Again I was asked one of the first three, and the first in three (hence, again I did not have time to remember the answer, and sometimes even to look at the notebook). There was Moral Theology. Her professor, Inspector and Archimandrite Evlampius (later Archbishop of Tobolsk) 20. The question is given: “About the degrees of perfection of Christian moral actions.” The paragraph that I needed to read in response is stated in a relative period - the more, the more. The protasis had at least three members, and the apotasis had the same number during this long period. Moreover: each protasis and each apotasis had its own text, as if to confirm it. I did not have these texts written out (I did not consider them necessary): therefore I read the period without texts. But I was constantly stopped by Fr. Evlampius, demanding the pronunciation of a text for each term of the period. When I was silent, Eulampius pronounced these texts himself; He even made a remark to me: “Prove your reasoning with the sayings of the Holy Scripture, so that otherwise they will not think that you are reasoning arbitrarily, without foundation.” At this time, Filaret looked impatiently first at me, then at Evlampius; then, when I had finished the period, Filaret spoke excitedly, turning to Evlampius: “The Holy Scripture must be used to prove the complete truth, and not part of it. If you say: “The purer the action is in intention,” and then immediately add the saying of the Holy Scripture, you will be doing something stupid; by the fact that you will prove words, and not a thought that is not yet known. Therefore, you in vain confused the monk (pointing at me) and imposed your nonsense on him: he did not want to offer it; he is smarter than you." Thus, instead of receiving shame for poorly completing my lessons, my teacher received bitter instruction. Since this speech was not short, on the part of Filaret: he forced someone else to ask, who was standing next to me (Mikhail Rossov), and not me. Here again is God’s clear protection over me. If they had forced me to read further, I could not, since I remembered almost nothing. While the other was reading, Filaret, looking at me, quietly said: “Don’t be afraid, monk! We should fear God, not men." Vladyka saw that I was frightened, trembling all over, and, of course, was pale. But I was trembling from many mixed feelings: a) Ashamed of my stupidity and laziness; b) regretted that he reproached Fr. Eulampia; c) I regretted that in front of such a luminary as Filaret, I turned out to be so dim. Then Vladyka began to listen to another reader. Mikhail Rossov read the paragraph “On the unity of the Law of Moses and the Law of the Gospel.” Vladyka gave a paragraph to read (Rossov read well, and cited all the texts of Holy Scripture), then he began to refute what he had read. The paragraph proved the unity of the laws of Moses and the Gospel by the unity of the Lawgiver, the Son of God. Filaret responded to this: “Empress Catherine wrote the Salt Charter and the Charter on the Provinces. Consequently, the Salt Charter and the Charter on Provinces are one and the same law.” The paragraph proved the unity of laws by the unity of purpose. Filaret answered: “The St. Petersburg road leads to Moscow, and the Dmitrovskaya road leads to Moscow. Consequently, the St. Petersburg and Dmitrovskaya roads are one road.” After that, Filaret rather insultingly began to reproach Fr. Eulampia in ignorance of Theology, in dullness and confusion of thinking, in the inability to use the Holy Scriptures and extract solid truth from it. Father Evlampius listened to this unsweetened lesson in silence (Filaret did not leave room for his speeches), but with importance and without losing his presence of mind at all. (That evening, to the senior Students who were with him after dinner, out of duty, Father Evlampius said: “Let them scold. They have power. But in vain they did not listen to our justification. Maybe we would have said something in our defense.”) Self-esteem is close to all of us. However, I do not know how to forgive Fr. Eulampius of his tenacity. He is to blame all around; it is impossible to make excuses. And Filaret is right - except, perhaps, for the harshness of his denunciation. Thus, in both Academic Departments, before the Great Philaret, I found myself embarrassed, dull, lazy and weak. But, however, both of these embarrassments occurred on the second days of the exam, and not on the first. In the first days, both in the Lower and in the Higher Division, in Philosophy and Dogmatic Theology, I answered fairly, at least without confusion and embarrassment. However, I don’t remember now what I was asked about. I only remember that in Theology, which was read in Latin, while reading the answer, I forgot one word, a verb, absolutely necessary, and asked to tell it to me in Latin. My speech was: “Excidit memoriae meae verbum Latinum ad exprimendum verbum Rossicum... such and such.” Filaret smiled and named the Latin word (now I don’t remember either the Russian or the Latin word). On the first day of the exam in the Higher Division, I was even lucky enough to give an answer to the Metropolitan’s question, approved. While reading a paragraph from Dogmatic Theology about the Divinity of Jesus Christ, Philaret asked: “Why did Jesus Christ never say directly: “I am God, the Son of God, consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit?” “Why didn’t the Evangelists, not one of them, express this same speech directly?” “If it had been said directly by Christ Himself, or His Evangelists, that Christ is the Self-Existing God, then heresies such as, for example, Arius’ would not have been possible.” There were several answers to this question, which, however, did not satisfy Filaret. “The Apostle Paul said: “No one can speak of the Lord Jesus except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3). And the Evangelist John, explaining the speech of Jesus Christ about the living water that will flow from the womb of those who believe in Christ, said: “This speech is about Dus, whom those who believe in His name want to receive: the Holy Spirit is not with him, for Jesus was not glorified” (John 7:39). Therefore, even if Jesus Christ had said directly that He is God, His speech could not have been comprehended by human minds, without the assistance of the Holy Spirit, which was not yet active at that time.” After this answer of mine, Filaret listened to some other speeches. Then, having heard enough, he said: “The monk answered well,” that is, I. I stood up and bowed. Then Filaret began to develop and expand my thought, or at least on the basis of it, with his eloquence, characteristic of him alone, and most stood for the following: “Every speech, every action, and especially miracles, so numerous, so heterogeneous, so sudden, without preparation, in the tone of a ruler, clearly showed that Christ is, in the form of a man, superior to human nature. A pure mind, a straight conscience, a kind heart, everywhere they saw God in Christ, although they did not know how and did not dare to express this. “Arius and his ilk are unrequited. They dishonestly distorted the words of Christ in order to support their wickedness.” V. In 1828, in the month of March, my son-in-law, Ambrosy Vasilyevich Uvarov, who was a Priest in the village of Myachkovo-Lukovo, Kolomensky Uyezd, came to me at the Academy. He came to me for advice: in the same Uyezd, 20 versts from Myachkovo, a priestly place had opened in the village of Boyarkino. Ambrose would like to move to this place, which he called excellent. I did not advise him, saying: a) If it is true that Boyarkino’s place is excellent, then many will apply for it, more worthy than you; b) you have only been a priest for a year, and in a good village: the Metropolitan will not respect your request; c) you can be afraid of angering him with your vanity, and then be in danger of remaining under his constant neglect. Ambrose repeated his point and most earnestly asked him to write a request to Filaret. I made up my mind. Our request was not formal, ordinary, but a kind of letter of petition. I exhausted all my knowledge in him, and said (on behalf of Ambrose the Priest): “True, I am a Priest, in a good place: but, Lord, who does not desire better? And the Great Gregory the Theologian was sad when he was appointed Bishop to Sashimy, a remote and poor place. There are only men in Myachkovo; There are nobles in Boyarkino.” I said a lot more that I don’t remember. Ambrose made this request. So what? Beyond all aspirations, the Bishop refused thirty petitioners, among whom were Deans, and appointed Ambrose! The Lord was so receptive where there was anything especially alive! However, it remained, of course, unknown to him who wrote such a request to Ambrose; most likely, he attributed it to himself. Yes, and I, I was not at all known to the Lord. VI. In February 1829, as a Student at the Higher Department of the Academy, I submitted a request to enter the monastic order: On March 31 of the same year, on the fifth Sunday of Great Lent, I was tonsured a monk. Metropolitan Philaret was then in St. Petersburg to attend the Holy Synod. He sent me his cassock, a little worn, black, silk. I have kept this cassock to this day, although it has almost completely blossomed. It is noteworthy: below the waist, at the legs, the flaps are fastened with a special button, so that in no case can the flaps open enough to reveal the underwear. What a chaste monk Vladyka Philaret was! The cassock is not tight, as is usually sewn, but so wide in all parts that after girding it makes folds and burrs all around. Filaret sends such gifts to every monk-student. Stupidly, I was jealous that, for example, Philaret (later Archbishop of Chernigov, my comrade) 21. Vladyka sent a new purple satin cassock (even a piece of the rest was included): but later I valued my gift, especially since it was worn. VII. Three months after my monastic vows, Metropolitan Philaret ordained me as a Hierodeacon, in the Lavra, in the Trinity Cathedral, on July 5, the day of St. Sergius, in 1829. A year later, in 1830, only after we had completed the Academic course, Vladyka Philaret ordained me as Hieromonk, also in the Lavra and also in the Trinity Cathedral, on July 1, which was then the birthday of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. Then an adventure happened to me: after the liturgy there was a Royal prayer service. I ask the hieromonk (Damaskin), near whom I stood during the liturgy upon initiation as a hieromonk: “Should I go to a prayer service?” He said: “Go!” I also ask: “Where should I stay?” Answer: “Stand near me.” I did just that. But whole clouds of clergy gathered for this prayer service: the authorities of the Theological Academy and Seminary, the authorities of the Lavra, the townspeople's clergy, in total at least thirty of the Holy Ones; Hieromonk Damascene, near whom I stood, was some kind of official in the Lavra, and at the same time belonged to the first cathedral (there is another cathedral of monks in the Lavra). Therefore, together with Damascene, I became in the fourth or fifth pair. 22 When we all lined up in the middle of the cathedral, Filaret, noticing me so high, sent the Protodeacon, telling him and pointing at me: “Go, put the young hieromonk in his place!” I heard this order and, not knowing where to go or where to stand, I was waiting for the order. The Protodeacon, crowding behind the line of the cathedral, approached me and in his roaring voice said to the whole church: “Father young hieromonk! You have become out of place. His Eminence Metropolitan Philaret ordered to put you in your place: welcome!” And, grabbing me by the robe at the back of my head, he almost dragged me (it was very crowded) to the bottom, and put me in last place! This place was already on the salt, at the royal doors, and I, disgraced, stood in full view of the entire cathedral! This time, by the grace of God, feeling guilty, I did not concern myself with my personality, I did not even cry: my soul was filled with the feeling of my being sanctified by the rank of Priest. Meanwhile, I learned that many cried for me. Even Vladyka himself, as Boyarinya Tuchkova 23 told me later, was confused and worried all that day. I think Vladyka himself saw that he had treated me too mercilessly, and was ashamed of himself. However, this incident served me as a lesson for the rest of my life, and often saved me from similar adventures, which, unfortunately, in my opinion, happened to many more than once. This is how the Gospel word was fulfilled over me: “When you are invited to marriage, do not sit in the first place: whoever is more honest than you will eat those invited. And the one who called you came and said to you: “Give this a place!” “And then you’ll start holding the last place with cold.” (Luke 14, 8, 9) Meanwhile, this incident had no influence on my future fate. VIII. I graduated from the Academy course in 1830, in the first category, and was placed fifth on the list. I was awarded, among 12 (or more), the title of Master. There were five of us in the rank of monastics: 1) Filaret (2nd Master) was left as a Bachelor of the Academy. 2) Nikon (senior Candidate) was appointed Inspector at the Perm Seminary; 3) Polycarp Miltonov (junior Candidate) was appointed Inspector at the Irkutsk Seminary; 4) Joasaph of Shovsky (Candidate, from the Priests of the Tambov Diocese) was appointed (six months later) Warden of the Epiphanian Theological School, Tula Diocese; 5) I, Nicodemus, was appointed to the Tula Seminary. But the Inspector of the Academy, Archimandrite Evlampius, strongly opposed, saying: “Nicodemus should be tested: one can fear for his good behavior.” Therefore, the Conference appointed me Professor of Theology at the Vladimir Seminary. When this list of placements was submitted to the Metropolitan, he said: “It is more fitting for a monk to be an Inspector in Tula than for a secular one.” And he crossed out Ivan Smirnov (4th Master) from the Inspector of Tula, and put me in his place, and Smirnov in my place - in Vladimir. O. Evlampius either did not dare to object, or regretted me. I don’t complain about Evlampius: in his then ideas about me, I could seem dangerous to him. Subsequently, he received the opposite admonitions: the monks he loved and praised and others were cold towards him, and one caused great annoyance, and I served him as a submissive son, already in the rank of Bishop, in Kazan, where I was a Vicar, and Fr. Evlampius lived in retirement in the local Sviyazhsk monastery, after the Tobolsk Archbishopric. Thanks to the Lord too! He did not remember the grief I inflicted on him on July 1, and calmly gave me what was due. IX. I arrived at the Tula Seminary in September 1830. In this year, cholera first appeared, the great wrath of God, passed through Russia from Ufa, Orenburg and Astrakhan, right through to its western borders. In Moscow it opened at the end of September, and in Tula at the beginning of December. Out of cowardice, I was very afraid of dying from cholera; I began to apply to the Moscow Academy for Bachelors, believing that I would be preserved in the Lavra of St. Sergius (Indeed, not a single person died from cholera in the Lavra). I, however, wrote only letters about this, and only to my friend, Bachelor Philaret. He answered me: “I offered your request to Fr. To the rector: he called you crazy.” I understand. Prayed to God. Cholera struck two Professors in Tula, Archpriest Bazarov and Priest Zaitsevsky; One hundred people fell ill per day or more. But God preserved the Seminar: no one fell ill or died of cholera, not a student, not a boss, not a minister. I, however, am exhausted mentally and physically, having no classes at the Seminary; for the teaching was stopped in November and the disciples dispersed (some, however, remained), he managed to beg the Eminence of Damascus: “He sent me to Moscow for a month.” On December 25, the day of the Nativity of Christ, after serving the liturgy, I went to Moscow. Cholera in Tula from that time on quickly weakened, and by mid-January it had ceased. In Moscow, by Christmas the city was considered prosperous. I didn’t stay in Moscow for long: I immediately went to my parents in their homeland, in the village of Komlevo, Ruza Uyezd. I reasoned: “If I die, then let it be in the eyes of my parents.” I stayed for about a month. At this time, I went with my mother to the Borodino fields (about 30 versts from us), and here I was treated kindly by Margarita Mikhailovna Tuchkova. She maternally understood my entire situation, and I, without any intentions or calculations, explained to her my feelings, suffering and desires. The Mother Superior did not promise me anything: but I have no doubt that, at her petition to Metropolitan Philaret, I was transferred from Tula to Novgorod Seminary, in May 1832, to the same positions of Inspector and Professor of the Seminary. Having been in Moscow twice at this time, I did not dare to appear before the Metropolitan, because I considered my absence to be my cowardice alone. But later I learned that Vladyka fatherly regretted that I was not with him, and even promised me room in his house. (I learned this from the Archpriest and Rector of the Tula Theological School, Kozma Maksimovich Organov, who was soon after me in Moscow and with the Metropolitan). X. During my 20-month first stay in Tula, my mother visited me twice, both out of motherly feelings in general, and wanting to serve me in my frail health. At this time, my parents had their last daughter in their arms, and my sister, Maria, was a girl of perfect age. I thought: “I’ll try to offer my sister to the Tula Seminarian, with the idea that I will take it upon myself to transfer him to the Moscow Diocese and intercede for him a priestly place there.” I proposed this opinion to my mother: she agreed with joy. Then I told her: “Choose any Theologian, and I will try to persuade him to our proposal.” Mother chose Yegor Kirillovich Dobronravov, a sedate and God-fearing Seminarian. I offered him our wish: he agreed with delight. Departing from Tula in May 1832, when G. Dobronravov had not yet completed his course, I asked him to keep his promise to us and to arrive in Moscow in the fall. He's definitely arrived. Bishop Philaret graciously agreed to accept him into the Moscow Diocese, and gave him a priestly place, a good one, on the Istra River, Rozhdestvenskoe. Not having had the opportunity to see Vladyka in Moscow, on my journey from Tula to Novgorod, because Vladyka had not yet returned from St. Petersburg, I asked him about this matter of ours in writing from Novgorod. Mother decided to arrange the whole matter with the Metropolitan, believing herself to be so smart that she hoped to end it well. Appeared to the Metropolitan. But he has hundreds of petitioners: she is a simple clerk’s wife. She was led into the reception hall, along with dozens of petitioners. Filaret goes around them in order, announcing to each what he considers necessary to say. He approaches his mother: she falls at his feet and bursts into tears. Filaret. "What do you need?" Mother. - Your Excellency, look after my Mashenka! Filaret. “Who is your Mashenka?” Mother. - No, my husband is alive. Mother. - Deacon in the village of Komlevo, Ruza Uyezd Filaret. “Why didn’t he come?” Mother. - Look. Your Excellency, my Mashenka! Not seeing the opportunity to find out the matter, and not wanting to waste time. Filaret told her: “Go to my Clerk!” Alexander Petrovich Svyatoslavsky, the Vladyka’s Clerk, took the necessary information from his mother and reported to the Vladyka: “This is the mother of Nikodim, the Inspector of the Novgorod Seminary; and to ask for permission for the Tula Seminarian to move to the Moscow Diocese and receive a priestly place in it, so that he will enter into marriage with Nikodim’s sister, Maria, and this Dyachikha’s daughter.” The matter was arranged immediately. This example is an example of the prudence, mercy and beneficence of Metropolitan Philaret. Not many Bishops are so attentive to the simple and poor wife of the cleric, who is unable to express the essence of her petition. What a good Archpastor has a Scribe!' Alexander Petrovich Svyatoslavsky, Seminarist of the Moscow Seminary, who completed the course well, almost the same age as Filaret, because of his love for him and because of Filaret’s trust in him, devoted his entire life to him: ten years before Filaret, he died in his service and, as it were, in his arms 24 . Alexander Petrovich knew Filaret’s whole soul and, of course, was involved in the greatest secrets of his life. He knew how to keep them and served the great Master honestly, like a good Christian. Not only poor sextons, like my mother, but also archpriests and priests, archimandrites and abbots, and sometimes even bishops, had in Alexander Petrovich a noble, honest and long-suffering mediator between them and the Bishop. Alexander Petrovich was non-covetous. No one dared to bring him a gift, perhaps, for example, a pair of thread socks (from the nunnery). Vladyka gave him a good salary (I think it was a thousand rubles), in addition to board, apartment, carriage and servants. Moreover, he was also the steward of everything personally related to the Metropolitan: his table, rooms, clothes, carriages, servants, and so on. Bishop Filaret, even in this respect, is an exemplary, although almost unparalleled, Russian Bishop. Alexander Petrovich was single, and so he ended his life: of course, in honor of the holy Lord whom he served. XI. From May 17 to May 25, 1832, I waited in Moscow for the arrival of Bishop Philaret from St. Petersburg, so that I could have the consolation of bowing to him, receiving his blessing and, perhaps, listening to instructions for my future service. I was traveling to a foreign region, side by side to St. Petersburg, to the Novgorod Seminary. I, however, did not wait. Left on May 25th. So what? At the second station, in between, I met the Great Philaret: Riding in a carriage, with large windows, in full Metropolitan uniform. I bowed to him. Arriving at the station, I, as if doubting, asked the Station Warden: “It seems that Metropolitan Philaret has passed through?” He answered me with half-reproach: “Yes, His Eminence Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, Member of the Holy Synod, passed by.” And then I was amazed that I, a spiritual person, called Philaret so dryly. But I, of course, will not yield to any Station Warden in the degree and purity of my feelings for the great Archpastor. I asked dryly because I feared insolence and ridicule from the secular, expressing myself in the tone of that reverence for the Master with which I was then (and always) filled. I looked at his carriage for a long time, at the back of it, following my joy and happiness with my eyes, although I would not have known what to tell him and what to ask for if he had deigned to stop and bless me. XII. I lived at the Novgorod Seminary for only 17 months. He arrived on May 29, 1832, Trinity Day, and left on October 29, 1833. At this time, in the Novgorod Seminary, both the Rector and the Inspector changed at the same time: Rector Iliodor was consecrated Bishop of Kursk 25, Inspector Elpidifor was appointed Rector of the Kursk Seminary 26. These two faces were deep and sincere friends with each other. Iliodor petitioned his Inspector friend for the Rectorship in the Diocese of Kursk. Fr. entered the Novgorod Seminary as rector, in place of Iliodor. Anatoly, Rector of Belgorod (Kursk) Seminary 27, I am the Inspector. Rector Fr. Anatoly arrived at the Novgorod Seminary earlier than me, a week, or 10 days before. I arrived: the new Rector received me with open arms and took me straight to his place. He had guests - all the teachers of the Seminary (Trinity Day - 6 pm), and I was immediately introduced to all my companions. O. Anatoly Kamenets-Podolsky. His father is Little Russian, his mother Moldavanka. His name in the world is Augustine, his surname is Martynov; at the end of the course he was a Priest. Having been widowed, he entered the Kiev D. Academy, and completed the Master's course (2 years, I think). I had never seen the Little Russians up close before, and I didn’t know how to understand them. But I soon had to learn hard lessons from Fr. Rector. Considering me an enemy, seeking his destruction, with the hope of taking his place, he armed himself against me, hitherto unknown to me, with intrigues of rumors, deceit and hypocrisy. All this grew and grew quickly to the point that it came to the point of paper protests against me and the most eccentric complaints. The Rector first submitted a note to the Seminary Board with 9 points of accusation against the Inspector. Then, when the remaining outside member. The housekeeper refused to pronounce a judgment on the note; the Rector turned it to His Eminence, Vicar of Novgorod, Timothy 28. When Timofey did not take over the investigation of our case, the Rector forwarded this note to the Most Reverend Smaragd, Vicar of St. Petersburg, 29 begging him to save him, Anatoly, and the Seminary from the Inspector, the most corrupt person. At the same time, Fr. Anatoly lay at my feet, asking for forgiveness for the insult he had inflicted on me by complaining against me to the Board of the Seminary and to the Vicar of Novgorod. Meanwhile, I was seriously ill. Debilitating diarrhea threatened me with imminent death: I was preparing for eternity! All this happened in October and November 1832. The Rector's intrigues and attacks not only did not stop, but also increased; In His Grace Timothy, although he clearly saw in the Rector a restless person and an envious person, and in me persecuted out of envy, I did not find firm, decisive protection. But therefore, I decided to go to St. Petersburg, and there personally, appearing before Metropolitan Seraphim 30, explain the intolerable insults inflicted on me by the Rector. I won’t hide that I wanted to see St. Petersburg too, being so close to it (180 versts). On Christmastide, I asked His Grace Timothy, with the consent of the Seminary Board, to go to St. Petersburg. I appeared before Metropolitan Seraphim in St. Petersburg on December 29, 1832, at 9 am. First, Alexey Ivanovich Suslov, the Metropolitan's Clerk, demanded me to come to him. After asking where I was from, where I studied, where I served, he coolly and proudly asked me: “What did I come to St. Petersburg for?” Hiding my annoyance, I briefly said that I was suffering from the Rector, and I wanted to present my excuses to the Bishop. After listening to me for a while and, it seems, not allowing me to finish, he boldly said to my eyes: “You are a worthless Inspector!” Then he went to report me to the Metropolitan. They demanded me into the living room or the front hall (not the hall). The Metropolitan is pacing. According to custom, I bowed at the Metropolitan’s feet and asked for his blessing. Metropolitan. “Why these bows? I can't stand flattery." Then he began to ask me: where am I from, where did I study, where did I serve? Metropolitan “What did you come for? Me. – Accept the blessing from Your Eminence. M. “Who fired you here?” J. – Your Eminence Vicar, with the consent of the Seminary Board. M. “The Board is stupid and the Bishop is careless. He let the young monk wander around St. Petersburg, without any need. “Are you living well in Novgorod?” Me. – Father Rector considers me incapable, but I, for my part, make every effort to please him and carry out his orders as much as possible. M. “You are lying: you indignate the Seminarians against him, you condone their pranks, you stand up for the idle, and through this you take the hands of the Rector. “You want to curry favor with the Seminarians, attract them to yourself and arm them against the Rector, who seeks to exterminate idleness. “Potachka gives birth to fearlessness. And where there is fearlessness, there is the death of society. “You want to boast of your mercy at the expense of the Rector’s honor, to darken him with yourself in order to rid him of him and take his place: Who are you? The boy no one knows. And your Rector is a man already with merit, proven. I begged it from the Kursk Bishop 31 as a favor. Who are you? If I hear one more bad word about you, I will send you to a monastery, where no crows have brought bones, and there I will throw you into the brethren’s portion. Don’t think that you will ever be resurrected: you will rot there.” Then, after giving himself a short rest, the Metropolitan continued: Ya - At the Inspector of the Seminary (Petersburg). M. “Why did you stay with him?” J. – By the similarity of our service. M. “Will you go back soon?” Me. – As you order, Holy Master. M. “What should I order? You didn't ask me to come here. “But here’s a fairy tale for you: “An uninvited guest is given gold on the first day, silver on the second, and tin on the third. And on the fourth, if he doesn’t guess, the doors will be shown. Go!” Here is the stern, merciless speech of Metropolitan Seraphim. My soul became numb. Having gathered my courage a little, I went to see Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. This wise, compassionate father received me very kindly and immediately sat me opposite him. Having eaten a few words, Filaret asked me: “What is it like for you to live in Novgorod?” Such a question, after the fever from the torture of Metropolitan Seraphim, which had not yet caught a cold, stirred my heart: tears flowed in streams. And I couldn't say a word. Metropolitan: “Are you crying? About what? What's wrong with you? But I was choking in tears, and could not utter a single word. After being silent for a while, and allowing the excitement to subside a little, Filaret said to himself: “We need to change the conversation.” M. “Do you visit Archimandrite Photius?” 