Life of Optina Elder Nikon

Contents Preface About Philaret Chapter I Chapter II Chapter III Chapter IV Chapter V Chapter VI Chapter VII Chapter VIII Chapter IX Chapter X Chapter XI Chapter XII Chapter XIII Chapter XIV Chapter XV Chapter XVI Chapter XVII Chapter XVIII Chapter XIX Chapter XX Chapter XXI Russian historical science already knows only the notes of Bishop Nikodim Kazantsev about the famous Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, and about other church figures of that time. They were published three years after the death of the author, Arch. Grigory Voinov (“About Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, my memory.” – Readings at the Imperial Society of Russian History and Antiquities. 1877, April–June, II, p. V-116). The manuscript of Bp. reproduced below. Nicodemus “On Philaret”, almost coinciding with the one already published in title and being partly related in content, is, however, a completely special, dying work of the bishop, hitherto in obscurity. Even the arch. Gregory, despite his undoubted familiarity with the bishop's archive. Nicodemus, did not suspect its existence (cf. the preface by Arch. Gregory to the notes of Bishop Nicodemus printed by him, p. IV). Apparently, even the bishop himself. Nicodemus gave it to someone. About thirty years ago the manuscript passed to the father of the author of these lines, and is now in the hands of the latter. Fully preserved, it consists of ten sheets of writing paper, with the text itself filling nine and a quarter sheets. The document was written by the bishop himself. Nicodemus, in small and very illegible handwriting, apparently completely blank. Each day of writing is noted in the margins, on the last page there are two signatures of the author, one in the margins, the other after the text. Manuscript published by Arch. Gregory, contains 106 pages in print and, thus, differs in volume from what we have. In addition, that manuscript was written in Krasnoyarsk, between May 30 and October 6 (or 21), 1868, ours was written in Pererva, near Moscow, between March 13 and April 11, 1874. The memories contained in the Krasnoyarsk Notes date back to 1821–1854, while those contained in our Perervinskaya manuscript date back to 1838–1862. There are quite a lot of parallel passages in both documents, but their editions are completely different. Apparently, when writing his memoirs on Pererva, the author turned primarily to his memory, and not to old notes. Naturally, a lot of things were written down that were not in the Krasnoyarsk notes. In addition, the author is more frank here than before. Thus, he cites a letter from Filaret, which he previously did not consider possible to publish himself (see Krasnoyarsk zap., p. 104), gives bolder reviews about various people (the review, at the end of the manuscript, about Filaret, which differs in many respects from Krasnoyarsk), is especially interesting; the author speaks very freely about himself. In two places in our manuscript, Bp. Nicodemus says that he considers it unnecessary to describe in detail how Philaret served, for “this,” the bishop writes, “the Moscow fathers know better than me” (Chapter III). From this it is clear that this article was intended for publication in one of the Moscow spiritual magazines. The Krasnoyarsk notes were also intended for publication (cf. pages 99 and 104 in them), but (possibly “due to independent circumstances”) they were not included in it at the same time. But still wanting to share his rich memories with the public, Bishop. Nicodemus wrote a new article five years later. However, he did not have to print it either; he died two months after its completion. It would not be superfluous to reproduce here the skeleton of the bishop’s biography. Nicodemus (for details, see both works of the bishop on Philaret and in the aforementioned preface by Arch. Gregory, which we use). He was born in 1803, in the village of Komlevo, Ruza district, Moscow province, from the sexton Iv. Iv. Kazantsev and was named Nikita. After completing a course at the theological seminary, he entered the Moscow Theological Academy and, while still a student, became a monk. After graduating from the academy (master of theology), he served as an inspector in the seminaries: Tula, Novgorod and again Tula, and in 1835 he received the rank of archimandrite and the position of rector of the Vyatka seminary. In 1837, architect. Nicodemus was asked, like all other seminary rectors, to write a draft Theological Notes for Seminaries. Presented by Arch. Nicodemus's essay drew the attention of the synodal chief prosecutor Protasov, and he was summoned to St. Petersburg, where for two years he worked with Protasov on the draft of a new charter for theological schools and carried out a series of priestly service and preaching. After this, arch. Nikodim was the rector of the seminaries: Kherson, then Kursk and, finally, Yaroslavl. In 1853, he was summoned to St. Petersburg for the second time, and at the beginning of the next year he was made Bishop of Cheboksary, vicar of the Kazan diocese. In 1859, bishop. Nikodim ruled the Vyatka diocese, and in 1861 he was appointed bishop of the Yenisei diocese with residence in Krasnoyarsk, on the way there he was seized with severe rheumatism, which tormented him for the rest of his life. In 1870, bishop. Nikodim was retired and settled in the St. Nicholas Perervinsky Monastery, near Moscow. In 1874, sick with dropsy, he came for a while to Dmitrov, but died here on June 11 of the same year. As the bishop himself narrates. Nicodemus, his whole life was almost a continuous series of failures and troubles. The reasons for this were the bishop’s harshness and quarrelsomeness and, apparently, some weaknesses (see below Chapter XIV ff.). It is not surprising that his pen was harsh and bilious, especially in the second half of his life. In addition to the above-mentioned literary works of Bishop. Nikodim also wrote a number of articles in the Yenisei Diocesan Gazette, as well as a grammar of the Russian language, written back in 1839 but remaining unpublished, in which the author largely followed Lomonosov, and in some departments was an innovator (cf. Krasnoyarsk zap.). Partly in view of this work, Bishop. Nicodemus, if possible, we preserve the author’s orography in the reproduced below and the necessary changes in it (as in everything else) are stipulated in the notes. In 1838–41, while living in St. Petersburg, I had access to visit the Moscow Bishop at his Trinity courtyard, which is on the Fontanka, almost opposite the Anichkov Palace. In 1838, in September, when I came to Metropolitan Philaret, who had just arrived from Moscow 2, for a bow and blessing (I was alone with him - eye to eye), I told him among other things 3: “In the local Theological Academy, the sleeping rooms for students are separated from the rooms where they live for the rest of the day. And students no longer have the opportunity or right to be in their bedrooms all day, from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m.” Filaret, with surprise: “Really”? then, assuming a calm look, he said: “The devil is joking. I was sneaking up on the Academy from all sides: they wouldn’t let me in. I finally found a way: now the students