Русская церковь в XIX веке

A consistent presentation of the events of Russian church life in the 19th century, with the exception of only the last decade, can be found in the “Training Guide” of the professor of the Kazan Theological Academy Znamensky 178, and a detailed systematic index can be found in the “Guide” of the privat-docent of the Moscow University Dobroklonsky 179 and, partly, in the “Chronicle” of Bishop Arseny 180. The author of the historical sketches, offered to the favorable attention of readers, had in mind, in the space of pages allotted to him, to renew in the memory of readers only the most important events of Russian church history of the 19th century and, mainly, those general moods that successively changed in our church life during the recently past century and gave a certain historical coloring to this or that era. The internal life of the Church throughout its history and, without a doubt, remains unchanged in its essence, based on Faith, Hope and Love; but the external manifestations of this life are not the same throughout history: under favorable circumstances it is manifested by venerable ascetics, under unfavorable circumstances – by confessors and martyrs. Depending on certain external conditions and influences, this or that side of external church life is brought forward into the arena of history, but its internal essence remains unchanged. In Russia, where the state from time immemorial is not an enemy, but a patron of the Church, and where the Orthodox faith is recognized as the state religion, the Church cannot live in solitude and apart from the state; on the contrary, she lives inextricably with him, sharing both his sorrows and his joys, with her beneficial influence providing him with help and assistance in his great and multifaceted goals and objectives, and herself receiving assistance from him for her own goals: a happy union for the common benefit without mutual subordination in principle. That is why Russian church history is inseparable from Russian state history, and that is why the events that worried the state worried the Church, and vice versa, and those aspects of life that were emerging at a given time due to historical conditions in state life were also emerging in the church, and again vice versa. All events of Russian church life, thus, are drawn against the background of Russian civil history, which, mainly, gives the first one or another flavor. Part 1. Age of Alexander the Blessed 181 An error in the calculations of the early 19th century. – Celebrating the new century with church services in St. Petersburg. – Reign of Emperor Paul I. First Member of the Holy Synod Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg The nineteenth century in Russian history, by the will of Emperor Paul I, began a year earlier than its mathematical term and therefore lasted 101 years. Emperor Paul I at the end of December 1799 expressed the desire “that on the first day of the coming January, for the new century, a decent prayer service would be sent to all churches in St. Petersburg.” Emperor Paul, in counting centuries, followed the mistake of Peter the Great, who, by decrees on December 19 and 20, 7208, changing the order of chronology accepted in Russia from the Creation of the World and from the month of September to that established in Western Europe from the Nativity of Christ and from January, ordered the new year and the “new hundred-year century” to begin on the first day of January 182. And now, as under Peter, it was decided to begin the new century with a solemn divine service in all the churches of the capital and to perform the usual New Year's prayer service in the very first minutes of the new year. At midnight on January 1, 1800, when, as the hour hand passed through the number ΧΙI on the clock dial, one year elusively and mysteriously ended and another began, the bells in all the churches in St. Petersburg began to hum, all the churches were illuminated, and the St. Petersburg clergy, led by their bishop who served in the naval cathedral, asked the almighty and supreme Lord of times blessings not only for the new “summer”, but for the entire “new century” 183. It was a difficult time for the Church, as well as for public life. The kind soul of the sick emperor, disappointed in his best dreams, withdrew into gloom and severity. Having an irresistible desire to establish goodness and happiness on earth, Emperor Paul I burned out in attacks of “irritable pettiness” and achieved only the establishment of “universal fear” 184. Under the angry gaze of the sovereign, in which the fun and joy so necessary for life almost never sparkled, many human well-being, happiness and life perished. Nobody knew what tomorrow held for him. For the Church, the situation became especially difficult because Emperor Paul I, having fallen under the influence of the Jesuits and other heterodox intriguers, showed a desire to inappropriately enter into the affairs of the Church. These were especially painful last minutes of the night before the approaching dawn. On the night of March 11, 1801, Emperor Paul passed away and on March 12, twenty-three-year-old Alexander I ascended the imperial throne. Chapter II. Emperor Alexander the Blessed: his upbringing Birth of Alexander I. – Education in infancy and the influence of Catherine II. – La Harpe and his influence on Alexander I. – Influence of his father. – Alexander I in his youth. Alexander I was born on December 12, 1777. According to contemporaries, his birth was greeted both in St. Petersburg and throughout Russia with an explosion of especially joyful feeling. His name was associated with hope and faith in the advent of a better life, good and better days. The brilliant and glorious reign of Empress Catherine II, like an eternal, uninterrupted holiday, did not allow the kind smile to leave her face, but, in essence, was already beginning to weigh heavily with its artificial splendor and uninterrupted tension. Naturally, they expected relief from the burden. But deliverance was not seen either in Catherine or in the then heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich, whose gloomy figure did not arouse sympathy. Therefore, the birth of a grandson, on whom all accumulated hopes could be placed, caused such delight. Petersburg, in addition, was extremely nervous from the strong excitement it had just experienced during the flood of November 22. And when the news of the birth of the royal grandson spread, the joy was so noisy that even passers-by on the streets hugged and kissed. Immediately upon receipt by Catherine from Gatchina, where Pavel Petrovich lived and Alexander was born, the news of the birth of her grandson was celebrated in the large court church with a thanksgiving service with kneeling, and the residents of the capital were notified of the joyful event for the reigning House by two hundred and one cannon shots from the Peter and Paul and Admiralty fortresses. The Empress chose, in her own words, “the solemn name of Alexander” for the newborn, in the hope that “the name has an influence on the one who bears it, and this name is famous.” Wishes for the newborn converged on all sides. Catherine wished him “naturalness,” and the poet Derzhavin, expressing the general mood, in his ode to the birth of Alexander, expressed to him the desire to be a “man” on the throne. Catherine did not love her son, the heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich, he repaid her with the same affection, and as soon as Alexander was born, Catherine “took him in her arms and, after he was washed, took him to another room,” and from then on, one might say, she completely took over his upbringing and jealously did not allow anyone else to participate in this matter. Education was established according to the so-called “normal” type. Alexander did not know either a cradle or motion sickness, he slept on an iron bed without a canopy, on a leather mattress under a light English blanket, he was bathed in cold water every day, people always spoke loudly in his room, even while he was sleeping. Growing up, Alexander delighted his crowned grandmother: he never had a cold, was plump, big, healthy and very cheerful, and was almost never capricious. The Empress almost never parted with her desired grandson: either she took part in his games, or he sat silently with her, not wanting to leave while she was doing something, during her leisure hours; her influence was very noticeable on him. When one day she could not see the baby for four days, she already complained that he was spoiled. As soon as Alexander was two years old, Catherine already wrote about him that he “knows more than a child of four or five years old,” and admired: “it’s amazing how this baby loves it when people speak to him intelligently.” She taught him the alphabet herself. Already in the third year of his life, she began to compose moral instructions for him - the alphabet of sayings, which began with a statement of thoughts, “that he, little one, was born into the world naked as the palm of his hand, that everyone will be born this way, that by birth all people are equal, that only knowledge makes an infinite difference between them.” In the fifth year, the nanny had to scold Alexander to get him to look up from the book, “while other children are scolded for not picking up books.” Catherine admired Alexander and found no praise for him. She wrote about him: “nothing escapes this little boy, who is not yet five years old”; “There is a consistency in his thoughts that is extremely rare in children.” And at the same time she expressed several remarkably insightful thoughts: “Alexander will be an excellent man, but not at all a conqueror”; “His undertakings will not harm his neighbor, because tears appear in his eyes when he sees or thinks that his neighbor is in trouble.” In 1783, first as a French teacher and then as an educator, the Swiss Laharpe appeared under Alexander, who came to Russia to join one of the noble Russian families, with whom he traveled around Italy, carrying the responsibilities of a teacher-leader. This enlightened man in the European sense had enormous influence on Alexander, 185 which began to fade only when Alexander entered his fourth decade. La Harpe himself was a republican, but did not consider a republic to be the only best form of government and expressed that an unlimited monarchy should have two advantages: firstly, it is almost always in the hands of trained and very often truly worthy rulers, and secondly, in it the executive power acts with greater speed, energy and determination. Himself being from among those chosen people who dream of the general good of mankind, La Harpe sought to develop from his royal pupil a person who would take advantage of all the rights of autocratic power for the benefit of people and would be insured against the temptations of absolutism. La Harpe directed his pedagogical lessons towards this goal. He inspired Alexander that he should often ask himself who I am, what I know, what good I have done, am I the only one in the whole world who has intelligence, talent, and merit? Reckless pride is an unforgivable vice in the rulers of a people, and they are often severely punished by those whom they have insulted and despised. Especially harmful for the sovereign are court flatterers, self-interested and insignificant people: they can constantly convince the sovereign with flattery that he is free from all responsibilities in relation to his homeland and humanity, and direct him onto the false path of acquiring so-called glory. Meanwhile, a false understanding of glory entails many troubles. The corrupt pen of poets and writers will always be found and will begin to praise every ruler. But posterity rejects greatness in a man who sacrificed tens and hundreds of thousands of human lives to his ambitious plans and predatory wars, expelled his subjects from their homeland and placed his personal arbitrariness above all law and the demands of justice and fairness. "Dead Friends", i.e. the writings of noble-spirited thinkers are more reliable for the monarch than living friends. A man called to great public activity has no time to waste time reading books in which the faintest grain of truth is drowned in a whole sea of ​​verbosity: but it is positively necessary for him to become acquainted with works in which his duties as a man and as a citizen are clearly and truly depicted. Without relying on the fickle and hypocritical voice of those around him, the ruler of the people must look for true friends in the works of great writers, and in silent conversation with them strengthen the spirit and gain knowledge of life and people. He should not rely on living friends and must weigh arguments, advice, praise, and complaints with his own mind. La Harpe instilled in Alexander a love for the simplicity of life, for the so-called lower class, for enlightenment, and respect for human freedom. Court etiquette embarrasses the ruler, takes away his time, and relaxes his soul. The peasant class is the most unspoiled and brings the most benefits, and yet they do not care about enlightening it, and it is doomed to remain in ignorance with all its rude and unbridled impulses. One should not do a good deed through violent measures. No matter how ignorant people's prejudices may be, they cannot be destroyed with one wave of the hand, for the people defend with great steadfastness and tenacity what they are accustomed to consider as the truth. To destroy popular ignorance, the ruler must give freedom of speech to writers, and they will expose false opinions by logical arguments and dispel them with the irresistible power of ridicule. It is necessary to recreate public education and thereby prepare new generations for a different way of thinking, free from prejudices that degrade human dignity. Only in this way will the planned business gain strength and strength. Any quick, sudden and violent measures are valid only for a very short time. In a word, Alexander’s upbringing was aimed at developing in him a sense of duty, responsibilities, and the desire to bring good to humanity, sacrificing his personal pleasures and desires for this. Catherine followed LaHarpe’s lessons and used to say to LaHarpe: “Be a Jacobin, a Republican, whatever you want, I see that you are an honest person, and that’s enough for me.” She continued to invariably admire Alexander, his appearance, intelligence, games, pranks, called him an angel in human form, was proud of him as the fruit of her cares, and in defiance of Abbot Raynal, who once said about Catherine that she had not succeeded in anything, no matter what she did, she wrote that “this one will be successful.” In September 1793, when Alexander was 15 years old, Catherine married him to the 14-year-old Princess Louise of Baden-Durlach, named Elisaveta Alekseevna after her conversion to Orthodoxy. When they were getting engaged, she, delighted, said that two angels were getting engaged. Along with Catherine’s influence, other influences also acted on Alexander. Along with Catherine’s magnificent court in Tsarskoye Selo and St. Petersburg, there was another, gloomy and stern court in Gatchina, where Pavel Petrovich lived almost forever in complete solitude from the entire Catherine world. There was irreconcilable hostility between one court and the other. Catherine could not stand Pavel; Pavel considered himself offended by his mother, who retained control of the state. Perhaps, at the same time, Catherine’s intention to transfer the throne directly to Alexander, bypassing Paul, was palpably felt, although kept in deep secrecy, but undoubtedly. In Tsarskoe, Alexander was taught respect for human dignity in every person; in Gatchina, the gloomy father with heartache from the bottom of his heart said: “You see, children, that people must be treated like dogs.” These conditions of his young years of life, extremely acute, had the good result that from childhood Alexander became familiar with both sides of life, the face and the back, and the future emperor experienced the moods common to all Russian youth making their way in a working and harsh environment. At the age of 19, he already wrote to his tutor and friend La Harpe, who was living abroad at that time, that he hated Catherine’s court, that “everyone robs, you almost never meet an honest person,” that he “would willingly give up his title for a farm near La Harpe’s farm, or at least close,” and that his wife, who was distinguished like Alexander by her dreaminess, “shares these feelings of his.” Alexander wrote to his friend Viktor Pavlovich Kochubey, who was an envoy to Constantinople, that his position was too brilliant for his character, prone to silence and calm, that “court life was not created for him” and he “suffers every time he has to appear on the court stage”, that he “feels unhappy” in the forced society of “people whom he would not want to have as lackeys.” occupying the highest places, that “incredible disorder reigns in affairs, plunder is being robbed on all sides, all parts are poorly governed, order seems to be expelled from everywhere, and the empire strives only to expand its borders.” When the stern Paul later reigned and Alexander had to turn pale with fear when meeting this unfortunate emperor, he complained about tyranny and dreamed that when he became emperor, he would establish popular representation, a “free constitution,” and he himself intended to retire then. Chapter III. Religious education of Alexander 186 Archpriest A.A. Samborsky and his influence on Alexander I. Actually, Alexander’s religious education was entrusted by Catherine to Archpriest Andrei Afanasyevich Samborsky. This was the son of a priest of the Akhtyrsky district (Kharkov province), who received higher education at the Kyiv Theological Academy and then lived for a long time as a psalm-reader at the Russian embassy church in London, where he married an Englishwoman who converted to Orthodoxy, and when the vacancy of the rector of the church became available, he remained a priest. In 1782, when Samborsky was 50 years old, Catherine instructed him to accompany Tsarevich Pavel Petrovich and his second wife Maria Feodorovna on a trip to Western Europe. Two years later, Samborsky was appointed by Catherine as a teacher of the law and teacher of English to the Grand Dukes Alexander and Konstantin, and subsequently taught the same subjects to the three Grand Duchesses - the daughters of Paul. In 1797, upon his accession to the throne, Paul appointed Samborsky, in addition, as manager of the agricultural school at the Blozerka dacha near Tsarskoe Selo. The latter appointment is explained by the fact that during his stay in England Samborsky studied agronomy. Samborsky managed to maintain the same position under Paul that he enjoyed under Catherine. Paul, as a sign of his favor, granted him the estate of Stratilatovka with five hundred souls in his homeland. However, he did not avoid some changes in his position. In 1799, he was appointed house priest and confessor to his student, the very devoted Grand Duchess Alexandra Pavlovna, who married the Palatine of Hungary, Archduke Joseph of Austria, and went to Budapest. Here, however, he did not stay long, and in 1801, after the death of the Archduchess, he moved to Irom, to the church built on the grave of the deceased. In 1804, due to old age and weakness, already 72 years old, Samborsky left service and arrived in St. Petersburg, where he was awarded all kinds of pensions amounting to over 11,000 rubles, and a government apartment in Mikhailovsky Castle. In the winter he usually lived in St. Petersburg, and in the summer he went to his estate and there, in his spare time, taught his peasants improved farming