32 Me: “I’ve only been there eight times.” M. “Strange man! I went to pray to God in Voronezh, drove to Tula, and returned back. Then: “Well, tell me, what are you crying about?” I briefly told the Rector’s actions towards me, and how Metropolitan Seraphim was now torturing me. Filaret felt sorry and said: “I feel sorry for you: but I won’t quarrel with Lord Seraphim for you. Go to Stepan Dmitrievich Nechaev (Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod) 33. I answered bluntly: “I won’t go. I will not ask secular people for myself.” Filaret smiled, stood up and said: “Go, live with God in Novgorod; try to please the Rector in whatever way you can, without offending your conscience. I don't think he would continue the harassment. If, beyond expectation, he again begins to press you, you tell him: “Allow me, oh. Rector, to reassure you and myself, ask to join another Seminary. In the petition I will not say anything about our displeasures, but I will ask to be transferred to some Seminary south of Novgorod, to improve my health.” Then we'll give you another place. I don’t think the Rector would be angry at such a request.” Then, having learned that Metropolitan Seraphim ordered me to leave St. Petersburg soon, he regretted that I could not see St. Petersburg and said: “Look, at least, the best!” I drove along Nevsky Prospect, saw the Palace, the Senate; St. Isaac's Cathedral was dismantled. I drove along the Embankment, and somewhere else, I don’t remember. And so there are two Metropolitans on stage, torturing one monk for one thing! All the honor of spiritual kindness, all the glory of reasonable condescension, all the honor of insight and justice belongs to Philaret. He quickly understood and embraced the whole matter: Little Russian, an old man, embraced by the caresses of Seraphim, met with a Russian monk, young, but understanding something, out of envy and annoyance he wanted to crush him. Filaret considered it fair and philanthropic to cover the young monk and encourage him. On the contrary, Seraphim has no excuse. Without thoroughly knowing who was right and who was wrong in the conflict, he inhumanly and unfairly attacked the weakest. Moreover, such immoderate threats, almost to a child, are very obscene for such a high person. The differences are also visible in the Writers. Filaretov, Alexander Petrovich - gentleness, philanthropy, virtue; Serafimov - impudence, pride, contempt. The place to say: Filaret, at least for me, has always been one: truth and mercy! Seraphim, after the described scene with me, six and a half years later, ordered the same little Nicodemus, in the same St. Petersburg Lavra, in the same rooms, to take his same Clerk, Alexei Ivanovich, to the Chief Prosecutor in his, Seraphim’s, carriage! I was going to Odessa. In 1841, at my farewell, he told me: “Go with God! You were very good here. And before, you always served in different places approvingly (he made me count my places of service). We hope that you will serve well in Odessa as well. If we need you here, we will call you from there again.” Filaret didn’t say that. His words are not for air, but the essence of the matter, real, true, sedateness. XIII. Metropolitan Philaret passed 34 through Novgorod three times: twice from Moscow to St. Petersburg, in two autumns (1832 and 33), and once from St. Petersburg, in the spring of 1833. My rector, Fr. Anatoly, I haven’t seen Filaret. He really wanted to see him. We were unable to see him twice. The Metropolitan usually stayed in the Kremlin, with the Vicar, who lived in the Bishop's Chambers near the St. Sophia Cathedral. Anthony's Monastery (where the Seminary is outside the city) will be more than two miles to the Kremlin, and more than a mile on the worst country road. The first time, in the fall of 1832, we missed it completely. The second time, in the spring of 1833, although they were in a headlong hurry and had guards posted, they saw the Metropolitan already on the Volkhov Bridge, that is, leaving the Vicar. We bowed. The Lord smiled. He outsmarted us! 35 He dined at the station before Novagorod; I stopped by the Vicar only for the time until the horses were brought, that is, for about 10 minutes. From this I dare to conclude that the Metropolitan deliberately avoided the meeting and meeting with the Rector, which was supposed to be, and I do not find any other reason other than our story with the Rector. The third time, when the Metropolitan was traveling from Moscow to St. Petersburg, the Rector decided to definitely see the Metropolitan. To do this, we spent two whole days in the Consistory, which is under the Bishop’s house. The Metropolitan, in September, came to the Vicar at 8 o'clock in the evening. The rector ran (taking a warm cassock over his shoulder), and I followed him. We entered the Bishop's house. we were asked. We were reported. Ordered to enter. As soon as the door to the living room opened, Filaret stood straight in his cassock, only in a cassock, with his head uncovered, with his hair down. The rector hastily fell at the feet (on one knee in Polish) of the Metropolitan. Metropolitan. "What you? For what?" Rector. – Congratulate Your Eminence on your safe arrival. Metropolitan. "What? Speak more clearly, I can’t hear.” The rector repeated the same, but this time so firmly that it turned out very ugly (he was trembling at the same time). Metropolitan. “Well, tell me, oh. Rector, where did you study? where did you serve? (This is putting it mildly). The rector said briefly: Studied at the Kyiv Academy; I was a Bachelor there. Then he was Rector in Belgorod, and from there he was transferred to Novgorod. Metropolitan. “Did you write an objection to the revision of Archimandrite Eulampius, sent from the Moscow Academy to the Belgorod (in the Kursk Diocese) Seminar, to review it by order of the Highest?” 36 Rector. - For mercy, Your Holiness, why should I write objections against him? Father Evlampius is an intelligent, meek, forgiving person; I am treated kindly by him; I am grateful to him: why should I write to him? The Metropolitan smiled sardonically, seeing the complete victory over the intrigue. However, he said: “It seems that you wrote. After all, you were the Rector there at that time?” Then, turning to the Vicar (they were already sitting on the sofa), the Bishop began to say: “An arrogant and restless man! The inspector reported what he had found. The rector wanted to wriggle out. He dishonored and suspected the auditor. He set different hooks, and only brought himself into even greater suspicion. His Eminence Vladimir (Kursky, then in St. Petersburg) 37 showed me these slander. I read it with contempt for the informer." The rector again began to swear and assure that he had not written objections to the audit: but this only increased the confidence that he was guilty. So Filaret humiliated and trampled the Rector. He showed Fr. Anatoly, who is he? The conversation about this stopped. Filaret began another speech, for coolness, and asked softly about. Rector: “Which Fathers do you (and not you) consider to be the main ones and primarily necessary for Theology?” Rector. – Basil the Great, Augustine, Origen. Metropolitan. “Origen is a church teacher, not a father: he has errors. Augustine is too subtle and refined. Westerners respect him. No, we honor Basil the Great, Gregory the Theologian and John Chrysostom as the pillars of the Church and Ecumenical teachers.” Filaret began to characterize each of these Fathers, marveled at their intelligence and piety, and pointed out in what way each of them especially served for the Church. Thus, the Rector was again left ashamed. Upon leaving the Metropolitan, he exclaimed plaintively: “In the future I will not believe the words of others. At the Kyiv Academy they told me: “Filaret puts Origen above all the funeral services.” But it didn’t turn out that way.” Consequently, the Rector answered not out of his own conviction, but to please the Metropolitan. After this, the Metropolitan began to apologize (tenderly with a half-smile, and with half-irony) for not visiting us at the Seminary: a) I don’t always pass by you at the right time; b) in order to come to you, you need to turn a mile off the road, and drive this mile along a very unmaintained road” (quite rightly so!). Then he spoke: c) And your (Antoniev) monastery is poor, poorly built, poorly maintained. The seminary is dilapidated, nondescript, cramped, damp.” The rector tried to protect both the monastery and the Seminary. Filaret. “You praise everything; I don't believe you. (This is said with sweet semi-irony). Inspector! You are ours. Tell the truth: it’s a bad Seminary?” I: It’s really tight. but the rooms are dry. Rector. Our library is rich. Filaret. Yes, definitely rich. Rector. It’s a pity that she was selected to the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. Filaret, changing his soft tone into a stern and angry one, said: “Stop slandering others: correct yourself!” Then, turning to the Vicar, he began to tell in detail the story relating to this subject: “The Novgorod Seminary Library is definitely rich, because it is one of the most ancient, and was enriched and collected by our great hierarchs. “The Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Gabriel, at the end of the last century, became angry with the St. Petersburg Seminary for something, closed it and exiled it to Novgorod. The library 38 also went there. “Metropolitan Ambrose again restored the Seminary in St. Petersburg, and even opened the Academy 39. The St. Petersburg library was demanded back from Novgorod. “This matter was done carelessly. Some of the books from the St. Petersburg Seminary remained in Novgorod; but Novgorod books also came to St. Petersburg. This is because the Petersburg Library was handed over to Novgorod and was accepted back, without a catalogue, without records, but simply as a keepsake. “When I was Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, I was sent to revise the Novgorod Seminary 40. Looking around the library, I found several books belonging to the St. Petersburg Seminary: that’s what the inscription told us. In addition, I saw several important works in several copies in the Novgorod library. “Having returned to St. Petersburg, I explained all this to Metropolitan Ambrose, and asked permission: 1) to select from the Novgorod library all those books that, according to the inscriptions, appear to belong to the Seminary; 2) take a few of those most important creations for the St. Petersburg Spirit. Academy, of which there are more than one copy in the Novgorod Library. “Metropolitan Ambrose agreed to everything. “This is what my confiscation of the Novgorod library means!” The rector was again ashamed. Then Filaret stood up and said affectionately with a half-smile: “Well, fathers, goodbye! You have a long way to go." During these conversations, the Metropolitan's Clerk, Alexander Petrovich, entered and asked: “When will you order the horses to be served?” The Metropolitan answered: “At one o’clock, that is, after midnight, that is, three or four hours from the time we were with him. And the night is black, September, damp. XIV. After this event, he lived in Novgorod for one month. In October 1833, I was transferred back to the Tula Seminary, and again as an Inspector (Fr. Varlaam, who took this place after me, was made the Rector of this Seminary) 41. I attribute this translation to Metropolitan Philaret, although I do not know this clearly. I was a little sad and ashamed to return to the same Seminary and to the same position. The Great Filaret, of course, forgot that I was transferred to Novgorod from Tula: you can’t remember everything about everyone. This taught me an important lesson. XV. The second time in Tula I was in the position of Seminary Inspector for not much more than 14 months. On December 1, 1833, I arrived in Tula, and on February 19, 1835, I left for Vyatka to take the position of Rector of the Seminary there. In May 1834, the Rector of the Tula Seminary, Archimandrite Varlaam (now Archbishop of Tobolsk) was transferred to the Voronezh Seminary. In Tula he was appointed Rector Fr. Nikon, Inspector of the Perm Seminary 42. O. Nikoi arrived in Tula at the end of June. During this period of at least 40 days, I was both Inspector and Rector (in office) of the Seminary. At that time, a terrible incident happened: The seminarians killed a woman. It happened like this: One bad guy from a restaurant entered a bad house. He had nothing to pay for the debauchery that he was looking for here and, of course, found. They took off his cap. The student came to his comrades and urged them to defend himself. Five or six guys gathered and went to help out the cap. But they don’t issue it there. A fight broke out. A completely stranger, a tradesman, a tailor, who was sleeping with his young mistress in the garden, intervened in it. The seminarians prevailed. The tailor's wife, seeing the torment of her husband, rushed to defend him in her shirt. The villain Seminarist hit her. She fell lifeless! The fight stopped. Horror gripped both sides. The police intercepted those involved in the fight. Early in the morning I was woken up by my mother, who was visiting me. Shedding tears herself, she said: “Go, dear son, they are waiting for you at your door: take courage, say a prayer!” I went out. I see two soldiers with guns, and between them a boy in chains. The soldiers, recognizing me as the Head of the Seminary, asked: “Is this man yours, and is his name and surname what he called himself?” I confirmed both. The soldiers told me that this guy killed a woman in a fight last night. The student was taken back to prison. I sent students and the Professor to find out as much as possible about the matter, to list the captured Seminarians. It was taken up to ten; but soon up to five were released, and the rest were detained. Then I thought to myself: “Has my service and my head been lost on the occasion of this murder?” I wrote a letter to Margarita Tuchkova in the Borodino fields and begged her to seek protection for me from Metropolitan Philaret, who was favorable to her. She, the Mother Superior, as a woman and mother, having received my letter, wrote her own letter to the Metropolitan and, having included mine in it, sent a messenger to him, her butler. The butler did not find Filaret in Moscow. He was in the Lavra. I went there and submitted a letter there. Filaret wrote a reassuring letter to Abbess Tuchkova in response. She, the Mother Superior, having read it, sent the same butler to Tula to me with Filaret’s letter. (It's a pity I didn't leave copies of it). The Metropolitan writes to her: “The Tula case is so important that Nicodemus is too small to answer for it. Maybe they will say something unpleasant to the Bishop 43. “Fear has big eyes: let Nicodemus not be afraid, but pray to God. “The fate of this monk is amazing. They took him away from trouble from Novgorod, but it was necessary to meet him in trouble where they thought to save him. (I regret that I did not preserve the Metropolitan’s original speeches; I am writing from memory. But the words are almost the same, not just the thoughts). The matter really ended without affecting either me or anyone else except the guilty. Even the murderer was somehow acquitted, that is, he was not subjected to the murderer's punishment. I don’t know whether the Tula Eminence of Damascus had any grief over this matter. But I think that the great Philaret defended not only me, but also the Right Reverend and the Seminary in this matter: because this matter was undoubtedly known to the Holy Synod, which does not leave such events without easy explanations. XVI. After the event described in the previous article, eight months later, in February 1835, I was appointed Rector of the Vyatka Seminary. On February 22, Friday of the first week of Great Lent, I introduced myself to Metropolitan Philaret in Moscow, in his Trinity (Sukharevsky) courtyard. Vladyka (before the liturgy he served) came out to me, languid, exhausted from fasting and prayer, into the hall. “You really are clearly weak when the Seminarians dared to commit such a riot in your presence. It is not good to be cruel either: however, the Chief must have a strong character. Go with God to Vyatka! Don’t forget: you are now the Rector, that is, the head of the Seminary. Now there is no one to teach you, to look after you. – Bishop 44. But he is an observer from afar. Try to be a model subordinate, and don’t make mistakes!” This speech both consoled me and enlightened me. XVII. I arrived in Vyatka on March 9, 1835, and served here as both the Rector of the Seminary and the Abbot of the Assumption Trifonov Monastery for not much more than three years: on May 26, 1838, I left here for St. Petersburg, by order of the Highest, at the disposal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, to carry out certain assignments on spiritual and educational matters. And here the influence of Metropolitan Philaret on my destiny and on my personality is great: but I need to explain myself. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Nikolai Alexandrovich Protasov. planned to transform our Spiritual learning. In his soul there may have been some spark of pure jealousy and a desire for the good of the Russian Clergy: but he did not know how, and out of pride did not want to properly understand what the Russian Orthodox Clergy is and should be. Raised by Jesuits in Catholicism, he looked at Orthodoxy with contempt (I was assured by his fellow pupil that Count was a Catholic at heart, and declared himself Orthodox from earthly species). Protasovo planned to carry out the transformation of our schools with our own hands, and began this work from afar: He proposed that the Holy Synod give instructions to all Rectors of Seminaries 45 so that they freely state how they understand the Theologian, and what improvements they would like to make to it, contrary to its present position. The Synod agreed. Such instructions were given to all Seminary Rectors in May 1837. Among others, I received such an order. We have been given a deadline of January 1st of the following year, 1838. I also wrote my Theological Notes and sent them off on January 1st. The prosecutor instructed his officials to re-read all these Notes and note those that were special and outstanding from others. My Notes were found to be special from everyone else; He also interested Director Spirit. Educational Administration, Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsky, and Protasov himself. However, the Chief Prosecutor, not trusting his theological knowledge, instructed Karasevsky to ask the Metropolitan of Moscow to read our Notes and indicate the best of them, and in particular they asked to tell the Metropolitan about my Notes. Filaret expressed his opinion about my Notes on two or three pages, an approving opinion: Filaret put my Notes above all others, and especially because “there is a grain of thought in it” and not a simple listing of titles (like most of my colleagues). Having received a completely approving assessment of my Notes from Metropolitan Philaret, the Prosecutor is trustworthy regarding my good intentions and, moreover, as more gifted than others, and at the same time young (less than three years in the Rectorship and at the age of 35), I seemed to him the most suitable for fulfilling his assumptions about our Theological Educational Institutions. Without asking the Synod, Protasov asked Sovereign Nikolai Pavlovich for permission to summon me to St. Petersburg at his, Protasov’s, order. Not only the lower Clergy, but even the members of the Synod looked at me with involuntary attention, of course, hiding their justified annoyance at the self-will of the Synod Prosecutor. I left Vyatka on May 26. I spent a day on the road in Kostroma, with the Rector Archimandrite Platon (now the Archbishop on the Don), to receive a so-so reception, but in my position it was impossible for him to be anything other than respectful... 46 In Yaroslavl, he also visited the Rector, Gregory (now the Bishop of Kaluga, a man of character, but in the Little Russian spirit) 47 . It was 24 hours in the Holy Lavra of St. Sergius, June 5, Sunday, and I was honored to listen to the liturgy here in the Trinity Cathedral, at the relics of St. Sergius. But living people upset me more, especially the Rector of the Academy Filaret 48. May the Lord not hold it against them! I arrived in Moscow on June 7. The next day I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Kindly treated by him. He even left me with him for dinner. He spoke approvingly about my Notes, and about Theology in general. I wanted to know why I was going to St. Petersburg and what does it mean that I am being handed over to the Prosecutor of the Synod, and not the Synod itself? I did not dare to ask directly: but the Bishop limited himself to general speeches, it seems a) because he could not say anything restrictive, even because he himself did not know definitely the types of Prosecutor; b) because I didn’t know how I would turn out to be in practice, in any case, tempting and slippery, whether I would even go over to the side of the secular ones, so that, together with them, I could work to humiliate and damage the Theological Schools; c) because he hoped to give me the necessary instructions at the right time in St. Petersburg. Filaret’s general tone with me at this time was benevolent, even respectful, but without insulting the high importance of his rank and position before me. Saying goodbye, he gave me a rosary, new, white bone, with a blue beaded tassel (I have kept it to this day and always use it as a shrine). I arrived in St. Petersburg on June 15. Three days later I introduced myself to the Chief Prosecutor, Count Nikolai Aleksandrovich Protasov. I enter the reception hall. The Count is sitting at the desk. In his hands is our church book - the Great Trebnik. The Count absentmindedly leafs through it. Graph. “Hello, Father Archimandrite! How long ago?” I. - The third day, Your Excellency. He pointed to the chair opposite him and immediately sat down. Gr. “I humbly ask you to sit down!” Gr. Jumped up. He took me with both hands and sat me down almost by force. “Please, sit down!” (The chairs are strange, slanting; the front part is a quarter of an arshin from the floor, and the back is completely on the floor; if you sit deeply in such chairs, you have to tip back. I sat down on the front edge, barely held on and was afraid of toppling over. The Count was amused by me.) Count: “We called you to work. Please work hard. Your summary is excellent. He proved that you are talented: we need such people. Please know me and no one else. We will calm you down, we will give you everything. Do not be afraid of anyone: I am your protector. Keep everything we entrust to you secret. Be sincere. Talk to me boldly about what I will ask you. I myself will speak as I understand. “Your Notes have been subject to controversy. He was terribly scolded by Kiev (Metropolitan Philaret) 49, it seems, out of envy, or due to misunderstandings. Moscow (Metropolitan Philaret), on the contrary, is very complimentary. Whatever the case, we will protect and comfort you. Your abstract will be printed. A Doctorate in Theology awaits you. Let Moskovsky come, then you will consult with him, and correct something: you need to amuse Kievsky too! “Karasevsky will tell you about this in detail: ask him! I only say: do not be afraid of anyone lower than your Bishops: know me! “We are giving you a good apartment. You will be at peace here. No one will bother you. I ordered it to be inspected and provided with decent furniture. (The apartment is really good, in the Synodal courtyard, near the Semenov barracks. The Archbishop of Kazan, Vladimir, with his retinue was staying here at that time.) 50 “The Emperor ordered you to be given one hundred rubles a month, in addition to your income, for the entire time that you are in St. Petersburg at my orders. “Farewell, Father Archimandrite! You will come to me when I