will be fools. They were deprived of peace." In fact, in the Academy building for students, the rooms are small: there are not many of them. Half was taken away for bedrooms. There are other small ones left. They were crowded here in heaps. Poor! After lunch, for example, out of old habit, they collected stools to rest and somehow lay down on them. In general: The level of spiritual learning has greatly decreased since then, although not for this reason alone. For some reason, Protasov was jealous of spiritual learning and tried in every possible way, with the devil, to fool us spiritual ones. Filaret allowed me to visit him in St. Petersburg, easily, at three o’clock in the afternoon. At this time I always found him alone. Then he was: in one cassock made of black woolen 4 fabric, sewn 5 spaciously and simply, with spacious sleeves, like a simple bag, belted like a peasant 6 with a belt made of the same 7 fabric. The head is covered... with a woven net (instead of a kamilavka) so that the hair does not get tangled. On the feet there are the most comfortable and simple shoes, and white woolen stockings... (Sometimes in boots, worn, faded, red). Sitting on the sofa in front of the table, and having me sit on the chairs opposite him, he talked to me like that; Sometimes he even lies down. His conversation is always simple, trusting, fatherly, sincere. He never condemned any of the Lords of the Synod, or anyone at all, in front of me, although there were many cases and even involved insults to himself. About the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. Seraphim (then the former) always said: “Vladyka, Vladyka Metropolitan, Vladyka Seraphim, the local Vladyka.” I could tell Philaret whatever I wanted and whenever I wanted; but this does not mean that you can tell him all kinds of nonsense and all kinds of stupidity. You will receive such a response to stupidity and insolence that you will refuse to depress a great man with your foolishness and you will see your smallness and insignificance. In my life there have been many conversations with high-ranking people and many conversations, on both sides not careful, and maybe even stupid: but I have never spoken with anyone so trustingly as with Philaret, I have not received so much access from anyone, and I think 10 to say - from no one I have received answers so truly, intelligently and edifyingly. Moreover, in his conversations with me, Filaret was always pure, blameless, chaste like an Angel, even in me he wanted to assume and see the same. Occasionally he spoke to me about the affairs of the Synod, but only what was within my capabilities, and what was not offensive to the Synod or a reproach to it. Filaret spoke so clearly that if a five-year-old child had listened to him, he would have been able to understand and repeat everything; but he also spoke so elegantly and selectively that I don’t know anyone else like him: Protasov spoke well, and some of the Bishops, for example, Evgeniy the former Yaroslavl, but not Filaret. Several times I served with Metropolitan Philaret, both with him and without him, in his home church, St. Sergius, not large, but completely shaped like a church, for with a dome, and only the western wall connecting 11 with the house. For the most part, I, so to speak, imposed myself on serving, for example, in memory of St. Sergius, on Trinity Day, on my tonsure, ordination (I was ordained by the Metropolitan as a deacon and priest): Philaret, however, did not really like this obsession of mine. (He always interrogated me about the reason for serving with him). It seems that this is because in order to alienate the opinion of the Petersburgers, especially the prosecutor, that I am especially dear to Filaret, protected, and even his agent in St. Petersburg. Whatever the black soul comes up with! Meanwhile, serving with Filaret was a spiritual pleasure, heaven on earth. Meanwhile, his relationship with me, even Fatherly rapprochement, was truly immaculate: Angelic, for the glory of virtue and God, not 12 for any earthly protection, even for myself, much less for any services to the Lord. I then lived at the Synodal Compound, more than half a mile from the Trinity Compound. In our courtyard there is also a nice, spacious church of St. Mitrophan of Voronezh. During my time they lived here successively: first Vladimir, Archbishop of Kazan, then Kirill, Archbishop of Podolsk, then Gabriel, Archbishop of Ryazan, present at the Synod. All of them had their own spiritual retinue 13, with all of them there was a daily correct Divine service. On Sundays and holidays they mostly served; I tried in every possible way to pester and serve with them. Ho oh God! They tried in every possible way to alienate me, to wipe me away, to expel me. I don’t know whether it was the will of the Bishops, or whether the fathers of the retinue themselves did not tolerate me. - Only most importantly, this exile and obstacles forced me to look for a place of service in another place, and most of all with Vladyka Philaret, even in the proximity of our courtyard to him. That’s why I bothered Filaret, although I also noticed his displeasure. However, sometimes the Vladyka himself ordered me to serve in his church, either with him or without him. So, for example, during the tonsure into monasticism and during the consecration of the current Metropolitan of Moscow Innokenty, then Archpriest Ivan Evseich, to the rank of Archimandrite by Metropolitan Philaret in his home church, I was used, in addition, however, by the decree of the Holy Synod. With Vladyka Philaret I consecrated the church at the Commercial School, by his 15 order or invitation. I served with him more than once, being 16 on a line, in the Kazan and Peter and Paul Cathedral 17 during the burial of Archbishop Kirill in the Nevsky Lavra, and perhaps in other churches and occasions. Vladyka Philaret served most edifyingly, stands like a candle, will not be indignant at anything, will not offend with a glance, but so to speak, will delight and give an angelic mood to his soul, as, of course, the Moscow Fathers know better than me. It was not often that Vladyka invited me to his place after the service, and I did not dare to intrude: he almost always had guests - secular ones. And when I visited, I always rejoiced in my soul and received some kind of edification. Once, in the first week of Lent, I dared to attend vespers on the first four days in order to listen to the Master’s reading of the great Canon of St. Andrey Kritsky. The Lord surprised me. I thought I would hear an orator, a talker, an admirer, like many of us and some of the great ones that I have heard 19 . Not at all: he reads like a reader, sexton, psalm-reader; without overflows, sighs, emotions. It didn’t really seem to me at the time. I then thought: “Vladika reads this way so that they won’t think of him as even flaunting his piety.” Now I think completely differently: “Vladyka read like that out of reverence then, 20 and sighs would have spoiled the matter. This is how it follows, this is how the Holy Fathers served, this is how Saint Athanasius of Alexandria served. However, Moscow knows this better than me. His Eminence Kirill of Podolsk came to St. Petersburg for a meeting at the Holy Synod in 1840, in