techniques, for which he also ordered a plow from England. He died in 1815, at the age of 82, and was buried in the Bolshaya Okhta cemetery, in the family crypt, next to his wife. Our church historians, dissatisfied with Alexander’s broad religious tolerance, which he showed throughout his reign, say that Alexander “did not receive a religious education in the Orthodox spirit,” or even that his “religious education was extremely superficial,” blame the teacher of the law for this and blame the latter with all sorts of fables. Such reviews from church historians are followed without verification by secular historians 187 . This is helped by the fact that Samborsky was, indeed, an extraordinary person: he wore secular dress, with the permission of the Empress, loved to engage in agronomy, even laid out a park for his royal student at his dacha Aleksandrovka near Pavlovsk, knew how to see the good in non-Orthodox people, and greatly revered the French theologian Massillon. It is unknown on what basis, they say that Father Samborsky was a poorly educated person, or “of limited theological education,” his teaching was limited to the fact that he forced his student to memorize questions and answers from the catechism and cared only about fulfilling the ritual side of Orthodoxy, and, which does not at all fit with the previous one, as if he was a “liberal” who was not entirely firm in the Orthodoxy of his theological views. Father Samborsky expressed to himself that in his life he had to experience “many times the terrible persecution of superstition and envy.” Alexander himself declared that he agreed with Laharpe in everything except religion, therefore, the religious foundations were laid so firmly in him that they were not subject to fluctuations even with the power of influence that Laharpe had on Alexander. Not so long ago, the published notes of Father Samborsky about teaching the law of God to his august students reveal in him a teacher of the law who is far from only forcing his students to “learn by heart the questions and answers of the catechism.” Father Samborsky sought, first of all, to arouse in his students love for God and love for neighbor. He set the goal of his teaching activity as the moral development of his students, their assimilation of moral Christian truths, the development in them of love for people, and the desire to do good to everyone. “Try to find your neighbor,” he inspired, “in every human condition, then you will not offend anyone and then fulfill the law of God.” Sometimes walking with Alexander in the vicinity of Pavlovsk and Tsarskoe Selo, he would enter the peasants’ huts with him, introducing him to peasant life, everyday life, needs, and hard work. Recalling these walks in one of his later letters to Alexander, he writes: “Your Majesty could clearly understand my direct system of evangelical religion and rural religion, from which come good morals and hard work, which serve as a solid foundation for the people’s well-being; when the monarch manages to place his people in this degree of bliss, then he will not be afraid to appear with an answer in the future life before the righteous judge - God.” And he later proudly had every right to write: “I place higher and more precious than my life itself that their Highnesses’ hearts are disposed towards every good thing that is pleasing before God”; “The hearts of their highnesses were formed mainly towards doing good to their neighbors and loving their enemies.” Sometimes he did not hesitate to adopt a stern tone. Before Alexander’s betrothal, perhaps knowing a weak trait in his character, he said: “in your high birth there is an insidious and harmful caress that oppresses the truth; going through all the events of the past centuries, we find that almost all earthly rulers more or less became victims of this caress, and whoever indulged in it more turned into the most terrible monster; So, in order for you to be saved from future misfortunes, you must avoid flattery in every possible way.” As for the actual firmness of Orthodoxy in the convictions of Father Samborsky, no matter how difficult it is to look for evidence of something that does not naturally imply any evidence, it can be pointed out that in his lessons on church history he categorically stated that “the Greek-Russian Church has never been changeable, and therefore cannot change now, therefore, those born in it must remain firm and immutable until their last breath.” The only thing lacking in this upbringing was churchliness, which is necessary given the breadth of views, church discipline. The personal life of Father Samborsky did not diverge from his teaching. He did not want to feed in vain on the labors of his peasants, he gave his house in the provincial town of Izyum for a hospital, in his Stratilatovka he also built a hospital, an almshouse for widows, an orphanage, a special hospital for patients with so-called venereal diseases, a school in which 20 boys studied, he built a chapel; in the Mikhailovsky Castle, in St. Petersburg, in his apartment he built a house church, in which he served when his strength allowed. Already a very old man, he wrote to the sovereign that he had always tried and would continue to strive to use his whole life for the benefit of his neighbor until his last breath. His charity, perhaps depending on some economic imprudence, absorbed all his funds: dying, he left a debt to the bank of 36,000 rubles and was forced to ask the sovereign for mercy for his orphaned grandchildren. Chapter IV. The accession of Emperor Alexander I to the throne and the first years of the new reign General joy at the accession of Alexander I. - The first days of the new reign: liberation decrees. – State reforms. - Concerns about education. On March 12, 1801, after the sudden death of Emperor Paul I the previous night, Alexander ascended the throne, under heavy moral pressure from the stunning impression of his father’s unexpected death. This accession, according to contemporaries, was greeted by all of Russia with indescribable delight. Everyone knew the character of the young sovereign, full of gentleness and general benevolence. In St. Petersburg on March 12, when they met, they hugged each other as on Bright Resurrection. The same thing happened in Moscow. Nature itself seemed to share the people’s joy: after a long period of bad weather, it was a bright, sunny day in St. Petersburg. The first days of the new reign only strengthened the first impressions. The first manifesto of the new sovereign said that the sovereign would reign “according to the laws and heart of his wise grandmother,” whose reign now, after the difficult times of Pavlov, seemed like some kind of golden age. On the third day after his accession, a decree was issued on the release of prisoners in the Peter and Paul Fortress and other political prisoners and exiles; Up to five hundred people were freed. In the very first days, decrees were issued commanding all those expelled without trial from service, military and civilian, of whom there were so many in Pavlov’s time, to be considered retired, and the number of people who, thanks to these decrees, returned to service and were restored to their rights, extended, according to some information, up to 12,000 people 188 . Pardon was announced for those who had taken refuge abroad, except for those guilty of murder (March 15), the secret expedition was destroyed (April 2), and then torture, the gallows were destroyed, to which the names of those condemned to public disgrace were nailed (April 8), a decree was given so that police officials would not dare to cause insults and offenses to anyone (March 19), noble elections were restored (March 15) and the charter of the nobility was restored (March 2). April), abolished by Paul, the city regulations were restored (April 2), it was ordered to print private printing houses (March 31), banned under Paul, free entry from and exit abroad was allowed (March 22), the ban on the export of food and goods abroad (March 14), bread and wine (March 24), on the import of foreign goods (March 16), books and musical works (March 31), was lifted, and other general benefits were given. All these merciful decrees, which included a whole series of liberating measures, almost continuously followed one another, so that almost every day brought new mercy. Because of this, just as when meeting Paul everyone tried to hide and run away, so when they saw Alexander, everyone ran to meet him. According to contemporaries, “everyone felt some kind of moral space, their glances became more favorable, their steps became bolder, their breathing became freer.” And then, following the abolition of the restrictive restrictions of the previous reign, creative work “for the good of humanity” immediately began. Under the heavy impression of the despotic reign of his father, the young sovereign dreamed of immediately carrying out a complete reorganization of government institutions in Russia, improving all parts of government, raising the well-being of all classes and granting Russia institutions consistent with its greatness and in accordance with the best concepts of that time. The difficult and extremely extensive work could not be carried out at once. It was decided to start the transformation from above, from the highest state institutions, and then move on to the middle and lower ones. A detailed plan for all these transformations was also developed, according to Alexander’s instructions, by the famous statesman Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. On September 8, 1802, ministries were established instead of the collegiums that had existed since Peter’s time, a committee of ministers was established, and the rights of the Senate to protect and develop the rule of law were expanded; then the State Council was established (January 1, 1810): by transforming the highest state institutions, the first part of the transformation plan, a third of the entire reform of state institutions, was completed. As a result of the sovereign’s conviction about the equality of people and human dignity, some measures were taken to eliminate the sale of serfs without land; the sovereign made it a rule not to distribute peasants with estates to various dignitaries, as was practiced on an extensive scale under Catherine and Paul. A lot has been done for national education. A new regulation of the Academy of Sciences was given (June 25, 1803), a new management of educational institutions was established under the Ministry of Public Education, and all educational institutions of this kind were distributed among six educational districts (January 24, 1803), and new charters were received (November 5, 1804), which gave educational institutions a coherent organization divided into lower, middle and higher, under the control of the Ministry of Public Education with the main administration schools under the ministry, new universities were established in Kazan and Kharkov (1803), a decree of the university in Derit was issued (December 12, 1802), the charter of the Vilna University was approved (May 18, 1808), a pedagogical institute was established in St. Petersburg, the embryo of the future St. Petersburg University (April 16, 1804), the charter of Tsarsko-Selo was promulgated Lyceum (January 11, 1811), the heavy oppression of censorship was weakened, to which a new charter was given, transferring it to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education from the Ministry of Internal Affairs (1804), widespread patronage of literature was provided through the patronage of outstanding writers and translations of books from Western European languages. The physiognomy of state life completely changed under the influence of the personality of the young emperor, the social movements of the Catherine century, restrained under Paul, surfaced, and the spirit of freedom of thought and speech was breathed in. Chapter V. Committee on the improvement of religious schools 189 Theological schools during the reign of Alexander I. – Archimandrite Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov. – Metropolitan Ambrose Podobedov. – Project of spiritual and educational reform. – Establishment of a committee for the improvement of religious schools. - The most humble report of the committee. – His Eminence Theophylact Rusanov. - MM. Speransky. – Plan for spiritual and educational reform. The mighty wave of enlightenment that arose in Russia during the reign of Alexander I also captured theological schools, and captured them so significantly that the theological school, as one of its most competent historian puts it, only from this time can seriously consider the beginning of its history. By the beginning of the 19th century, according to another historian of the theological school of Alexander’s time, the life of theological schools reflected all the uncertainty of their position. Their existence, as a diocesan institution and not provided for, was subject to all sorts of accidents. The program was not strictly defined, and the seminaries in this regard presented great diversity, lacking correctness and completeness in the training courses, which could be changed at the discretion of the diocesan superiors and due to the lack of teachers. Schools existed without general supervision, did not have a general charter and systematic structure, they lacked gradualism and certainty; both academies and seminaries “contained all the subjects of teaching, so that their circle, cramped in one place and extending from initial knowledge to the highest sciences, had neither the proper time nor the necessary space.” Scholastic formalism constrained teaching and deprived it of developing power and vitality. In their scholastic forms, the sciences “had a too harsh educational appearance, which made the acquired knowledge of little use for public instruction, and, deceiving half-learned people with imaginary importance, prevented them from going deeper into the foundation of the teaching.” To top it all off, the school carried on its business amidst need and deprivation, being provided “more by patience and tirelessness than by an abundance of benefits.” In short, all aspects of school life were awaiting reform. A pioneer in the matter of spiritual and educational reform was the prefect of the St. Petersburg Alexander Nevsky Academy (seminary), “known for his many-sided scholarship,” Archimandrite Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov 190. He was the son of a priest, a native of the Voronezh diocese; priesthood and received an archpriest, then, after widowhood and the death of all three children, he decided to become a monk, in 1800 he moved to St. Petersburg, here he was tonsured and appointed prefect at the academy. He was 33 years old at this time. In Moscow, he left behind a good memory in the scientific and historical spheres, in Voronezh he was engaged in the description of the Voronezh province, dreamed of writing the “history of Russia”, supported his learned Moscow acquaintances, and all this made his name more or less famous, so that in St. Petersburg he was not accepted as a stranger. As an archaeologist and historian, he was well acquainted with the past of the theological school; as an educator and teacher, he knew its contemporary situation perfectly and took its needs and its fate to heart. Under the influence of the beneficial reform of the secular school, he, in his own words, “explained” to the leader of the synod, Metropolitan Ambrose of St. Petersburg, the idea of ​​​​the need for reform of the theological school. Metropolitan Ambrose Podobedov himself was always concerned with the multiplication of theological schools and the improvement of methods of spiritual education. The son of a priest in the Vladimir province, who was educated at the Trinity Lavra Seminary and there, after completing the course, remaining a teacher for some time, in 1768, at the age of twenty-six, he became a monk and quickly began to make his career. As a teacher and prefect of the Moscow Academy, in 1771, with his sermon “on the harmful effects of superstition,” delivered in the Don Monastery during the burial of Moscow Archbishop Ambrose Zertis-Kamensky, who was killed by a rioting crowd during the plague in Moscow, he attracted the highest attention. By order of Empress Catherine II, this sermon was published, and then reprinted several times and translated into German and French 191. Following this, Ambrose was soon appointed rector. In 1775, with his sermon on the birthday of the first wife of the then heir to the throne, Pavel Petrovich, Natalya Alekseevna, Ambrose finally won the sympathy of the empress and her august son who were present in the church. The Empress then granted him the Diamond Cross 192. In 1778, he was consecrated Bishop of Sevsky, Vicar of the Moscow Metropolis, and the Empress honored his consecration with her presence on July 5, in the Sergius Hermitage near St. Petersburg, and granted the newly consecrated man a precious panagia, full bishop's vestments and 8,000 rubles. In 1781, Ambrose was appointed Bishop of Krutitsy, and in 1785 - Archbishop of Kazan. Paul, having reigned, decorated him with orders, which the clergy had just begun to complain about, and finally installed him in the St. Petersburg see, after the removal of the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Gabriel Petrov to Novgorod, and on the eve of his death, he was granted the status of metropolitan. Having praised the great Catherine during her life in his church speeches and, without a doubt, being well aware of the mutual disposition of the queen and her heir, Ambrose, in a speech at the burial of Catherine, told Paul that he was predestined from the ages by God himself “to be a worthy inheritance” of his great mother, in order to “correct what was unfinished by her,” and that “all the talents and virtues were poured into him with blood” of his mother and in him they will flourish even more 193 . The praise was expressed so skillfully that it must have been taken as an expression of sincere feelings. The first days of Alexander's reign were difficult for Metropolitan Ambrose. He palpably felt the coldness of the young emperor towards him, from day to day he became more and more sad, became “boring and secluded”, there were rumors that the fate of his predecessor awaited him: involuntary retirement. But, possessing the ability to patiently endure all sorts of blows to pride, which is precious for practical life, he humbly endured the cold of winter, waited for spring and remained at his post until, in old age, when he became painfully capricious, he was forced to retire. While at the academy, Ambrose compiled a textbook on the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, published by the Holy Synod in 1779. As bishop of Sevsk, he opened a seminary in Sevsk and two theological schools in district towns. In the Krutitsa diocese he also opened two new district theological schools, in the Kazan diocese he increased the number of seminary students from two hundred to five hundred, and finally, in the Novgorod diocese he also put the theological school business on solid ground. Therefore, he could not react to the spiritual and educational reform otherwise than with complete sympathy. He brought the spiritual-educational issue to the highest attention and found there complete readiness for the broadest support. Following the example of the progress of the reform of secular educational institutions, an initial “predestination”, or preliminary general plan for the reform, was drawn up. This work was performed by Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, who in 1804 became the vicar of the St. Petersburg metropolis, the bishop of Old Russia. The sovereign