appoint. Now we are on vacation. I live in the country. I will tell Alexander Ivanovich (Karasevsky) when you should come to me. “Please meet him: we will work together.” In conclusion, the Count handed me the Notebook of Theology of the Kamenets-Podolsk Rector, Nathanael (now Bishop of Arkhangelsk) 51, and said: “Read this Notebook and tell me your thoughts about it. To tell the truth, they say, and I, too, seem to see, that there is not much scholarship here: but he is interesting for us. Let’s listen to what you have to say.” I left the Count, full of thoughts, large, unprecedented, preoccupied me, even threatening to suppress me. A few days later I came to the Count with Nathanael’s Notes. Count: “Have you read it? What is the Summary? Me. – Not lively, strange, false. There is a lot of superfluous and unnecessary stuff, but not enough useful stuff. “In the Notes there are many speeches about ecclesiastical principles that clergymen are required to know. They know them without our teaching; according to what is written about them in the Church Charter. “If I could force Fr. Nathanael write 52. According to his Abstract of Theology, he would be ashamed to show it to people. She would not be a mentor to anyone. Everything he talks about is already set out in the Charter. “Such a theology would be a book of several pages, a kind of commemoration. Most of his questions in the Notes can be answered with one, two, three words, for example, Question: “When should candles be lit? Answer: “At the beginning of the service. Question: “When should I put my palm in the censer?” Answer: Before incense. “Question: “When should I extinguish the candles?” Answer: At the end of the service,” etc., etc. The Count smiled and gave me space to say what I wanted. I talked a lot. Then a conversation ensued about our formation, apparently by the way. but in fact it was prepared deliberately. The Count began: “I heard your speeches, Fr. Archimandrite. I am not a deep expert in your theology. But here's what: “You studied not so much for yourself as for us: you are our teachers in the faith. “But we don’t understand you. Your Theology is very pompous. Your sermons are high. We don't understand you. You don't have a vernacular language. “You are alienated from churchliness. You don't know practical worship. You consider it low for yourself to know and study it: this makes you laugh when you enter into a sacred position. You don’t know how to sing or read, you don’t know the Church Rules. You are led by Sextons; The well-read philistines are mocking you. “There is no specialty in your schools. You want to be and be revered universally as scholars. This is a mistake. Every cadet here knows the march and the gun; the sailor knows how to name the last nail of the ship, knows its place and strength; the engineer will count all kinds of crowbars, shovels, hooks, ropes. But you spiritual ones do not know your spiritual things! “You invented some kind of language for yourself, like doctors, mathematicians, sailors. Without interpretation you will not be understood. This is also not good. Speak to us in a language we understand, teach the law of God in such a way that the last man can understand you the first time!” There were many speeches in a similar spirit. At the same time, he was only preparing for what I would soon be caught doing. They began to send me various projects, unnamed, in which this or that was condemned in our schools. I don’t remember their content, but I remember that they are abusive, sarcastic, mocking, deliberately false and often very petty (the Count’s previous speeches are proof of this). I was sad after learning that some notebooks and articles against our teaching methods were written treacherously by our own people! I was called again to the Count. Here are his speeches: “Think carefully and tell me: what needs to be changed in the Seminaries? How to simplify existing sciences? Is it necessary to introduce new ones, and which ones exactly? Shouldn't some sciences be curtailed and others should be completely eliminated? “Remember: The Seminary is not the Academy. Professors come from the Academy: they need to know a lot. From the Seminaries they enter the priesthood in the villages. They need to know rural life and be able to be useful to the peasant even in his everyday affairs. “What is such a huge Theology for a rural Priest? “Why does he need Philosophy, the science of freethinking, nonsense, egoism, fanfare? “What does he need Trigonometry, differentials, integrals? “Let them thoroughly solidify the Catechism, the Church Rules, and Musical Singing. And that's enough! Let high sciences remain in the Academies. “Read the Seminary Charter thoroughly and say what you find necessary in it to be corrected, changed, abolished, or supplemented.” I left the Count sad. I saw that they wanted to make me an instrument of humiliation and disorder of our scientific part, they wanted to put me in contradiction and hostility with the clergy, with the authorities, they wanted to rebuild my beliefs, they wanted to impose on me their way of thinking, so frivolous, so hostile to us. I listened to speeches and declamations of this kind for a whole month (until July 15) both from the Chief Prosecutor himself and from his assistant, Alexander Iv. Karasevsky. They caressed me, they threatened me, they called me to debates. With sadness I listened to extremely disrespectful judgments about the great Philaret of Moscow, and even more often about other Saints. I had neither advisers nor mentors in St. Petersburg: my brothers shunned me, some out of envy, and most out of timidity. Even the Members of the Synod kept me distant and aloof from them. His Eminence Nathanael of Pskov 53, having heard from me that I was forbidden to say what I was doing with the Chief Prosecutor, now stopped being curious about this, even asked me not to remind him of this with a word. I was left alone, to myself. To the Count's credit, I will say. Speaking to me so decisively and boldly, he did not prevent me from speaking just as decisively and boldly. I took advantage of this leniency, and spoke with ardor and enthusiasm everything that came to my mind, that I thought at home, in defense of our teaching, our schools, your orders. I showed the strength and value of our sciences, explained our fidelity to the spirit of Orthodoxy. I expressed grave fears about the introduction of secularism and modern frivolities into our staid schools. Some of these speeches were written down by me seven years later. Here they are: “The All-Merciful Sovereign, caring for the clergy in the same way as for other states, with the transformations that he ordains for us, of course, wants to elevate us, and not to degrade us. “But the transformations that Your Excellency proposes essentially refer to the derogation and weakening of our spiritual enlightenment. “It is true that you propose to introduce new, perhaps useful sciences (Agriculture and Medicine) into the Seminary, but they, being placed between the currently existing sciences, of which not a single one is useless, will constrain them and reduce them, which will result in loss, not gain. “You say: “We are very learned, not only the villagers do not understand us, even the townspeople.” I think this is irony, by which they mean that we ourselves do not know how to interpret what we say, that is, we do not understand ourselves. “I agree that among us there are pedants who spout pompous nonsense in loud phrases. However, there are not many of them. And here it is not science that is to blame, but those empty heads who love their absurdities, over which most of us smile, and sometimes we persecute them. I also think that under this reproach lies envy and annoyance that the clergy equates itself in education with other privileged classes, among which are Cadet Corps, Lyceums, Gymnasiums, Institutes, Universities. “We are required to present the lofty truths of Divine Revelation in the language of the people. There is also either a misunderstanding or hidden envy here. “The truth: Christ expressed his truths in completely simple language, understandable to everyone. However, it was pure, selective, noble language, and not vulgar and ugly, as other folk writers write. The exemplary sermon of Von-Visin 54 was recognized by Metropolitan Plato as a reproach and mockery of teaching from the church pulpit. “And a secular, intelligent writer chooses for his work a language that is noble, important, and appropriate to the subject. Karamzin wrote the History of the Russian State in high and selective language. The language of Russian politics and laws is always high and noble.” In this tone I spoke a lot, defended in particular almost every science existing in the Seminaries. He especially protected Theology, and even demanded expansion. I argued and defended the Philosopher for a long time. Spoke: “It’s in vain that you take away Philosophy from us. With us she is humble; for he is bridled by theology. We have supervision: Bishop, Rector, Inspector, exams: we will not allow the Professor to talk. And who is our Professor of Philosophy? Ours, from us, studied with us. “We need Philosophy to reveal and strengthen the rigor and correctness of thinking. to familiarize oneself with natural, speculative and moral truths, on which Holy Revelation rests its heavenly truths. Revelation itself becomes conscious and firm after a correct understanding of the truths of nature. “Are you afraid of our liberties? But is there any reason for such fears? For almost a hundred years, complete Philosophy has been taught in our Seminaries: our students of Philosophy have not stained themselves with any liberties. “Emperor Alexander Pavlovich destroyed the Philosopher at the Universities, fearing, of course, liberties. What happened? Empty sciences, sciences without grain, made the heads of students empty: and we have the misfortune of recording December 14, 1825 in History! At this point the Count, who was quite patient, interrupted me and said excitedly: “Leave it alone! I don't want to listen to your apologies. Expel the philosopher from the Seminary! I declare the will of the Emperor! “You don’t know: when I reminded the Emperor that Philosophy is read in spiritual Seminars, the Emperor exclaimed with anger and bewilderment: “How? Do the spiritual have a Philosopher, that ungodly, godless, rebellious science? Banish her! “The Emperor does not tolerate the very name Philosophy.” Here I fell silent. On July 15, I was forced to compose the Charter. I finished it by September 9th. Articles about the Seminar sciences were left: I wrote only about administration, educational, moral, economic. Wrote the Charter and the Seminary and Schools. For a long time I stood by the fact that there is no need to write a new Charter; that the existing Charter is considered good. I asked now to allow me to calculate only what I thought would be useful in the Charter to change, cancel, or add to. I was not respected. It was especially sad to listen to the Count’s insulting speeches about Metropolitan Philaret. I, however, almost always stood up for him, not out of partiality, but because I wanted to express my convictions. XVIII. At the end of September 1838, Metropolitan Philaret arrived in St. Petersburg. I immediately came to him and told him what I was doing here. The Metropolitan could hardly restrain his anger and annoyance, then considering the writings of the new Charter for theological schools a personal insult to himself, because he wrote the previous Charters of the Academy, Seminary and Schools. Said: “Over time, the Charter may require revision. Maybe other things need to be changed: maybe something needs to be added. But there was no need to completely rebuild the business, which had been going well for about thirty years. “I wrote the draft Charter on the instructions of Metropolitan Ambrose of St. Petersburg, who undertook this matter not only with the knowledge, but also after a satisfied discussion about it in the Holy Synod. (The Bishop allowed me to add the last part of the speech, i.e., that both the Prosecutor and I, unreasonably and incorrectly, without asking the Synod, wrote the new Charter ourselves.) “I wrote all four statutes - Academies, Seminaries, District and Parish Schools in six weeks” 55. Happy man! He had a legal assignment, from the legal authority, and was left to his own freedom and prudently, not depending on anyone or anything. On the contrary, I was under non-ecclesiastical authority, was deprived of freedom and was forced to do someone else’s work that I did not approve of. However, Vladyka found some things good, for example, the Scientific Council under the Rector, promotion of mentors, year-long transfers, seven years in the Seminary and five in the School, and something else. I will say: The Charter that I drew up froze in the Synod. It is, of course, now in the Archives. Who and what detained him in the Synod remained unknown to me until now. A significant transformation has been made in the educational part: but this was undertaken by the Synod itself. XIX. Count Protasov was in a hurry and tried in every possible way to rebuild our educational institutions in a secular manner in whatever way he could. So he introduced the division of student rooms, separating special rooms for the bedrooms, which students were not allowed to enter from the morning, when they got up, until the evening, when they went to bed. This transformation began at the St. Petersburg Academy, and was introduced in September 1838, and was strictly observed by the Prosecutor. I told M. Filaret about this immediately upon his arrival. He was surprised, saying: “Really?” (next, Protasov did this without asking the Synod.) Then he said: “That’s how cunning the devil is.” “Now the Students will be fools. The freedom to have their own peace was taken away from them.” Indeed, from that time on, some kind of helipad began to creep into both our Academy and Seminary. Although, however, there were many other reasons for this. It was a pity to look at the Academy Students. They were collected twice as thick (for half of the rooms were separated for bedrooms). Their rooms were made through passages, so that they lived, as it were, in the square. Accustomed to lying down in bed during the hours free from classes, even, for example, to think, to read a book, to memorize lessons, the poor Students collected stools and somehow lay down on them. XX. Because of me, two Metropolitans got into a quarrel, both Philaret, Moscow and Kiev. Here are the cases: Priest Krasnotsvetov, an excellent Master of the St. Petersburg Academy 56, who was for some time in Switzerland under Anna Fedorovna. to the wife of Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, from whom he divorced 57, at her church the Priest wrote there, from a German book (by imitation, or with a literal translation, I don’t know) a Bible story for children. Two decent books: one of the Old Testament, the other of the New Testament. The story is divided into lessons, each of which is divided into two parts: the first is the story itself, the second is the moral teaching. Returning to St. Petersburg, Fr. Krasnotsvetov published this story of his. At this time, Emperor Nicholas had children in adolescence and early youth. The story was liked at Court. The public found out about this. They started reading and buying in great demand. Plushart-speculator bookseller, a Frenchman, gave the artists to compose decent pictures for each lesson, sent them to Paris to cut them on steel, and began to print the book, putting pictures in it, in thousands of copies. The Minister of Education 58 gave strict instructions to teach Sacred History using this book. The book thundered throughout Russia and was carried everywhere by carts. This was in 1837. This year, Filaret of Moscow remained in Moscow due to illness. In Moscow, he was besieged by men and women with questions about this book. The questions were like this: “Have you read, Your Eminence, the new Sacred History of some St. Petersburg Priest? "Oh. My God! What a divine book! What a sweet story, so many teachings, and how fitting and proper it is! “This is the first time we are reading such a divine book. “This is a real gift for children. They read it voraciously. “And we, the older ones, are simply delighted and enjoy reading it.” Such persistent praise, so persistent, so excited, forced Filaret to read the book carefully. Filaret found the book worthless and wrote a review of it, which he submitted to the Synod, proposing to ban such a book. Filaret’s review is such that it not only cannot be refuted (it is based on excerpts from the book), but it can also be mitigated or avoided with apologies for the errors: he was too reckless, seductive, harmful. The Synod was forced to ban the book and demanded that it be taken away and destroyed. Russia was amazed. The Minister of Education (Uvarov) was furious; thought in the Palace. The book was taken away and soon completely forgotten. The book is truly insignificant, reckless, and sometimes criminal. I don't blame much about. Krasnotsvetova. He was young. Europe has turned religion into sensuality and mixed it with it. Our young Priest got carried away. I saw him in St. Petersburg (he was at the church of the Smolensk cemetery): meek and thoughtful. Just marvel at our Russian public: how falsely they are disposed in matters of faith and piety; how frivolous she is in these great subjects; how little the spirit of Orthodoxy knows, how delicious it is to all the madness of Europe. But this story produced another between us. According to the Charter of Spiritual Censorship, a book approved by it cannot go into print before the Synod allows it. When the Metropolitan of Moscow visited St. Petersburg, the Censorship usually presented the book to him and received permission from him. In 1837, when this book was published, Filaret of Moscow was not in St. Petersburg. Therefore, the book was given by censorship to Filaret of Kiev, who was here. Philaret cannot read such a huge manuscript, from which two books came out, in order to say whether it is suitable for printing or not. He asked the Censor who presented it (Archim. Clement:) “Is the book good?” The censor answered: “Good.” Filaret gave permission to print. When Filaret of Moscow submitted his report to the Synod, demanding the banning of the book: Filaret of Kiev took this as a personal insult. Holding his grudge, he waited for an opportunity to take revenge. This case was delivered to the Metropolitan of Kiev by the Notes of the Rector of the Vyatka Seminary, Nikodim (i.e., mine), which was highly praised by the Metropolitan of Moscow. When the Synod spoke about me and my Notes (they wanted to print it and send it to the Seminaries, as a guide and for a sample), Filaret of Kiev said: “I haven’t read the Vyatka Rector’s Notes: let me read it.” Filaret read it for a whole month, and made many notes, which all amount to condemnation, refutation, and reproach. After reading it, he made the following inscription on the first sheet: “The writer has noticeable abilities, and especially the erudition of the newest, so-called German Theologians, but he lacks maturity and correctness of judgment. Its outline is neither for Theological Seminaries nor for Theological Academies. "Filaret, Metropolitan of Kiev." Then Filaret returned my Notes. Thus, I became a bone of contention between the two great Filarets. At the same time, a strange rumor spread that my Notes did not belong to me at all; as if he is the work of Philaret of Moscow himself, and I am just a copyist. “According to this, Filaret of Moscow, praising the Vyatka Rector’s Notes, praised himself.” “And who the hell is Nikodim Vyatsky! A child who completed a course at the Academy seven years ago, and is not at all known for anything special either at the Academy, or in the service, or in the Seminaries. “And Philaret, de, Moscow, who really wanted to shine in Theology, wanted to show off himself. That’s why he chose an insignificant Rector, but from his Academy and from his Diocese.” 59 This rumor, which of course reached Filaret of Kiev, further encouraged him to pay Moskovsky with a similar coin. When Filaret of Kiev arrived in St. Petersburg (also at the end of September, or in October 1838), I, along with others, bowed to him. He took care of me. I tried to appear cautious. It was you who spoke to me, not you. He asked me: “Whose am I from, where did I study, how long ago did I finish my course, where did I serve? Then he carefully asked about what I was doing?” I told him that I was writing a new Charter for Seminaries and Schools and had already submitted it to the Chief Prosecutor. (I might not have told him this: but I didn’t want to seem disobedient in front of such a father). In detail, Filaret interrupted me several times with questions: a) Moskovsky, i.e., Filaret, told you to do this); b) Did you hear this from Moskovsky? c) Was this recommended to you by Moskovsky? Did you ask Moskovsky about this? It was sad for me to see so much cowardice in such a tall person. (Filaret of Kiev, in a speech with me, only called Philaret of Moscow “Moscow”, without adding a single other word. On the contrary, Filaret of Moscow, speaking to me about Kiev, always said: (Vladyka of Kiev, Metropolitan of Kiev, Eminence of Kiev).” So secular people do not say: “Metropolitan, Bishop, etc.,” but only: “Kiev, Moscow, St. Petersburg, local.” I regret the turmoil. My Notes are good and approved as the work of the young Rector. If this creation of mine were to be imposed on the great Philaret, they would dishonor him. In addition to many immaturities (which I myself later saw), there are even historical, homiletical, hermineutical, archaeological, and even dogmatic errors. Should we attribute them to the Great Filaret? Many years later, when I myself was already in the rank of Bishop, I, under the form of congratulations on the holidays, wrote more than once to Philaret of Kyiv, asking him for forgiveness for myself, explaining my situation in St. Petersburg, and calling him to the correct view of events. I don't know if he understood? But I received several responses from him that were very supportive and well-intentioned. This is how the devil traps himself in his net, with our little care! XXI. They promised to print my Notes and give me a Doctorate, and even nominated me for the Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy (see Article XVII). But the blasphemy of my Notes by the Metropolitan of Kiev ruined the whole thing. Filaret of Moscow, however, came up with a way in which it was possible to partially console me, and not to upset Filaret of Kiev. With the consent of Count Protasov, Filaret of Moscow ordered me to carefully revise my Notes and make an extract from it, in such a way as to release all those places over which Philaret of Kiev made a sharp and decisive denial. They promised to publish such an extract. Filaret of Moscow, I think, not only wanted to console me, but also to bring good benefit to Seminaries and Theology, because in my grandfather himself, my Notes are useful in many ways. The Bishop of Moscow was so merciful and attentive to me and to the matter that he decided to be my leader and censor in this matter. I presented the extraction notebook I had prepared to the Vladyka; he read it, gave instructions: I redid it again. The work, however, was considerable on my part, and apparently burdened Vladyka, given his other high duties in the Synod and the Diocese. Yes, and I did not observe caution and prudence, namely: a) Made too extensive an extract (twenty sheets); b) he rebuilt a lot, and often spoiled it rather than improved it. This matter did not receive the desired end. It got lost and ended in nothing. Perhaps the Metropolitan of Moscow himself found the measure he took unsafe: because of me, one could be afraid of an important, open enmity between the Metropolitan of Kyiv and the Moscow. Meanwhile, Protasov apparently lost interest in me after he saw in me a stubborn defender of the old order and, therefore, not a helper for himself. I don't justify myself either. It seems that no matter how learned I was, I was found frivolous, short-sighted, careless, stubborn. Perhaps my very scholarship, with my personal explanations, did not seem as brilliant as it appeared in my writing - in the Notes. It should also be said that the Synod itself rebelled against the Count’s projects, and he had no time for me; and then it was not the right time for Philaret of Moscow to preen me. Here, however, I must say that Filaret of Moscow, when reading extracts from my Notes (in front of me), who repeatedly entered into discussions where Filaret of Kiev was mentioned, never allowed himself even a hint of blasphemy against Kyiv; Vladyka even stopped my immodest speeches about Kiev in a fatherly and stern manner. Once on a similar occasion he said: “What should I do? You need to respect your elders. It’s not for an old man to endure from a young man. More: “The Kiev Bishop looks only at the titles in the Notes and is frightened by the terms, thinking that they want to justify all sins and errors. No: they will be refuted in the Notes.” “The Bishop of Kyiv and I studied from old books: you, young people, began to study from new ones. Why should I be angry with you?” XXII. I have bothered Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow more than once with my indignation and annoyance that the Philosopher is being taken away from the Seminary and other high sciences are being curtailed, for example, Biblical Church History, and other useless ones are imposing, for example, Agriculture, Medicine. Filaret once said to this: “What should we do? You have to give something to them, too: otherwise everything will be taken away.” At that time I could not understand the depth of this short speech. Subsequently, I had the opportunity to see with my own eyes and hear with my own ears the event of this prophetic speech. XXIII. The matter of science in the Seminary, according to the new Charter, was transferred to the Synod. Metropolitan Seraphim relied on two Filarets, and they entered into an agreement and wrote what was published in 1840 60. Filaret of Kyiv subsequently was completely of one mind with Moscow and considered the latter’s opinion to be law. The truth has shone: virtue has driven away the spirit of enmity 61. XXIV. At the end of 1838, in the village of Komlevo, Ruza Uyezd, Moscow diocese, Priest Vladimir Semenovich Ushakov, childless, died. This is the place of my homeland. Here my parent, Ivan Ivanovich Kazantsev, was a sexton. At this time, his eldest daughter, Evdokia, a widow and sexton, lived with my father. She had two daughters, of whom the eldest, also Evdokia, was a bride. I decided to apply for this priestly place for the groom of the young woman Evdokia. Reported to Vladyka Philaret. He told me: “Give me a person and a request!” I