August. He, as a neighbor, invited me to visit him and often demanded. Metropolitan Filaret arrived in St. Petersburg then at the end of September or early October. Kirill demands me to come to him after his arrival from the Synod, when he first arrived at the Synod and Bishop Philaret was present. Kirill greets me with the following speech: “Brother! I was at the Synod today, but I didn’t recognize the Synod. At 10 o'clock everything is in place, and the prosecutor is there, and his assistants are with him; They each sit decorously in their places and prepare to listen. “The Chief Secretary appears with a pile of papers in his arm and a pencil. “He starts reading papers and files. We are listening. From time to time Metropolitan Seraphim and Jonah mutter something. The chief secretary will write it down. The Count will wince, Voitsekhovich will blow his nose. - Silence, reading. The end - “yes”, “no” 21 someone, and more Seraphim. Vladyka Filaret is silent, glancing at the one and the other. This went on for up to an hour. They stood up, prayed, and took their bows. The count rattled his saber, and they headed out of the Synod and home.” That's what Filaret is; He forced everyone to stand at attention, sit in their places, and do their work. “And before it happened, Jonah and I would arrive at 11 o’clock, no one would be there, no one would come up, no business would be shown. We talk to each other whatever comes into our heads; we tell our stories. When Protasov’s saber knocks, at the end of the 12th hour or even later, the scream and noise is like a fight, and first one official, then another, and then the chief secretary will crawl there with papers and always some. Disputes will ensue: either Voitsekhovich will get involved, then someone else, or Metropolitan Seraphim himself. They will argue about trifles, time will pass, and we will go home. Sim Kirill wanted to describe to me the great significance in the Synod of Filaret. This is fair. Living in St. Petersburg at that time, I heard more than once: “What Filaret says in the synod, that is, and happens, and will not die. And what the other members say, [then] for the most part, falls apart; is destroyed. Even the prosecutor’s speeches are not firm.” However, 22 this does not mean that Filaret completely ruled the Synod. And he submitted to the oppression of especially the secular ones, allowed, allowed, gave in, agreed to many things that he did not want to give in to. I know this partly very intimately, even from Filaret himself, for he, sometimes, in an excess of apostolic frankness and fatherly kindness, seemed to blurt out in front of me and tell me what he allowed in silence. This only shows his accurately observant mind, by which he knew how to understand, saw when he could insist on something, demand it, and when it was better to remain silent, give in, and not enter into a fight. However, when I was in St. Petersburg, everything seemed to be armed and excitedly hating Vladyka Philaret of Moscow. For what? about what? - because he is better than everyone, to reproach everyone. Due to my then occupation and service with the prosecutor Protasov to compose a new Charter for seminaries and schools, I, throughout July and August and partly September 1838, by order of the prosecutor, came to his house three times 24 times a week (on Nevsky Prospekt, near Anichkov Bridge) at 11 o’clock in the morning and sat here for two hours or more, arguing (I am allowed to do this) was) and responding to objections, listening to their suggestions and offering my thoughts. (There was also Alexander Ivanovich Krasevsky, Director of the Spiritual Educational Administration - three of us). Everything is about our spiritual education in seminaries and schools and about governance. The prosecutor repeated: “They are teaching you nonsense, some scholasticism, some theoretical nonsense and views that are not applicable either to life in general, or to the life of a clergyman between lay people, a priest between parishioners, especially men. The seminarian knows everything, except God have mercy, except plowing, sowing, and rural work. Sometimes he doesn’t understand the simplest thing of helping a sick man, pulling out a splinter, softening the harm, putting a lotion on a bruise,” and so on. This is what should be taught, not theories. The Count strongly attacked philosophy in the seminary: what is it there for? Turn the heads of young priests? Indulge in rebellion, grumbling against masters and bosses. Power? - Firmly - Lord have mercy! that's your business. The Emperor was horrified when I told him: “They teach philosophy in seminaries.” "How! In seminaries? in theological schools? Get her out of there." I defended. “Our philosophy is in robes, not with bayonets. Philosophy reveals the mind, and the mind purified through Theology and so on. They do not heed, they carry their own, they threaten with the wrath of the Tsar. They banish church history: “What is it for? A peasant shouldn’t preach about Abraham, about the exodus of 26 Jews from Egypt,” and so on. I insisted. “Church history is the soil of Theology. By it, on it we distinguish our Theological teachings. Here we build them, return them, decorate them,” and so on. They don't listen. Filaret, the author of the biblical story, is very interested. They mock the inflated importance of speech, pedantry, boasting, and so on. I said my thing: Filaret taught secular literature to speak decently. The best writers are aware of this, for example. even Karamzin. We study in the Bible. history of Philaret, in addition to history 27 theology and language, and the decency of theological views and so on. I have started talking many times about the need for a new charter for religious schools. “Why new? Nice and old." At thirty years old we have not fulfilled a small part of it, but what reasonable and solid spiritual learning. Quite a lot has not been fulfilled, not fulfilled, what is set out in the charter, sometimes because of our laziness, sometimes because of inability, sometimes because of lack of supervision over us, sometimes because of lack of encouragement, sometimes because of dislike. - Watch our schools, take care of them, encourage them, give them ways. And if necessary, rearrange it a little, for example, add time and duration for theology, history, philosophy, etc. and so on. They didn't listen. They wanted ……… 28 for their own. They forced me to write, compose, invent. They instilled in me, taught me. The Count told me more than once: “Listen to me, not your bishops. Don't snitch on us. I am your bishop." I answered more than once: “I cannot help but listen to my bishops. These are my natural fathers. I will give up everything, but not them. I cannot, by my choice, not say something to my good fathers and not listen to them. I won’t tell lies” and so on. In fact, by choice, however, I presented the smallest part to Philaret, and he was apparently grateful to me. He didn’t give me any instructions, but he sighed heavily, and I read a lot in the sighs. 