paid special attention to his work, and during the two months of his stay in St. Petersburg, where he arrived from Novgorod, where he had permanent residence in his new position, Eugene introduced himself to the sovereign four times. Eugene’s project “was read to the sovereign and highly respected,” then it was submitted to the synod for consideration, where it also received approval 194. The project lacked development of the economic side of the reform, and since Eugene was probably not capable of this work, Mogilev Archbishop Anastasy Bratanovsky, “one of the brilliant spiritual administrators of that time,” was summoned to the synod for it. He, indeed, “justified the hopes” that were placed on him, indicating a rich source for providing the theological school with church candle income, which required restoring the forgotten law of Peter the Great on the monopoly of churches on the sale of church candles. Work on preparing the school reform, animated by the attention of the sovereign, proceeded quickly. On November 29, 1807, a “committee for the improvement of theological schools” was established to finalize the reform. The appointed members were: Metropolitan Ambrose, Kaluga Bishop Feofilakt Rusanov, Chief Priest of the military clergy John Derzhavin, the Tsar's spiritual father, Protopresbyter Sergius Krasnopevkov, Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince Golitsyn and State Secretary Speransky; The chief secretary of the synod, Alexander Danilov, was elected “producer of written affairs.” On the fourth day after its establishment, the committee had already opened its meetings - they met at the Metropolitan's - and six months later, on June 28, 1808, a completely completed report on the reform was presented to the sovereign for approval 195 . On the same day, the report was highly approved and the most hard-working members of the committee, Theophylact, who had just been granted membership in the synod, and Speransky, received brilliant awards: the Order of St. Vladimir 2nd degree. Bishop Theophylact Rusanov was the son of a sexton in the Arkhangelsk province; after graduating from the theological seminary in his homeland, he was sent to St. Petersburg to the main Alexander Nevsky Seminary in order to prepare for a teaching position and then return to his homeland. But his brilliant abilities detained him in St. Petersburg. The St. Petersburg Metropolitan Gabriel left him, with the permission of the synod, as a teacher in his main seminary. Here Rusanov became a monk and in 1794, at the thirtieth year of his life, he was appointed as a teacher of law in the Greek cadet corps, which was later renamed the corps of foreign co-religionists. Although at that time the teacher of the gentry land cadet corps, Anastasy Bratanovsky, shone in St. Petersburg with his oratorical talent, Theophylact also managed to gain fame as an outstanding preacher and become visible. By the nature of his preaching, he was a “learned” preacher 196. In 1795 he was promoted to archimandrite and appointed rector of the Zelenets monastery, in 1796 he was transferred to Sergius Hermitage, and in 1799 he was consecrated bishop in Kaluga. His naming and consecration took place in Gatchina, where then for about a month and a half, from October 13 to December 6, a synod was held on the occasion of family celebrations in the Tsar's House. At the naming, in one of the halls of the royal palace, the sovereign was present at the meeting of the synod. After the dedication, Theophylact left St. Petersburg for his diocese. What he was like at that time can be seen from the review of him by the Moscow Metropolitan Platon, who met him at that time, in a letter to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Ambrose: “a young man and brave beyond his rank.” In Kaluga, he became close to Governor Lopukhin, who led a very cheerful life. But then, when the trial of this governor broke out, Theophylact became more cautious and plunged into literary pursuits. He mastered both prose and poetry; as a person more brilliant than thorough, he did not create anything of his own, took up translations, and, by the nature of his character, settled on works that were alien to thought and doubt. He translated: “Philosophical Consolation”, “Healing for Dejection and Despair”, etc. Then, on the advice of Metropolitan Ambrose, he began translating works that were more consistent with the nature of his ministry: “On the Reliability of the Gospel”, “On the Superiority of Religion”, “Against Godlessness”, etc. All these books were successful and were published in a second edition. Theophylact's sermons were also published in two editions, in 1806 and 1809. In 1806, Theophylact was summoned from Kaluga to attend the Holy Synod in St. Petersburg. There is an assumption that he was summoned at the direction of his younger colleague at the St. Petersburg seminary, Speransky, specifically to work on the ecclesiastical school reform, as an enlightened, enterprising, and energetic person. Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky was the son of a priest of the Vladimir province, he received his education at the Vladimir seminary, after graduating from the seminary, as its best student, he was sent to the St. Petersburg Alexander Nevsky Main Seminary to prepare for teaching at the seminary in Vladimir. But when he completed his course in St. Petersburg in 1793, Metropolitan Gabriel Petrov of St. Petersburg, with the permission of the Holy Synod, left him, like Theophylact, in St. Petersburg, as a teacher at the main seminary. Here he very soon rose from the position of teacher of physics and mathematics to the position of teacher of philosophy and prefect - the extreme highest point for a secular person in the spiritual and educational service. When he was a teacher, he was invited by a famous nobleman of that time, Prince Alexei Borisovich Kurakin, to be his personal secretary. When Prince Kurakin later became the Prosecutor General, that is, the current Minister of Justice, but with somewhat greater powers, he transferred Speransky to his service as a freight forwarder. A talented worker, here, as well as in the seminary, was immediately appreciated. At the age of three, he rose from titular councilor to civil councilor. In 1798, he was entrusted, in addition to his position, with managing the office of the commission for supplying the capital with supplies, where the president was the heir to the throne, Alexander Pavlovich, and the members were the most influential nobles. Thus, Alexander, when he ascended the throne, personally knew Speransky well. In 1602, Speransky received the rank of full state councilor, and at the very beginning of 1803 he moved to the Ministry of Internal Affairs to Prince Viktor Pavlovich Kochubey. In the same year, through Kochubey, he received an order from the sovereign to draw up a plan for the general transformation of the government and judicial seats of the empire. Appearing to the sovereign with reports on this matter, he attracted his exclusive attention, became a close and trusted person in the execution of his transformative orders, and from the end of 1807 was already with him constantly. He was truly an outstanding organizational and creative mind, able to grasp thoughts on the fly and then immediately translate them into rules, projects and charters. It was he who wrote the entire report of the committee, which was, according to Professor Znamensky, “so new and fresh in direction, so harmonious, amazing in the breadth and unity of the main view and the strength of its logical development in particular, a statement of plans regarding the establishment of theological schools, their administration, content and courses, that such work could only have come out of the committee where Speransky worked.” The work of the committee was based on the plan developed by the Reverends Eugene and Anastasius. The current report of the committee gave the religious schools the hitherto unprecedented character of an integral organization, in which harmonious gradualism was consistently carried out both in educational institutions, and in the range of educational subjects, and in management procedures. In relation to the general plan of public education, which had already been put into practice, theological schools were divided into four categories: academies, which provided higher theological education and administered educational districts; seminaries, with an intermediate course designated for the preparation of students in the academy and in the field of church ministry; district schools - for lower education; finally, parish schools - for elementary education. All these educational institutions were connected with each other by mutual administrative relations. The highest administration of the entire theological school was concentrated in the Commission of Theological Schools under the Holy Synod, similar to the main board of schools under the Ministry of Public Education. All dioceses were distributed, according to the available number of theological academies, into four educational districts, with an academy at the head of each; Each diocese should have its own seminary and several district schools, one per district, in any case, no more than ten per diocese. Each district is divided into parish districts, containing several parishes under the authority of one dean, and in each such district there is a parish school, and, in any case, no more than thirty per diocese. There were then 36 all dioceses, therefore, there were supposed to be a maximum of 36 seminaries, 360 district schools, and 1,080 parish schools. Along this entire ladder of theological educational institutions, the higher ones must have supervision over the lower ones, district schools are placed above parish ones, seminaries over district ones, academies over seminaries. At the academies, external district boards and conferences of learned people, both belonging to the academic staff and outsiders, are established to govern the district. A system of strict demarcation was applied to training courses. The composition of special theological teaching in seminaries received greater completeness; in general education, in addition to the philosophical and verbal sciences, an outstanding place was given to the historical sciences; The schools retained a classical character, but at the same time they were given a warning against the predominance of scholastic Latin and the neglect of Greek and Russian writing that had been allowed in them in the past. The theological school received certain rights and status that it did not have before. The Committee in its report outlined all the main points of the ecclesiastical school charters, detailed school staffs with salaries indicated for all school needs. Chapter VI. Commission of Theological Schools Establishment of a commission for religious schools. – The most submissive gratitude of the Holy Synod to Emperor Alexander I. – Development of statutes for religious educational institutions. – Opening of the St. Petersburg Academy. – Archimandrite Filaret Drozdov. – Circumstances of the activity of the Right Reverend Theophylact in the commission. Along with the highest approval of the report on June 26, 1808, the temporary “committee on the improvement of theological schools” ceased to exist, and a permanent “commission of theological schools” was established to manage and manage all theological and educational affairs. The members remained the same, only instead of the previous confessor, Protopresbyter Krasnopevkov, a new confessor, Protopresbyter Pavel Krinitsky, joined. The highest decree, which put the matter of spiritual education on solid ground, was accepted in the spiritual world with the greatest joy. The Holy Synod, “understanding in all its scope and importance” “this very beneficial royal feat for the Church,” solemnly on behalf of the Church brought “the most grateful thanks” to the sovereign. The first synodal member, Metropolitan Ambrose, in a speech of gratitude said to the sovereign: “among other mercies and bounties, ever poured out on the servants of the faith from your throne, the blessing now sent down by you, in the form of a new decree on the improvement of theological schools, is a gift for the Church itself, a perfect gift, descended from above from the Father of lights. Your Majesty, knowing apostolically that physical training is insignificant, but piety is useful for everything, having taught the rules and methods for spreading public education, did not bother to equally strengthen the clergy with greater knowledge, suggesting sufficient measures both to acquire the desired successes in them, and to strengthen the entire class serving the altar of the Lord, so that they can serve with joy, and not sighingly.” The last lines were a hint at the project of better provision for the clergy, connected with the project of the ecclesiastical school reform, but it did not come true. The work of the committee consisted, generally speaking, only of the foundation of a new spiritual and educational structure. Drawing up detailed statutes for academies, seminaries and religious schools, developing educational programs - all this fell on the commission. The work was not easy, but for the commission in its composition, the not new Speransky wrote a general introduction to the statutes of all theological schools outlining the general principles of spiritual and educational education and the first part of the academic statute with rules regarding the internal management of academies. He refused to continue his work due to the complexity of public affairs. The remaining parts of the academic charter, the charters of seminaries and schools, district and parish, and instructions for teaching all subjects in seminaries and schools were compiled by His Eminence Theophylact, who from December 1808 was already in the rank of archbishop and from March 1809 transferred to the Ryazan see. Having completed his work, Theophylact revised it six months later, before printing the statutes, and made “numerous and very significant amendments” to it. Having written the charter, Speransky told the commission that “one experience can put a stamp of authenticity on it,” and proposed introducing a new charter so far only in the form of experience at the St. Petersburg Academy, and only then, if its merit is justified by experience, to approve it legislatively. And so it was done. The opening of the St. Petersburg Academy under the new charter was solemnly celebrated on February 17, 1809. Particular care was taken to the first experiment, the touchstone of the reform, since the first test was supposed to indicate in the public consciousness the merits of the entire reform. The staff of teachers and students in the transformed academy was organized in a completely exceptional way: both were chosen from the best spiritual forces of all of Russia, so that a German professor invited to the academy had to admit that he had never met such a brilliant composition of students in Germany. The members of the commission themselves took an active part in academic life, volunteered to be “protectors” of academic departments, and His Eminence Theophylact even took over the leadership of teaching - in his favorite department of literature. After some inevitable rough edges, the academy achieved “order that has become the rule for all academies.” She owes this most of all to the great organizational mind of her new rector, Archimandrite Philaret (Drozdov), who appeared in her midst, who soon won first place on the commission of theological schools with his perseverance and endurance. The son of a poor Kolomna priest, he was born in 1782, known in the world as Vasily, studied at the Kolomna and Trinity Lavra seminaries 197 and, by his own admission 198, was not close to his comrades: it seems that this is a characteristic common to all wonderful people. At the Lavra Seminary, after completing the course, he remained as a teacher. Metropolitan Platon of Moscow early noticed his preaching talent and back in 1806 he wrote to his vicar Augustine: “I have an excellent preacher, teacher Drozdov, I will tell you his sermon, and you will be surprised.” Noticing the talent, the Metropolitan began to persuade the young teacher to become a monk and achieved his goal: Drozdov took monastic vows in 1808, on November 16, and was ordained a hierodeacon on November 21. In 1809, on March 1, Filaret, probably at the request of Metropolitan Ambrose, was summoned by the synod to St. Petersburg. We had to travel from Moscow in severe frost, and Filaret caught a cold in his feet, the consequences of which he felt all his life. Philaret was summoned, apparently, to be assigned to the academy, but, apparently, due to the influence of Theophylact, who took for himself the privilege of managing academic affairs and who met Philaret “with destroying greatness,” he was not admitted there as an alien candidate and, with resentment for himself, was assigned to the seminary “inspector and teacher of philosophy with the rank of academic bachelor.” On March 28, he was ordained hieromonk. In August, he was appointed rector of the Alexander Nevsky district school that was attached to the seminary, retaining all previous positions in the seminary. A year later, according to the persistent and repeated representations of the academic rector, Archimandrite Evgraf, and after the first exam at the academy in theology turned out to be unsatisfactory, Filaret was finally appointed to the academy as a bachelor of theological sciences with church history. Metropolitan Platon, having parted with Philaret with extreme reluctance, now repeated his request for his return to Moscow, destining for him the rectorship at Trinity Seminary. But Filaret was left in St. Petersburg. Metropolitan Ambrose brought Filaret closer to himself and patronized him in every possible way. Philaret himself considered Ambrose his second benefactor after Metropolitan Plato. Soon Filaret found himself another patron, more significant, in the person of Prince Golitsyn, who liked Filaret’s sermon, the first he delivered in St. Petersburg, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, on the day of the Annunciation in 1810, on the topic of the inner Kingdom of God in the soul of man, which was very suitable for the mystical mood that already at that time enveloped the highest intelligentsia of St. Petersburg and in particular Prince Golitsyn. Golitsyn asked the Metropolitan to appoint Filaret to deliver sermons more often, and the Metropolitan, in turn, sent each new sermon of Filaret to both Golitsyn and Speransky as pleasant spiritual news. Philaret's preaching pulpit was constantly surrounded by a large audience from the St. Petersburg nobility. Philaret happened to give a sermon in the presence of the sovereign. However, thorns still littered Filaret's path. Rumors were spread about one sermon that in it Philaret had robbed the French spiritual orator Massillon; another sermon was called “not a sermon, but an ode” by Philaret’s academic opponents; the third was publicly accused by Archbishop Theophylact himself, at a dinner with Metropolitan Ambrose, of pantheistic views. Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow Theophylact at this time was experiencing the apogee of his glory. “High society in St. Petersburg admired his brilliant sermons, his secularism, and his fluent French conversation.” At that time, there was apparently a proposal to invite bishops to the young state council, and, of course, high society rumors named Theophylact as the first candidate. People who were dissatisfied with him called him Brienne on this occasion, the name of a French bishop who took part in the revolution. Rumors promised him a white hood in St. Petersburg, in place of Ambrose, who, following the example of his predecessor, was removed to Novgorod. However, Theophylact failed to maintain his height. Whether the reason for this was his hot and impetuous character, perhaps somewhat spoiled by the rapidity of his career, or whether he simply took a risk and went too far, got carried away and failed, only he, relying too much on his personal strengths, parted ways with those very people who created his career and on whose influence, in essence, his further successes depended. Having lost the opportunity to find support from friends and having enough enemies, he still held on in place for a long time with his own remarkable strength, but then, as soon as he was accidentally or cleverly moved from him, he immediately left the government machine and then drowned in the river of oblivion, amid the lack of suitable work. On the recommendation of Speransky, Professor Ignatius Fessler was summoned from Berlin to the St. Petersburg Academy at the Department of Jewish Language. On the recommendation of Speransky, Fessler, upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, was offered to occupy the department of philosophy. Fessler, as a foreign professor, soon gained special sympathy and respect, in addition to Speransky, and Golitsyn. He was asked how he found the new academic order in comparison with the European ones, and he, among other things, drew attention to the extreme burden of students with many subjects and proposed dividing students into special groups, leaving only part of the subjects required at the academy as generally compulsory. Fessler's proposal also included the entire group of verbal sciences that Theophylact taught as non-compulsory subjects. When Fessler then, as a professor, presented notes on his departments to the discretion of the commission, both of them were subjected to severe attacks from Theophylact. This was in April 1810. After this, Speransky stopped attending meetings of the commission and, although he continued to sign its journals, in June he transferred Fessler from the academy to himself, to the law commission, and at the beginning of the next year he asked for his dismissal from membership in the commission, citing the fact that now the commission could only develop the details established by the general rules, but, however, he was not fired. Then Theophylact attacked Filaret, not wanting to give up his fame as the most prominent St. Petersburg preacher to him without a fight. The first serious battle was fought at dinner with the Metropolitan, on Trinity Day in 1911, when Theophylact began to reproach the sermon delivered by Philaret that day in the Neva Lavra for pantheistic views. Blinded by his own brilliance, he did not see with what strength he entered the fight. Filaret demanded a formal trial. The sermon was examined by Metropolitan Ambrose, Archbishop Methodius of Tver, who was then known “for his firmness in dogmas,” Golitsyn and Speransky, was approved by them, by their decree was printed, presented to the sovereign, and the matter ended with Philaret two weeks later receiving from the sovereign a cross decorated with precious stones “for his distinction in preaching the word of God,” and even after 8 weeks, twenty-eight years old, Theophylact was promoted to archimandrite and after that he did not stop and continued to be hostile towards Philaret. And since the commission now clearly supported Filaret, contrary to the aspirations of Theophylact, a situation was created that Theophylact began to allow formal quibbles with the editors of the commission’s journals, not without malicious irony. When the expression “carefully use diligence” was once used in the rules drawn up by the commission, Theophylact objected in writing that “it would seem insulting to lovers of literature to read this expression devoted to embossing.” He was, of course, right, but it was too petty. Obviously, the recent oracle was no longer the master in the affairs of the commission. At the beginning of 1812, when filling the rector's position at the St. Petersburg Academy, the candidate nominated by Theophylact no longer passed and Filaret was appointed rector, whose relationship with Theophylact was, of course, no secret to anyone. The personal, private circumstances in Theophylact’s life were now developing in such a way that they were fully consistent with the general mood, which changed abruptly under the oppressive expectation of a cloud approaching from France. Now an adherent and admirer of the French, such as Theophylact was, could not be held in high esteem. A stronger man than Theophylact also fell for his recent worship of the French, Speransky, who, without any guilt, after a sudden two-hour audience with the sovereign on March 17, 1812, left St. Petersburg at night for Nizhny Novgorod, accompanied by a bailiff. Chapter VII. Twelfth Year Invasion of Napoleon I into Russia. - Occupation of Moscow by the enemy. – Abandonment of Moscow by Napoleon I. – Ruin of Moscow. – Prayer of thanksgiving for the liberation of Russia from the invasion of twenty languages. – Restoration of destruction along the path of enemy invasion. – Business trip of the Most Reverend Theophylact. – His return to St. Petersburg and his further fate. On June 12, 1812, Napoleon crossed the Russian border along the Neman River, rushing toward Russia with “twenty tongues.” “God is upon him who conceives!” Alexander announced in an order to the troops. In churches across the entire face of the Russian land, the animated words of the manifesto were heard, calling on all classes and fortunes to defend the faith and the fatherland. The Tsar promised not to lay down his arms as long as at least one enemy warrior remained on Russian soil. The clergy used the holy cross to bless the troops and militias to fight the enemy. Moscow vicar Augustin Vinogradsky presented the Moscow militia, instead of banners, with two banners. The churches and people contributed their wealth to the costs of the war - both in money and in precious things. The Russian people could not believe that Moscow, the heart of Russia, could be given over to the enemy, and Russia would still be alive after that; Therefore, until recently, no one cared about removing treasures from Moscow. Only on the eve of the enemy invasion, on September 1, the Right Reverend Vicar barely managed to remove its most important shrines from Moscow: the icons of Vladimir, Iveron, Smolensk, some treasures of cathedrals and monasteries and the affairs of the consistory and synodal office. The venerable Moscow Metropolitan Plato, this laurel from the wreath of Catherine's century, who now constantly lived at the Trinity, as if in retirement, on the day of the Battle of Borodino came to Moscow to die along with his flock at his post. They barely took him out of the capital. Historians describe that churches of God and monasteries became victims of fire or were subjected to devastation and desecration. Many of them were turned into barracks, stables, and slaughterhouses. Precious sacred things were poured into ingots, icon frames and sacred vestments were stolen. Usually such barbarism is explained by the fact that the French were without religion. However, experience shows that in any war barbarian instincts manifest themselves with particular force and the victors do not spare someone else's religion and someone else's home. By the grace of God, Napoleon did not stay too long in Moscow. Upon leaving, he ordered the Kremlin to be blown up. Rain prevented the success of the explosion; all the cathedrals and the Kremlin palace with its faceted chamber survived. Ivan the Great, whose base apparently reaches the level of the Moscow River, wavered, but survived, and only showed a minor crack at the top. At the same time, a miraculous event took place: the image of St. Nicholas on the wall of the St. Nicholas Tower remained completely unharmed, although the wall itself was half destroyed. Of the 237 Moscow churches, all were looted, half, 115, were damaged in the building itself, 12 burned down completely. The Assumption Cathedral was completely plundered; in place of the chandelier hung scales for weighing looted gold and silver, there was a melting forge right there, and on the tattered iconostasis a record of the poured precious metal was kept; The following figures have been preserved: silver 825 poods, gold 18 poods. Scraps of vestments, uniforms, damaged weapons, and all kinds of scrap were scattered on the floor. The reliquaries of the holy relics, except for the reliquary of St. Jonah, were stripped of metal; The shrine of St. Peter, which had previously been sealed, was opened and has remained open ever since. Everywhere there were traces of vile blasphemy. On October 12, 1812, the first thanksgiving service for the salvation of Moscow was served in the passion monastery. On December 25, a royal manifesto was issued, calling on all of Russia to thank God for the complete liberation of the Church and the Russian state from enemy hordes, and thus, six months after Napoleon entered Russia, Russia was already sending a prayer of thanksgiving to God for its deliverance from the invasion of twenty nations. Rev. Augustine enters the Assumption Cathedral to expel the French from Moscow After the expulsion of the enemy hordes, a vast strip of Russian land remained devastated along the path of the enemy invasion, with churches, monasteries, and schools destroyed and devastated. The commission of theological schools, even now, as at the beginning of the war, showed outstanding generosity. At the beginning of the war, she donated one and a half million rubles from her sums for military expenses, now, for the restoration of the devastated region, she donated three and a half million. To inspect the devastation and to give orders to put the devastation in order in all provinces except Moscow, at the end of November, by the highest order, the synod was sent by the Most Reverend Theophylact, as a living, active organizing force, with the authority to “act according to his own discretion, in order to avert the slow correspondence of diocesan bishops with the highest authorities,” and his orders power was given equal to the instructions of the synod. During his business trip, Theophylact showed rare, vigorous activity and rendered great merits for the cause, but, decisive and ardent, it is quite possible that out of sincere zeal for the cause among the generally inert masses, Theophylact took too authoritative a tone in the dioceses, caused complaints and, when he returned to St. Petersburg, at the end of May 1813, after diocesan overbearing, he was completely unable to apply himself to the state of affairs when it was necessary to share the former undivided influence, and in St. Petersburg, meanwhile, they had already gotten used to his absence within six months - an empty place in nature does not remain unoccupied for long - and in the end, Theophylact suddenly, in the midst of continuing his work on the commission, was released to his diocese - and said goodbye to Petersburg forever. Before his departure, Ambrose, Filaret and Golitsyn, in alliance, using the pretext of Theophylact’s translation of a foreign book, prepared an accusation against him of patronizing pantheism, of which he himself had once accused Filaret, and planned a reprimand from the synod. During a business trip, on Easter 1813, Theophylact received a diamond cross on his hood. In May 1814, through Prince Golitsyn, he asked for permission to publish one of his sermons, delivered upon receiving news of the occupation of Paris by Russian troops, and, instead of permission, received a warning to continue writing sermons more consistent with the word of God. In 1817, he was appointed exarch to Georgia with a special mission to introduce the rules of church government adopted in Russia. The Synod remembered its active co-member, certified him in a report to the sovereign as “known for his abilities,” and planned his elevation to metropolitan, but the sovereign left him the previous title of archbishop. He received the title of metropolitan, however, soon, on July 1, 1819. Theophylact spent the last years of his life amid intense, exceptional activity, in a passionate struggle, during the introduction of Russian orders of church government in his exarchate. He died on July 19, 1820, while reviewing the diocese, in the Bodbe Sighnahi monastery, rumored to have been poisoned by his enemies, of whom there were so many. Buried at the place of his death. The essence of mysticism. – The beginning of its development in Russia. – “Mysticism” of the Alexander Age. - “Mystics” of that time. – Circumstances favorable to the development of mysticism during the reign of Alexander I. – Prince A.N. Golitsyn. The Twelfth Year with all its circumstances is usually considered, so to speak, the gate through which the dominance of mysticism entered Russia. “The essence of mysticism 199 lies in the desire to achieve truth through direct internal contemplation of it, in addition to external methods of sensory experience, observation and scientific research, which provide incomplete, fragmentary, and rational truth. In the field of religion, mysticism consists in a feeling of constant, living, spiritual communication with God and the desire for spiritual rebirth through the power of grace internally acting in the human spirit. Thus, by its very essence, religious mysticism is a spiritual activity that finds stimulation for itself in itself, in the very depths of the human spirit, in its desire for unity with God. In this regard, the emergence of mysticism at a given time can be useful and beneficial, as an awakening of society from spiritual inertia or from contentment with ritual piety to spiritual initiative and moral self-improvement. But there is another side to mysticism, which always raises various criticisms against it. Based on internal spiritual experience and seeking the revelation of the will of God not outside himself and not in an external way, but in the inner voice of the heart, in the depths of the innermost spiritual movements, the mystic inevitably leaves subordination to external church authority, or, while maintaining respect for it, considers church sacraments, institutions and all external church rituals in general only symbols that in themselves have no meaning, but serve only as external signs of one or another internal spiritual state and constitute only an auxiliary means for arousing one or another mood in the soul. Together they constitute the external Church, which without the internal Church is as lifeless as a body without spirit.” Such a view has always almost led mystics to an outright denial of the external Church, or at least to complete indifference towards it. Unfortunately, the mystics lost sight of the fact that the spirit without a body does not live on earth and that in the conditions of the earthly existence of people, the external Church is just as necessary as the internal one. It is not without reason that human life is called the sea of ​​life. In it, like in the sea, there are ebbs and flows, that is, there are tides in one direction and then in the other. When fascinated by the body, humanity lives in materialism, positivism; when fascinated by the spirit, he lives in idealism and mysticism. These fads, like tides, recur more or less periodically. The tide of mysticism began in Russia during the reign of Catherine II, but in the last years of this reign and throughout the reign of Emperor Paul, its progress was delayed by various restrictive measures. But during the reign of Alexander I he received full scope. Before further exposition, it is necessary to make a reservation that the concept of mysticism defined in science does not fully correspond to the historical phenomenon during the reign of Alexander I, which is known by this name. The mysticism of the Alexander Age is known as the desire that emerged from mystical sources for the enlightenment of the people on the basis of religion, but outside of any Church. According to the views of representatives of mysticism of Alexander’s time, God creates His church in the heart of the mystic, in which His spirit lives. In this situation, an external church is not needed. The Church with its sacraments is only a preparatory step to the heights of mystics, for whom it is not needed, it was created only for the imperfect. The monks “amuse themselves with fasting, bowing, hair shirts, chains and other similar external things,” and yet all this is not necessary: ​​when there were no monasteries yet and without monastic feats, “the landowners Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job and others pleased God.” During the reign of the young sovereign, brought up on a deeply religious basis, but without a proper church foundation, or, rather, discipline, who responded with all his heart to all good, who dreamed of realizing the common good, every attempt to distract humanity from base interests could count on the broadest support. With the permission of the government, the Masonic Lodge of Crowned Alexander was established in St. Petersburg in 1805, followed by others. Around 1812, the Illuminati Pole Grabianka appeared in St. Petersburg, intending to found a new kingdom of Jerusalem here and attracting many nobility. Since 1807, the mystical magazine “Friend of Youth” appeared, published by Nevzorov. Alexander Fedorovich Labzin rendered a special service to mysticism, serving first in the Department of Foreign Affairs, then in the Academy of Arts - as conference secretary and from 1818 as vice president. He was a “very educated and gifted” man, full of sincere and ardent faith in his work, tireless “in his selfless activities aimed at disseminating in his contemporary society the concepts of living and active Christianity, at awakening in it the spirit of the love of Christ and the search for the Kingdom of God,” - in the form and meaning in which he himself represented these objects. This was, as it were, his life's task. He carried it out by distributing translations of mystical books. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow said about Labzin in his memoirs that “he was a kind man, only with some peculiarities in his religious opinions.” In 1806, Labzin undertook the publication of his own magazine, Zionsky Messenger, but on the ninth book the magazine was banned. Independent historical circumstances turned the wheel of our lives towards mysticism. On the world horizon, the image of the dark genius of the early 19th century - Napoleon the First - began to emerge more and more clearly and ominously. Alexander, the bearer of the ideals of people's freedom and concerns for the common good of mankind, sooner or later had to fight this embodiment of state egoism and personal will. After several years of very strange relations of “friendly enmity”, or “enemy of friendship”, Napoleon crossed the border of Alexander’s empire with a horde of “twenty tongues”, and four months later he fled for his life, defeated not by the army, which did not inflict a single decisive defeat on the enemy, not by frosts, as they say, because the first frosts came after Napoleon left Moscow and only finished off the already upset and a defeated army - but defeated by patriotism, the high enthusiasm of that people who, in their holy simplicity, know how to selflessly bear their lives for the faith, the tsar and the fatherland. In the ever-memorable Twelfth Year, the amazing power of the spiritual power of Russia’s self-sacrifice manifested itself with the greatest obviousness, and the wild hurricane of Napoleonic imperious egoism that victoriously swept across Europe crashed against it. And when the subtly sensitive king of the gray people, who marched throughout brilliant Europe with the banner of freedom, appearing as the liberator of the entire cultural world, listened to the thanksgiving prayer for the deliverance of Europe on the square of Paris, where the European kings met, then, kneeling, he undoubtedly felt in a special way his connection with the heavenly world, with That Invisible and Almighty, in whose hands the destinies of kingdoms and peoples are held. Alexander himself admitted that only in this war did he “know God as the Holy Scripture describes Him.” A firm determination matured in him to devote himself and his reign to the name and glory of God. He placed all his trust in the Lord. At every difficulty, he, by his own admission, bowed at the feet of the heavenly Father, went deep into himself for a few minutes, cried out to Him from the depths of his heart, and everything was miraculously arranged, all difficulties disappeared before the Lord, Who, as he believed, walked ahead of him. During his almost continuous three-year travels around Europe after the Twelfth Year, his close acquaintance with people brought up on the rules of freedom led Alexander to severe disappointments. More than once, during the era of congresses that came after the Twelfth Year, he had to become convinced of the extreme ingratitude and betrayal of his crowned and high-ranking friends, who, pretending that they passionately cared with him about world peace and the good of mankind, behind his back forged a war for him, and it was not without reason that contemporaries noticed that after Paris the sovereign became unrecognizable, and no longer believed in human gratitude and friendship. Acquaintance with the “free French institutions”, on the model of which he dreamed of transforming Russia in his youth, only led to negative results. About France, Alexander expressed in 1815 that in this country there live thirty million cattle, gifted with words, without rules, without honor, and that nothing can happen where there is no religion. The idea of ​​bringing happiness to mankind through “legally free institutions,” which so occupied Alexander in his youth, could then seem only naive to her former ardent admirer. There is a special Master in the world, Who arranges everything in His own way. Our human affairs and plans cannot count with certainty on either success or general benefit. Good cannot be done easily; in people themselves there is often some kind of inexplicable, stupid resistance that paralyzes the best plans, the best concerns for the benefit and well-being of themselves. There was no need for wisdom or cunning. All that was needed was faith and simplicity. The Tsar already had in mind a simple, unlearned, devoted, old servant, well known to him even when he was the heir, who, however, did not like to “expand his knowledge by reading,” but who seemed to be a believer and faithful - in the person of Arakcheev, who soon, according to contemporaries, became his “soul of all affairs” and “the only nobleman in Russia,” as if “the emperor’s viceroy.” Concern for the well-being of his subjects continued to lie on Alexander’s heart. When he returned to Russia after his European wanderings and again saw all our poverty and darkness, then, in his own words, the thought of how little had been done within the state, like a ten-pound weight, lay on his heart. The situation within the state was indeed gloomy. A historian of our internal life of that time paints the following picture: “at that time, employees in the provinces did not aim to conscientiously and honestly perform their duties, did not express a desire for the common good, but cared only about maintaining paper order and extracting material benefits.” “The complete impunity of the officials fueled greed and intensified the passion for extortion. They looked for ways to rip off anyone they could, cases were invented and people who were innocent of anything were brought to justice. And this share fell mainly on defenseless people and ordinary people.” The state was oppressed by the abundance of officials doing nothing and the lack of workers, many convicts, and terrible red tape. And all this was not unknown to the sovereign. In one of his decrees of 1807, Alexander said about the commissary that “most of the officials have in mind their enrichment from the amounts entrusted to them” 200. The Emperor, of course, could not console himself that the intendants were a complete exception among other government agents. And it’s true: everyone noticed that the sovereign began to retire, became stern, gloomy, boring and angry; balls and theaters, in his own words, gave him the impression of a funeral. Perhaps there is a particle of psychological truth in this, that upon returning from a triumphal procession across Europe, from a long brilliant holiday, to the everyday life of the poor homeland that paid for this holiday, ruined by its generosity and making a grumpy calculation of the exorbitant costs for the benefit of humanity to the detriment of its own good, it was difficult to remain especially cheerful. Now, instead of “legitimately free institutions,” the idea of ​​establishing universal prosperity in a completely different way, through military settlements, matured in Alexander’s head. It was assumed that order, good behavior and well-being would be united in these settlements, they would plow in times of need, and engage in military exercises in their free time. There was something biblical in this, when the people went, at the cry of judges and kings, straight from the plow to war. Alexander was already standing on biblical ground at this time. Even during the expulsion of Napoleon from Russia, in Vilna, he conceived the idea of ​​​​founding a European holy alliance, the idea became stronger every day under the influence of the continuation of the endless war to establish peace and finally matured when Alexander entered the borders of France 201. Finally, all obstacles were overcome, and the sacred alliance was concluded. The “Holy Alliance” consisted in the fact that the All-Russian and Austrian Emperors and the King of Prussia pledged to live and act, both among themselves and in relation to their subjects, according to the rules of the Holy Scriptures, in peace and love. The Act of Union was signed in Paris in 1815. Other European rulers, except English and Turkish, also joined the union. These were world undertakings, but the Supreme Master did not bless either one or the other. Taking advantage of the allies' obligation to support each other in everything, Austria and Prussia cleverly managed their selfish affairs, and Russia had to either help them or break the obligation, and preferred to remain faithful to the alliance. In the hands of Arakcheev, military settlements turned into a form of extreme oppression of the people, there were riots, and when Alexander passed, entire settlements fell to their knees before him with a plea to save them from Arakcheev’s yoke, but the sovereign remained firm, confident that the people themselves did not always understand what their good was. Moreover, all kinds of material and physical adversity did not matter to him. He himself bore a painful wound in his heart, the pain of which could not be equaled by this kind of adversity. He painfully searched for God, but he felt some kind of wall within himself that prevented him from seeing God. And this was the source of his unquenchable mental suffering. Enterprises started for the glory of God’s name clearly did not succeed, which means they did not receive blessings from the Almighty. After this, any spiritually calm life of a simple “villager,” even if full of work, could seem enviable to Alexander, and it was not for nothing that he almost constantly dreamed of giving up the crown and plunging into the unknown of private life - in the hope of finding in it the tranquility and peace of mind that had never been given to him. The search for God, which had become painfully restless in recent years, at first, in Alexander’s younger years, manifested itself in the form of a bright religious mood. Even at the very first stages of his reign, he agreed with his friend, Prince Golitsyn, to read from the Bible every day, delving into thoughts about the meaning of what was read, and steadily followed the accepted rule. Such self-deepening in itself led to mysticism, and mysticism, already ready, naturally found favorable soil in the souls of Alexander and Golitsyn. Prince Alexander Nikolaevich Golitsyn was the son of a guards captain from his third wife and was left an orphan in his very early childhood. His father died two weeks after his birth, and his mother married soon after. He was sheltered by Marya Savvishna Perekusikhina, a very famous lady-in-waiting of Empress Catherine II. The Empress assigned him to the page corps, and on holidays he was brought to the palace to play with the great princes, whom he was almost the same age as. Soon after Alexander's marriage, Golitsyn was appointed to serve at his court with the rank of chamber cadet. Paul promoted him to chamberlain in 1797, and in 1799 “dismissed him from service.” Golitsyn settled in Moscow, in a modest house on Devichye Pole, which was for a long time the place of residence of all disgraced nobles. Soon after his accession to the throne, Alexander summoned his childhood friend to St. Petersburg, assigned him to the Senate at the chief prosecutor's desk, and by decree on October 21, 1803, appointed him chief prosecutor of the synod and promoted him to secretary of state, “giving him the right to present his reports directly, and not through the prosecutor general or secretaries of state presenting in personal reports, as was the case before that time.” Before Golitsyn, the chief prosecutor was for about nine months the active state councilor Alexander Alekseevich Yakovlev, who had previously served in the department of foreign affairs, a man of service and duty, who did not get along with the synod due to his certain pettiness, especially which seemed burdensome to the synod after the carefree chief prosecutor of the spineless Count Dmitry Ivanovich Khvostov, whom the 19th century found in the chief prosecutor position. Golitsyn at this time was approaching the end of his thirtieth year. In his youth, he led a so-called secular lifestyle, and, as an honest man, he accepted the position offered to him not without hesitation. It often happens that people, apparently completely unprepared for this or that activity, suddenly become extremely in place when, by the will of fate, they are forced to take up this or that business. The same thing happened with Golitsyn. After the very first acquaintance with him, Bishop Evgeny Bolkhovitinov said of him that he was “a young man, but with merits above his years,” and predicted that “it seems that everyone will be happy with him.” For Golitsyn, this appointment was like a kind of calling from God: he changed beyond recognition: he began to read the Holy Scriptures, immersed himself in the acts of ecumenical councils, in the paternal rules, and subsequently recalled with deep regret the frivolous hobbies of his youth. Personal closeness to the sovereign and Golitsyn’s State Secretariat gave a new shine to the chief prosecutor’s position and “elevated it to a degree equal to the first positions in the state.” Prince Golitsyn was “extremely active, worked extremely hard,” soon took all matters into his own hands and became the complete and undivided master of the situation. Its acquisition for mysticism was very expensive, as it provided strong influence in the spiritual sphere. At first, however, mysticism did not contain anything reprehensible, and many outstanding church leaders experienced a mystical mood. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, recalls that when he served in St. Petersburg, Ambrose, Golitsyn, Labzin, and Metropolitan Mikhail, Ambrose’s successor, drew his attention to mystical works, he took up them, and they had an influence on him, especially since from a young age he was captivated by everything mysterious. And he enthusiastically welcomed the first steps of mysticism, “expecting, together with others, the imminent advent of the Kingdom of God.” Extreme caution in expressions and actions, never falling asleep internal critical self-esteem, saved him from hobbies and kept him on solid ground. Chapter IX. Bible Society 202 First Bible Society. – Bible Society in Russia. – Russian Bible Society. – Translation of the books of Holy Scripture into Russian. – Activities for the distribution of edifying books. In connection with the tasks of mysticism - the spread of inner enlightenment through self-deepening in the word of God - there was the emergence of a biblical society. In order to delve deeper into meditation on the word of God, it was necessary to have the word of God in hand in a generally understandable language. The dissemination of translations of the Holy Scriptures was the task of the Bible Society. The first Bible Society had just been established in England, in 1804, of a universal character, for the purpose of disseminating the Holy Scriptures as widely as possible to all the nations of the world in their own languages. It owed its establishment not to representatives of any Church, but to sectarians of a mystical hue. In 1811, a Bible society was founded in Finland, in the city of Abo. Pastor Paterson, sent from the English Bible Society, persuaded Prince Golitsyn to establish a Bible society in Russia, and it was officially established on December 6, 1812, according to Golitsyn’s report, as managing the affairs of the then newly formed main department of foreign confessions in Russia from August 25, 1810. At first, the Bible Society had only the goal of distributing the Holy Scriptures among foreigners and foreigners living in Russia in their languages. Alexander signed up as a member with an annual fee of 10,000 rubles and donated 25,000 rubles at a time. The first meeting was on January 11, 1813 in the house of Prince Golitsyn, along the Fontanka, where now the house of the Ministry of the Court. The meeting was very solemn, many spiritual and secular dignitaries were present. The main leaders of the case were agents of English society, Pastors Paterson and Pinkerton. Following the example of British society, it was decided to print the books of the Holy Scriptures without any notes or explanations in order to eliminate the possibility of any religious tendencies. In the first year, clergy were not even allowed into the society. In 1814, by the highest decree on September 4, the society was renamed the “Russian Bible Society” and the sovereign gave it permission to publish the Bible in the Slavic language. In this regard, the following clergy were elected members of the society: several bishops, an archimandrite, an archpriest; Heterodox clergy were also admitted. Prince Golitsyn presided. British society provided large subsidies to St. Petersburg. Joy was expressed everywhere at the completed union of all Christians in one good deed. The affairs of the society immediately went brilliantly. Donations flowed in from everywhere, branches were established everywhere, and the institutions of the society covered the vast empire to its most remote edges in a dense network. In ten years, the society's property increased to two million rubles, despite the fact that the society distributed many books for free. Until 1826, the society published up to 800,000 copies of translations of sacred books in twenty-six languages; including 22 editions of the Bible in Slavic. In February 1816, the sovereign gave the society the task of “providing Russians with a way to read the word of God in their natural language.” The Holy Synod instructed the commission of theological schools to find suitable translators, and entrusted the approval of the translation for printing to the spiritual members of the committee of the Bible Society, among whom were members of the synod. The commission turned to the academy and seminary. From the academy, rector Philaret and professors, priest Gerasim Pavsky and Archimandrite Moses, and from the seminary, the inspector and then (since 1819) rector, Archimandrite Polykarp Gaitannikov translated the four gospels, each one one gospel. The reading and approval of the translation took place in a committee consisting of Archbishops Michael and Seraphim, who sat in the synod, Archimandrite Philaret, V.M. Popov and A.F. Labzina. The main figure was Filaret. The Gospel in Russian translation was published in 1818, together with the Slavic text, and this publication was greeted with general delight. The second and third editions appeared the following year. In 1821 and 1822, two editions of the entire New Testament appeared. In 1828, the New Testament was published for the first time in one Russian language. In 1820, a translation of the Old Testament was undertaken, and the Moscow and Kiev academies were involved in the work to help the St. Petersburg Academy. In 1822, the Psalter was printed from it, which went through 12 editions in 1823. Filaret, again, worked most hard on the translation of the Psalter. In 1825, the first volume of the Bible in Russian translation was completed, up to and including the book of Ruth. But the sovereign, under the influence of growing opposition to the Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures, suspended the publication “until permission”, and then died before he could give permission. In connection with the distribution of the books of the Holy Scripture itself - the task of the society - members of the society tried to distribute in general books of religious and moral content that corresponded to the goal of the society - the spread of spiritual and religious education. One princess Sophia Meshcherskaya, a member of the society, distributed from 1813 to 1826 up to 400,000 copies of various brochures, partly at her own expense, and partly with amounts donated to her from the personal funds of the sovereign. In addition, members of the society were usually the first and most active participants in any charity: the patriotic society established to benefit victims in 1812, the women's charitable society, and the guardianship of prisons. Chapter X. New statutes of theological schools Indications of experience in spiritual and educational matters. – Correction of statutes. – First year at the St. Petersburg Academy. – Approval of charters. – Spiritual education according to the new regulations. – Master's and doctoral crosses. – Privileges to spiritual education. – Gradual introduction of statutes. The desire to give the academic course the broadest possible presentation led to the fact that at first the students of the academy were unable to cope with the multitude of sciences. Some days I had to listen to lectures for eight hours, and outside of lectures it was necessary to complete some necessary scientific work. Therefore, in 1810, the Academy already turned to the commission of theological schools with the idea of ​​​​the urgent need to shorten the academic course and proposed to leave only theology, philosophy, literature and Greek as compulsory sciences, while all the rest should be divided into two groups - historical and mathematical, leaving the choice of one or the other to the students themselves. The commission agreed with this and only added church history to the compulsory sciences. Then, the prepared new charters of theological educational institutions were revised again - by Archimandrite Philaret, rector of the academy, whom Golitsyn hastened to appoint as a member of the commission of theological schools at the first opportunity, in 1814. Filaret eagerly set to work and, in