immediately wrote to my efficient son-in-law, Yegor Kirillovich Dobronravov (now an archpriest in the city of Dmitrov), and he immediately found a meek and intelligent Seminarian, Nikolai Yegorovich Ozerov. The matter ended well. Nikolai and Evdokia lived happily in the place of the Priest in Komlev. Princess Anna Alexandrovna Menshikova, the landowner of the village of Komleva, did not agree for a long time (out of an empty whim: she gave approval to the deacon before my letter to her about this). But Filaret insisted. The young people lived happily. My parents were respected. But they were not destined to console themselves with life for long. Evdokia died in the 7th year of marriage (after childbirth); Nikolai was sad, and a year later he himself died. They left behind a child - Alexandra. At my request, the same Yegor Kirillovich procured her a room in the Gorikhvostovsky (it seems) house, 62 where this young woman grew up in good teaching and good supervision. When this Alexandra turned 16 years old (it seems in 1857), the same Yegor Kirillovich married her to a good Seminarian, Dmitry Stepanovich Vozdvizhensky, who to this day is a Priest in the village of Georgievsky Pogost, Volokolamsk Uyezd. I placed this little story here in order 1) to see the virtue and love of children of Metropolitan Philaret; 2) by this example to prove that prudent patronage, based on virtues, is not at all a vice and weakness, but, on the contrary, is a godly, humane, reasonable matter. XXV. In March 1839 I was commissioned to read and give feedback on Russian Grammar, Op. Archimandrite Macarius, Rector of the S.P.B. Seminary. (He was retired from Tver Seminary.) At this time, the Russian Grammar of Greek was used in the Theological Schools. Karasevsky, at that time the Governor of the Affairs of the Commission of Theological Schools 63, was annoyed with Grech's Grammar because its author valued it dearly and did not sell the right to print it. To these speeches I added my own, calling this Grammar frivolous, erroneous, confused (especially in verbs). Karasevsky asked me to revise the Grammar of Fr. Macarius, wondering whether it is possible to print it and replace the Grammar of Grech with it. I found out that the Metropolitan had read it. Moscow Filaret did not approve. I read it myself, and also could not approve, even in my judgment. Then Karasevsky said to me: Wouldn’t you like me to take the trouble to write a Grammar? I undertook it willingly, although, incidentally, also frivolously: I thought of writing it in three months, but meanwhile I wrote it for six months. By order of Karasevsky, I have collected up to 47 Russian Grammars, starting with Lomonosov, even older than him, it seems, Smotritsky 64. But after reading this bunch of books, I saw that Lomonosov’s Grammar is the foundation for all the others, and that most of the Grammar is the most frivolous and often erroneous. Having written the Grammar, I gave it to Karasevsky and the Count; they handed it over to Konstantin Stepanovich Serbikovich (Manager of the Office) of the Chief Prosecutor) 65. I had several conversations with this man: undoubtedly a scientist, he studied with the Jesuits (he said it himself), whose teaching rules do not agree with ours. I soon broke up with him. I demanded my Grammar from him. Metropolitan Philaret wished to see my Grammar. He read it in front of me and noticed it. He promised to print it for the Moscow Schools even then, if the secular ones had not agreed to print it for all our schools; however, he added: “Would you agree that I give your Grammar to read and give an opinion to one of the Moscow ones. Rectors Spirit. Schools? I readily agreed. The Metropolitan, in 1841, leaving St. Petersburg, took my Grammar, and in Moscow gave it to the Rector of the Don Schools, Priest (after Archpriest) Alexander Efimovich Nechaev (my comrade, eminent, first Student, son of the Moscow (Theodoro-Stulig) Priest. O. Nechaev severely criticized my Grammar, calling it arrogant, dreamy, and therefore worthless. The Metropolitan returned my Grammar to me, already in Odessa, in 1842, with a letter in which he expressed regret that after such disapproving criticism, he could no longer order the publication of my Grammar. The Good Master began to compare the criticism with the Grammar, and made several notes, all of which were in my favor: but seeing the enthusiasm of the criticism, constantly growing, and at the same time, of course, finding me not always right, he left the difficult work after two, three pages. True, everyone has their own opinion. True, I too condemned Makariev’s Grammar. But I could not excuse Alexander Evfimovich for his frenzy, his personal bitterness against me, and therefore his not easy mistakes. During our studies at the Academy, I always respected him as a regular, meek, noble young man, always equal to himself: why did he hate me? – As the son of a village clerk, of course, I was not as delicate as the son of a capital priest: but I also did not want to be vile. XXVI. On March 1, 1839, by personal decree of the Sovereign, the Commission of Theological Schools was closed. Its affairs were transferred to the Synod. At the same time, the Offices of the Synod and Chief Prosecutor were expanded, the Spiritual-Educational Administration and the Economic Administration were created on a large scale, with an increase in persons, who, however, were all secular, with large salaries, from the Spiritual-educational capital. Bishop Philaret, talking about this with me, said: “This is what you have lived to see here: under you, the Commission was abolished!” It was said in a soft tone, with a half-smile: I didn’t understand her then, and I don’t understand her clearly now. Sorrow mixed with joy. In fact, secular people also sat on the Commission: Meshchersky, Golitsyn 66, Chief Prosecutor: they, of course, interfered with the spiritual ones. Meanwhile, the Great Philaret himself could not yet sufficiently say what would be good and what would not be good from this innovation. XXVII. On February 13, 1840, Tuesday of the week of the Prodigal Son, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. This idea of ​​mine was written down by me at the present time. I write it down literally: “I arrived at 10 o’clock in the afternoon. They reported me and ordered me to wait. I went to Alexander Petrovich Svyatoslavsky (Vladyka’s Clerk). I stayed for about twenty minutes. The Lord demanded. I enter, I bow; received a blessing. Ordered to sit closer. Vladyka: “What are you doing now?” J. – Wrote a hypothesis about the translation of the Holy Fathers. Q. “What were your main thoughts?” ME (Hesitates). – It is assumed that the work of translation will be divided among the Academies; type in lessons, periodically... V. “Your project is not good. Periodic urgent work and typing 1) will make it difficult for the Academy, especially during the exam months and graduation year; 2) it is not convenient because it will dissect the integrity of the Father’s creations; 3) it’s not good that the translator is paid per sheet. What might happen here is that they will rush to translate in order to pay more money, but will not take care of the perfection of the translation. “Are the Academies really idle that you bore them with such painful labors? If students in the Academies are obliged to carry out strict instructions for these extraneous works, they will not be good in the classroom: you will take away their time. Would you recommend such work to the Vyatka Rector (i.e., me) (This was said half-seriously and with a half-smile). “Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsy decided to manage our spiritual affairs. He, however, is given the right to do this. Yes, he does it very prudently that, not knowing our affairs, he uses one of ours (i.e., me) for this. Everything is forgiven for him. He speaks as he understands and as presented to him (i.e., from me). But why didn’t you think enough to ask anyone older than you, but instead began to solve such difficult problems that concern the entire clergy with your own head?” I did not dare to bother, being separated from the spiritual by my present position, which I constantly regret. Lord. “Such apologies are no good; I don't like them. What is there to be afraid of disturbing when it comes to the common good? Would I be good if, walking at night, I saw a man who had fallen into a hole, and passed by him because, not being able to get him out alone, I did not dare to disturb a neighbor living nearby? Who refused you, and who will refuse? There is nothing to fear here: it is not a secret. And the elder’s advice would be firm, useful to you, and useful.” After a short silence, the Bishop sighed heavily with a prayer: “Confirmation of those who hope in you, establish, O Lord, the Church!” It seems that we already live on the outskirts of Babylon, if not in it itself. How little is noticed by the signs of the Almighty Providence, which counteract and are used to expose wrongdoing! Where are they going? what do they want? But it’s a pity that they are reducing it!, and taking away power altogether: apparently, this is God’s will - for our sins. But it is a pity that the common good suffers. They only spoil everything, not improve it.” These are the last words of the Lord. Then he turned to me and asked: What did I come for? I hesitated; because I came to listen to him more. However, he said: “I would like to hear about my Grammar.” Lord. “Well, my fault. Now scold me. I haven't read your Grammar yet. No time: otherwise I was sick.” So much was recorded at the same time. First. About Grammar (see above XXV Art.). Second. About the Holy Fathers Translation Project: In my many conversations with Karasevsky (I was his kind of companion, novice, executor of his orders, on the orders of Count Protasov), I more than once entered into discussions about the translation of classical antiquity - Greek and Latin into the Russian language, and certified that only from the time classical antiquity is translated into Russian can we expect that independent classical education will be established in Russia. This is how it was with the British, the French, and the Germans. Moreover, I argued even more persistently that only from the time Russian theologians read the Holy Fathers in Russian can we expect that they will be independent: mature theologians, and will not depend on Latin, German, French and English theologians and theologians. Karasevsky suggested that I put these thoughts on paper. I did it and gave it to him. Karasevsky apparently came to Metropolitan Philaret with this project of mine. Due to my characteristic frivolity and haste (and maybe I was in a hurry), I forgot (I’m sorry) to first come to the Metropolitan with this project. (My answer to Filaret to this question is not sincere, it is false. See above.) Maybe I was also afraid to present this project of mine to the Vladyka because I could expect disapproval from him (as happened). I will say, however: after this project of mine, two years later, they actually began to translate Gregory the Theologian at the Moscow Academy, and Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and then John Chrysostom at the St. Petersburg Academy of Historians. And from Vladyka’s conversation with me it is partly clear that his reproaches to me were truly fatherly. But it is impossible to express on paper the angelic meekness and good wishes of the Lord that were printed on his lips, in his gaze, tone of speech and movements at that time. He scolded me; but I would like to hear such creative, warming, joyful abuse more often. It was clear that Vladyka was not joking with what he said. And, carried away by the sweetness of truth, he forgot the immeasurable distance between him and his little listener: he spoke to me as a person not much older than me. Of course, on this blessed time I had many other speeches from the Vladyka (he usually held me for an hour, and sometimes much more); they weren’t written down then, and now I don’t remember anything. XXVIII. In 1840, on the Ascension of the Lord, May 4, I asked to serve with Metropolitan Philaret in his home church, at the Trinity Metochion. I come to church. I see another Archimandrite, also preparing to serve with the Lord. This is Archimandrite Macarius, the first and famous Altai missionary 67. They served with the Vladyka. (Makariy did not allow me to take second place, as I wanted, respecting his years and exploits; but he decisively rejected, saying: “You are at the service; I left it.”) After the service, according to custom, we went to the Vladyka for tea. The living room is full of gentlemen and almost exclusively women, some of whom are very young. Fr. and I Makar1em barely got the last two chairs. After drinking a cup of tea, Fr. Macarius stood up, accepted the blessing from the Vladyka, and left. In the hall about. Macarius stopped me and began to ask who I was, where I was from and what I was doing here. Having said abruptly in five words, I asked Fr. Macarius: leave the hall and promise to talk to him in his cell as much as he wishes. Macarius did not listen, but began to walk back and forth around the hall, holding my hand and asking me to tell me more and more about myself. I was on pins and needles, fearing every minute that the guests would leave the Vladyka. Macarius reassured: “No; the guests will stay with the Lord for a long time.” I was ashamed to rudely refuse Fr. Macarius; I began to walk around the hall with him. The living room opens, the noblewomen come out, turning around as usual and tenderly bowing to the Vladyka; and I threw both my hands back and bowed. The Bishop was about to go out into the hall behind the boyars and graciously bowed to them, but when he saw us, he flushed, lightning flashed in his eyes; He quickly turned back and slammed the door behind him so that the windows rattled. So the semi-foolish Archimandrite Macarius led me into temptation. After this, Makaria did not stop me, and we each went to our own place. However, I once visited Fr. Macarius in his cell (at the Vladyka's courtyard). I remember that the conversation was interesting, but now I don’t remember what it was about. At that time he came to St. Petersburg, by the way, with his translation of the Prophets from Hebrew into Russian. He asked the Holy Synod to allow him to publish this translation. At the time it seemed sacrilege. Metropolitan Seraphim said (allegedly) in the Synod about this translation of the Prophets: “This translation is in the oven!” Now, however, it has been printed 68. After this difficult scene, I did not consider it long to appear before the Lord and look at his Angelic-virgin gaze and face. The Good Master apparently forgave me: I didn’t dare to justify myself, but he didn’t start talking about it, and was still merciful to me. XXIX. On the day of St. Nicholas, December 6, 1839, I, as a successive Archimandrite, had to preach a sermon where the main bishop's service was (Emperor Nicholas celebrated his namesake on this day). The service took place in the Naval St. Nicholas Cathedral. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow served. The archimandrite speaking the sermon does not serve on this day; speak your sermon in the sacrament, in the robe. Filaret ordered me to preach a sermon in “Be the name of the Lord!”..., and sat down at the royal doors to hear my sermon and see me myself. It was a misfortune: the sermon was rewritten by someone else’s hand, and not by me (before I always rewrote it myself); written by an illiterate clerk; There is absolute darkness in the cathedral (on the lower floor); I don't learn my sermons by heart. Therefore, I had a chance to take the notebook in my hands, and, bringing it close to my eyes, read it as a lesson, constantly caring only about not misrepresenting my speech. It was very sad! This was the only opportunity in my life to preach a sermon in front of such a great connoisseur of ours. Filaret, however, listened carefully to my entire sermon; told me its contents. He did not praise (but without reproaching) my natural evidence of the immortality of the soul. (In a church sermon this is almost unnecessary, said the Bishop). However, he spoke favorably about the sermon. This was said by the Bishop not in church, but at home, much later. After mass, the Metropolitan went to the local Archpriest, Timofey Feropontovich Nikolsky (1st year Master, St. Petersburg Academy and student of Philaret) 69 . Only stayed here for a cup of tea. Here, between several secular ones, was Gorgoli, a deep old man with many stars. He recently painted (at his own expense, and almost with his own hand) the Nikolaevsky altar. On the walls of the window, in a high place, are depicted, in a colossal form, the four Evangelists, with symbols - Angels. It seems that there are only symbols without Evangelists. At Ev. Mark's lion is huge and terribly ferocious. Filaret said: “In the spiritual world, the celestials, there is no ferocity. You would do better if you gave the Angels a softer look.” – Gorgoli listened and humbly bowed, as a sign of agreement and as if asking for an apology. XXX. On Philaret's Day, December 1, 1839, I obliged myself to serve with the Vladyka of Moscow in his courtyard. Filaret said thank you, but through clenched teeth. Then I just thought that I was annoying with my obsession. No: Vladyka protected himself and me from slander and suspicion: then they insisted that Nicodemus himself was a child, like any young Rector; but that Filaret cherishes him for reasons that everyone found in his black soul, clutching at the first thing that came his way, always to reproach Filaret. True, I always called Filaret to both Count Protasov and Karasevsky, and did not allow him to be humiliated in front of me: but this was only justice on my part. And Filaret only appreciated what was in me, and how I seemed to him. For tea, after mass, I went to the steward of the monastery (Innokenty, now Archimandrite, Abbot of the Andronnikov Monastery) 70 . The Metropolitan, at this time, had nobles wearing ribbons and stars. Their crews blocked Troitskaya Street and the courtyard square. (I was, on November 8, with Metropolitan Seraphim (the day of his angel). There are many people, but only spiritual ones. And there are almost no secular nobility). XXXI. On December 12, 1839 (the birthday of the late Emperor Alexander Pavlovich), we served with Metropolitan Philaret in the fortress, in the Peter and Paul Cathedral. The Bishop caught a cold. In the cathedral, when you come to serve, it is 11 degrees Celsius, but when you finish the service, it will be only 3 degrees. Moreover, some strong and piercing current of air goes from the church to the altar, through the royal doors. Some ladies advised Vladyka to have a warm cassock with down: that’s why he caught a cold (they said). Filaret deeply honored the memory of the great Alexander; 71 for, in addition to what many know, he knew something that, perhaps, is still not known about this great Sovereign. XXXII. On December 19, 1839, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Between conversations, he said: “and foreign newspapers are frightening with something hostile against the Faith and the Church in the future 1840.” Then there was talk about false prophets, about Stieling 72. It is a pity that the Vladyka’s speeches were not recorded at that time. They are certainly interesting. Filaret was not carried away by these false prophets: I know that for sure. And, however, he was not indifferent to them, at least he did not despise them. Here I remember a circumstance: Borodino Abbess Maria Tuchkova (native of Naryshkin) showed me the Bible of Metropolitan Philaret, which he gave her. The Bible in eighteenth century, stereotypical, Bible. Society, no citations below. The Bible is full of notes and notes in Philaret’s hand and ink. I remember the marks in the Apocalypse: above some Angel with a trumpet it is marked on the field: “Mrs. Gion?” 73 It is worth looking for this Bible and purchasing it for the common treasury in memory of the great Philaret. XXXIII. January 9, 1840, an old woman comes to me, in rags, half-intelligent, but impudent. Says: “I am a maiden of ecclesiastical rank. From Moscow. I came to St. Petersburg on foot. I want to complain to the Emperor about Metropolitan Philaret for this reason: I had a brother who was a Priest. He died and so did his wife. They left behind a daughter, a young woman. I brought her to the Metropolitan. He assigned her to the Gorikhvostovsky institution and said: “Let your niece study in this institution, and when she grows up, we will give her a groom.” The girl learned, grew up, I brought her to Filaret and said: “Give her a groom, as promised!” – Filaret said: “It’s none of my business. Look for it yourself, and I’ll give you a place.” It was for this reason that this half-intelligent old woman came on foot in the cold, in rags, to complain to the Emperor. She came to me, it seems, so that I would instruct her on how and where to submit a request, even so that I would write a request. I scolded her and threatened that if she dared to bother the Emperor with a request, she would be exiled to Siberia. What is she? – She definitely submitted a request to Filaret. Wandering around St. Petersburg, naked and hungry, without shelter, she was raised by the Police, ossified at the fence. She was sent to the Obukhov hospital. They began to treat. At this time, the Grand Duke visited this hospital. This half-smart woman submitted a request to the Heir for Filaret, and they asked him! The old woman, coming to me, spoke, shedding tears: Protect, Archimandrite Nicodemus, the persecuted orphan! I heard about you that you are a kind and merciful person.” It’s not for nothing that fierce souls lose their minds! Likewise, mercy requires caution! XXXIV. February 27, 1840, Tuesday of the 1st week of Lent, I was in the church of the Moscow courtyard to listen to the reading of the great canon. There are a lot of people to the point of a real crush. Metropolitan Philaret read the canon before the royal doors humbly, like a desert monk. He read clearly, but without expression, monotonously, as a simple unlearned hieromonk would read. This surprised me. As many learned abbots as I have heard, they usually read this canon with expression. Wouldn’t Philaret be able to read the canon of St. Andrew oratorically? I will not hide, however, that light declamation, at least emphasis on words that are more meaningful, will not be superfluous in such a canon flaming with feelings. XXXV. On March 16, 1840, on Saturday of the 3rd week of fasting, I visited the Bishop. At first, he rather defended himself to me because he had not yet had time to read my Russian Grammar. So great people are lenient towards small ones. Then he began to speak to me abruptly: he was in a hurry to get somewhere. 1, About the project of the Jewish Lexicon, invented by Archimandrite Athanasius, Rector of the Ryazan Seminary (now Archbishop of Astrakhan) 74 The Bishop said: “Strangeness and panache!” The project was left without healing. 2, About a short Latin Grammar, composed by someone (not written down) and imposed on the Theological Schools: “You can’t make something hard easy. What is possible has been made easier; what remains is what cannot be made easier.” “Because of such easy learning, even German Doctors of Science now stumble over Grammar, and do not blush when writing in Latin with errors.” 3, Vladyka marveled at the Grammar “Russian for Russians” by G. Polozov: “This is nonsense, oblivion of the language, and Grammar, and the teacher, and the listeners.” XXXVI. March 31, 1840, Sunday of the 5th Lent. On this Sunday, and on this date, I was tonsured a monk, in 1829, at the Lavra of St. Sergius. I decided to serve at the Trinity Metochion with Vladyka. Thank you, I didn’t neglect it, although the cathedral turned out to be askew. It was as if I was in the kingdom of heaven, serving in the face of such a quiet, reverent, touching Master. The singers were excellent, reasonable, sedate, and sang modestly. They sang a concert... “Touch the mountains and they will rise up”... But there was no wild roar and explosion. After the liturgy, the Bishop ordered two cups of tea to be with him. Question: “Why do you serve with me?” Answer: “On this day and on this date I was tonsured a monk at the Lavra of St. Sergius." Again Vladyka apologized to me for not reading my Grammar. I took it. I started reading and making comments. Then he said: “I'm tired. Give me a rest: I’m sorry!” Not a single Bishop spoke to me so softly and tenderly, even after I received the rank of Bishop. XXXVII. March 29. 