29 However, my conscience must force me to say that my best work with the prosecutor, if there was anything, was sanctified by the blessing and genius of 30 Philaret: with him, in him I managed and 31 studied the smart, the good, the useful. I begged Filaret for a long time to stand up for the retention of philosophy in seminaries. His answer to me almost always ended with this speech: “What should I do? We have to give something back to them, otherwise they’ll probably take everything away.” Most of his responses to my complaints and requests were of this nature and significance - to support me, to support me in the fight against the encroachment (on) destruction (of spiritual education) 32. However, Filaret has always been my protection in St. Petersburg and my refuge. The prosecutor found me in Vyatka, where I was rector in 1835–38, according to my Theological notes. Wanting to find a worker (perhaps looking for other purposes), the prosecutor obtained permission from the Synod to force all the Rectors of the seminaries to write freely, according to everyone’s understanding, a Theological Summary. I wrote it and sent it. We soon re-read the prosecutor's notes and found mine to be more powerful than the others. Krasevsky came with my notes to Protasov and said: “Read this note a little. A gifted man, he writes smartly and boldly. We should write him out and put him in prison for our work, which we propose (that is, for the transformation of Spiritual teaching and management).” The prosecutor read silently. Then he gave it to Krasevsky, saying: “Go to the Moscow Metropolitan, take this note to him. Ask me to read and tell you my thoughts about him.” Krasevsky gave my notes to Metropolitan Philaret. Filaret read and then submitted his opinion about the notes and the author to the then Commission of Theological Schools, 33 which was so beneficial and interesting for me that I was placed higher and more courageous than all the other Rectors (Filaret looked at the notes of other Rectors as well). Then the 34th prosecutor boldly decided to call me to his disposal. I was summoned by the highest order, in addition to the Synod, and at the disposal of the prosecutor. When I arrived in St. Petersburg, I appeared before the Chief Prosecutor Count Nikolai Alexandrovich 35 Protasov. He told me: “Listen to me. Listen to me. If you are smart and obedient, your place is here in St. Petersburg. Rector of the Academy. We will immediately make room for you.” Of course this flattered me 36 . The prosecutor added: “Don’t listen to your Bishops. I am your sad man." To this I said, however: “I can’t help but listen to the bishops. These are my natural fathers. But I'll try to be reasonable." However, the work of the new 37 charter of Seminaries and Schools, signed by me in six weeks, by mid-September 1838, dragged on 38. Although I did not disclose it, the matter found its way into the Synod. The fathers began to stir there. And the prosecutor himself, by the way, did not keep secrets, and sometimes it was even necessary to ask for permission from the Synod for this or that. The prosecutor, finding me not very suitable for his hand, considering the work I had done and thus me unnecessary to him, or finding me not worthy of the Academy, wanted to send me back to Vyatka. I'm sad. I went to see Metropolitan Philaret. He asked for at least something other than Vyatka, so as not to be ridiculed. The Good Father intervened: “Wait, he said, I’ll talk to others. We won't give up. You’re worth more than Vyatka.” I was assigned to a series of priestly services and preaching. I entered this new service in July 1839 and continued (or was kept) for two whole years. He served up to 200 liturgies and delivered up to 14 sermons. During this period, the prosecutor, retaining his right over me, gave me scientific assignments. And from the Vladyka of Moscow I received orders according to the orders... of the 39th Synod. At this time, more than once I upset Metropolitan Philaret. The prosecutor gives me scientific assignment. I'll write it and give it to him. He will like my case and propose it to the Synod. The Synod will be upset: either it’s not good, or it’s not at the right time, or my business is not needed, or I’m offending someone or something in a hostile manner. Filaret will call me. “Why did you write this?” – I’ll explain. “But this is not good, that’s why,” Filaret will say. I'm silent. Then Filaret: “Why didn’t you come to me? Why didn't you ask? Why didn’t you show me your work?” I was silent. Here, it seems, Filaret thought that I was disobedient to him, that I was a seeker of protection from the secular. Not at all. I was just stupid, I didn’t think it was necessary, I thought I was following an order. Here, by the way, I often touched upon the Moscow Theological Academy. “This was very annoying to the Vladyka, and he often reproached me for being ungrateful to the Academy, which educated me 40.” As soon as I was accepted and allowed to work in St. Petersburg, both Count Protasov and Metropolitan Philaret enchanted me with the indispensable promise of the Doctor of Theology award. This was no small obstacle to the anger of Metropolitan Philaret of Kiev against me and his condemnation of my abstract of Theology. We wanted to avoid this. They instructed me to choose from my notes those articles that I myself liked the most and which were not blasphemed by the Metropolitan of Kiev (Filaret covered my entire note with his comments in pencil). I spent a lot of time on this matter, and even significantly transformed some articles; and in other places I also added something new, especially where the Metropolitan of Moscow found my reasoning particularly sound and interesting. I gave the rather large notebook compiled in this way for the review and respect of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. The case apparently stalled for many reasons, some of which, I think. the essence: a) a huge work for the Lord, but a matter of little importance, at least for him; b) Nicodemus is not so valuable that one should worry so much about his honor; c) my summary is not a miracle of Theology, but something useful; d) Philaret had to protect himself from the revenge of Kievsky, for he would, of course, consider praising 41 me for the notes, at least, as a fooling of himself 42; e) Count Protasov had already become more than indifferent to me at that time. And so, and for this reason, at least in my understanding, the great Filaret of Moscow remains with respect: a great man; great mind; right view; on time and decent………divide 43. My doctorate withered, rotted, disappeared 44; Yes, I’m not worth it. In 1841, after three years of my stay in St. Petersburg, they finally decided on me: I was fired from Chereda; I was given the rectorship at the Kherson Seminary, which is in Odessa, in place of Archimandrite Afanasy Drozdov, who was there, my elder and, of course, most worthy of me, appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy. In August I left St. Petersburg. In Moscow I attended the blessing of Metropolitan Philaret. He asked me with concern: “Where are you going?” I answered: “To Odessa, as rector of the Seminary there.” Filaret: “Really”? then, measuring me from head to toe with his eyes, he lowered his gaze and thought. And it seems he didn’t say anything more meaningful. Is this “really”? still resonates with me, although I don’t understand even now: should I be consoled by this, or should I grieve and ……… 