his activities in the commission, replaced Theophylact. Along the cleared path, now tested by experience, it was, of course, easier for him to follow than for the first creators, and he showed the ability to criticize the shortcomings of other people's work to an amazing degree, which was completely inherent in him. He amended the academic charter in the sense of strengthening the power of the rector and reducing the power of the inspector and economist, who had previously been granted significant independence. Filaret looked at the matter in such a way that “the experiments of a learned republic or multiple commands made in secular schools were not happy”, that “always and everywhere those schools flourished most in which there was more unity of command”, that “single-principal and paternal rule is especially befitting of theological schools”, because “all institutions that affirm obedience and respect for superiors must be strictly preserved in theological schools”. The statutes of theological seminaries and schools were corrected mainly in the educational part. The graduation of the first year of the St. Petersburg Academy in 1814 was considered an event of exceptional importance. The commission of theological schools presented a report on this to the sovereign. The time was such when the great events that had just taken place in Europe kept everyone in an elevated mood of delight. The Emperor had just returned to the capital, and was greeted by general expressions of joy and reverence. The Holy Synod, Senate and State Council presented him with the title of Father of the Fatherland, Great and Blessed, and asked permission to erect a monument to him during his lifetime. The sovereign, religious, animated by the consciousness that success does not depend on the person himself, rejected all honors, accepted only the title of the Blessed One, being imbued with the desire to devote himself and his reign to God’s name and glory. It is understandable that the especially gratifying feeling with which the sovereign, in such a mood, accepted the report of the commission of theological schools. “Glory and thanksgiving to the Almighty, who has so blessed my intentions to provide the Church with worthy shepherds,” were his words. Then, in the decree of the commission, entrusting it to the attention of both newly educated teachers and the school, and instructing it, calling on the Savior for help, to use all efforts to achieve the intended goal, so that theological schools would become literally “schools of truth,” the sovereign explained his intentions regarding the education of spiritual youth. He wrote: “Enlightenment in its meaning is the spread of light, and, of course, there must be One who shines in the darkness, and His darkness is not enveloped. Holding on to this Light in all cases, to lead students to true sources, and in those ways in which the Gospel very simply, but wisely teaches; it says that Christ is the way, the truth and the life; therefore, the internal education of young men for active Christianity may be the only goal of these schools. On this basis it will be possible to create the teaching that they need according to their condition, without fear of abuse of reason, which will be subject to sanctification from above.” St. Petersburg Theological Academy In the same year, 1814, the new statutes of theological educational institutions, finally developed and tested by experience, were approved by the highest order 203. According to the new statutes, spiritual education was removed from the position of local, diocesan needs and placed at its appropriate height as one of the primary needs of church life. Instead of the exclusive control of diocesan authorities, theological schools now acquired an independent highest central body of spiritual and educational management - the commission of theological schools under the synod. Theological educational institutions, instead of the previous chaotic confusion, received definition, being divided into lower, middle and higher. All theological schools received uniform and general statutes, and their procedures and courses ceased to depend on this or that inclination or this or that view of the educational work of the diocesan authorities. But in accordance with centuries-old practice, based on the canonical rights of each bishop to supervise the practice of church teaching in his diocese, the bishop was fully recognized with all the rights of the main trustees of theological schools located in their dioceses. Academies and seminaries were given a certain degree of independence: they had the right to discuss the proposals of their diocesan bishops and, in case of disagreement with them, transfer the matter to the highest educational authority, i.e., seminaries to external academic boards, and academies to the commission of theological schools. In the internal administration, for the first time, an elective principle was allowed, so far only in the form of the election of honorary members in academies and candidates for membership in conferences, as well as for the position of rector and inspector, in seminaries - only one inspector. The purpose of spiritual educational institutions was formulated as follows: “the education of pious and enlightened servants of the word of God.” The training course programs were “the best example of combining general education with special education, as far as such a connection is possible.” The course of lower schools was generally organized on the pure principles of general education. Special education began, strictly speaking, only in seminaries, and was concentrated only in the last two academic years of the seminary course. Theological academies became exclusively higher theological educational institutions, and not mixed, as before. The Charter strictly distinguished the area of ​​academic teaching from seminary courses and set the task of academies to achieve higher theological education and independent processing of science. Throughout the entire educational system, special things have been expanded and space has been given to the historical sciences, and especially to national history, compared to previous times. Mathematical sciences were introduced almost anew - with geography and physics. The methods of teaching were radically changed: the regulations rebelled against the so-called cramming, demanded independent activities of students, stimulation of their minds by demands for reports on knowledge and strengthening of independent written exercises. Finally, the school budget, already doubled in 1807, increased ninefold according to the new charters (instead of the previous 181,000 rubles - 1,669,000 rubles). From the outside, academically, the course was divided into two two-year departments, i.e., four years, and adapted to the seminary, since the main task of the academies was the training of teachers in the seminary. The seminar course consisted of three two-year departments, called, according to the main sciences of each, rhetorical, philosophical and theological. The course at lower schools was also designed for 6 years and was also divided into three two-year sections: lower, middle and higher. The academy had 6 professors and 12 bachelors. The rector of the academy and the inspector were approved and replaced by a commission of theological schools, the rector of the seminary was appointed by the district academic conference, as well as the rector of theological schools. The heads of theological schools who had a master's degree were called rectors, those who did not were called caretakers. In seminaries, master teachers were called professors, and non-master teachers were called teachers. Rectors had to be in monastic rank. Academies were entitled to maintenance of up to 56,000 rubles each, seminaries from 13,000 to 17,000, in three categories, district and parish schools also in three categories, the first from 1,000 to 1,500, the second from 400 to 550. For masters and doctors, patent diplomas were established in 1809, the text for which was compiled by His Eminence Theophylact, and the drawing by Prince Golitsyn with the help of an artist. Crosses were also installed for masters and doctors, invested with the priesthood, for masters - silver with the image of a crown of thorns, for doctors - gold, pectoral, with the image of the Crucifixion on blue enamel. The color of the enamel was chosen by the sovereign. In 1814, when doctoral crosses were first issued, it was established that they should be depicted: “Matt. V, 19,” i.e., an indication of the Gospel text: “Whoever does and teaches, he will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.” Theological education was granted various privileges in the spiritual department. Persons of the holy order who had a doctorate received a salary of 500 rubles per year, masters - 850, candidates of the academies - 250. The statutes of the seminaries stipulated that “in each diocese, places should be distributed in no other way than by degrees, to each category of seminary students assigned,” and compliance with this was left to the external boards of the academies to monitor. After the approval of the charters in 1814, other districts were opened in addition to the St. Petersburg one: Moscow from 1814 and Kiev from September 28, 1817, when with the training of capable students by the seminaries, and the training of teachers by the St. Petersburg Academy, it became possible to open the Moscow and Kyiv academies. The Moscow Academy, when it was transformed in 1814, was transferred from Moscow to the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. It was not possible to open the Kazan Academy due to a lack of capable local teachers, and it disappeared from the horizon for the entire reign of Alexander I. The Reverend Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov once wrote: “the subordination of seminaries to academies is not to the heart of the diocesan; but who is to blame that many diocesan officials do not care about success in their seminaries and allocate salaries arbitrarily, and many have no idea about the dignity of the teachers they appoint.” And in the synod, even at the first discussion of the project, voices were heard against the subordination of seminaries to academies other than diocesan eminences. In any case, this dissatisfaction was limited only by one’s own mood and did not turn into opposition. The practical organization of all spiritual and educational affairs according to the new regulations was entrusted almost to Filaret alone. He went to audits, looked through notes, chose textbooks, recommended teachers, and thus the entire educational reform in its implementation was, as it were, his personal business. His works could not but arouse gratitude from the commission of theological schools and, according to its proposal, he received a diamond panagia, and in 1818, the Star of St. Annin. Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia Chapter XI. Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education; flourishing of mysticism The soil on which the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education arose. – Establishment and purpose of the new ministry. - His device. - Its meaning. – Distribution of mystical books. - The rise of mysticism. - Mystical preachers. - Soil for sectarianism. - Tolerance of the sovereign. – The last years of Metropolitan Ambrose Podobedov. – Metropolitan Mikhail Desnitsky. – His Eminence Filaret (Drozdov). Believing in his direct, exclusive connection with the heavenly world, Alexander persistently began to look for opportunities, so to speak, to tangibly see the Lord of this world or feel His closeness, like the Old Testament prophet Elijah once did. But since with his soul he was not able to meet God himself, he began to rush indiscriminately to those from whom he hoped to find help in this, or who themselves promised him communication with God. He also addressed Orthodox ascetics: in 1812 he reverently accepted the prediction of monk Abel about upcoming trials and victory, while in Kyiv in 1816, he twice visited Hieroschemamonk Vassian in the Kiev Pechersk Lavra, in 1819 he traveled to Valaam, in 1823 he visited the ascetic hieromonk in the Rostov Yakovlev Monastery Amphilochia. But at the same time, in Europe, he met the exalted Baroness Kridner, posing as a herald of the will of heaven, and for a long time submitted to her influence; in Silesia he was captivated by the sectarian community of Moravian brothers; in Baden he was fascinated by the representative of mysticism Jung Stilling; in London he prayed with the Quakers; he knelt before the heterodox abbot and received his blessing. Towards the end of his life, having become convinced more than once that those who boldly presented themselves to him as having communion with God were nothing more than ignis fatuus, will-o’-the-wisps of the swamp, deceiving those who seek the true light, he already noticed that he had seen the light enough to “not allow himself to be deceived by the piety of people who are in such a hurry to ask for money.” And he completely returned in soul to the modest and poor Orthodox asceticism, which taught humility and repentance, and on his last trip to the south, from which he never returned, he was admonished by the schema-ascetic Alexy in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, whom the tsar visited just before his departure in the deep morning. In addition, Alexander felt the responsibility of not only external, but also internal control of the people: the responsibility of enlightening them and even guiding them to knowledge of the holy will of the One God. This feeling, given the presence of many faiths and confessions in the state, could only strengthen Alexander’s above-explained mood, which somewhat ignored religious differences. On this basis, the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, which has left a lasting memory, arose. This united ministry was established by the highest manifesto on October 17, 1817 204. The addition of public education to spiritual affairs was done with the goal “so that Christian piety would always be the basis of true enlightenment.” The new united ministry was divided into two departments, one for spiritual affairs and the other for public education. In the first, all matters related to the spiritual aspects of all religions were concentrated, both various Christian faiths, and others of all kinds - Jewish, Mohammedan and other non-Christian faiths. The terms of reference of this department also included the affairs of the Holy Synod. The department had four departments: the first - for the affairs of the Greek-Russian confession, the second - for the affairs of the Roman Catholic, Greek-Uniate and Armenian confessions, the third - for the affairs of all Protestant confessions and the fourth - for the affairs of the Jewish, Mohammedan and other non-Christian faiths. The minister of the new ministry was appointed in charge of synodal affairs “in exactly the same relation to the synod as the minister of justice had to the governing Senate.” Prince Golitsyn was appointed minister, who in fact was already a minister, since, in addition to the chief prosecutor in the synod, he had in his hands the administration of affairs of foreign confessions since 1810 and the Ministry of Public Education since August 10, 1816. The mood of Emperor Alexander, which made possible the emergence of a united Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, has already been said. As for the unification in one department of all the religions of the state, it is necessary to firmly stipulate that this was only an unsuccessful, but from the logical side, a strictly consistent experiment in completing the state organization, and in its principle it did not contain anything directed, in fact, against the Orthodox Church, as our historians usually say. It is in vain that they see an insult to the Orthodox Church in the fact that in the new ministry “the affairs of all religions were placed in a row”; it is also in vain that this ministry “strengthened to unite various objects and completely incompatible organisms, such as Christianity and Islam, paganism and Judaism, the law of Christ and the inscription of His tablets” (?). Just as the King of kings - God gives in His vast earthly kingdom one sun - for everyone whose life endures on earth, and sends the same rain for the righteous and the unjust: so the state, for all religions tolerated in it, had, of course, the right to establish one institution on religious matters ascending to state power. Subsequently, the experience of such an organization was repeated in the establishment of a joint department of civil and spiritual affairs in the State Council and, as it was more consistent, did not raise objections. No one, of course, will deliberately attribute to Alexander the goal or intention, through the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, to humiliate the dominant religion by placing its affairs among the affairs of other religions. After all, it is possible and assumed that with such an organization he could give it some actual advantage: instead of alienation, provide the opportunity for influence, balance the benefits given to other confessions with the interests of Orthodoxy. If in reality, in fact, the Golitsyn ministry served to humiliate the Orthodox Church, then this is a matter of people, not ideas, the result of a fact, not a principle, conditions of implementation, not plans. But external humiliation, so to speak, in relation to state representation and, in fact, for the synod, undoubtedly, occurred with the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs. Having become the Minister of Spiritual Affairs, Golitsyn naturally could no longer remain chief prosecutor of the synod, and on November 24, 1817, the Senate chief prosecutor, Prince Pyotr Sergeevich Meshchersky, was appointed to this position, who was thus already in the synod a representative not of the sovereign, but of the minister. The Synod, as an establishment of the state, suffered significant damage in the humiliation of its representative of state power, because in this way it significantly moved away from the sovereign. And thus, through the humiliation of the chief prosecutor's office, which did not concern the spiritual administration itself, the synod also suffered significant damage that directly affected itself. Then, as the author of the book “The Holy Synod in its Past” 205 partly rightly notes, the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs “damaged the very idea of ​​​​the establishment of the Holy Synod,” according to which the body of the highest church government, in addition to the spiritual power belonging to it, was also given the power of state power. Now the power of this latter power was more restrained by the dual control of the chief prosecutor and the minister. Alexander Ivanovich Turgenev, a member-secretary of the Bible Society, one of the state secretaries of the State Council, “a man of high soul and one of the enlightened people of his time,” was appointed director of the department of spiritual affairs. It was established that to speak ill of him means to show your complete obscurantism. However, at least, there is no doubt that, without being hostile, he was a stranger to the Church. With the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, Golitsyn's influence increased, and at the same time the influence of mysticism increased. Mysticism triumphed. All schools were in his hands. Censorship jealously detained everything that went against mysticism. And mystical works flowed in a whole stream: translated works by Eckartshausen, Guion, Du Toit, Böhm, Tauler, Parker; theirs - Lopukhin, Karneev, Khvostov, Princess Meshcherskaya. In 1816, Labzin received the Order of Vladimir, 2nd degree, for publishing spiritual books, and from April of the following year he resumed his magazine “Zionsky Messenger” 206. Mysticism reigned everywhere and its influence fell on literature, pedagogy, painting, and architecture. The passion for mysticism, which destroyed all restrictions, led to the fact that the existing representatives and creators of this trend, who were still within the boundaries of prudence, were no longer satisfactory. The leadership of the Church was out of the question. The old and familiar forms of expression of faith and religious feeling already seemed “too formal, characteristic of the pedagogical ritual of childhood and understanding, but insufficient for those who have ascended to the heights of spiritual contemplation.” “In society and in books, in conversations and in teachings, they spoke about a new spiritual kingdom, about Jerusalem descending from heaven to earth, about new mysteries, a new Church, new holiness, new hope and new love.” Having left the leadership of the Church, mysticism soon took a very dangerous direction, turning into some kind of frenzy, combined with various external methods of inciting religious ecstasy. The followers of mysticism greedily rushed to each new teacher and followed mainly those offspring of mysticism who blinded with their unbridledness. Since 1818, a circle of “prophetess” Ekaterina Tatarinova, née Buxhoeveden, a Lutheran who had converted to Orthodoxy only a year before, very close to the scopal sect, was formed in St. Petersburg, with zeal and whirling, “as if in some kind of spiritual waltz,” with prophecies. In 1818, Quakers came to St. Petersburg and had great success here. In 1819, the Munich preacher, Pastor Lindl, and in 1820 the Bavarian Gosner, appeared in St. Petersburg and was enthusiastically greeted by the circle grouped around Prince Golitsyn. Both were listed as Catholics, but preached a new religion, closer to Protestantism than to Catholicism. In 1821, the famous Baroness Kridner also came to St. Petersburg, and although by this time she had already lost her influence on Alexander, who was disappointed in her, she still found a wide circle of admirers. Labzin, not content with literary propaganda of his ideas, set up a Masonic lodge, where he gathered society for religious conversations. On favorable soil, all kinds of sects spread: Khlystyism, Skoptchestvo, Doukhoborism, the “new Church of the Spirit-Bearers,” Molokanism; The Old Believers flourished without feeling constrained. The government itself allowed Herrnhuters to the Kalmyk steppes, English sectarians to the pagans in Siberia, and Scottish sectarians to the Kirghiz. The eunuchs, for whom St. Petersburg became a “blooming Garden of Eden,” under the head of the eunuch Selivanov, had particular success. The humane sovereign exempted people from trial for the errors of ignorance. He expressed more than once that cruelty never convinces, that the Savior’s teaching cannot be instilled by “violence and executions,” that it is better to pray in any way than not to pray at all. He wrote in a decree that those who are mistaken through simplicity and ignorance, deviating from orthodoxy and the rules established by the Holy Church, must try to convert “not by torture and coercion, but solely by the meekness of example and holiness of life” 207. The general rule he adopted in relation to religious differences of opinion demanded “not to violate one’s conscience and not to search for an internal confession of faith.” However, the sovereign's broad tolerance did not translate into overt patronage. The same “accepted general rule” required “not to allow any external evidence of deviation from the Church and to strictly prohibit any temptations in this regard, as a violation of general decorum and order.” When news arrived that the Doukhobors in Siberia were creating a clear temptation to disrupt general order and tranquility, the perpetrators were forced to become soldiers or do government work 208 . When it was discovered that the Jesuits, who had built a nest for themselves in St. Petersburg under Paul I, were engaged in seducing St. Petersburg aristocrats and aristocrats into Latinism, by decree of December 20, 1815, they were expelled from St. Petersburg within 24 hours, and in 1820 from Russia generally, when it was proven that they had not abandoned their propaganda 209. When Hieromonk Job, who was carried away into the Masonic lodge of Labzin by the naval cadet corps, once became so determined that, having come to the altar of his church, he cut the icon of the Mother of God with a knife, and when public opinion rose against Labzin about this, Labzin’s “Zionsky Messenger” was subject to spiritual censorship, and ceased in August 1818, not wanting to come under its control 210. In 1820, the eunuch Selivanov was imprisoned in the Suzdal Spaso-Euthimius Monastery. In 1822, Tatarinova was forced to leave the hospitable walls of the Mikhailovsky Castle, in which she had lived until then, and moved first to a private apartment, and then completely beyond the city limits, where, at the Moscow outpost, she founded an entire colony of exaltists. Sectarians who were dangerous in church and civil relations were subject to certain restrictions and were evicted from among the Orthodox to new places. But in general, the general measures against sectarianism were exceptionally mild and were aimed at appointing especially reliable priests, meek and well-behaved, to parishes infected with sectarians, and the sovereign anxiously awaited the success of the measures of meekness, ordering, for example, all reports of the conversion of the Doukhobors to be presented to him. What did the representatives of the Church do? Metropolitan Ambrose, by his very spiritual make-up, could not appear as the leader of the struggle, although, undoubtedly, he could not sympathize with the state of church affairs. He, however, soon died in St. Petersburg. At Epiphany in 1818, the Metropolitan appeared at the Jordan in vestments lined with ermine from the funeral covers of the royal children who died in 1800 and 1808. Perhaps, in fact, the bishop dressed in furs appropriated to the royal attire “for importance,” tired of his stay in the shadows in the chief prosecutor of Golitsyn and at the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs. But since this incident was probably not the only expression of the elder’s somewhat capricious mood, as a public one, it was presented, apparently, in an exaggerated light, and the metropolitan was asked to renounce the St. Petersburg diocese, which he did. On March 26, a decree was signed to dismiss him from St. Petersburg, on May 6 he left for Novgorod, and on May 21 he died and was buried in the Novgorod St. Sophia Cathedral, in the chapel of St. John the Baptist. His Eminence Mikhail Desnitsky was appointed as his successor. The Right Reverend Mikhail was the son of a sexton of the Bogorodsk district, Moscow province. “His father, who suffered from smallpox, received the sacrament of consecration of oil on his birthday, and when they brought the newborn baby to him, he blessed him with his hands anointed with oil” 211. He studied at the Trinity Seminary, then, at the choice of Metropolitan Plato, he was assigned to the philological seminary of the friendly learned society founded in Moscow by the mystics of Catherine’s reign Novikov and Schwartz, and while studying there, he attended lectures at the university. In 1785 he got married and became a priest at the Church of St. John the Warrior in Moscow near the Kaluga Gate. He turned out to be an ideal student of a friendly society that set as its goal the desire to spread enlightenment and evangelical love, expressed in deeds of charity. His whole life was devoted to this goal. In Moscow, to his church on the outskirts of the city, he attracted masses of listeners with his sermons. The sermons were simple, generally understandable, alien to the so-called oratorical eloquence, but warmed by a warm Christian feeling and full of a mystical element 212. Emperor Paul transferred him to St. Petersburg as a court presbyter, and then, when he was widowed in 1799, wished to see him in the monastic rank. The tonsure took place that same year in Gatchina, in the palace church, in the presence of the sovereign and his entire family. At the end of the year, Mikhail received the rank of archimandrite and was appointed a member of the synod, abbot of the Yuryevsky Monastery and teacher of the law in the land gentry (now the 1st cadet) corps. In 1802 he was ordained bishop of Old Russia, vicar of the St. Petersburg metropolis for Novgorod, and in 1803 he was transferred to Chernigov, where in 1806 he received the archbishopric. And in distant Chernigov he was not forgotten by his admirers, and when in 1812 he was summoned to attend the synod in St. Petersburg, the old sympathies were renewed and became even stronger. When in 1816 he undertook the publication of his teachings, Princess Sofya Sergeevna Meshcherskaya asked for the highest order to print them at the expense of His Majesty’s cabinet, in the amount of 2,400 copies, i.e., two factories. In the same year, Mikhail received the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky and a diamond cross on his hood. The decree appointing him Metropolitan of St. Petersburg was signed by the sovereign on March 26, 1818, together with the decree on the dismissal of Metropolitan Ambrose to Novgorod. The rescript, with which the white hood was transmitted, mentioned the “merits” of Michael, without specifying what they were, his “exemplary piety and the qualities that adorn his soul.” In the person of this archpastor, an ideal student of a friendly society, who in his sermons showed his undoubtedly high mystical mood, Golitsyn hoped to find support for mysticism. But this did not happen, because Mikhail’s mysticism was not what Golitsyn’s mysticism was. The most lovable archpastor died, as he was, the purest servant of the Church. He died on March 24, 1821, and two weeks before his death he wrote a letter to the sovereign with an ardent request to “save the Church” from the “blind minister.” The Reverend Philaret, whom, despite his relative youth both in age and position, everyone was already accustomed to considering as belonging to those persons who set the tone for church life, by this time managed to discover the most important features of his spiritual personality. Highly educated, knowledgeable, with a clear view of things, he was distinguished by patience, expectancy and caution. When his friend, known for his learning and ascetic life, the rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Innokenty Smirnov, selflessly zealous, rushed to the hobbies of mysticism patronized by Golitsyn, Filaret, in his own words, was always “good” with Innocent, “when possible, warned him” and told him: “we, the two archimandrites, Yurievsky and Pustynsky, save the Church, if there is any error”; but “jealousy often carried him beyond the bounds of caution.” In August 1817, Filaret wrote to Golitsyn: “may the Lord grant you to truly be a servant of the spirit in the Church, a servant of light among the people. Constantine the Great called himself an external bishop in the Church; in the present title of your Excellency, she must recognize the locum tenens of her external bishop.” In 1820, Filaret wrote that his rule was to “eliminate yourself from everything possible.” But this was not dry careerism. Innocent, this same one, spoke of Filaret that “he has the intention and desire to live for Jesus Christ, and he works diligently to find Him and surrender to Him completely, only in his own way.” Following his rectorship, Filaret at one time received the abbot of the Novgorod Yuryev Monastery. Since 1813 he had the Order of Vladimir, 2nd degree, since 1814 - the degree of Doctor of Theology and a lifelong pension of one and a half thousand rubles, since 1816 - abbot of the Moscow stauropegial Novospassky Monastery, in 1817, on August 5, he was consecrated Bishop of Revel, Vicar of the St. Petersburg Metropolis, in In 1818 he received Annin's star, on March 15, 1819 he was appointed archbishop of Tver, but remained in St. Petersburg for another whole year and addressed only a message to his new flock. He only had to stay in Tver for three or four months, in 1820, when on September 26, 1820 he was transferred to Yaroslavl. Filaret did not even have to see this diocese. On July 3, 1821, he was transferred by the archbishop to Moscow. About three months before this, Filaret, remaining in St. Petersburg, was the eldest of the hierarchs there. After this new appointment, he left for his new department and did not come to St. Petersburg for a whole year. At the end of the summer of 1822, he returned to St. Petersburg, but now, already independent and established, he found in the changed Petersburg an environment that was far from suitable for himself. For the whole year he was busy compiling a catechism, on behalf of the synod, a hereditary assignment left by Metropolitan Michael, and then, feeling with his characteristic insight that clouds were hanging in the air and elements of a fierce struggle were rushing, he chose to shirk and asked to go on a two-year leave to Moscow, perhaps not fully sympathizing with either one or the other of the fighting parties. “The fashion for him has died down, as they say,” one bishop who was in St. Petersburg wrote about him, and to another in the provinces. However, Filaret brought with him a new, Alexandrovsky star to Moscow. Chapter XII. The fight against mysticism Statements by Archimandrite Innokenty Smirnov. – Archimandrite Photius Spassky. – Hobbies of mysticism. – Metropolitan Seraphim of Glagolevsky. – Activities against mysticism. – Abolition of the united Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education. "Ministry of Eclipse" – New trends. The fight against mysticism began at the grassroots. The rector of the seminary, Archimandrite Innokenty Smirnov, defiantly refused the title of member of the biblical society, under the chairmanship of Golitsyn, who became an instrument for the spread of mysticism, wrote to Golitsyn a sharp letter against the “Zion Herald”, which he patronized, expressing that Golitsyn had inflicted a “wound on the Church.” As a censor, in 1818 he passed over the book “Conversation on the Tomb of a Baby on the Immortality of the Soul,” which was directed against mysticism. Prince Golitsyn did not hesitate to involve the sovereign in this spiritual matter, from whom he petitioned for a ban on a book that was unpleasant to him, and then asked for the highest order to appoint Innocent as bishop of Orenburg. Such an election of a bishop, inconsistent with church rules, was justified by the fact that Innocent had already once, previously, been presented by the synod as a candidate for the bishopric, and, at the insistence of Metropolitan Michael, it was bypassed by the fact that Innocent immediately, according to the report of the synod, but, however, already consecrated, received an appointment to the bishop's see in Penza, and another was approved in Orenburg face. Innocent left St. Petersburg and soon died. As if to replace him, Archimandrite Photius came out to fight against mysticism. Photius, in the world Pyotr Nikitich Spassky, was the son of the sexton of the Novgorod diocese, Spassky churchyard. Born in 1792. His father was given the rank of deacon, but, having become a widower, he took off the rank, remarried, and remained again a sexton 213 . In his tenth year, the boy was sent to St. Petersburg to earn bread by his own labor and was placed in the choir of the Kazan Cathedral, where one of his relatives had previously been a member. The nervous boy could not bear the harsh regime of the singing horde, shed a lot of tears, fell ill and was forced to return home. After graduating from the Novgorod seminary, Spassky entered the St. Petersburg Theological Academy as a student in 1814, but in 1815 he left it already at the insistence of the doctor, due to poor health, and remained a teacher at the Alexander Nevsky School. In 1817, the rector of the academy, Filaret, who patronized him when he was at the academy, tonsured him as a monk with the name Photius, and at the same time Photius became a teacher of law in the 2nd cadet corps. An ascetic, he wore a hair shirt and chains over his naked body, always walked, winter and summer, in light clothes and fought with the demons that visited him in reality. He says in his autobiography that one summer, around August, after the ninth hour, he sat down in a hair shirt on a chair where there was a place of prayer, under the images, then he wanted to get up and pray to God, as always. But suddenly, in some inexplicable state, “not in a dream and not in reality,” “I clearly saw four demons, humanoid, coming, ugly in a gray form, not great in appearance, and they, running,” all wanted to beat him, but they were afraid of his hair shirt and said among themselves: “This is our enemy, we will grab him and we will beat him,” but not one of them dared to particularly approach him. Finally, all four attacked him from four sides, “swooped up like wolves, quickly, and one hit him so painfully in the chest that he, jumping to his feet, was frightened from pain and fear and, forgetting to read his prayer, soon lay down on his bed and covered himself with his clothes so as not to see anyone or anything” and, lying there, prayed secretly, trembling all over with horror. Another time he wished to see the demon, and the demon appeared to him. Photius was terribly frightened, but entered into a struggle with the demon, in which, however, he almost died, and was only saved by divine power from above. For several months, Satan sent an evil spirit to him, who inspired him to “show everyone the power of God” and perform some miracle - for example, to cross the Neva opposite the palace “on water as on dry land.” In the 20th century, many will be distrustful of the veracity of these lines, but even now there are still people who have the most vivid communication with the spirits of darkness, as Photius once did, and the one who saw this testifies to this. Photius lived in abstinence, fasting and prayer and all poverty, enduring poverty. Being a law teacher in the cadet corps, Photius took out a Masonic catechism and “with his notes that Freemasons believe in the Antichrist and Satan, he distributed to the cadet students,” they spread these notes throughout St. Petersburg, and there was a noise in the city: some called Photius a rude fanatic, others said that he was crazy. In 1820, in his next sermon in the Kazan Cathedral, he did not hesitate to rebel against mysticism. The pious Countess Anna Alekseevna Orlova-Chesnenskaya, who was in the cathedral, recognized the heroism in Photius’s act and from then on became his admirer to the grave, placing at his disposal both her enormous wealth and her connections at the Court. However, Golitsyn, who did not yet know Photius personally, hastened to remove him from St. Petersburg: Photius was appointed abbot to the ruined Novgorod Derevyanitsky monastery - into honorable exile. Thus, the attempt to combat mysticism was stopped at the very beginning. But mysticism itself led to inevitable destruction. The fascination with aspirations that cannot be curbed within the boundaries of reason, the constant fascination with new prophets and preachers, with the betrayal of the former, the fragmentation of the mystical society into many circles imbued with the spirit of mutual intolerance, and finally, the very construction of a “building” “on the sand”: all this led to the fact that