1840, on Friday evening, I listened to the All-Night Akathist at the Trinity Compound. I wanted to listen to the reading of the Akathist by the Bishop. (Recorded at the same time.) Metropolitan Philaret read the Akathist rarely, touchingly, unpretentiously, expressively. Instead - a much-weeping scab - a much-weeping defeat. Instead of - like a whore - like crazy. Instead of - the Planter of our life - the Planter of our life. XXXVIII. On April 5, 1840, Friday of the 6th week of Lent, Metropolitan Philaret demanded me to come to him at 4 pm. My grammar has been read. Lots of comments. There are amendments. I agree with almost everyone. “You should have seen how careful the Vladyka was when criticizing; as if afraid so as not to upset. Instructive remarks (Modern recording). XXXIX. April 24, 1840, Director of the Spiritual Educational Administration, Alexander Iv. Karasevsky, gave me three projects: 1) his own, 2, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, 3) Metropolitan of Kyiv. They list the subjects of study at the Seminary, with the addition of new ones - Agriculture, Medicine, Natural History, Catechism of Peter Mohyla. I am instructed to divide these subjects into classes per week, and to assign Mentors to each Department of the Seminary. On April 26, I visited the Moscow Bishop, told him about the assignment given to me, and asked for guidance in some articles. There were many precious speeches. I don't remember them. Here's what's written down: In response to my complaint about the exclusion of Philosophy and the replenishment of the Seminary with insignificant and useless scientists, the Bishop said: “You have to give in to them (secular people) in something, so that they don’t ruin everything out of impatience.” About Philosophy and Mathematics, the Bishop said: “These sciences are needed in the Seminary, as a touchstone for testing, refining and putting the thinking spirit in order.” Superficial knowledge of Medicine by Seminarians is useless, even harmful. Instead of healing, they can increase the disease. “To this day, the parish priest is a spiritual doctor. Any advice he gives is accepted as sacred. When he treats bodily illnesses with earthly medicines, it may happen that his unsuccessful treatment deprives him of trust even in spiritual advice. “And mortal illness sometimes begins with mild seizures. Then the disease grows, intensifies, and is not inferior to medicine; the man is dying! Then the relatives will say: “The patient fell ill slightly, but the priest gave him some medicine, and he died!” In order to teach without rules (Romanticism), instead of what was previously taught with rules (Classicism), the Vladyka said: “Lest we live to see the point where students teach teachers, and bosses are commanded by subordinates.” (However, there seems to be another meaning here. The projects of the Metropolitans are submitted to the Archimandrite for revision! But the good Bishop was not angry with me, because he saw me in full with the secular ones). My arrangement of teaching subjects according to the number of lessons per week, and the list of teachers, compiled at this time, was not accepted, but was subjected to new consideration in the Assembly, which consisted of four Archimandrites, of whom I was the third: Nikolay, Rector of St. Petersburg Academy (soon Tambov Bishop) 75. Afanasy, Rector of St. Petersburg Seminaries (a year later Bishop of Tomsk) 76. John, Rector of the Kharkov Seminary (after the first Rector of the Kazan Academy). There were two meetings in the Spiritual Educational Directorate, in the presence of Karasevsky and the Head of the Department, on June 27 and July 1. The Rector of the Academy presided. I objected to him hotly, because I saw that he, pandering to the secular, increased the number of lessons on Medicine, Agriculture, etc., and reduced the number of lessons on indigenous sciences, for example: He gave 5 lessons in Literature, 4 lessons in Philosophy. With my objections, I at least slightly delayed the lessons from empty teachings to the fundamental ones. The other two Archimandrites were silent 77 . XL. On October 29, 1840, I paid tribute to Metropolitan Philaret. He arrived from Moscow yesterday. He was accepted graciously, with tact, characteristic of him alone. His first glance already inspires him with complete confidence. I have never spoken so freely with any Bishop, no Bishop has allowed me such closeness to him, no Bishop has tied me to himself so powerfully and decisively, and I have never seen or heard a Bishop speaking and teaching so wisely, insightfully, efficiently, as this great Saint has always been. Do not be afraid: being close to the little one, he will not lose himself, and will not let this little one be forgotten: no, he is good, but also majestic. The Lord asked me about my Grammar and ordered me to bring it to him. Asking what I did last summer, what am I doing now? He expressed his fatherly concern for my sadness that I am neither in place nor out of place, neither in business nor idle. I responded with silence and bows. I regretted that my project about dividing the Seminary courses into years was not accepted. I suggested: a) at the School for five years, at the Seminary for seven; b) consider every year a course and every year a prolution (transfer to the highest class), both in the School and in the Seminary. On November 2 I visited the Metropolitan and gave him my Russian Grammar. Having read my preface in it, he said: “It’s as they want. If they do not agree to accept it (i.e., for general use), I will order it to be printed for the schools of my Diocese. However, you need to read it carefully.” The grammar remained with the Lord. XLI. In August 1840, the local Archbishop, Kirill, came to St. Petersburg from Kamenets-Podolsk, summoned here to attend the Holy Synod 78. It was located at the Synodal Metochion, that is, where I lived. The Reverend Kirill soon caressed me. He was given an assignment: to read the works of eight students of the Moscow Theological Academy who completed the course in seven years. Each student contributed three to five sermons and at least two discourses. This is not a small pile of notebooks! The sickly Eminence Kirill asked me to re-read all these works, make notes on each work, and present them to him. I sat on this matter for about a month, and gave my notes to the Reverend Kirill. Kirill was very happy, thanked him, and promised to present them to the Synod. However, since my notes mostly pointed out errors and shortcomings, and did not praise the authors, I asked the Bishop to reconsider the matter again, to soften too strict judgments, and to completely release some. I told His Eminence Kirill: “I made my remarks for you, and not for the Synod: I ask you to soften them.” The Lord barely agreed to change something. The report or presentation to the Holy Synod, with the return of the students’ essays and with the attachment of his review of each of them, was dictated to me by His Eminence Kirill himself. Here he strictly condemned the Academy’s authorities for presenting such imperfect works, and also for the fact that these imperfections were not noted by the mentors who read them. In this form the matter was submitted to the Synod. A hearing of this case has been scheduled for one of the upcoming meetings. The Chief Secretary reads the case to the Presence: first the report of the Most Reverend Kirill, then the comments on the students’ essays. The members of the Synod were amazed. Tense silence. The secular ones stood at attention with a sardonic smile, expecting a stormy scene between Metropolitan Philaret and Archbishop Kirill. Filaret was indeed apparently irritated, more than once he stopped the reader, made appeals to His Eminence Kirill, tried to soften his phrases, and demanded explanations. This scene of irritation lasted a long time. Finally, in order to stop the embarrassment, Filaret said to the Synod Fathers: “Let me take this matter and review it. Maybe, together with His Grace Kamenets-Podolsky, we will find a way to give it a peaceful ending.” Filaret sat next to His Eminence Kirill (Filaret in the second pair, Kirill in the third pair). Out of impatience, he pushed Kirill in the side, saying quietly: “What are you saying? Against whom? Have you forgotten your homeland? Having arrived from the Synod, His Eminence Kirill told me all this, in amazement: “Well, brother! Today at the Synod I endured such a storm as I never remember in my life. The Moscow Vladyka was greatly annoyed at your and my comments on the works of Moscow students.” Throughout this entire scene, the members of the Synod were silent; Metropolitan Seraphim was the one ranting and making people laugh. About the reasoning of one student, His Eminence Kirill wrote: “This reasoning (about the eternity of torment) does not represent new views on this subject.” Seraphim picked up: (Thank you, Eminence. That’s a good point. They all have new views!” Everyone, both secular and spiritual, was amazed! Metropolitan Seraphim was so cowardly and preoccupied with Philaret! In the Synod this matter actually ended quietly; but it was not easy for the Moscow Academy: they were given strict comments. Of the eight Students, it seems that two did not receive a Master's degree, although they were presented with one. This matter cooled Metropolitan Philaret away from me. He didn’t seem to scold me for it; but he lost a lot of confidence in himself. But let whoever wants to judge. Leaving intrigues to which I never give a price, I will say: I did as I understood the matter. It is not my fault that the Academic Management is careless and the student essays are bad. XLII. His Eminence Kirill began going to the Synod from Augustus. Filaret arrived at the end of October. In November, His Eminence Kirill calls me to him and says: “Well, brother, I was at the Synod today, and I didn’t recognize the Synod. “Metropolitan Jonah (Georgian) 79 and I used to sit in the presence for an hour or more for nothing. No one is filing any cases; the secular will come in and out of the presence; they walk as if on the boulevard, and occasionally start talking to us, and almost always about trifles.” Today, when the Metropolitan of Moscow came to the Synod for the first time, everything assumed strict rank and order. The prosecutor with his officials is in place; Chief Secretary with a stack of reports. The reports begin one after another, the decisions of the Synod are heard, without interruption. And after two hours of work, we get up, pray, bow, and go to our places.” Filaret meant so much in the Synod. XLIII. Synod jokes. a) The opinions and assumptions of the Members of the Holy Synod were not always accepted: they were sometimes rejected. Even Metropolitan Seraphim himself suffered failures: on the contrary, the proposals of the Metropolitan of Moscow always remained deeds and law. b) Seraphim, due to poor health, asked the Metropolitan of Moscow to read and sign the journals and protocols of the Synod first: “You are younger than me,” he said, take the trouble to read and sign what you recognize as fair. And I will sign for you, trusting you, without reading.” Filaret accepted the offer. The office and everything secular was drooping. The self-will has ceased. After a little time, one of those sitting at the Prosecutor’s table came to Seraphim and, assuming the appearance of the most humble novice, explained his complaint against Metropolitan Philaret: “You assigned him to be the first to read the magazines. But he is not grateful to you: he cancels your definitions.” And as proof I found some forgotten little thing. Seraphim flared up and canceled the concession given to Filaret, telling the official it was important: “Submit the cases to me again first of all.” (I heard this in those years when I lived in St. Petersburg (1838–41). c) Metropolitan Philaret himself once told me: “The secularists in the Synod are taking liberties. They even cancel the decisions given by the Synod.” Then he told some story about the church in the Nizhny Novgorod Diocese. The Synod decided it - yes, but the journal says - no. d) I had occasion to sit with the Metropolitan more than once, when suddenly the Prosecutor Count Protasov came. Vladyka immediately put on his cassock and covered himself with the Metropolitan’s hood (he always had it ready in the closet next to the sofa). The Lord immediately released me, blessing me. The blessed Vladyka often talked to me simply in his cassock. Black, wool; a sash of the same material, thick, tied in a knot. On the head there is a black woven mesh or black skufya. Sometimes the Lord wears barefoot shoes and white stockings. It even happened that Vladyka would lie down on the sofa, talking to me, or listening to my speeches, or reading. During these times, I saw Vladyka in old, very worn, completely red boots. e) Protasov did not wait for an invitation to enter the living room, but walked directly behind the cell attendant who was coming to report. Insolent and offensive. The Bishop is not in the front living room (at this time), but in the home one. The prosecutor is not his own; The hours are not legal, approximately 3 o'clock in the afternoon. f) One day Protasov came to Filaret and began to talk to him about something very loudly, almost shouting, as is the fashion among the military and the Chiefs. The Bishop said: “Even if you speak more quietly, Your Excellency, I will hear.” Since then, Protasov has stopped shouting, at least at Metropolitan Philaret’s. (I heard this from the cell attendant of the Metropolitan). On November 9th, in the evening, I visited Metropolitan Philaret at his call. The Bishop gave me the opportunity to revise the marks and corrections of the Greek translation of the Catechism. Alexander Skarlatovich Sturdza 80, an excellent expert in the Greek language, both modern, ecclesiastical, and ancient, translated into New Greek the lengthy Catechism of Philaret, which from that time on became a hand-written and classic book of Orthodox doctrine throughout the East. The corrections were made by some Moscow Priest. Here I brought almost nothing of my own, even because at that time I did not know New Greek at all. I only dared to advise trusting Sturdza, an almost natural Greek, a pious and enlightened man, passionately loving Greece and the East. There were speeches about the English Deacon Palmer. This, Master of Oxford University, the monastery of Blessed Mary Magdalene, William Palmer, a deacon of the English Church, arrived in Augusta in St. Petersburg, wrote a Latin letter to the Chief Prosecutor, whom he asked: to allow him to study Theology, Divine services in the rites of the Russian Church and the Russian language. He even asked permission to serve with us as a deacon. (Protasov instructed me to translate this letter into Russian). Everyone admired Palmer then, and I was for him. But Metropolitan Philaret, having already seen him and talked with him, today “expressed doubts about the sincerity of Palmer’s desires.” Fair. Palmer rejected Orthodoxy with contempt and became a Catholic. He seems to be in Rome now. (They wrote about his transition to Catholicism not long ago). This is how Metropolitan Philaret’s view of people is correct. XLV. On November 27th I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Vladyka first remarked to me with a smile: “You are already too polite; got off the cab driver at the gate of the courtyard, and not at the porch.” I was ashamed to travel in a bad carriage, with an ignorant cab driver, in sight of the Metropolitan’s office. We are talking about my Grammar (I occupied the Lord with it a lot!). He started like this: “In the Northern Bee there is an anecdote about Voltaire: He convinced one of his friends, whom he recommended to an important person as a home teacher, and who himself was looking for one, that if he wanted to stay in place, he should try to be a little stupider than what he is. The teacher made his decision, but was soon sent away. When he again appeared to Voltaire, he said to him: “It’s true that you did not listen to my instructions.” “So you too,” the Lord said after that, I would advise you to be more stupid in order to write a Grammar for children that they would understand.” This speech referred to those paragraphs of the Grammar that I reinvented, and which I wanted to approve and defend, or to those that did not agree with the generally accepted opinion. Forgive me, Lord! I remained with my thoughts. Children could leave evidence of the paragraph; and it is useful for teachers to know why I recognize this or that as a rule. XLVI. On November 29, His Eminence Kirill, who arrived from the Synod, demanded me to come to him and announced to me that, at the suggestion of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, I was appointed by the Holy Synod to be the adoptive father of the American Archpriest John Evseich Veniaminov, who was preparing to be tonsured. At 6 o'clock in the evening I was ordered to appear with a robe at the courtyard of the Moscow Metropolitan. The tonsure took place in the courtyard, in the church of St. Sergius, at all-night vigil, November 29. The Vladyka Himself tonsured him. I cried. The next day, November 30, here, during the liturgy, the newly tonsured monk Innocent (Archpriest John Evseich) was ordained Archimandrite by the Bishop. The Bishop invited us to have a meal with him. The table is short. I remember: a) a piece of caviar, b) fish soup, but, of course, there was also some kind of roast. Vladyka eats quickly, although he spent the entire dinner talking. I don’t remember what he treated us to, but he drank a glass of porter, saying that doctors had recently advised him to do so. At this time, or yesterday before his tonsure, Vladyka talked with us about the hermits of Egypt - Theodore the Great and Abba Ammon! In the evening, on the same day, I stood the all-night vigil here, at the Trinity courtyard, and then, through the cell attendant, I asked the Bishop for permission to serve with him tomorrow (December 1, the day of his Angel). The Bishop allowed, but with mysterious boredom: “Why didn’t he tell me about this himself, and earlier? Why should I offend His Eminence Kamenets-Podolsky? Let him serve with him.” Apparently, I was already boring the Vladyka. Or he was guarding himself from the gossip of evil-tongued people, protecting both me and himself. But like an unobsessed child, without any pretensions or calculations, I considered it a blessing to serve with the Lord, whose service I had never seen before. After mass, I went in to the Vladyka, with many others parallel to me, they received a blessing, and with them I left. XLVII. On December 2, the Emperor approved the newly tonsured Archimandrite Innocent to be Bishop of Kamchatka, Kuril and Aleutian. On December 13, Fr. was named Bishop. Innocent in the Synod: the hall is full of the presence of the worldly; there were Generals. On December 15, Father Innocent was ordained Bishop in the Kazan Cathedral. Metropolitan Jonah, the former Georgian, took precedence. Metropolitan Seraphim was going to serve, but this morning he refused. Was this not done in order to deprive the Metropolitan of Moscow of the consolation of consecrating his spiritual son, so devoted to him, as Bishop? Seraphim, during the three years of my stay in St. Petersburg, served only once - on Easter, when he was given a staff with precious stones. Contributed to the ordination: Kirill Archbishop of Kamenets-Podolsk, Joseph Bishop of Lithuania (later Metropolitan) 81, Benedict - Vicar of St. Petersburg) 82. Vladyka Philaret was not among those who contributed, because he is older than Jonah. For the same reason, of course, the Kiev Metropolitan was not there either. The Metropolitan of Moscow, like the sun, shone between the Synodals, illuminating everyone, not disturbing anyone, but also not vulnerable to anyone. XLVIII. On December 5th there was the anointing of the bride of the Sovereign Heir, Maria Alexandrovna (the current Empress), and on the 6th her betrothal to Alexander Nikolaevich, now the Emperor of All Russia. Both the anointing and betrothal were performed by Metropolitan Seraphim, in the presence and complicity of all members of the Synod. It was heard that Empress Alexandra Feodorovna wanted the Metropolitan of Moscow to perform these rites. Seraphim found out about this and wrote to the Emperor: “Sire! don’t offend the old man.” Emperor Nicholas canceled his wife's intention. Why would an old man impose himself when he is not wanted? Why block the path of someone who is invited? The Bishop of Moscow, according to the ceremony, had the opportunity to present the Gospel to the anointed bride for kissing. Everyone was amazed at the dexterity and strength of the muscles in Filaret’s hands: he deftly took the rather heavy Gospel with both hands from the lectern, from the side, by one edge, and so he handed the Gospel to the Princess and put it in its place, without shaking his hand. By the way, a little adventure: I serve with the Bishop in his courtyard. Having venerated the cross as Vladyka entered the church, we usually walked behind him. I carelessly stepped on his robe (extreme tightness). I heard this when the Lord’s robe was torn from under my feet. - What? Vladyka walked at the same pace as if nothing had happened. A small thing, but a great soul is visible in it. If I were him, I would have somehow expressed my fear and annoyance, although I would have regretted it later. After the ceremony of anointing and betrothal, Metropolitan Philaret was ill for a long time, the stress cost him something. XLIX. On December 28 I visited Metropolitan Philaret. The Lord's conversation with me: Me: I said briefly that I would not like to return to Vyatka, where (the Prosecutor) was thinking of returning me. M. “I don’t know what they’re doing there (at the Synod, or at the Prosecutor’s office). I suggested leaving you on the line again. It’s good that you came and said it on time. Maybe I would forget.” Well, sorry. Surrender to the will of God. His Eminence Innocent of America came with me to Vladyka. At that time the Vladyka was given a carriage. He is leaving for the first time since the anointing of Maria Alexandrovna. L. On January 3, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. M. “What do you want to tell me?” I. - Out of cowardice, I can’t resist asking: how is my service here being decided? M. “I told Seraphim and Podolsky to leave you in line. They agree. The only thing I didn’t talk to was Metropolitan Jonah.” Me. – I’ve been on the line for a year and a half now. M. “Well? Don’t you want that too?” Ya - No; I just reminded you. I would like to get a dismissal from Vyatka, but otherwise let the will of the authorities be. After talking something (not recorded) with me, Vladyka finally said: “Be patient and serve! They see that it’s not easy for you, you’re not having fun. They will give you something that will calm and comfort you for your efforts. They leave you behind because they don’t want to let you leave. You can hope that you will get a place here.” Then the Bishop gave me instructions to go to bookstores and look for Theologian Goldwitzer, or some other one. I did not find Goldwitzer; bought Perronne in 5 books of the newest Catholic Theologian, for 28 rubles. The Bishop ordered me to give the money. I was bored that not all of Theology (Peronnet had not yet published the last volume of his extensive Theology): “I don’t like unfinished works,” he said. LI. On January 25, I visited Vladyka. At first I thanked Vladyka for leaving me in St. Petersburg for a period of time, and not sending me to Vyatka. Vladyka was pleased with my gratitude. Then the Lord himself began to tell me: Sovereign. instructed the Holy Synod to consider the bas-reliefs (convex sculpted images) that will be cast on the gates of St. Isaac's Cathedral. “We visited, examined, made several comments. “Then we were in the cathedral itself. The building is dark and not shaped. This is a box: the columns seem to be stuck to the cathedral: take them away, the cathedral will stand. “Columns decorate the church when they are needed, when, after they are taken away, the building collapses. “And why did they call the Synod when everything has already been built? a) I have not seen the doors of St. Isaac's Cathedral, therefore I do not know their bas-reliefs. But I saw the bas-reliefs on the doors of the Kazan Cathedral: there are dogs there, there are all the scandals of the animal aesthetics of European artists. b) At St. Isaac's Cathedral, bronze cast colossal Angels and Saints were all cast according to Western European drawings, the Angels were given Catholic surplices and oraries. In the cornices, entire stories from the Bible and Church History are cast in bronze (black) in colossal sizes and with that scattered and contorted faces that elegant Europe loves. But I came to the Lord for a matter: The Holy Synod entrusted four of us: 1) me, 2) Archimandrite John, Rector of Kharkov, alternate, 3, Fr. Joasaph, Bachelor of the S.P.B. Academy 83, and 4, Priest Mikhail Izmailovich Theologian, Bachelor and Teacher of the Law at the School of Law 84, consider 17 Notes from 17 Seminaries, in all branches of Theology. These notes were written by teachers of Theology. We are instructed to consider them on the assumption: either to listen to our approval of one or two of them; or receive from us the best of all of them; or get our own work. The Synod appointed me Chairman of this Committee. I gathered to myself two times the other three of my brethren. In two meetings, I barely had time to read the paper of the Spiritual Educational Administration, with which the Notes were sent to us and in which the determination of the Holy Synod was set out on entrusting us with the consideration of these Notes. Having decided nothing, the Committee forced me to introduce myself to Metropolitan Philaret, asking for various instructions. I had the humility (i.e., stupidity) to obey, and here is my conversation with the Master: I. “The Committee considers it necessary, before its work, to have a general overview of all the sciences in the Seminaries, with which we would already be guided in our judgments about the seventeen Abstracts sent for our consideration.” Lord. “And what about the Committee? what will he do? We have chosen you to help us; and you, having done nothing, are already returning the whole matter to us. There is no intelligence or ingenuity here. If the Committee itself had bothered to compile such a review and submit it to the discretion of the Synod, it would have been the case.” Me: “The committee says that there is no direct indication of this in the rules given to us.” Lord. “But to blame your business on the Synod. there is neither a direct nor a crooked indication: the Synod did not ask you to ask him and give him your requests, to present your demands.” (I told the Committee almost the same thing: they didn’t listen to me). I. “The writers of the Notes, pointing to manuals and manuals, do not evaluate what is indicated: would it not be allowed, for example, for the Committee to do this by taking two writers?” Lord. "That would be good." The Bishop released me, however, graciously and allowed me to come to him at 5 o’clock in the evening. I visited him on January 30th. There were again speeches about our Committee. The Bishop told at some length how he was a Teacher (Greek and Hebrew) in the Lavra of St. Sergius; what kind of communication and friendship they had with each other. He regretted that now there is no such communication between Teachers, “which makes them awkward, one-sided, stubborn.” He hinted “about affection” on the one hand, and “about immaturity” on the other. I didn’t understand this then, but now I have no doubt that this Vladyka described, among other things, our Committee, not excluding myself. We started talking about our Censorship Committees. I said: “They have a lot to do.” Vladyka echoed: “On the contrary, it’s very necessary.” Here Vladyka expressed displeasure at the Censorship Committee, which decided to correct and even supplement some article by Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov. The Committee is worth reproaching: but what should it do when there is a rule obliging it to do this? I would have thought to throw out this ridiculous rule from the Censorship Charter a long time ago. The Bishop read a little of the conversation of St. Gregory of Nyssa, it seems on the Epiphany in translation, in the Christian Reading: “A real father talks with his children. There is no boasting, no pretension: the father speaks to the children. And the situation is instructive: he speaks from the Bishop’s pulpit, which is in the middle of the church: the people are around him. It’s like he’s speaking here in Russia, in our time.” There was a speech about St. Chrysostom. The Bishop does not praise him everywhere: “He is long-winded: he drawls out his speech; does not look deeply; allows vulgarity; carried away by benefits to the point of excess.” I did not dare to contradict, but I did not agree. On the contrary, I consider St. Chrysostom to be a teacher among teachers; his views are law for me. I think that this great teacher was