45 myself. But Filaret is pure, holy, great in my destinies. At the end of 1841, a rector's position was opened in Moscow. Spirit. Academy. Archimandrite Philaret, my friend at the Academy, the rector of this Academy, was promoted to Bishop in Riga. I heard rumors that the prosecutor Count Protasov strongly petitioned Metropolitan Philaret for me so that [he] would accept me as rector in Moscow. Academy. Filaret, however, rejected, did not deign: he elected 46 another, Alexy, rector of Moscow. seminary. It hurt me when this rumor reached me. And I am a man, I grieved at Filaret. However, I soon came to my senses. And now, I completely forgive Filareta for myself. Perhaps, based on my scholarship, I could be suitable for the rectorship of the Academy. But I am not of strong character. Anything and anyone can captivate me to anything. And most of all, the Great God, His Good Providence, looked, of course, not at me alone 49, but also at the Academy, a large, learned society, important in the Russian Church. I wasn’t worth this place in the state then!! I left soon. Then in Odessa storms arose against me: both in the Seminary, and in the Monastery, and from the Bishop, and in the consistory. The Odessa Eminence Gabriel, a fellow student of Metropolitan Philaret at the Trinity Lavra of St. Sergius, of course complained about me to Philaret. Not recognizing myself outwardly and outwardly guilty of what I was accused of in Odessa and for which I was slandered, I first defended myself for a long time with the Odessa people in Odessa; then he decided to complain to the Supreme Authority: he wrote a petition to the Prosecutor of the Synod, Protasov. I did not write to Metropolitan Philaret: 1) I considered him to have abandoned me and to despise me, 2) at that time he was no longer in the Synod (in 1844). However, now I think that he, having corresponded with Gabriel of Odessa, powerfully defended me before him, at least kept him from attempting to shame and destroy me. My complaint was respected at the Synod, although they gave a stern admonition about too bold speech in a petition to high-ranking persons and about important matters. His Eminence Gabriel was shown his grave mistakes and reckless attacks on me. I believe that as a result of this, he was transferred from Odessa to Tver, which, of course, was painful for him. He wanted to lay his bones in Odessa; and I would be of the same opinion: 1) he is the first Bishop in Odessa; 2) besides his behavior with me, he is a Bishop, as it was then, and administratively respected, reasonable and honored by the place; 3) the change of place, of course, did not correct him, but deeply upset him, even because Tver is too cold against Odessa. And Gabriel is an old man: here he had to die; he spent 51 of his best summers in the south, namely in Orel, Ekaterinoslav and Odessa. Feeling not innocent, and according to the Christian rule, I, already a Bishop myself, wrote from Kazan to him in Tver on Easter Day, in the form of congratulations, my deep repentance 52 before him and asked for Christian forgiveness. Elder Gabriel was glad, he sent me the most loving and respectful letter, and completely resolved the bonds of my conscience. The kingdom of heaven be upon him! By the way, in this case too I consider Metropolitan Philaret to have acted. Gabriel stayed with Metropolitan Philaret in the Lavra for a long time; It’s true that they were talking about me too. I think so. I was transferred to Belgorod, to the Kursk Seminary, where I arrived from Odessa on September 15, 1845, the day of my baptism by the Angel of St. Nikita. His Eminence of Kursk, Archbishop Iliodor, was in St. Petersburg at that time and was present at the Holy Synod. Having recognized my administration, having seen my complete submission to him, 53 perhaps appreciating my intelligence and enlightenment a little, he fell in love with me like a father; he often wrote to me almost in a friendly manner, taught, instructed, and warned. Seminary scholarship, elderly 54 teachers, smart people, not a spoiled society, having noticed in me a member of decent thinking and energy, they were also respectful. The seminarians are not spoiled, they are smart and gifted, and there are a lot of them - almost a thousand people - they respected me and obeyed me as a boss. The inspector, Archimandrite Afanasy, who was elevated to this rank during my time, was far younger than me, was busy with himself, and meanwhile, was very lazy in his service and began to get involved in inappropriate actions 55. It upset me, weakened my hands, dulled my energy. That's why I started the Odessa nonsense myself. A bad echo swept through the city and reached Iliodor. Everything began to become my edge and back. They began to denigrate my administration. Menacing clouds thundered over my head. In the summer of 1846 56 Iliodor came on leave to his Diocese from St. Petersburg. He visited us in Belgorod and looked at me. Caressed, swaggered, released lightning into the air; arrows flew past my ears - I was in danger. I cried: I was silent, I cried out to the Lord. He was caught alive by Satan in his will, and did not know how to extricate himself 57. There were two cases, both of which opened up an abyss before me: First. The prosecutor of the Synod, Protasov, to whom the darkest speeches about my way of life in Belgorod reached him, wrote about this to Iliodor 58 and threateningly demanded either correction of me or denunciation. Kind, but timid, Iliodor demanded me to Kursk, read me privately the prosecutor’s attitude towards me, and said: “It depends on you to take away the sword 59 hanging over your head. Change, wake up, give up nonsense, and everything will pass.” I cried, my heart sank. But the delusion was too long. Of course, Iliodor, like the Archbishop, like the power, like he had large thousands of rubles of money, could have ransomed me (which is the point) and protected me 60; but I did not count on his virtue 61, his goodwill 62 towards me is superficial and slippery; He is not my spiritual father: and he left it to himself - my heart to whine and sink, leaving it to the Great Providence of God to redeem me. Another. One boyar 63, even a prince (I won’t say his name), had a need for me. The priest's widow's son studied at the seminary; a depraved young man, spoiled, lazy, who had done a lot of stupid things and riots, was expelled 64 from the seminary. The prince especially patronized the priest (and it seems this young man is his side son). First, the prince sent agents to me, sent gifts 65, then he himself came, attacking me, even threatening me, showing me my bad note, which fell into his hands. – I became involved in law and deeds. “The boy is worthless, accepting him again meant considering oneself bought. And besides, it was necessary to bother the Eminence about this.” - I refused. And this prince spread throughout the Synod, to all the Bishops, and probably to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, my mistake and revealed my note to them. I could not and did not know how to take measures to extinguish this evil rumor, and - I am reproached to the whole world! I cried out to the Lord for mercy. Only! but the Lord saved me. I am hitherto. But the Lord raised up a mighty defender