dishonored by Russian translators by using vulgar, vulgar language (especially in the S.P.B. Academy). They talked about Catholics, about their Theologies, about Divine services, about the Sacraments, as Catholics understand. The Bishop deeply condemned the Catholics, especially a) for wickedness, b) for mixing their personalities with the sacraments of God, c) for earthly views in Divine services, d) for violence to consciences and tyranny over them, e) for alienation from the Universal Church, f) for hatred against the Orthodox. I submitted a translation of a Greek letter to Metropolitan Philaret from Archbishop Hierotheos of Mount Tabor (Vladyka instructed me to do this.). The Bishop admired the pronunciation of the Greek speech of this Most Reverend Hierotheus at the Synod: “The most pleasant pronunciation, majestic, sweet, better than any music.” (The Hierotheus was at the Synod: he gave a speech. He brought from the Patriarch of Jerusalem to the Synod a gift of a model of the Church of the Resurrection of Christ in Jerusalem, which is above the Holy Sepulcher, the model is lined with mother-of-pearl. It was placed on the table of presence at the Synod.) I don’t remember what this Hierophey’s letter to the Vladyka was about. He was not made the Patriarch of Jerusalem, after the death of the Patriarch, because they said then that he was in Russia, and there he gained the favor of the Tsar, the Nobles and the Synod! As if this is a crime! It seems that he is now the Patriarch of Antioch. In 1839 and 40, when he was in St. Petersburg, he was, it seems, less than 40 years old 85. Bishop Philaret told me at this time that the teachers of his day, and he himself, at Trinity Seminary, wore shabby robes, even to class! They only observed that the robe was not too worn, without holes or patches (these were only worn at home) 86 . Their table was very simple, and in a team, and not individually. They drank tea only on holidays. They wore handkerchiefs only when going out in public. The cut of the dress was adjusted to the suit of a novice or clergyman. They wore their hair long, parted in the middle of the head, and even had braids, which, however, were hidden under a tie. Once, seeing before him a student of Theology (Egor Lyubimov, my comrade) in a cloth frock coat, Vladyka asked: “Whose frock coat are you wearing?” The student answered: “Government.” (Lyubimov was a government official.) Lord: “A frock coat like this could be worn by a Professor.” The cloth is dark green. Its price is 5 rubles banknotes arshins. Vladyka, of course, was not joking. And I think the same. I remember an anecdote about this Lyubimov. He is the son of a deacon, a village on the Istra River, behind the Anosinsky convent (I think, Zvenigorod Uyezd.) His father was a very drunk man. He owed 150 rubles to one of his relatives, a widow, and could not pay them, and the widow was in extremity. Lyubimov wrote a petition-letter to Vladyka. Having told him who his father was, also about his drunkenness, and about the debt, Lyubimov asked the Metropolitan: a) to call his father and teach him, b) to give him 150 rubles, so that he would take this money to the widow to whom he owes. Lyubimov then assured the Metropolitan that, having received a place at the end of the course at the Seminary (this was already the last year), he would return these 150 rubles to Vladyka. He demanded this Deacon, handed him 150 rubles and ordered him to pay the widow, without saying how he found out about this! The deacon paid the debt honestly. And surprisingly: I stopped drinking! I don’t know whether Lyubimov returned the 150 rubles to Vladyka; but he brought him closer: he first gave him a deacon’s place in Moscow, then a priest’s place in the church of the Sheremetyevo hospital, near the Sukharev Tower. Lyubimov could not resist here. He was transferred to Serpukhov to some church. Finally defrocked. Now, I don’t know where, or if he’s alive. Thus, Vladyka sometimes liked to delve closely into the affairs of the smallest people! LII. On March 5, I visited Metropolitan Philaret in the evening. I went in to him; he is alone and cheerful.” Metropolitan. “Sit down, and I’ll go.” (Walks.) M. “What are you doing now?” Me – I read my own books, what books I have. I. – “Rosen-Miller’s interpretation of the Prophet Zechariah. And after Blazh. Hieronymus too." M. “This, I think, is the same as salty and sweet. Do you believe Rosen-Miller that the last chapters were written by the same Prophet Zechariah? Ya - No. (Here there were long conversations. Vladyka marveled at how impudent, stupid, and blind the Germans were in their explanations of the Holy Scriptures.) Afterwards the Metropolitan asked: “Do you read magazines?” M. “Criticize me: I will read to you. Just don’t divulge what you hear.” I took three sheets of mail and began to read. This is a criticism 87 of the work of one professor at Moscow University (Krylov?), striving to prove that canonical church law should be taught at the University by Professors of Legal Sciences, and should constitute only a special branch in the science of general Legal Law. The Metropolitan sharply and decisively denies this need and right; leaves church law to the pulpit of the church teacher. Here the Vladyka strongly touches on the thoughts of the writer himself, who, although apparently writing with restraint and caution, did not escape the subtle and insightful observation of the Vladyka. M. “Well, that’s how they interpret it now. Come on, they’ll be angry when they read what I wrote. Peace, peace: and the Church never ceases to be militant.” Then the Lord rang. Enter the Clerk, Alexander Petrovich Svyatoslavsky. The Bishop hands him an envelope. Gives sealing wax and a seal. He ordered it to be sealed immediately, and when everything was done, he said: “To the Minister of Education.” The Moscow merchant came. He talked about the famine: in Moscow people were dying of hunger. About bankruptcies in the merchant class: one manufacturer had production worth 5,600,000 rubles, and fell; the other for 1,500,000 rubles, and also fell. Then he sadly told how he himself, having 300,000 rubles in circulation, lost 200,000 rubles in eight months, catering to the tears of his mother, the reproaches of his wife, from his dissolute son-in-law, and the accidental cessation of the fashion of wearing combs (for women). Then the Jew entered, Professor S.P.B. Academy and Levison 88. There are many interesting speeches about the Bible and from the Bible: a) About the Other Prophet in Moses, b) about the ark hidden by Jeremiah, c) about the weeks of Daniel, d) about the Talmud, e) about German Jews, f) about the Hebrew text of the Bible, g) about the translation of the Seventy, h) about the Prophet Zechariah. The Bishop pointed Levison to Psalm 144 (Heb. 145), written in Hebrew according to the Alphabet, and to the lost verse (in Hebrew) between 12 and 13, which should have begun with the letter nun. Meanwhile, the Seventy have this verse: “The Lord is faithful in all his words, and holy in all his deeds.” Levison confessed to the loss of the verse, and this is what he said in explanation: “After the destruction of Jerusalem and the scattering of the Jews throughout the world, when everything ceased, including Jewish worship itself, our fathers, as if taking revenge on God, or convicting Him of being unfaithful to His promises, erased this verse from the Bible.” So evil and ignorant are the Jewish interpreters of the Bible. Finally Adjutant General Nikolai Petrovich Novosiltsev arrived. LIII. On March 16, at 5 Sunday of Easter, I served in the Trinity Compound. The Metropolitan stood and prayed. Yesterday, after the all-night vigil, when he was told that I wanted to serve tomorrow, Vladyka called me to him and asked: “Why do I want to serve here tomorrow?” I answered: “Because on this Sunday I was tonsured a monk at the Trinity Lavra.” Vladyka: “Well, serve with my people, but it seems I can’t.” After mass, Vladyka called to him. The speeches were about His Grace Kamenets-Podolsky, Kirill, who became seriously ill. The Emperor sent His Eminence Kirill a thousand rubles for treatment, and the chief Doctor of the Court, Arendt. The Reverend Kirill retains urine. Metropolitan Philaret, on this occasion, told me about a similar case with Metropolitan Ambrose of St. Petersburg. “Metropolitan Ambrose was at the exam for girls at the Smolny Institute. I had lunch there. He was tormented by little need there. Comes home; no urine comes out. The Metropolitan called me (Filaret, who was then the Rector of the Academy, or still a Bachelor) to come to him. I'm coming in. The Bishop, in full ceremonial attire, sits on the sofa. His face is fiery: his eyes are blazing. Says: “Oh. Filaret: go to the Trinity Cathedral, and look there, on the right side of the entrance, the place for my grave.” Filaret: “Lord! Let me invite the Doctor: maybe he can help.” Ambrose agreed. The Doctor was invited. The urine was released: the Metropolitan lived for quite some time.” Filaret immediately said that he also signed the register of diamond items that were the property of Metropolitan Ambrose. From this it is clear that Filaret was the closest person to Metropolitan Ambrose. Filaret, in my presence, always remembers Metropolitan Ambrose with filial and deepest respect. Filaret asked me: “How old are you today as a monk?” Ya - Twelve. F. “And yesterday I was twenty-two years old since I became a Member of the Synod.” The Bishop, releasing me, blessed me with two books: “The Rule of Prayer to the Holy Spirit; Conversations of Philaret, Metropolitan of Kiev" 89. Liv. I visited Metropolitan Philaret on March 19 to ask: “Will he allow his nephew, bachelor (now Archbishop of Kostroma) to come here to the ill Vladyka of Kamenets-Podolsk?” 90 Filaret answered: a) It’s too late. His Eminence Kirill is already at the last hour; b) not convenient; because there is a muddy road; c) it is not known whether this will be a consolation for the patient (he may think that his nephew has come to collect his inheritance); d) His Eminence Kirill himself does not consider his position dangerous; e) as for the inheritance, it will be preserved. And what does he have when they have nothing to thank the Doctor with?” The Bishop wonders why His Eminence Kirill has so many illnesses, and why his illnesses are so complex. “He seems to be a completely abstinent person. In my youth, when I was studying, I was at least somewhat frail, but fresh and alive. His life is calm. He has no strong passions. I don’t know any amazing adventures with him.” Vladyka made me read about the Dolgorukys in the Journal of the Ministry of Public Education. There were some remarkable speeches (which were not recorded, and I don’t remember now). I remembered something: Dolgoruky alone did not believe in the immortality of the soul. His other brother was a believer and regretted his brother’s lack of faith. The believer fell ill and was near death. The unbeliever said: “If your soul lives even after death, let me know about it.” The brother died, and a few days later he appeared to him half asleep and said: “Brother, believe! I'm alive." The Bishop condemned the pomp in the Seminaries. He talked about contemporary Lavrsky teachers and scientists. They then wore thick, stuffed linen robes. Having released me, Vladyka went to see His Eminence Kirill. On March 28, during Great Lent, on Great Vespers, Vladyka Kamenets-Podolsky rested quietly! I served Vespers. On March 29, Holy Saturday, at 5 o’clock in the evening, Metropolitan Philaret came to us at the Synodal Metochion to lay the grave of the late Right Reverend Kirill. They served a memorial service, there were up to 20 of us sacred, two Archimandrites, Kutnevich. 91 The Metropolitan, through carelessness, broke the top decoration of his staff: it was topaz or yellow glass. His Grace Kirill was buried on Monday, Easter. March 31st. During the three days of the relics of the Most Reverend Kirill, clouds of people moved day and night to look at the deceased, pray and ask for his prayers. Once you left the house, it was difficult to get into it. I once spent an hour making my way to my rooms: the corridor and staircase (shared with the Vladyka’s cells) were crowded with people coming in and out. Even the Germans visited, wanting to see the deceased “holy Russian Bishop.” There was a solemn procession from the courtyard to the Lavra (more than two miles) with the relics of the Saint. The Liturgy was served by Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, with four Archimandrites (I am the third). The funeral service was performed by five Bishops: Metropolitans: Seraphim. Filaret of Moscow Jonah; Archbishop Joseph of Lithuania as Vicar Benedict. Also: Imperial Confessor Nikolai Vasilyevich Muzovsky 92, Vasily Ivanovich Kutnevich, nine Archimandrites (all), Archpriests, Priests, up to 30 monks. The liturgy and funeral service took place in the Church of the Holy Spirit. Mass began at 10 o'clock, the burial ended at 3 o'clock in the afternoon. (Metropolitan Seraphim wandered like a child, groaned, scratched his head, screamed). The Rector of the Academy, Archimandrite Nikolai, delivered a long sermon. They buried Vladika Kirill in the Church of St. John Chrysostom, on his right hand, in the second arch from the altar, opposite the window. LV. On April 3, Easter Thursday, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Vladyka gave me an assignment: to describe the life of the late Bishop Kirill, “for the newspaper.” On the 7th I brought my manuscript: “It’s quite large,” said the Bishop. It's not printed. There were many speeches about His Eminence Kirill; among other things, Vladyka told me: Well, here, the stench of death was found from the late Right Reverend Kirill.” And exactly. There was no mortal smell to be heard either in the house or in the church; it even evoked some slight fragrance and freshness. (Reverend Kirill died of cancer in the aisle.) Some time before this, I forced myself on Vladyka Philaret with the following speech: “A dead man smells bad because he is a sinner, and not because his body is rotting. There are fat dead people, and sometimes they don’t smell of mortality at all; on the contrary, there are dry dead bodies, and an unbearable stench comes from them. As proof of both, I gave several examples of my personal observation. Vladyka listened carefully, did not resolutely deny, but did not give direct consent, smiling with his characteristic smile, which is sometimes more eloquent than the deepest reasoning The consequence of this conversation was the Vladyka’s exclamation about the non-stench from the body of the late Right Reverend Kirill. Filaret uttered this exclamation with angelic joy. About the sermon by Fr. Nicholas for the funeral Ave. Kirill Vladyka said: “Sewn from scraps. First he proved that death was defeated by the resurrection of Christ. And then he began to prove the certainty of our resurrection. This is the same as after scraping with an axe. Moreover: his language has little unctuousness; so dry, hard, chops and saws like a greenling.” Here Vladyka complained (gently, impeccably) that Metropolitan Seraphim did not allow visiting Bishops to preach sermons here in St. Petersburg. (Probably the Moscow Metropolitan himself wanted to pronounce the funeral eulogy in memory of the late Kirill.) He related an incident from which other bishops stopped giving sermons here: “The Reverend Theophylact (died in Georgia) 93 spoke sermons at the Pskov courtyard.” There were personalities in the sermons. One day he said: “Here we have the young leading the old” (i.e., Filaret, the then Rector of the Academy, Metropolitan Ambrose). Metropolitan Ambrose was upset. In the Synod, he pointed out to the Most Reverend Theophylact the 20th rule of the Council of Trula (found, of course, by the young Rector of the Academy): The Most Reverend Theophylact needed to be silent. And from that time on, all the Bishops have been silent” 94. Metropolitan Philaret was especially good-natured and cheerful at this time: just the sight made him happy. By the way, I’ll tell you an anecdote that I heard during these years in St. Petersburg: His Eminence Theophylact, who had an apartment in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, was somewhere in St. Petersburg, and was returning in the dead of night. Not far from the Lavra, his carriage broke down, Theophylact got out of the carriage. The guards are clicked; They dragged the crew to the Lavra, or quickly repaired it. Theophylact told them: “Come to me tomorrow, I will thank you. Ask “Archimandrite Philaret!” Theophylact apparently fell from the carriage (the axle burst): his watch fell out onto the pavement. But in the morning the bakers come to Archimandrite Philaret and ask for gratitude for yesterday’s service. Filaret said: “I didn’t go anywhere; was at home." Bakers: “For mercy. So you fell with the carriage and dropped your watch: here it is!” Filaret paused. He gave them 25 rubles and took the watch. Afterwards, Filaret either through the cell attendant or personally returned the watch to His Eminence Theophylact. A ditch of destruction, from time immemorial, and fell into the pit that I made. Metropolitan Philaret immediately told me: “Today (April 7) the Synod read a proposal from the rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, by which he asks to appoint a Chairman to the Committee for the Review of Theological Notes (where I am the first), with the right of two votes, and also asks to appoint two new Members: the Priest of the Kazan Cathedral Okunev 95 and Debolsky” 96. Everything was done according to this idea. The Rector of the Academy himself was appointed chairman, and I became an ordinary member. This committee disappeared without doing anything. And I could not do anything (see above), and under the chairmanship of Fr. Nicholas did nothing (I was invited twice), and after that nothing was done either. Passion. Personalities. Carelessness is general from head to toe. Obstacles from secular people. LVI. On April 17, the birthday of the Heir to the Throne (now Emperor) Alexander Nikolaevich, I served in the Kazan Cathedral with the Metropolitan of Moscow. Also present at the prayer service were: Metropolitan Jonah and Vicar Benedict. And yesterday, on the 16th, was the wedding of Alexander Nikolaevich. LVII. On April 25, Nikolai, Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, was named Bishop of Tambov. There was me too, as if I were a successor. There were three Metropolitans: Seraphim, Philaret, Jonah. In the evening, at 6 o’clock, I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Here Joakim Semenovich Kochetov 97 was first checked. The Vladyka’s speeches to him about the divorce proceedings of some Chelishchevs; then Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov 98 came. I stood up, without saying a word, bowed to the Vladyka to the ground, saying goodbye to the Vladyka (he was going to Moscow). The Bishop said: “Well, forgive me!” But soon: “Yes! See you again; We will serve on Sunday.” Indeed, on April 27, on Sunday, I definitely served in the Kazan Cathedral with Bishop Philaret. There was the ordination of Fr. Nicholas as Bishop of Tambov. The Lord took precedence. There were two more: Metropolitan Jonah and Benedict Vicar. After the dedication, handing the newly ordained Bishop Nicholas the Bishop's staff, the Metropolitan gave him an admonition: it's a pity we didn't hear, because we were in the altar, and the staff was handed over on the Bishop's pulpit 99 . On April 28, however, I again insisted on being with the Metropolitan. (I saw clouds above me. They began to look at me askance and coldly (Count, Komovsky, and all that is power). The Gracious Lord accepted. Seeing that I was not starting speeches, Vladyka started talking about my Grammar: “Do you want me to take it to Moscow and read it there and not give it to others?” I agreed with a bow. Then, after waiting a minute, and seeing that I wasn’t saying anything, he said: “Well, sorry!” I bowed at my feet. The gracious Lord kissed me! I left, shedding tears of emotion. On the 29th, Metropolitan Philaret left St. Petersburg for Moscow at 6 o’clock in the morning. On May 3, in the house of Archpriest Joakim Semenovich Kochetov, where I was with His Grace Nicholas, after serving with him in the Peter and Paul Cathedral (in the Fortress), I heard a living narrator, Yegor Nikitich (first year at the St. Petersburg Academy, secular) 100, about the Bishops: About Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow he said: “It’s excellent to burn incense; in service he is handsome, but lethargic, as if dead; walks as if counting his steps; generally monotonous, although perfectly regular. He takes revenge on those who offended him with charity (a story about a Priest in Pechatniki. I don’t remember either the name of the Priest or the deed.) LVIII. In 1831, I was appointed Rector in Odessa, at the Kherson Seminary. I was kept in St. Petersburg until August. I left on August 22 and arrived in Moscow on August 28. On the 29th I visited Metropolitan Philaret. Ya - “To Odessa, to the Rector of the Seminary there.” The speech stopped at this “already.” The Bishop did not explain it. He gave good wishes and instructions of honesty, hard work and obedience to the Bishop. On August 30, on the day of St. Alexander Nevsky, I attended the liturgy in the Assumption Cathedral. The Metropolitan served. The service is majestic, decorous and highly reverent. Here I saw all the spiritual nobility of Moscow, namely: Vicar Vincent, reddish 101. Aaron (Arkhangelsky) 102. Dionysius (Perm), bent old man, meek 103. Feofan Donskoy, dapper, but simpleton 104. Platon Danilovsky is a callous personality 105. Melchesedek Simonovsky is soft and affectionate towards me 106. Apollos Novospassky - pride and annoyance give way to decrepitude 107. Hermogenes with convulsions, but dignified and relaxed, Andronikovsky 108. Joseph, Rector of the Seminary, thin, just bones... 109 I don’t know how I ended up in Miracles, in the hall where the Metropolitan and his fellow employees were having tea. The Bishop was cheerful and good-natured; complained of a cold in his throat, and did not agree to be treated with cold water (Archimandrite Theophan suggested.) There was not a word with me. I have never seen the Lord in such a position - a complete master, among his famous children, in a famous church. I asked Vladyka for permission to go to my homeland (Ruza): Vladyka remained silent. But wise and eloquent silence! Having visited my homeland and returned to Moscow, on September 14 I tried to be with the Bishop to receive the blessing. I stood for the liturgy in the courtyard. The Bishop called me after mass. M. “Are you still here? It's time to go to the place." I said that I would leave tomorrow. M. “Try to get along with the Eminence in Odessa!” 111 I begged Vladyka to take from me the 17-year-old, short-minded, confused in his mind, Tula-born young man Andrei. The Bishop agreed, although with annoyance. (And I had a hard time with him!) I was deeply grateful. (Andrei died in a mental hospital in Tula, where he was taken from the Lavra of St. Sergius.) LIX. In October 1841, the Rector of the Moscow Academy, Archimandrite Philaret, was elected Bishop of Riga, Vicar of Pskov. (In place of Irinarch, who was fired.) 112 In December, Fr. wrote to me in Odessa. Rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, Archimandrite Athanasius 113: “The Inspector of the same Academy, Archimandrite Eusebius 114, was appointed Rector of the Moscow Academy, in place of Philaret. There were speeches about you (about me): Moskovsky rejected.” I don't think he slandered Fr. Rector Afanasy: but it could happen that he received the wrong news. If the news is true, then I still blame myself, and partly the former Rector of the Academy, Filaret. Being irritated against me by the strict criticism of the works of 8 students, at the request of the late Eminence Kirill, he probably used everything to dissuade the Bishop from accepting me as the Rector of the Moscow Academy. The Bishop himself, seeing the instability of my character and many other shortcomings, probably found my Rectorship in his Academy neither reassuring for himself nor useful for the Academy. The Bishop was kind to me: but he also had to be fair and caring for the good of the Academy. The will of God has been done! LX. In May 1842, Metropolitan Philaret sent me my ill-fated Grammar from St. Petersburg, with a letter in which he condescendingly explained to me the reasons why he could not console me by printing this Grammar of mine, even for the Schools of the Moscow Diocese. “Most Reverend Father Archimandrite and Rector! I am forwarding to you the comments made on your Russian Grammar by some mentors of the Moscow Theological Schools, together with the Grammar itself, for your consideration. Do you have any questions about my opinion? Unfortunately, I do not find myself convinced that the desired goal has been achieved - simplifying the study of Russian Grammar for children. The big stumbling block is the verb system. It must be admitted that the new 115 systems seek their foundation in the spirit of language, and the old 116 in the examples of previous grammars of foreign languages. It would be possible not to worry about theory for practical convenience: but will Grammar have little advantage in this last respect, than will it be able to repel attacks for theory? Recently, 3 volumes of Philological Observations by Archpriest G. Pavsky 117 on the composition of the Russian language have been published. It is not useless for you to get acquainted with this book before you decide on your Grammar 118. However, I earnestly invoke God’s blessing for your well-intentioned and useful activities. Filaret Metropolitan of Moscow. No. 151. April 28, 1842. Odessa Seminary Rector Fr. Archimandrite Nicodemus. Attached to the Grammar is a copy of comments on it made, as I found out, by Alexander Evfimovich Nechaev, Archpriest and Rector of the Moscow Don Theological School. This is my friend from the Academy, an eminent; for having written first on the list. This is not the place to enter into competition with the connoisseur of my Grammar. But I cannot, however, fail to express my regret for the bitterness that the critic expressed not only against my knowledge, talent, intelligence, but also against my entire personality. So Alexander Evfimovich’s comments regarding my Grammar are a reproach of my knowledge and a reproach of my personality. The good Lord began to defend me (his pencil marks are always in my favor): but, seeing decisive anger and complete opposition to my Grammar, he stopped. Me and Alexander Evfimovich and my Grammar with his comments will be judged by posterity. I will say, however: there are many sensible comments; and if they had been presented without bile and humiliation of my personality, perhaps they would have served to benefit both me and Grammar. Metropolitan Philaret said goodbye to St. Petersburg and the Synod this year and did not visit here again until his death 119. LXI. In July 1847, being already the Rector of the Kursk Seminary, I traveled from Belgorod to Moscow and Bronnitsy to visit my mother, an old widowed woman who had entered a convent (on Borodino Fields), but left there, out of impatience, in the last summers of her life, to obey the whims of young novices. Mother stayed with her youngest son, Mikhail, who was a priest in the city of Bronnitsy. I took with me, for good measure, Professor of the Seminary Vasily Nikolaevich Platonov (now Rector of the Kharkov Seminary, Archimandrite Veniamin.) We arrived in Moscow on July 24th. That same day in the evening I visited the Metropolitan. Vladyka received me in the living room and sat me opposite him, sitting himself towards the light, and seating me away from the light. He didn’t ask me why I was here, but began: “What is the essence of my Odessa business, and what is the beginning of it?” Not preparing to answer such an unexpected question for me, I began to tell chronologically how a knot of bewilderment, irritation and open hostility gradually began to develop. Vladyka stopped me several times, pointed out where I was wrong, and told me how I should have acted. He said: “It was in vain that you presented your case to an open conscience when you saw that intrigues were being plotted on the other side. It was necessary to act against the intrigues with the dagger of forms. “You learned that your brethren were indignant against you: you had to use the opposite prudence, namely: since, without a doubt, not all the brethren are against you, and you, of course, knew which of them was more conscientious and devoted to you,” you had to immediately “attract these people to yourself by quiet and appropriate” deeds by reasoning. This way you wouldn’t be left alone,” and your opponents would feel the strength on your side.” I began to ask to go to Bronnitsy, where my mother, for whom I came, where my brother was, and briefly explained the purpose of my trip. He asked permission to serve. M. “It’s a pity that you’re in a hurry” (I don’t know why). Me. – I can’t hesitate. On the 26th, Mother of the Birthday: I want to console her with my service in her presence on this day. And I definitely left that very day. He rode all night, and almost died, being driven into some swamp: the coachman was a child. I stayed in Bronnitsa for two weeks. Then, from Moscow, no longer bothering Vladyka, he came to the Lavra and Bethany. In Bethany, on the day of the Transfiguration, I dined with Fr. The rector, Archimandrite Anthony, in the rooms of Metropolitan Platon, saw all the nobility of the Lavra, the Academy, Bethany; the story was in the Skete, I prayed in the Lavra, the story was in the Academy. Return to Moscow again, August 10, Sunday, in the evening I was again with the Metropolitan. Vladyka first asked about Bronnitsa, about my brother, about my mother. Then he began to praise the city of Bronnitsa for its piety, and the senior priest Yakov Semyonov for his diligence and troubles in building a new church. Then he ordered to convey to both of them (that is, and to my brother) his regret and displeasure for the fact that they do not care about conversion and the schismatics (a whole third of them) do not preach sermons. It was noticeable that Vladyka wanted to start talking about my mother, but I declined. There could be speeches here that would not be pleasing to the Lord. Abbess Maria Tuchkova, whose mother lived in the monastery and then left, was respected by the Metropolitan. But I wouldn’t want to blame my mother for escaping from the monastery. And justifying her, it would be difficult not to cast a shadow on the management of the monastery and the ruler. A subtle and observant man, the Metropolitan, having guided me to this matter several times, was able, of course, to read in my silence that I was finding it difficult to speak not without important reasons. I told Vladyka that, having left Bronnitsy for Moscow, I, without stopping, went to the Lavra, was at the Academy and in Bethany. The Lord was silent. Silence is eloquent, although as clear as speech. Vladyka again spoke about my Odessa case. I marveled at the open dishonesty of the actions of the Right Reverend Gabriel there (died in Tver) 120 . It is surprising that the Synod has not yet finished its work. I said: “Part of this matter, the counting part, has been transferred to the Kursk Consistory.” Vladyka: When your work in the Synod ends, write to me how and how it will end. I need this for considerations.” He asked about my real monastery (Nikolaevsky in Rylsk) and its methods. I said: “The monastery is decent.” M. “If the Synod forces you to pay money to the Odessa (Uspensky) Monastery: what do you intend to do?” M. “Where will you get the money?” M. “How many do you think can be counted on you?” Ya. – Up to a thousand rubles in silver. M. “How many years have you been a monk?” Turned around. He lowered his head. He thinks. Then Hegumen Parmen came to the Perervinsky monastery. I asked the Metropolitan for permission to take some icon out of the monastery and carry it through Moscow to the village of Khoroshevo, where the local residents asked: it is allowed. Tea is served. We drank two cups. I got up. Bowed. I asked for permission to go to my homeland in the city of Ruza and the village of Komlevo: it was allowed. But I didn’t go: I was struck by a serious illness. In Moscow I had a stay at the Theological Seminary, a new one, which was the former Ostermanovsky building 121, with Fr. Rector, Archimandrite Philotheus (now Archbishop of Tver): here is a true servant of God, meek, and brotherly and patient 122. I fell ill with a stomach fever, which threatened to turn into a fever. The feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God has arrived. I wanted to be in the cathedral for the liturgy on this famous day. I went with Fr. Archimandrite Philotheus, appointed to the ministry. The Metropolitan served with five Archimandrites, and the sixth Protopresbyter, all wearing miters. I have never seen such service. The service is reverent, in excellent order: everyone knows their place and business. With Kherubimskaya I began to feel ill. I'm afraid I can't stand it. The grace of God supported. I also listened to the Vladyka’s sermon. I didn’t like two things: 1, from the altar, through the royal doors, to listen to the sermon, all the clergy who were in the altar went out in robes! I have never seen this anywhere before (you can’t go through the royal doors without an epitrachelium, I thought until then, and now I think the same way.) 2. As soon as the Vladyka came out to the pulpit to deliver a sermon, the people noisily streamed out of the cathedral, to the right and to the left. And I almost never saw this. In the provinces they listen to our sermons with deep attention. I wanted to go home immediately after the liturgy. But the Metropolitan, noticing me at the altar, sent to say that I too should be at the cathedral dinner. Forced to be. But I was forced to leave the table: I felt decidedly ill. My illness was getting worse. My relatives came to see me off. I burdened myself with Fr. Rector. The time to return to the place of duty was approaching. And here is thunderous news: cholera is coming from the Caucasus and bringing with it fierce death, going straight to the north, in a wide stripe, and expanding to the right and left. I saw myself in a terrible situation. I had to go to Belgorod to meet her. On the 23rd day of August, between the fever, I crawled to the Metropolitan to receive a parting blessing from him. I hid my illness from him; I don’t know if he guessed it. The speeches are short. Having again talked a little about the Odessa case, Vladyka said: “Don’t have much patience! Maybe you'll get something better than this “When your work in the Synod ends, notify me. "Be careful. There is cholera. There have already been six cases in Moscow.” I bowed and left, having already cried on the way. So the holy and merciful Master cared for me more than I cared for myself. But I did not inform the Bishop about the decision of my case at the Synod. It was decided, it seems, already in 1849, and is victorious for me. Eminence Gabriel (even in my Decree) wrote a stern remark about his indecent personal interference in the affairs of the monastery and about inciting the monks to disobey the Abbot, about disrespect for the just ideas of the Abbot, and about many other things; The Synod reproached me for sharp and indecent explanations to the Eminence and the Consistory, for non-compliance with certain forms for monastic reporting, for managing the economy, and about something else. The Consistory's charges for me up to 700 rubles have been approved; but for that they ordered me to return up to 2000 rubles, according to my claims. The matter is pitiful, dishonest, but in itself insignificant. On Sunday, August 24, at the very time of mass, I left Moscow, hiding from my mother and brother my dangerous situation and horrors in the future. Behind the outpost we said goodbye. We spent the night in Serpukhov: my illness was growing; We arrived in Tula on the 25th. I've been here twice as Inspector. Stayed on the 26th: in Tula, Bishop 123 walked around the city in a religious procession, begging for mercy from cholera. 80 versts before Mtsensk the highway is only paved. They are waiting for the Emperor to pass. An entire army division has been deployed. Kleinmichel 124 gave the order to direct travelers along the newly filled highway, without distinguishing any persons, without respecting any reasons, and to beat those who disobey even to death! (That's what I was told.) I was horrified. And on a good road I could hardly take my breath away, and along this bristly path I could not travel 80 miles. There was a fight between my driver (God grant him mercy!) and a Pole soldier who was standing with a spade, or crowbar, at the turn off the highway. I was afraid of death. The Pole gnashed his teeth and turned blue, swung his spade, spewed strange blasphemies at the passer-by (the coachman called me the Right Reverend): I said a prayer! We arrived in Mtsensk on the evening of the 27th. 28 In the morning, feeling in a dangerous situation, I called the parish priest: I confessed and received communion. He received communion already in the monastery 125. Having no longer any opportunity to go further, I asked the Abbot of the local monastery for permission to spend some time in the monastery. Allowed. I stayed here until September 14, received treatment and received relief. On September 6, the Emperor drove somewhere to the south. September 15 is the day of my Angel, I was in Orel. Was at the early parish church. The Most Reverend Smaragd had 126: here is advice from citizens about the Committee on the occasion of the coming wrath of God - cholera: “There have already been up to 50 cases,” said the Bishop. We are met by dissolute teachers from our Belgorod Seminary: there is cholera; one Professor died. On the evening of September 17 we arrived in Kursk. Here the terrible cholera passed like a cloud, leaving behind traces of disaster - orphanhood and homelessness, and still smoking with its anger, as if after a deadly fire. More than a thousand people died in Kursk. I stayed in the Bishop's House: the housekeeper, Archimandrite Seraphim, strangled me with stories of striking defeats from cholera. On the 18th we left Kursk, spent the night in Oboyan: and here the wrath of God is still smoking - cholera, although it is coming to an end. Finally, on September 19, Friday evening, we reached Belgorod, our Seminary, our home. I was welcome, they surrounded me, they told me thousands of stories: I thanked God that I remained alive and reached my place. I started talking about myself: forgive me, holy fathers! The events are too striking for me: I cannot restrain myself in silence, and there is the finger of God! In 1850 I was transferred from Kursk to Yaroslavl Seminary. In the last days of May I was in Moscow. The Bishop was in the Lavra. On my way. I arrived in Sergiev Posad early on June 1, the day of the Ascension of the Lord. Stayed at a hotel. The Bishop in the Skete is Gethsemane, which is on Korbukh, 3 versts from the Lavra. He serves there today. The Viceroy 127 also went there with his elder brethren to prepare a conciliar service. In the Lavra, in the Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity, where the Monk Sergius rests, academic scientists served: Rector Archimandrite Alexy 128, and with him two famous Professors and Proterya Peter Spiridonovich Delitsyn 129 and Feodor Alexandrovich Golubinsky 130, and some other Bachelor 131, and three hieromonks of the Lavra. Although the first and most important thing for me was to see the Lord, to bow to him and receive edification and consolation from him: but I also wanted to commune with the holiness of God at the relics of St. Sergei, and to pray here on such a day. There were so many people of pilgrims that, despite the fact that I am a monk and Archimandrite, I could not get into the cathedral to the altar: Professor Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky 132, the Lavra efficient hieromonk Evmeniy, who was familiar to me, volunteered to lead me. I stood for the liturgy at the altar, in the Lavra. The service is important, decorous, calm. After the liturgy, Fr. Rector. I dined with Alexander Vasilyevich at his place. After lunch, after spending some time in conversations (some of which, however, I did not need and were burdensome to me), Fr. The rector himself went with me to introduce me to Vladyka. O. The rector first went to Vladyka himself and reported about me. I'm called. O. The rector left. Vladyka, after a few general words, began a close speech about me. I remembered again about my Odessa business, which was already over, and Vladyka had already seen His Eminence Gabriel of Odessa, who had been transferred to Tver (Eminence Gabriel, although from Kostroma, completed his studies at the Trinity Lavra and was a comrade and peer of Metropolitan Philaret) 133, with whom, of course, there was talk about me. The Lord is good to me now, as always before. I regret that at the same time, what was said was not written down in detail. He said something about wandering. He told how he, while still a hierodeacon, was the Inspector of the Seminary or School of St. Petersburg. He spoke about how he took over the management of the Yuriev Novgorod Monastery, being already an Archimandrite, how he accepted and handed it over (1812–1816), the monastery was almost destroyed and full of disorder and carelessness of the administrators. All this, of course, is a lesson to me. Then he asked: Do you want me to write about you to His Eminence of Yaroslavl? I bowed. Vladyka took the paper and pen in front of me, wrote it, sealed it and gave it to me to present to Vladyka of Yaroslavl. Blessing me at parting, he said: (To His Eminence Eugene 134 deep respect and bow." Arriving in Yaroslavl, I gave His Grace Eugene a letter from Metropolitan Philaret. His Grace Eugene printed it out in front of me and read it almost aloud. In the letter, the Metropolitan, among other things, writes: “This Nicodemus is not the same as in Irkutsk.” The Reverend Eugene said: “I know” 135. After thinking a little, His Grace Eugene said: “We are under the influence of fate: we will see what happens.” Now I see and have no doubt that I was transferred to Yaroslavl due to the thoughts and desires of Metropolitan Philaret, who was so providential about me. LXIII. At the end of 1853, I was appointed and called to St. Petersburg for a series of sacred services and preaching the word of God. I arrived in Moscow on December 30, and stayed at the Novospassky Monastery with Fr. Archimandrite Agapit 136. This day I stayed at home. On December 31, in the morning, I arrived at the Trinity Compound. The liturgy is ending: they sing Communion. I waited with Alexander Petrovich, Vladyka’s Secretary. It was reported about me, I was called to the Lord. I enter the hall and go to the living room. The Bishop stands in a cassock and white hood: he looks stern and important, but his smile also shines; a fading old man is visible. I bowed to the Lord to the ground and accepted the blessing. M. “Are you (and not you) in St. Petersburg on a regular basis?” M. “But it seems you’ve already been to the class?” I. – I was, and for more than two years. M. “Is your Eminence Eugene healthy? Does he know anything definite about his fate? Ya. – He doesn’t seem to know for sure, but he guesses that the Holy Synod is dismissing him from service. M. “Well, sorry! I don’t have time.” I bowed and left. The Lord is following me. The singers had already lined up in the hall and sang: “Thy Nativity, Christ our God.” Dedication to the Nativity of Christ. When the Master speaks to me, You: it is either a strict admonition, a reprimand, or the affectionate speech of a complacent father, speech that is close, sincere, simple. When will you say: here it is necessary to listen to an important speech by the Metropolitan of Moscow, Member of the Holy Synod. LXIV. On February 14, 1854, in St. Petersburg, I was consecrated Bishop and appointed Vicar in Kazan. On March 12, going to my place of ministry, I arrived in Moscow and stopped again with Fr. Archimandrite Agapit in the Novospassky Monastery. On the 13th I visited the Metropolitan. I arrived at the end of 9 o'clock in the morning. The cell attendants told me: “This is the hour of mass. The Metropolitan is going to mass.” I was stupid to insist that they report. The Lord demanded. I entered the living room and bowed to the ground to the Metropolitan. Planted. I asked about the health of Archbishop Gregory, about his studies on matters of schism 137, about my future life in Kazan. The Bishop talked for a long time about His Grace Eugene of Yaroslavl, and about the significance of his stay in the Donskoy Monastery. He found it inappropriate and indecent to transfer the monastery to his disposal. “Low for him. Need some trouble. The monastery requires repairs and support: there is no money. You have to ask. This is not too Hierarchical business. Let there be an Archimandrite. And in order not to offend him, you can choose an Archimandrite with little merit” 138. Meeting me, the Metropolitan said: “I congratulate you on the rank of Saint. God bless! You are finally out into the open. I wish you good service!” The Bishop started talking to me until more than half of the mass had already passed (he ordered it to begin). The cell attendant comes again and reports: “They are already singing... Worthy.” The Metropolitan did not think much. Then, waving his hand, he said: “Let them finish. And this is service! However, Vladyka soon got up and let me go, saying: “Come to dine with me tomorrow, together with Archimandrite Agapit, at 2 o’clock.” I left in delight and tenderness. On March 14, at 3 Sunday of Lent, we arrived with Fr. Agapit at the appointed time. In the Vladyka’s hall they met two Archimandrites, Ioannikios, the Governor of Miracles 139, and Plato of Andronikovsky. The Lord immediately came out. I talked something with Archimandrite Agapit. We sat down at a table in a bright gallery, to the left of the hall. The table is elegant, with fish. The Metropolitan held a special bottle near him, something scarlet-red, like cranberry juice. He treated us to wine. He was talkative and delicate. I sat on his right hand. The speeches are selective, clear, rounded and interesting. The Bishop even smiled with a slight grin. I saw that in the depths of his jaws several teeth were already missing. He talked about the gilding of church domes, about Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov’s essay about the Raskolniks 140. In general, he spoke, and was not silent. Archimandrite Agapit complained about jackdaws swarming in clouds on the roof; churches, and expressed a desire to shoot them. The Bishop read: “For the bird shall find for itself a church, and the turtledove a nest for itself, wherein it will lay its chicks: your altars, O Lord of hosts.” O. Agapit fell silent. With me, Vladyka didn’t seem to say anything. Got up from lunch. The Bishop called me to the side and pointed out the cardboard box in which the Bishop’s vestments were folded (not complete, without the sakkos and vestment), embroidered with a golden eyelet, “This is from me to you.” I bowed to the Lord to the ground. He said goodbye right there. (I keep this vestment and use it on important days. Righteous Philaret in the clothes of a nobleman is embroidered on the club with silk.) This was my last sight of Blessed Metropolitan Philaret. I left first for Kazan, and then for Krasnoyarsk, four thousand miles away. LXV. Here and with this I end my memory of the blessed Metropolitan of Moscow Philaret. There are two letters from him to me, written in March and May 1863, regarding my opinions about candle gatherings in churches: but they cannot be announced until my death. Here I will only say that the very anger of the Holy Hierarch against me came from fatherly pity for me, and in itself there is real goodness and wisdom. I don’t make general judgments about the blessed Saint, even because I know the slightest part of him, in cases that were close to me: and who am I among the so many hosts of his great and glorious children? I will say one thing that I can say and of which I consider myself convinced: First. Metropolitan Philaret was a perfect monk, a pure virgin, a keeper of vows of purity. Second. Filaret was ready for any perfect virtue, as soon as he recognized himself as obligated to it, and counted on the likelihood of success. Therefore, there was no need to beg him: it was enough to offer a good deed. Third. Theology. I recognize Philaret’s dogmatism, churchliness, and Orthodoxy as perfect, without blemishes, without errors, to the extent that I can understand all this. Fourth. Filaret is a sincere and heartfelt teacher, he does not flatter the word of God: he thinks exactly the same way at home, in the recesses of his soul, as he says. Fifth. No one more deeply and truly, no one more sincerely, proved the sacredness of worldly power and the need for obedience to it. Sixth. The Bishop spoke eloquently and elegantly in a language unique to him: sometimes there is a panache of language. I forgive him wholeheartedly: who is without this weakness? But hardly anyone had it less, and was more excusable. Seventh. Accessibility to the Lord (as far as I know, and as I can judge from experiences with me) is approximate, and alas! According to the experiences of my life, it is unparalleled! With Filaret, say whatever you want: he will be listened to patiently, not only when it is stupidity, a mistake, a delusion, but also when the speech may be unfavorable to his personality. Filaret will answer and give instructions. judging by the merits of what is proposed, and in any case without bitterness, and especially without revenge in the future. Filaret is so great that he sees even the smallest and knows how to sympathize with him. Eighth. I don’t know of a case where Filaret took back his word, especially in important and high matters: this testifies not only to his high wisdom, but also to its correctness. How many celebrities, even among the Spiritual, who say this one day and another tomorrow, plan this day and abandon it tomorrow: Filaret is always true to himself. Ninth. True, sometimes Filaret gave in: he apparently did not consider himself strong enough to condemn himself to martyrdom, and most likely, in his wisdom, he did not consider his martyrdom useful and necessary for the cause. Here, however, God will judge! Tenth. Those who sometimes sneaked into Filaret's special trust were not always worth his trust. I know this and I regret it. Some Dalida will sometimes put Sampson to sleep. May the Lord rest His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, in His kingdom! Nikodim, Bishop of Yenisei and Krasnoyarsk. Addition. The abbot of the Valaam Monastery, Damascene, a man without any education, who was with Metropolitan Philaret (and I was there), in St. Petersburg, at the Trinity courtyard, (1842, 3, 4 years old) said: “You, Vladyka, have singers singing in new notes and melodies. It's a pity. It would be better if they sang according to the ancient church melody" 141. I felt sorry for the Vladyka, thinking that it would take a long time to convince such an uneducated person that the new singing was not heresy. And he didn’t know what he should say. The Bishop, without thinking anything, immediately said: “Here’s what, Father Abbot: And the singers have been singing the same thing for a long time.” I recognize this answer as happy and the only decent and suitable one this time and for such a person. October, 1868 Krasnoyarsk. The St. Nicholas Cathedral houses an ancient miraculous icon, the so-called Mozhaisk Icon of St. Nicholas, with an image of a sword and a church in his hands. For the legend about this icon, see December. Books “Soul floor. Readings”, 1872. There, on page 413, there is also a story by Rev. Nicodemus about his childhood, which we convey now. Opened in the Lavra in 1814, October 1, in place of the Trinity Seminary, which was then abolished. In 1814, as determined by the Commission of Theological Schools, the “Review of Theological Sciences in relation to their teaching in Higher Theological Schools” was published, pp. 1–56, compiled by Archimandrite Philaret. See the notes at the end of Notes 66 and 124 about them. In the house of your son-in-law, Archpriest Georgy Kirillovich Dobronravov (d. 1871. Sep. 7), and your sister, Marya Ivanovna, the wife of the Archpriest. His obituary in Moscow. Eparch. Led. 1874, no. 32. Filaret Drozdov, b. Dec. 26, 1782; Studied first (from 1791) at Kolomenskaya, and then, from 1800, at Trinity Seminary, where he was a Teacher from 1803.” He was tonsured a monk in 1808, November 16. In March 1809, Inspector of the St. Petersburg Seminary; 1810 Bachelor of Theological Sciences and Church History at the St. Petersburg Academy. Ordained Archimandrite 1811, July 8. In March 1812, the Academy Rector and Yuriev Novgorod Monastery Abbot; 1814 Doctor of Divinity. In 1816 he was renamed Abbot of the Moscow Novospassky Monastery. He was consecrated Bishop of Revel, with the retention of the post of Rector of the Academy, on August 5, 1817. By the Personal Highest Decree of March 15, 1819, he was commanded to be the Archbishop of the Tver Diocese and at the same time a Member of the Holy Synod; 1820, St. 26. transferred to the Yaroslavl Diocese; 1821, July 3. Archbishop of Moscow: arrived in Moscow from St. Pegerburg in the first half of August. Since 1826, Aug. 22, Metropolitan; passed away 1867, November 19. Haymov – Inspector since August 19, 1814; in 1822 he retired to the secular rank. Damascene Rossov, in 1809 he was tonsured a monk and from the Teachers of the Pererva Seminary he was appointed Preacher to the Moscow-Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy (where he received his education), and the following year he was ordained as a hieromonk. For some time he was a Librarian. In 1812, Teacher of the Law at the St. Petersburg Commercial School, 1814, Archimandrite of the Serpukhov Vysotsky Monastery; in 1816 he was transferred, first to the Moscow Danilov Monastery, and then to the St. Petersburg Sergius Hermitage (on the Peterhof Road), leaving the post of Law Teacher; 1819 Yuryevsky Archimandrite, and from December 14 Vicar of Novgorod 1824, Nov. 6 Bishop of Tula; 1850, Dec. 19, Archbishop of Olonetsky; 1851, Feb. 7. dismissed and sk. in July 1856. Evgeny Kazantsev, from 1791 he studied at Trinity, and from 1800 he taught at Bethany Seminary; in 1804 Prefect, and tonsured a monk in 1809 Inspector of the St. Petersburg Academy. 