for me, His Grace Archbishop Theodotius of Simbirsk. I didn’t ask 67, he arranged himself, and it seems he didn’t know how unhappy I was. He loved me from Seminary, when he was an inspector with us (in Bethany). Noticing me as if forgotten, abandoned, he first wanted to place me closer to Moscow. I asked Yaroslavl Archbishop Eugene to take me to his seminary, recommending me in every possible way. Theodotius himself studied with Eugene (at the Moscow Seminary) 68 and was himself the rector of the seminary in Ryazan. In addition, however, by chance, both I and Evgeniy were nicknamed Kazantsev by last name (although Evgeniy did not find why my ancestors would ever be united with his ancestors) 69. The Great God Himself ruled, and my circumstances developed by His power. In Belgorod, I was hanging by a thread, I could have died, lost everything, forever. Iliodor is a kind Bishop, but completely distant. Didn't interfere in particular 70, watched from afar. Evgeny Yaroslavsky is strict, inexorable, but also truthful. Filaret respected him. I read the Synod. His kind review was worth it. Theodotius calculated all this in his discussion 71. Evgeniy’s severity will sober me up and make me more careful; and a good review of me will restore my honor 72, that’s all that happened. I arrived in Yaroslavl in June 1850. In the monastery, in Gethsemane, I introduced myself to Metropolitan Philaret. Here he 73 enjoyed solitude and the spectacle of monastic feats of prayer, which he himself, of course, imitated. In my presence, he wrote a letter of recommendation about me to His Eminence Eugene 74 and handed it to me to submit to him. I arrived in Yaroslavl. I appeared to Eugene 75 and handed him the Metropolitan’s letter, which he read in front of me, saying: “Let’s see what happens. Fate controls everything." Cold, distant speech. And, however, as I understand her now: “Okay. Let's look at your service 76 behavior here. It will be clear how to understand you and how to interpret you” 77. Then the Right Reverend began to highly praise my predecessor in charge of the Yaroslavl Seminary, Archimandrite Ioannikios. Once, in front of me, he told the governor, in response to his speech, that he had met with Ioannikiy at the station: “Right Hand” (near St. Petersburg), Eugene exclaimed: “It was as if Father Ioannikiy was my right hand. I lost my right hand in it." (Ioannikiy was a master of flattery, knew how to assent or keep silent at the right time. But, however, did he serve with the heart and conviction like I do? Ioannikiy is an intelligent man, but cunning) 79 . The governor encouraged the Bishop with me, with my service and services 80. “We’ll see,” said Evgeniy. However, I made it a rule for myself: to please the Bishop in everything and in every possible way. And I, exactly 81, served with Eugene for three years as a slave; was his trash, his trash. I listened almost in a way: “a fool, a blockhead,” I not only did not reflect, but below the slightest indignation I tried to let it go unnoticed. He called me a drunkard, and a money-lover, and lazy in my service, and not pious in my service, and reckless in my orders, and ignorant of my service, and so on and so forth. I didn't defend myself. I traveled with him to Rostov, one day on the diocesan circuit of the Right Reverend, and was a mere lackey for him, a wiping man. I was with him in Rybinsk, at the consecration of the cathedral there, in Uglich, at the consecration of the magnificent church in the local convent, and everywhere I was worse and more insignificant than his minister. I was tormented. I didn't sleep at night, I was hungry and cold. He endured everything: he was silent! For this reason, Evgeny, seeing in me so much obedience, humiliation, so to speak, throwing myself at everything that is low, offensive, seeing my resignation - as an intelligent, subtle, observant, perspicacious person, subsequently gave me all the honor. I remember: 1) One day, it seems on Christmas Day, 84 I gave a sermon (the Right Reverend made me say “Be the name of the Lord” and, standing at the royal doors, listened), and I read it as a clock reads, and I let out a lot 85, fearing to burden the audience, and even more so - to bore the Bishop. “Afterwards, the Right Reverend said to me: “It’s in vain that you were in such a hurry when delivering your sermon. Such people are rarely heard here 86; your excellent sermon." 2) Another time, I also somehow delivered my sermon (at service 87 in a meeting of nobles, during their elections). The nobles, halfway through, went into the next hall (they served in the house, city church) and made an ugly noise, talking. The Eminence affectionately reproached me: “You shouldn’t have been frightened by the noise of stupid nobles. They are not worth your preaching. Your views on their service and rules would suit them.” 3) My Eminence instructed me to re-examine a complicated case in a village near Rostov, which was also investigated by the Archimandrite (and also an academic scientist), but was not clarified. I researched 88 and outlined what I had learned and how I understood the complexity of the matter. Having read it, the Right Reverend said to me: 89 “I have never read such clearly and definitely stated paperwork. “Great honor to your mind, Father Rector.” 4) When the Right Reverend Eugene, asking to retire and thinking of staying in Yaroslavl (in a small monastery), was asked by Metropolitan Philaret: “Whom would he like to see as Bishop in Yaroslavl?” answered: “My Rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Nicodemus.” Of course, Evgeniy was not joking. 5) Having received a paper calling me to St. Petersburg for a series of services, I came to Evgeniy, bowed at his feet and announced: The Eminence shouted almost in tears: “Who are you throwing me at?!” Who will be entrusted with the seminary? 90 There are many similar expressions of his sympathy for me and, I dare say, his respect for me. 6) When I went, His Eminence Eugene instructed me what to say about him to Metropolitan Philaret, Metropolitan Nikanor, and they knew this and asked me so. Therefore, I attribute his offensive behavior towards me to: a) the strange scope of the Bishops, from which Metropolitan Plato was not free, b) irritable character, c) senile ailments 91; d) most of all my shortcomings, and especially those about which they were silent, saving me 92. Evgeniy corresponded with me throughout my service, both in Kazan and in Siberia, and taught me subtle advice that taught me. In 1856, the good Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, Nikanor, wanted to take me from Kazan under his wing, namely, transfer me as a Vicar to Novgorod. Nikanor is my father, Rector in Bethany, teacher of Theology (I am his first student on the list), my ordained Bishop. His death this year stopped it. His plan (they conveyed it to me and congratulated me on the transition) was canceled by the stern Gregory, who took Nikanor’s place, and who knew me from Kazan and deeply despised me. I'm not complaining. He had important reasons, although they were all almost completely false. I stayed in Kazan. In 1852, in August, Archbishop Theodotius of Simbirsk, my patron from the Bethany Seminary, where he was an inspector under me, died. Theodotius, during his serious illness, which lasted for several months, began to think about death 94 and would very much like me to be his successor in Simbirsk. He probably wrote about this to the great 95 people of the Synod in St. Petersburg. But I know for sure that he wrote very touchingly about this to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. However, Filaret did not respect Theodotius’s petition for me: a) perhaps due to Philaret’s unimportant understanding of Theodotius himself, b) but without any doubt, due to his humiliating look at me; c) maybe he already had a candidate whom he wanted to either benefit or sell off at his own hands. At least I was notified in a dream that I had been removed from this protection, and that the Lord had found someone else better than me. I saw in a dream: “I’m going to the Moscow Archangel Cathedral, through the western doors. They are being repaired: furnished with all sorts of racks, materials, rubbish. However, I got through. In the middle of the church stands Metropolitan Philaret, with someone, also a monk, taller and younger. Filaret showed me the northern gates of the church, and seemed to order me to go out. “I’m going.” It seems clear that the other one is Evgeniy. And I stayed away. Perhaps Filaret did not despise me, did not disdain me, but was afraid for me, probably considering the echo that rushed about me then to be the real truth, although a lot of time had passed that there was no smell of all this. Gregory, then the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, of course, thought the same about me. But the will of God was done. Each of us has received and, of course, will receive ours. Maybe in Simbirsk 96 I would have had the opportunity to cover up many of the mistakes of my predecessor; those whom they loved would have begun to impose themselves on me, my freedom would have been constrained, the terrible fire of Simbirsk, which soon followed and destroyed the bishop’s house, might have ruined me. In 1859 97, the Synod entrusted me with the management of the Vyatka Diocese, on the occasion of the departure of Elpidiphoros, Bishop of Vyatka, to the Synod. According to the meaning of the order of the Synod, I am not completely entrusted with the management of Vyatka, but under the supervision of Elpidifor, i.e. he was still left in charge of the administration of the Diocese, and I was with him, as if his Vicar. The Synod, of course, was afraid to entrust me with the full management of the Diocese, having unfavorable thoughts about me; I was waiting for Elpidiphoros’ certification about me. But Elpidiphoros was almost the same age as me in years and service; was 98 very busy with himself. I had occasion to cause him some trouble, without at all intending to insult him. Of course, he did not say very praiseworthy things about me to the Synod. Gregory took precedence in the Synod in 1860. He assigned his Vicar to Vyatka (Elpidifor received the Crimean new Diocese - and died in the same year in St. Petersburg) Agafangel (now Archbishop of Volyn), and I was returned again to Kazan to Vicar. Whether in this case Grigory Filaret asked about me, I don’t know. I think: no. And Filaret, of course, did not impose himself. Finally 100 and they gave me the Diocese. A new Diocese was opened in 1866, in Siberia, composed of the Yenisei province, which according to the church was part of the Tomsk Diocese. The Synod elected me as its first Bishop. Probably, Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow also participated here, convincing the Synod with my personal merits, well known to Philaret, not with the importance of the Siberian Diocese, but with its distance from Moscow and St. Petersburg (4000–5000 versts). Meanwhile, in the Yenisei Diocese, according to the Sovereign, they thought of establishing a missionary center for the Ostyaks and Tungusians living in the snowy deserts of the Yenisei province. They relied on me for my learning and liveliness; Of course they were wrong. I do not approve of missionary work borrowed from Europe, where faith serves as the second sword of conquest, enslavement and devastation, where 102 it is wielded among savages 103 . Meanwhile, the secular administration 104 of Siberia, almost all 105, is made up of Poles and Germans, haters and despisers of our Orthodox faith. Therefore, missionaries have to fight two wars in Siberia 106: with its secular government and with the savages of superstition. I did not establish a mission in the Yenisei Diocese, but abolished it (although after me, according to my ideas, the Synod). The Synod made a presentation to the Emperor about the opening of the Yenisei Diocese on May 25, 1860, and about appointing me as Bishop of this Diocese a little later. The Emperor was traveling around Russia at that time, and my confirmation as Bishop of Yenisei followed on September 18. At this time, the Emperor was in the Caucasus Mountains 107. The Synod's administrative decree regarding me and all its determinations in this regard followed in October. Not obliging, but rather the willful and impudent office of the Synod - all this was sent to Krasnoyarsk, and not to Kazan, while Athanasius, Archbishop of Kazan, was sent a decree about me back in October. “I waited a month, then I sent a letter to the chief secretary. He (………) 108, apologizing to me for sending all the orders of the Synod to Krasnoyarsk, sent me a certified copy 109 at the end of November. It was with her that I set off from Kazan on December 7th. I arrived in Krasnoyarsk, the God-given city for me to stay, on January 5, 1862. During this cruel time, almost at night, on the winter road, we traveled almost always day and night, in severe frosts, I got terrible rheumatism, which torments me to this day, turning into various diseases. In the same year, 1862, I received, it seems, from the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, a huge project, printed, about a candle wax factory in each Diocese, for the preparation of church candles, wax, for the needs of their Diocese. The prosecutor demanded from me (and of course from all the Bishops) an opinion on this project. The project was compiled by one of the chief secretaries of the Synod, Pavlov. After reading the draft, I was filled with terrible indignation at the insolence of the secular employees in the Synod. I didn't want to illuminate it somehow. He sat down and wrote thirty sheets of paper. I first examined each point of the project and criticized it separately. Then he made a general overview of it 111 and criticized the need for this project, and its dignity, and the offense it caused to the clergy 112, especially to the Bishops of the Dioceses, whom the project makes into a kind of clerks 113 and traders, who must give an annual report about this 114 to the Synod, i.e. prosecutor and offices; In addition, the project is explained in this sense, that where there will be a candle factory from the clergy 115, there will not be left a hryvnia of a ruble, or a pound of wax, so that the workers will receive something 116 as a reward; everything was swept up like a broom 117 and had to be sent to the Synod; all the crumbs. Meanwhile, the project was threatened with heavy responsibility, in case of failure to implement