1810 Rector of Trinity from 1614 Moscow Seminary, from 1816 Bishop of Kursk. 1822 Archbishop of Pskov. 1825 Tobolsk, 1831 Ryazan, 1837 Yaroslavl. and from 1854 he was granted a Membership of the Holy Synod and the management of the Moscow Donskoy Monastery, where the church. 1871, July 27. Platon Levshin, 1739 Prefect, 1761 Rector of the Trinity Lavra Seminary; 1762 Court Preacher and Teacher of the Law to the Sovereign Heir Pavel Petrovich: 1766 Archimandrite of the Trinity Lavra. 1767Member. Holy Synod, 1770 Archbishop of Tver, 1775. Jan. 21, Moscow. 1787 Metropolitan; sk. 1812, Nov. 11. Nikanor Klementyevsky, after completing his education at Trinity Seminary, was a Teacher there from 1809. He was tonsured in April 1812. 9, etc. year he was transferred as a Preacher to the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. In 1814, Bachelor of Church History at the newly opened Moscow Theological Academy in the Lavra, and from November 8, Archimandrite. Since 1818 Rector of Betham, 1826 Vicar of St. Petersburg, 1831 Bishop of Kaluga, 1831 of Minsk, 1840 of Volyn, 1843 Archbishop of Warsaw and Member of the Holy Synod, 1818 Metropolitan. Novgorodsky to St. Petersburg; passed away September 17, 1856. Feodoty Ozerov, Master of Petersburg. 5th year Academy (1823), held the position of Inspector, in Bethany Sem. from 1823 to 1828; in seven years he was appointed Rector of the Orenburg, and in 1831 the Ryazan Seminary; 1837 Vicar of Novgorod, 1842 Simbirsk. 1856 Archbishop; sk. 1858, Aug. 20. Polikarp Gaitannikov, 1st year Master of Science in St. Petersburg. Academician Upon completion of the course in 1814, Inspector Petersburg. Seminaries; tonsured in December of the same year. In 1817 Archimandrite, 1810 Rector of the St. Petersburg Seminary, 1822 Doctor of Theology. Appointed Rector of the Moscow Academy on November 4th. 1824, and at the same time the Novospassky Monastery was given to him for management; in 1835, Dec. 14, dismissed from the School Service and lived in the Novospassky Monastery, which he ruled until 1837; this year, on January 19, he died. Hieronymus Nesterovsky, 1st year Master Moscow. Academy (1818). Of the Professors of Bethany Seminary, he was appointed Inspector in 1822. and subsequently. year, he was promoted to Archimandrite and appointed Rector of the Oryol Seminary. From here he was transferred to Vyatka; sk. in December 1834. “The Outline of Church Biblical History”, 1816. Afanasy, son of the Priest of the Tambov Diocese; 1818 from the Cathedral Hieromonks, Viceroy of the Lavra and Archimandrite of Bethany Monastery, deceased. 1831, Feb. 23. By Decree of the Emperor. Paul 1797 prescribed: The Viceroy of the Lavra should always be the Archimandrite of the Bethany Monastery. Moses Egor. Molchanov, Bachelor from 1821 to 1828; He also held the position of Secretary of the Academy; sk. 1830, priest of the Intercession, in Levshin, church (in Moscow). Evlampy Pyatnitsky graduated from the course at the Moscow Academy with a Master's degree in 1820. Of the Bachelors, he was appointed Inspector of the same Academy in 1826. In November 1831 Rector of Vifansky, 1834 Vicar of Perm; 1840 Bishop of Oryol; 1844 Vologda; 1852 Archbishop of Tobolsk 1856 to rest and death. 1862, March 12. Filaret Gumilevsky, Master of Moscow. Spirit. 7th year academy. He was tonsured a monk on January 19, 1830, and in this year, upon completion of the course, was appointed Bachelor of Church History, 1833 Inspector, 1835 Rector of the Academy; from 1841 Bishop of Riga, Vicar of the Pskov Diocese, 1848 Kharkov, 1857 Archbishop. 1859 Chernigov; passed away 1866, Aug. 9. The Cathedral Hieromonk of Damascus managed the written affairs of the Lavra. To manage the Lavra in general, the so-called. Spiritual Cathedral. In addition to the members of this Council, there are other Councilors in the Lavra, that is, persons assigned to serve at the Cathedral Trinity Church. Margarita Mikhailovna Tuchkova, on the Borodino field, at the site of her husband’s death. Major General Alexander Alekseevich Tuchkov, who fell with the glory of a hero in the Battle of Borodino, erected a church in the name of the All-Merciful Savior; lived there since 1826. Oct. 26. and with the permission of the Holy Synod on March 4, 1833, she founded a women’s dormitory there, of which she was the Trustee and Headmistress. The Borodino hostel was transformed with the Highest permission. on January 1, 1838, at the monastery of nuns, Mrs. Tuchkova took monastic vows with the name Maria (1840, June 28), the next day she was elevated to the rank of Abbess of this monastery; passed away 1852. Anp. 29. A.P. Svyatoslavsky mind. in February 1856. Iliodor Chistyakov, 1820 2nd year Master Moscow. Academy was from 1823 Rector of the Ryazan and Novgorod Seminary: 1832. March 13. Bishop of Kursk, 1844 Archbishop, 1860. to rest, sk. 1861. Feb. 2. Elpidifor Benediktov. 1825 senior candidate Petersburg. Academician 6th year. 1826 Master. 1829 tonsured, from 1832 Rector of the Kursk and Voronezh Seminary, 1842 Vicar of Voronezh, 1848 Bishop of Kharkov. November 6 Podolsky. 1851 Vyatsky. 1860 Archbishop of Tauride. May 25 dismissed; sk. 1860, May 31. Anatoly Martynovsky, native of Podolsk lips. After the seminary course he was a priest from 1817; widowed, from the Teachers of the Podolsk Seminary he entered the Kyiv Academy, where he took his hair in 1822, and in 1825 he graduated from the course as a Master and then remained there as a Bachelor. Since 1829, Rector of the Kursk Seminary and in the same year moved to Novgorod; 1840 Vicar of Perm, 1841 Volyn diocese. 1844 Bishop of Mogilev, 1853 Archbishop, 1859 Doctor of Theology. 1860 dismissal to rest; passed away 1872, Aug. 8. Timofey, 1806 graduated from the course at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, 1821 tonsured. 1822 Archimandrite of the Smolensk Trinity Monastery, 1828 Vicar of Novgorod, 1834 Bishop of Smolensk, 1856 Archbishop. 1859 uv. to rest; passed away 1862, July 24. Smaragd Kryzhanovsky, from the Little Russians. After completing the course at the Kyiv Academy in 1815 and, therefore, even before its transformation in 1819, he was sent to. St. Petersburg Academy as a Student; 1819 3rd year Master and Bachelor of St. Petersburg Academy. 29 Aug. tonsured: 1821 Inspector of the Kyiv Academy, 1824 Archimandrite, 1826 Rector of the Kyiv Seminary, 1828 Bethany, from 23 Aug. Rector of the Kyiv Academy, 1830 St. Petersburg. 1831 Vicar of St. Petersburg, 1833 Bishop of Polotsk. 1836 Archbishop, 1837 Mogilev, 1840 Kharkov, 1841 Astrakhan. 1844 Orlovsky, 1858 Ryazansky; sk. 1863, Nov. 11. Seraphim of Glagolevsky, 1785 Teacher of the Trinity Seminary, where he studied. 1787 moved to Moscow. Academy and got a haircut. 1790 Prefect. 1798 Rector of the Academy 1799, Dec. 25, Vicar of Moscow, 1804 Bishop of Vyatka, 1805 of Smolensk, 1812 Archbishop of Minsk. 1814 Tver, 1819 Metropolitan of Moscow, 1821 Novgorod, sk. 1843, Jan. 17. Photius Spassky, Novgorod Yuriev Monastery. Archimandrite", sk. 1838, Feb. Inspector of the Novgorod Seminary, Fr. Nicodemus could have visited him. S. D. Nechaev was Chief Prosecutor from 1833 to 1836, and his successor, Count N. A. Protasov from 1836 to 1855. When Nicodemus was in Novgorod. I guess Vladyka deliberately hurried away from the Vicar, so as not to have the unpleasantness of seeing the Rector of the Seminary, whom he could no longer respect. Inspector M. Academy, Fr. Evlampius reviewed this Seminary, by order of the Commission of Theological Schools in 1829. Vladimir Uzhinsky, a graduate of the Alexander Nevsky Academy, 1809 Teacher of the Novgorod Seminary, 1807 tonsured, 1811, in the rank of Inspector, Archimandrite of Novgorod Antonieva Monastery, 1812 Rector of the Novgorod Seminary, 1816 Rector of Iversky Monastery, 1819 Vicar St. Petersburg, 1822 Bishop of Kursk, 1831 Archbishop of Chernigov, 1836 Kazan, 1846 to rest; sk. 1855, Dec. 16. Gabriel Petrov was born in Moscow in 1730. After completing a course of study at the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, he was a reference or senior proofreader at the Moscow Synodal Printing House in 1754, and a Teacher of Rhetoric at the Trinity Seminary in 1758; in the same year, on June 28, he was tonsured, on July 7, Rector of Trinity Seminary, in 1761 the Academy where he studied; 1763 Bishop of Tver, 1770 Archbishop of St. Petersburg, 1775 Novgorod and St. Petersburg, 1783 Metropolitan, 1799 Novgorod and Olonets, in December 1800. to rest; sk. 1801, Jan. 26, Under him, the St. Petersburg Seminary, November 4, 1775, was transferred to the Alexander Nevsky Monastery (from 1797 Lavra), and the Novgorod Seminary was annexed to it in 1788; and in 1800 the Novgorod Seminary, in which only the lower classes remained, was opened with its full complement, as before. Ambrose Podobedov, 1765 Librarian and Catechist at Trinity Seminary, and in 1767 Teacher. In 1768 he was tonsured and transferred to the Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy as a Preacher; 1771 Prefect, 1774 Rector of the Academy. 1778 Vicar of Moscow, 1782 Bishop of Krutitsky, 1785 Archbishop of Kazan, 1799 of St. Petersburg, 1800 of Novgorod and St. Petersburg. 1801 Metropolitan, 1818 Novgorod, same year. to rest at the end May 21. St. Petersburg Seminary even before him (in 1797), renamed the Alexandronevskaya Academy, under him, in 1809, Feb. 17, transformed into a higher educational institution under the name of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, with the opening thereof, on March 1, of the St. Petersburg Seminary, in the same Lavra. Since 1819, the Academy building has been located outside the Lavra, with its façade facing the Neva. Filaret inspected the Novgorod Seminary in 1815. Varlaam Uspensky, 1827 tonsured, 1828 6th year Master Moscow. Academy Inspector of Bethany, 1833 Rector of the Tula Seminary, 1834 Voronezh, 1837 Kursk, 1843 Vicar of Kiev, 1845 Bishop of Arkhangelsk, 1854 of Penza, 1860 Archbishop, 1862 of Tobolsk, 1872 to rest; sk. 1876, March 31. Nikon is Nikodim's comrade. Ioaniky Obraztsov. 1817 2nd year candidate St. Petersburg. Ak., 1819 tonsured, 1825 Rector of the Penza Seminary then Tobolsk, 1632 Bishop of Vyatka 1835 Orenburg, 1849 Caucasian 1857 dismissed. to rest. Platon Gorodetsky, 7th year Master of Science in Peteb. Academy, 1830 tonsured, 1831 from bachelors Inspector of the Academy 1837 Rector of the Kostroma Seminary, 1843 Vicar of Lithuania 1848 of Pskov 1850 Bishop of Riga (established March 11, 1850). from 21 Apr. Archbishop, 1867 Donskoy, 1877 Kherson. Grigory Mitkevich, 1831 5th year Master and Bachelor of the Kyiv Academy, took monastic vows; 1833 Inspector of the Kazan Seminary, 1836 of the Kyiv Academy, 1838 Rector of the Yaroslavl Seminary, 1844 of the Kazan Academy. 1851 Bishop of Kaluga, 1869 Archbishop. Comrade Nicodemus, see note. 14. Filaret Amphitheaters, being a Teacher of the Oryol Sem., was tonsured in 1798; in the same Seminary he was Rector in 1802, 1804 in Orenburg, 1810 in Tobolsk. 1814 Inspector" Petersburg. Academy. in August Doctor of Theology and Moscow Ak. Inspector", 1816 Rector". 1819 Bishop of Kaluga, 1825 Ryazan. 1826 Archbishop, 1828 Kazan, 1836 Yaroslavl 1837 Metropolitan of Kiev; sk. 1857, Dec. 21. Vladimir Uzhinsky, see note. 29. Nathanael Savchenko, 1825 2nd year master and bachelor of the Kyiv Academy, 1827. according to the petition, Professor of the Kursk Seminary. 1833 tonsured, 1834 Rector of the Podolsk Seminary. 1839 Kostroma. 1845 Vicar of St. Petersburg. 1850 Novgorod, from Dec. 19 Bishop of Poltava 1860 Arkhangelsk, 1871 Chernigov, 1874 Archbishop, sk. 1875. Map. 4. Nathanael Pavlovsky, 1817 2nd year Master and Bachelor of St. Petersburg. Ak., 1819 Inspector of the Academy, 1821 Rector, Yaroslavl Seme.. 1830 Bishop of Poltava, 1834 Pskov, then Archbishop; sk. in August 1849. “Teaching spoken on Spiritual Day by Priest Basil.” Von-Vizin", Denis Iv., died 1792. Supremely approved on the 30th day of August. 1814. Semyon N. Krasnotsvetov, 1st Master” 6th year student in St. Petersburg. Ak., in July 1830 appointed Priest to the Orthodox Church. churches in Switzerland; in 1857 Archpriest of the Assumption Church on Sennaya. in St. Petersburg. Anna Fedorovna was married to the Grand Duke on February 15, 1796, formally divorced from her husband on April 1, 1820. in Elfenau, near Bern. 12 August 1860. Count S.S. Uvarov. 1833–1849. Nicodemus was born in the Moscow Diocese. On the transformation of Theological Seminaries regarding the educational part. Dimitry Peter. Gorikhvostov, Captain of the Guard, in 1831 founded an institution in Moscow for the education of orphans - girls of the Spiritual rank, for charity for widows and elderly girls of the same rank; mind. Aug. 15, 1846. Here in the margin it is written: “August 29, 1868.” A.P. Karasevsky mind, in December 1856. Meletius Smotritsky, Archbishop of Polotsk, wrote an excellent Slavic Grammar for his time, published in Moscow, 1648. Serbinovich, from Belorussy, T. Sov., d. 1874, Jan. 18. Princes A.N. Golitsyn and I.S. Meshchersky were Chief Prosecutors of the Holy Synod, the first from 1803 to 1817, and the third time from 1817 to 1833. Makariy Glukharev, 2nd year master's degree in St. Petersburg. Academy, before being appointed to the Mission (1829), he served as a mentor and supervisor in the Ekaterinoslav and Kostroma Seminaries; sk. 1847, May 18, in the 36th year of his life. “Prophetic books of the Old Testament (an experience of translation into Russian.” M., 1863. T. F. Nikolsky, d. in 1848 Innokenty Orlov sc. 1870, Feb. 9. Both of them died on November 19th. Stilling Jung, as a result of exalted piety, hovered in mysticism and superstition, and wrote many works in this spirit; died 1817. This Bible consists of several, separately bound books; one book was lost and is now in the Moscow Alekseevsky nunnery. In its margins there are brief extracts from the Greek, Latin, and interpreter Bibles, or only the names of the interpreters are indicated, not excluding Western ones. Mrs. Gion wrote an explanation of the New Testament, translated into Russian in 1821, and of some books of the Old Testament. Afanasy Drozdov, tonsured in 1823. 1824 4th year Master Moscow. Academies and Bachelor. 1828 Rector of Penza. 1829 Kostroma. 1838 Ryazan. 1840 Kherson Seminary. 1841 Petersburg. Academy 1842 Bishop of Vinnitsa, retaining the rank of Rector of the Academy. 1847 Bishop of Saratov, 1836 Astrakhan, 1838 Archbishop. 1870 uv. to rest, sk. 1876. Dec. 7. Nikolai Dobrokhotov, 3rd year Master of the Kyiv Academy (1827), tonsured 1828; from the Rectors of the Yaroslavl Sem. defined 1837. Rector of St. Petersburg. Academy 1841 Bishop of Tambov 1857 on the new speed 1864. Oct. 21. Afanasy Skolov. 1825 senior 6th year candidate St. Petersburg. Academic; tonsured and... left with her as a bachelor. 1826 Master. Inspector of the Pskov Sem., 1828 Rector of the Kharkov Sem. 1830 Chernigov Sem., 1832 Tver. 1838 St. Petersburg. 1841 Bishop of Tomsk, 1853 Archbishop of Irkutsk. 1856 Cossack. 1866 uv. to rest; sk. 1868. January 1. In August 1840, the Spiritual Educational Administration ordered the Seminary Board: “1. Of the main spiritual subjects of Seminary teaching, especially adapt Pastoral and Conversational Theology to the duties of a rural Priest. 2. From auxiliary subjects, teach all students the principles of philosophy (Logic and Psychology). Russian Literature, History. Physics: Geometry and languages ​​Greek and Latin. 3) At the same time, introduce new subjects, especially useful in the hostel and everyday life of the Priest, such as: Natural Sciences, the principles of Medicine and Agriculture. 4) Establish in the Seminaries a preparatory class for candidates for the priesthood...” Kirill Bogoslovsky-Platonov, from Trinity Seminary Students, 1st year Master in St. Petersburg. Ak. (1814) and her bachelor's degree, 1817 Rector of the Poltava Seminary, 1819 Moscow. Academy. 1824 Vicar of Moscow 1827 Bishop of Vyatka, 1842 Archbishop of Kamenets-Podolsk; sk. 1841. Map. 8. Jonah Vasilievsky, 1792, after completing a course in the Trinity Seminary, Priest in Kaluga, 1803 Archpriest. 1807 Archimandrite and Teacher of the Law St. Petersburg. Commercial School. 1808 Rector of the Kaluga Seminary. 1810 Inspector Petersburg. Academy, 1812 Bishop of Tambov. 1821 Archbishop of Astrakhan, from Oct. 1 Exarch of Georgia, 1828 Metropolitan: from 1832. upon dismissal from the administration of the Diocese, was present in the Holy Synod as a Member: sk. 1849. June 22. Sturdza. Bessarabian landowner, from Moldova, one of the founders and first Vice-President (until February 23, 1842) of the Odessa Society of History and Antiquities, academician. 1834. June 8. Joseph Semshako, 1820 Master of Theology of the former Vilna University, 1821 Priest. 1828 Archpriest. 1829 tonsured and in the same year Bishop of Mstislav, 1833 Lithuanian, 1839 from the Uniates accepted into communion of the Orthodox Church, then Archbishop, 1852 Metropolitan: St. 1868, Nov. 23. Venedikt Grigorovich. 1st year master's degree in St. Petersburg. Ak.; in 1814. right after the end of the course. Rector of Mogilev, 1829 Bethany Seminary, 1831 St. Petersburg. Academy, 1833 Vicar of St. Petersburg with retention in the Rector's position. 1842 Bishop of Olonetsky then Archbishop: deceased. 1850, Dec. 7. Joasaph Pokrovsky, 2nd year Master of Science in St. Petersburg. Ak., Archimandrite and Ordia. Professor of the same Academy. Now Archpriest Mosk. Arkhangelsk Cathedral, Doctor of Theology. Hierotheus, Patriarch from 1851 to the present. In 1833, and appointed Archbishop of Mount Tabor, he came to Russia to collect donations for the benefit of the Jerusalem Church; returned in 1839. The saint, when he was a Teacher at Trinity Seminary, wrote (in April 1808) to a relative - a deacon: “I am ready to take ready-made (secular dress),... Moreover, if you are already taking the trouble to dress me up, then do not leave me to buy a hat.” Shower floor. Reading, 1870. November, section 2. p. 89. I sent this brief to the Editor of the Orthodox Review several years ago, but it got stuck there. In 1840 the cost of bread was high. V. A. Levason, upon acceptance of the Orthodox Church. faith in 1840, was assigned to the Academy as a teacher of the Hebrew language, and was soon named Ordinary Professor. Conversations on chapters 5–11 of St. Evangelist Matthew. Kiev, 1842. Plato of Fiveira. Master" 9th year Moscow. Academician .. tonsured in 1834 and bachelor in the same year: he was also a librarian (since 1838), since 1841 he held the position of Inspector of Moscow. Academy. November 9 Archimandrite. 1842 Rector of the Kazan Seminary, 1843 Oryol Seminary, 1817 Tambov Seminary. 1852 Vladimirskaya. 1856 Vicar of Novgorod, from July 31 of St. Petersburg 1857 Bishop of Kostroma. 1868 Archbishop: sc. 1877. May 13. Vasily Ivanovich Kutnevich, 1832 Chief Priest of the Army and Navy, 1833 Present, and in 1848 Member of the Holy Synod with the title of Protopresbyter. N. V. Muzovsky, Chief Priest, Court Annunciation Cathedral in Moscow, Protopresbytersk in 1848 Theophylact Rusanov, a student and Teacher of the Nevsky Seminary, entered monasticism in 1792, 1795 Archimandrite of the Zelenets Monastery, then St. Sergius Hermitage, 1799 Novgorod. Iversky Monastery, from 30 Oct. Bishop of Kaluga, 1807 summoned to St. Petersburg to attend the Holy Synod. 1808 Archbishop. 1809 Ryazan, 1817 Exarch of Georgia, 1819 Metropolitan of Kartalin; St. 1821, July 19. For Filaret’s story about the same thing, see Orthodox. Review." 1868, part 26 p. 516. Andrey Iv. Okunev was after the Archpriest of St. Isaac's Cathedral; mind. 1860, Dec. 23. G. S. Debolsky, now archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, in St. Petersburg. Kochetov, Archpriest of the Cathedral of Peter and Paul Cathedral; mind. 1854, March. 16. Muravyov, A. N., Chamberlain, skoich. in Kiev August 18, 1874. This speech was not published. Probably Yegor Polotebnov, or Yegor Lebedev: both are Kochetov’s comrades. Vitaly Shepetev, 5th year Master of Science in St. Petersburg. Academician, 1823 Inspector Moscow. Seminaries, 1826 Rector of the Seminary, 1833 St. Petersburg. Academy, 1837 Vicar of Moscow, 1842 Bishop of Kostroma, 1845. to rest; sk.1846, Jan. 29. Aaron Narcissov, 1807 Teacher, Catechist and Preacher Moscow. Academy 1826 from the Rectors of the Tolga Monastery, near Yaroslavl, Bishop of Arkhangelsk, 1830. in Donskoy Monastery; sk. 1842, Jan. 15. Dionysius Tsvetaev, 1800 tonsured, 1802 from the Teachers Prefect, and 1805 Rector of the Oryol, 1811 Astrakhan Seminary, 1821 Rector of the Don Monastery, with dismissal from the School Service, 1823 Bishop of Perm, Art. 1828 lived in Moscow. Epiphany Monastery; sk. 1846, Apr. 24. Feofan Alexandrov, 1850 transferred to Nezhinsky Annunciation Monastery, Chernigov Eparchy, and from then to Kalyazinsky Trinity, Tver Diocese, where the church. 1852, Oct. 23. Plato, from 1648 Andronikovsky: sk. 1863, Jan. 28. Melchizedek, from 1851 New Jerusalem; sk. 1852, Jan. 6. Apollos, in 1851 to retire to the Rostov Yakovlevsky Monastery, where his mind is. 1859. Hermogenes Speransky, sk. 1845, June 19. He is a comrade of the Rev. Aaron, of average height, with a thick gray beard and thick eyebrows, looked like an ascetic. Joseph Bogoslovsky, 6th year candidate Moscow. Ak., 1828 tonsured and appointed Supervisor of the Perervinsky Schools, 1829 Inspector, and 1834 Rector of Moscow. Seminaries, 1842 Vicar of Moscow, 1849 Bishop of Orenburg, 1853 Voronezh, 1860 Archbishop, 1864 to rest. Protopresbyter Vasily Ivanovich! Platanov. Gabriel Rozanov, in Oct. 1799 entered from Kostroma to Trinity Seminary, 1803 Teacher of Kostroma Seminary, 1811 tonsured and Prefect of Vologda Seminary, 1814 Rector. 1820 Rector of the Tolga Monastery, 1821 Bishop of Oryol, 1828 Archbishop of Yekaterinoslav, 1837 Kherson and Odessa, 1848 Tver, 1857 uv. to rest; sk. 1858. Sept. 8. Irinarkh Popov, 1817 senior Candidate St. Petersburg. Ak. 2nd year and, in the rank of Hieromonk, Inspector of the Oryol Seminary, 1818 Master; in 1819 he was sent to Italy, to Milan, to the home church of the Marchioness of Terzi, née Princess Golitsyna; from 1824 he was at the Embassy Church in Florence, from 1827 in Rome, from 1833 in Athens, and from 1831 to 1833 he was Archimandrite of the Tolga Monastery. 1836 Vicar of Tver, from September 15. Pskov, 1841 Voronezh, 1842 Bishop of Vologda, 1844 Kishinev, 1845 Archbishop, 1858 Podolsk, 1863 Ryazan. 1867 uv. to rest. Afanasy Drozdov; see note 64. Evsevy Orlinsky, 8th year Master Moscow. Academy. 1832 tonsured and appointed Inspector of the Bethany Sem.: 1834 Inspector of the Moscow Sem.. 1838 Moscow. Academy and Archimandrite. 1841 Rector of the same Academy, 1847 Bishop of Vinnitsa and Rector of St. Petersburg. Academy. 1850 Bishop of Samara, 1856 Irkutsk, 1858 Archbishop, 1860 Mogilev. I purchased them, read them carefully (by force), and regretted the empty labors of an intelligent person! These books did not correct me. Gerasim Peter. Pavsky, Archpriest of the Small Church of the Winter Palace, d. 1863, Apr. 7. “His philological observations on the composition of the Russian language” appeared in 1841–1842. In 1850, a new edition of this work was published with the addition of a new (fourth) part. Experts spoke of him with the greatest respect. See "Falaret's Letters to Mr. Muravyov." note to 81 pp. 109–110. Gabriel Rozanov, see note. 101. Moscow The seminary was founded in the house of the former Count Osterian on November 1, 1844, and was previously at the Zaikonospassky Monastery. Philofey Uspensky, 1832. upon completion of the course (8th), bachelor Moscow. Academy. tonsured on November 13: from 1838 Inspector of Petersburg. Academy, 1839 Archimandrite. 1842 Rector of Kharkov, from September 1. Bethany, 1847 Moscow Seminary. 1849 Vicar of Moscow. 1833 Bishop of Kostroma, 1857 Tver, 1861 Archbishop. 1870 Metropolitan of Kiev to Member of the Holy Synod. Count P. A. Kleinmichel, Chief Director of Communications, 1842–1855. In the Peter and Paul Monastery, Oryol Diocese. Smaragd Kryzhanovsky, see note. 22. Anthony, tonsured in 1822 in the Vysokogorsk Arzamas desert; from the Builder of this desert he was transferred by the Viceroy to the Trinity Lavra and consecrated Archimandrite of Bethany Monastery, March 15, 1831; passed away 1877, May 12. Alexy Rzhanitsyn, tonsured in 1837, 1838 Master of the second year Moscow. Academy, inspector Mosk. Seminaries, 1843 Rector of the Seminary, 1847 Moscow. Academy, 1853 Vicar of Moscow, 1857 Bishop of Tula, 1860 Tauride, 1867 Archbishop of Ryazan, 1876 Tver; passed away 1877 Delitsyn sk. 1863, November 30. Golubavsky; passed away 1854, Aug. 22. Gorsky, 1860 Archpriest, 1862 Rector of the Moscow Academy; sk. Oct. 11, 1875. Gabriel Rozanov, see note. 101. Evgeny Kazantsev, see note. 4. Nikodim Lebedev studied first in the Kostroma Seminary, and from 1823 in St. Petersburg. Academies; 1825, Nov. 20, tonsured, 1827 Master and Inspector of the Kostroma Sem.; 1829. May 19, Hegumen of the Dukhovsky Nikolaevsky Monastery, September 26. Bachelor's degree Petersburg Ak., 1830 Rector of the newly established Saratov Seminary. and Archimandrite. 1833 Rector of Irkutsk. 1840 Perm Seminary, 1842 Tambov, 1847 Tver. Agapit Vvedensky, since 1852 Rector of Novospassky Monastery; sk. 1877 Grigory Postnikov, 1814 1st year master and bachelor St. Petersburg. Ak., in the same year and tonsured, 1816 inspector of the Academy, 1817 Doctor of Theology and Archimandrite, 1819 Rector of Ak., 1822 Vicar of St. Petersburg, 1826 Bishop of Kaluga, 1829 Archbishop of Ryazan, 1831 Tver, 1848 Kazan, 1836, Aug. 26, Metropolitan, Oct. 1 Novgorod and St. Petersburg; sk. 1860, June 17. In 1855, against the schism, he published the book: “The Truly Ancient to the Truly Orthodox Church,” 2 parts. Evgeny Donskoy mon. from 1854, and his Viceroy was ordained Archimandrite, remaining in his previous position. Ioaniky ruled the Zaikonospassky Monastery from 1861, and in 1876. to rest. “A schism exposed by its history.”