it or mistakes against it, even to the Bishops. Finally, I made an appeal to the secularists themselves in the Synod; said: why are you with us in the Synod! We are spiritual, our deeds are spiritual. You are taking on someone else's business. They don’t even ask you: they force themselves on you. You have shielded the Synod of Bishops from us: we cannot talk with him face to face; We speak to them through you, but they are our elder Brothers; We have a common cause with them. We do not need you, both according to the charter of the church and according to conviction, knowing that you do not know how to understand our affairs 118 or judge them. Go away, get out of the Synod; step aside. Leave us to our own devices. We are spiritual fathers ourselves. It's not your place to teach us. And so on and so forth. I sent such a bold and formidable answer, it seems, to Prince Urusov, who ruled Dukhovn. The Educational Administration, and who sent this project to me. In St. Petersburg we thought for a month; Then they came up with the idea of ​​sending this invention of mine to Metropolitan Philaret. Filaret himself, it seems, wrote to me in Krasnoyarsk for about a month: “I read your answer to the secularists in the Synod about candle factories in the Dioceses. You took on more than what was entrusted to you. You teach not only the secular ones in the Synod, but also the members of the Synod themselves. In the project you are arming yourself against State Power 119 Do you understand what responsibility you are exposing yourself to? The secular ones trusted me, in the Synod your answer is 120. I return to you everything that is yours, I propose, for my part, to compose a new answer ...... 121 and tolerable, and send it to me; Keep your previous answer and do with it what you want. But if you want to insist on your previous answer, return it to me. I will send it to those who sent it. But I’ll preface you; You will have enough patience. And if you make a new answer, softer and ...... 122, then send it to me. I'll pass it on, and so on. etc. and so on.” (This letter is genuine and is kept in my papers during this case). I composed a new, completely easy and soft answer, quite short, and sent it to Philaret; Moreover, I attached my letter to him, in which I explained to him: 1) I wrote so strictly because I still think so; 2) I did not dare to teach the Synod, but I thought that my truthful, albeit cruel 123 answer to the Synod Fathers would not be useless; 3) on my smallness, on the fact that although I am a Bishop, I am the last, in the last place, I counted 124 on my courage to testify to the truth; 4) I was already 60 years old at that time: let, I thought, a 60-year-old be punished and so on. Filaret sent me a letter of responsibility (it seems genuine anyway), with which he almost thanked me for obeying him. This is the last kindness of Filaret to me, and my relationship to him. I don’t know, maybe he interceded something for me 125; but it did not reach my ears, and I myself did not disturb him. Finally, I want to say something at all about Filaret. First. I consider him the smartest person in Russia, in his time, not only among spiritual people, but also among secular people, and in general. Second. He knew theology better than anyone not only in Russia in his time, but also in Catholicism and Lutheranism, and even more so between the Greeks 126 and the East in general. Third. However, in my opinion, he was a sage of the book and the pen, but not a sage of life, even everyday life. Fourth. He was pious not outwardly, not pharisaically, not for show, but for himself, according to his real and always-present conviction, even in his youth. Fifth. He was a virgin not only by religious belief, but also in reality 127. Sixth. He was vain and preoccupied with himself, almost like a woman. But it was his nature, I think, and not an acquired passion. Seventh. In his youth, he did not know how or did not want to spare his enemies, and not those 128 whom he revered as such. But after 60 years of age, he was very lenient. Eighth 129. To the kings and mighty of the earth he was timid and spoke the naked truth, the real one; if he forced himself to tell them this 130, it was in a florid, twisted, fortune-telling way, through clenched teeth. That is why, I think, nine-tenths of what he wanted to say was not said. Ninth. Filaret wanted to please the secular, sometimes sheer rubbish, sometimes in trifles, sometimes offending someone from the spiritual. Tenth. He did not want to please clergy, especially those of low rank. Eleventh. It seems that Filaret tolerated, even loved 131, sneakers and informers. Twelfth. Filaret especially loved fools, holy fools, and eccentrics. Thirteenth. Philaret, it seems, had no friends, and he did not look for them, but those he patronized, especially spiritual ones, were rarely not scoundrels, but always proud, daring and desperate, and even more rarely knew how to take good advantage of his favor towards them 132 . Fourteenth. Filaret, it seems, did not trust his secrets to anyone; knew them for myself. Amen. Bishop Nikodim, living in Pererva. – 11 Apr. 1874. There is a note in the margin: “March 13, 1874 Pererva.” “Only Moscow” was inserted by the author. The original: “philistine” has been crossed out. “White wool” inserted by author. Note in the margin: “March 14, 1874.” There is a note in the margin: “March 14, 1874.” Before this word again in vile. "I". “Learning” is inserted here again. There is a note in the margin: “March 15, 1874.” The word here is illegible. Here in the margin is written in pencil: “And From Here.” Perhaps the presentation of the conversation with Protasov seemed to the author only a repetition of what was described above and was intended to be omitted. But there is no second sign. Reminder in the margins: March 16. The order of the previous words had to be changed. There is a note in the margin: “March 17.” In the vile there is a period here. “Indicated” is crossed out and “elected” is on top. Marked in the margin: “March 18.” In the vile according to scholarship in commas. In the fields in the vicinity. marked: “March 19.” In the vile before “he” comes “and”. In the vile “myself” and placed after the word “my”. “Old” is crossed out and “elderly” is on top. "1846" inserted in pencil. The margin is marked “March 20.” In the vile "favor". In the vile there is a comma here. The margin is marked “March 21.” In the vile followed by the word "was". In the vile "here" is placed after "service". Marked in the margin: “March 24.” What is in brackets is in the margin. In the vile “exactly” is not in the commas. In the vile with a small letter. In the vile there is no sign here. In the vile “After reading it, he told me. Reverend." In the vile there is no question here. signs. The margin is marked “March 27.” Marked in the margin: “8 Apr. 1874 Pererva. In the vile XVIII, but the unit is crossed out. Marked in the margin: “Apr 9.” In sub: Secular administration. The margin is marked: “1 Apr. 1874 Pererva. In the bottom: “a certified copy, at the end of November.” Marked in the margin: “Apr 11.” In the vile “report annually.” In the vile there are no commas here. The margin is marked: “11 Apr. 1874 Interruption and signature: Bishop. Nicodemus."