mysticism, in the sense of the prevailing mood in St. Petersburg at that time, sooner or later had to collapse. The Masons quarreled among themselves, and the grandmaster of one of the Masonic lodges in St. Petersburg himself considered it necessary to bring to the attention of the sovereign that in the lodges “there is a spirit of self-will, violence and complete anarchy, and not the spirit of Christian meekness and the true Masonic rules,” and declared that either Freemasonry should be restored in its former form, or the Masonic lodges should be closed. Then came the turn of events of a different order. While separate, but still very definite voices of individual representatives of the Church could not help but exert their influence on the sovereign. Apparently, Metropolitan Michael’s letter made a particularly strong impression on him. Seraphim Glagolevsky, who no longer sympathized with mysticism, was elected as Mikhail’s successor. Metropolitan Seraphim in his biography has many similarities with his predecessor. The son of a Kaluga sexton, he was the same age as Mikhail, studied with him at the Trinity Seminary, at the philological gymnasium, at the academy, and attended lectures at the university; but at the end of the teaching their paths diverged. Glagolevsky did not marry, did not become a priest, and in 1785 remained a teacher at Trinity Seminary. Two years later he was transferred to the Zaikonospassky Academy, where in the year of Mikhail’s tonsure he was made rector. In the same 1799, he was consecrated bishop and vicar of the Moscow metropolis. He was soon appointed to Vyatka, then transferred to Smolensk, then, in 1812, with his elevation to archbishop, to Minsk 214, from here he was summoned to the synod in 1818, where they took part in the commission of theological schools. In 1814 he was transferred to Tver, in 1816 he received the Order of St. Alexander Nevsky and a diamond cross on his hood. In 1819 he was appointed metropolitan to Moscow, and on June 19, 1821 he was transferred to St. Petersburg, apparently under the strong influence of Arakcheev. From the very first steps, he demonstratively showed himself to be an opponent of Golitsyn’s mysticism, although in general, on other occasions, he was not averse, according to the remark of his future successor, the Most Reverend Grigory Postnikov, who was now a vicar in St. Petersburg, “to deny his words, as happened many times” 215. It was Seraphim, present for the first time at a meeting of the Bible Society and listening to the speeches of some members, who expressed that only people who do not understand Orthodoxy could speak like that, stood up and left the meeting room. But he did not dare to enter into an open fight. In the person of Photius, he found for himself an expensive weapon, throwing himself into the fight without hesitation. Various defectors also joined, seeking more benefits from the new regime than they received. The soul of the whole affair was, undoubtedly, Arakcheev, who did not put up with the fact that, besides him, Golitsyn also enjoyed constant closeness to the sovereign and influence. At the insistent petitions of Countess Orlova, the Metropolitan decided to ease Photius’s position. At the beginning of 1822, he transferred him as an archimandrite to the Novgorod frying pan monastery, and after Easter in the same year he called him to St. Petersburg and placed him in the monastery. Now Golitsyn met him, and at the first meeting he found that Photius’s instructions “have edification and strength that the Lord alone can give.” He even decided to introduce the sovereign to him and requested an audience with him. The audience took place in the palace on the stone island on June 5, 1822. Photius set off in the countess's carriage, first drove into the Kazan Cathedral, walking along the stairs in the palace, "signed both himself and the palace with a cross in all directions and passages, thinking that the darkness lives here and the forces of the enemy are at work." Just as there are people who are confident in the infallibility of their minds and the ignorance of the rest of the world, so there are people who are confident in the infallibility of their holiness and the unforgivable sinfulness of the rest of the world. When Photius entered, the sovereign hurried to him to accept the blessing, but Photius, not paying attention to the sovereign, began to look with his eyes for an image on which he could pray, saw it at the threshold in the corner behind his back, turned around, crossed himself three times, bowing, and “appeared before the king.” The Emperor, retreating somewhat from Photius, again approached him with fear and reverence, accepted his blessing, and earnestly kissed his hand. Photius immediately opened the fold that he had with the face of the Savior and let the sovereign venerate it, and then handed him the image. The sovereign invited Photius to sit down, and Photius sat down not before crossing himself and crossing the chair on which he was sitting, as well as the sovereign. The conversation began with the kind words of the sovereign about his long-standing desire to see Photius, with questions about his service. Photius turned the conversation to a speech about the Church, faith and salvation; looking straight into the king's face, he often crossed himself, and the sovereign, looking at Photius, often crossed himself, raising his eyes to heaven, asked Photius to make the sign of the cross over him, kissed his hand several times, accepting the blessing; when Photius left, he fell to his knees and asked to lay hands on him, to pray for him, to forgive him and to resolve him. Photius laid his hands crosswise on the sovereign's head and made a prayer for the grace of the Holy Spirit to be sent down upon him. The Emperor bowed to his feet, stood up, again accepted the blessing, kissing his hand, and, seeing him off, asked him to pray and send a blessing. On August 1, a rescript was issued about the closure of secret societies, and on the same day the Metropolitan conferred on Photius the diamond cross granted by the sovereign. On August 26, Photius was appointed abbot of the Yuryev Monastery. Before leaving, he was received by the Dowager Empress Maria Feodorovna, from whom he received a gold watch. All this gave Photius a lot of weight and significance in the eyes of society, and he himself began to look at himself as the chosen one, called upon to eradicate evil and impiety in Russia. As a winner, he traveled to St. Petersburg at that time, stayed at the Lavra with Metropolitan Seraphim and performed solemn services there in the house metropolitan church, with his own choristers, brought on purpose, since he considered the St. Petersburg choristers to be heretics. There were quite a number of public gatherings in the church 216 . However, it was necessary to wait two whole years to defeat the enemy. In 1824, Photius was again summoned to St. Petersburg and addressed the sovereign with two messages, which were transmitted to the sovereign, apparently by Arakcheev. In his messages, Photius spoke about the death and salvation of the Church, about mystery, and in accordance with the time of that time, which loved mystery, now Photius was received by the sovereign in the winter palace from the secret entrance, in the evening. It was April 20, 1824. Photius talked with the sovereign from six to nine in the evening and, according to his recollections, the sovereign “appeared to him good and merciful, like an angel of God, and remained in peace after the conversation.” Photius frightened Alexander with all sorts of conspiracies; Alexander called Photius an angel sent from heaven, asked for prayer, knelt and asked for a blessing, and Photius laid his hands on him in a cross shape and read “To the King of Heaven.” This audience gave Photius great courage. Five days later, in the house of Countess Orlova, according to a pre-arranged ceremony, when Golitsyn appeared there, Photius met him in a liturgical setting, standing in front of a lectern on which the Holy Mysteries and the Gospel were placed and in front of which candles were burning, did not give him the blessing that he asked from him, and, reminding him that a book by Pastor Gosner, which contained some dark passages, was published under his patronage, which Photius interpreted as if it said that “the clergy are beasts” invited him to read chapter XXIII from the book of the prophet Jeremiah, beginning with the words; “Woe to the shepherds, who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture, says the Lord,” trying to draw him into his blasphemous act, and when he “ran away,” he shouted after him throughout all the rooms: “anathema.” Photius on the same day sent a description of this to the sovereign (probably through Arakcheev), rumors of the scandal spread throughout the city. The time had come for Metropolitan Seraphim to act, and, as they say, received by the sovereign in a secret audience, he laid down his white hood at the sovereign’s feet and did not take it before the sovereign gave him a promise to “change the minister.” The state of affairs was scandalous. The result of all this was that Gosner’s book was burned in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra in the presence of the governor and an official at the chief prosecutor’s table in the synod, Gosner was expelled from Russia and on May 15, 1824, the highest decree finally ceased the existence of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education, returning things to the previous order. Metropolitan Seraphim, in a congratulatory letter on this occasion to Philaret in Moscow, welcomed the fall of the ministry hated by the clergy with the greatest enthusiasm 217. Golitsyn was dismissed both from the ministry and from the chairmanship of the Bible Society, where his place was taken by Metropolitan Seraphim, and remained only in the management of the post office. Then came orders prohibiting the printing of books of spiritual content without spiritual censorship, a committee was established to review previously published books, and books recognized as harmful were confiscated 218. On June 14, Arakcheev arranged another meeting between Photius and the sovereign; On August 6, before the departure of the sovereign, Photius met with him again, and both times he did not fail to present his exterminatory projects, of which many now appear among provincial priests: “the discovery of a conspiracy under the bestial apocalyptic number 666 and the influence of England under that pretext on Russia,” “about the revolution being prepared in 1836,” etc. All this, however, was no longer successful, but times have changed a lot. The new Minister of Public Education, Admiral Shishkov, felt a calling to save Russia with all kinds of constraints and restrictions and ensured that his management of the ministry went down in history with the nickname “Ministry of Eclipse.” When the “persecution” and “extermination” of heresies and free thought was announced, all the dark forces hostile to all thought and freedom raised their heads. The publication of the catechisms compiled by Philaret, already approved by the synod, and now recognized as dissatisfied by the Orthodox due to the translation of the texts of the Holy Scripture into the “common dialect”, i.e. from Slavic into Russian, was suspended. A new revision of the charter of theological schools was proposed to limit the supposedly excessive freedom granted to the schools. They tried to stop the Russian translation of the Bible, and Metropolitan Seraphim himself made a report on the dangers of universal distribution of the Bible, but the sovereign, yielding to the new trend in everything else, did not want to agree with this yet. Filaret was completely ignored and remained silent. Secular generals even began to openly accuse him of not being Orthodox, and Filaret in one official document, excitedly pointing out that ignorance had taken power into his hands, exclaimed: “Confirmation of those who trust in You, establish, O Lord, the Church!” The situation that was created after the fall of Golitsyn’s ministry was not better for the Church compared to the previous one. If Golitsyn, under the influence of having power, was sometimes despotic and allowed harshness in relation to the hierarchs, if he surrounded himself on all sides with mystics of various shades and all kinds of religious dreamers, thereby causing a lot of anxiety to the Church, then, in any case, he was a religious idealist of a high degree, a man always responsive to all that is good, distinguished by undoubted piety and a sincere desire for the establishment of the Kingdom of God on earth, complete burning desire to serve God. A high spiritual authority, Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret Amfitheatrov spoke of him after his death as a “pious and beneficent prince” 219. Enough has been said about Philaret of Moscow’s attitude towards him. It is not the fault of Prince Golitsyn that, having ardently set to work in a field that seemed neglected to his eyes, he made mistakes, not finding, for various reasons, proper leadership and meeting more often than anything else only restless criticism from those whose work he took upon himself. In solitude and peace from business, after occupying the positions of Chancellor of the Orders and Chairman of the State Council, a friend and inheritor of the royal family, as he was a friend of the family of Alexander I, Prince Golitsyn ended his days in 1844. Chapter XIII. Background information from the sphere of church life in the Alexander Age Worship. - Holidays. - Church singing. – Constraint of divorces. – Education of foreigners. – Ossetian Commission. – Enlightenment of the infidels. – Spiritual and educational work. – Spiritual literature. - “Christian Reading”. – New staff of the synod and the Moscow synodal office. – New procedure for recruiting those present to the synod. – New dioceses. – Church administration in the Caucasus. - Deans. - Church property. – Improving the life of the clergy. - Military clergy. – Bronze cross in memory of the Twelfth Year. - Church deanery. – Church buildings. In the field of worship, a new rank was added during the reign of Alexander I. In 1814, in memory of the deliverance of Russia from the “invasion of twenty languages,” it was supposed to send an annual prayer of thanksgiving on the day of the Nativity of Christ, and for this purpose Philaret compiled a special rite. In 1804, a church holiday was established on November 26, the day of remembrance of St. Innocent of Irkutsk, whose relics were discovered in 1764. In 1817, according to Golitsyn’s report, it was necessary to read in churches every year on September 14 the manifesto of 1815 about the holy union, which was then displayed, according to the instructions of the synod, on the walls of churches. In addition to the rite of prayer in memory of deliverance from the French, in the first quarter of the 19th century akathists were published from liturgical books: in 1801 to St. Demetrius of Rostov, compiled by the Moscow priest Ivan Alekseev, in 1802 to St. Alexis, compiled by Hieromonk Juvenaly Medvedsky 220. By the will of the sovereign, the synod in 1804 issued some orders to improve church singing: it was ordered to use in churches only the tunes found in printed music books, to allow only people skilled in singing into the choir, to organize rehearsals, not to allow too much yelling when singing, to teach singing in theological schools 221. The decrees of 1815 and 1816 ordered the introduction of uniform singing of the liturgy, composed by the director of the court singing chapel Dmitry Bortnyansky, which is why the chant is usually called courtiers; It was forbidden to sing in churches from notes that had not been published, and the printing of church music books was allowed only under the condition of their approval by the director of the chapel 222. From then on, in addition to the works of Bortnyansky, the musical works of Turchaninov, who was the regent of the metropolitan choir from 1809, and then an archpriest in Strelna, near St. Petersburg, also came into general use. The reign of Alexander I was marked by measures to curb divorce. Since 1805, divorce cases have been required to be submitted to the synod for final approval. Since 1810, the need for divorce of two eyewitnesses of adultery has been established. Since 1819, the issuance of so-called individual residence permits, which were previously issued by both consistories and the police, has been prohibited. In order to spread the Orthodox faith among the numerous foreigners in Russia, the synod in 1803 took measures to translate the beginnings of the Christian faith into foreign languages. Soon such translations appeared: from 1803, into the Cheremis language, into Chuvash, Mordovian, Olonets, Karelian, into Tatar, Kalmyk, Persian 223. With the opening of the Bible Society in St. Petersburg, translations of books of the Holy Scriptures and various brochures of religious and moral content into foreign languages ​​appeared. Since 1814, within ten years, translations of the New Testament were published in the languages ​​of Nogai, Persian, Tatar-Turkish, Chuvash, Mordovian, Cheremis, Kalmyk, Zyryansk, Votyak, Karelian. The famous spiritual speaker, Kazan Archbishop Ambrose Protasov initiated a petition for permission to conduct services in foreign languages, after which, indeed, translations of the liturgy into the Chuvash and Cheremis languages ​​soon appeared. In the dioceses of Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Penza, Perm, and Orenburg, where there was a particularly significant number of foreigners, local bishops opened classes for foreign languages ​​in seminaries and theological schools. In 1824, the synod, at the request of His Eminence Neophyte of Arkhangelsk, opened a mission among the Samoyeds, which manifested its activity mainly in the later reign. In western Siberia, among the Yakuts, Archpriest Grigory Sleptsov was a missionary with a camp church, which converted several thousand people to Christianity. In 1821, Irkutsk Bishop Mikhail Burdukov opened the Transbaikal Orthodox mission in Transbaikalia 224. Along with the activities of the North American trading company, Orthodoxy was spread within North America, on the islands of Kodiak, Sitkha, among the Kodiaks and Koloshes. The company was obliged to have a sufficient number of clergy and churches in the colonies and maintain them at its own expense. Here, on Unalaska, Father John Veniaminov, later Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow, began his famous activity in 1824. In the Caucasus, to spread Orthodoxy among Ossetians and various highlanders, an Ossetian spiritual commission 225 was opened in 1815, according to the thoughts of Archimandrite Dosifei Pitskhelaurov, who at the same time received the episcopal and later archbishopric rank. Up to 12,000 rubles were allocated from the treasury for the maintenance of the commission, an escort was relied upon, and Dosifei, while he was at the head of the commission, reported to the synod about brilliant successes. In 1817, Archbishop Theophylact Rusanov was appointed exarch of Georgia, and the commission continued its activities under his leadership. By 1821, almost all Ossetians had already been enlightened with Christianity, up to 47,000 people, and 30 churches were built for them. By 1823 all converts were counted at 61,000 with 67 parishes. For the newly baptized, prayers, catechism, Gospel, liturgy and rites of baptism, burial and marriage, published in 1824, were translated into Ossetian language under Theophylact by nobleman Ivan Yalguzidze. In 1824, a religious Muslim uprising broke out among the highlanders, halting the progress of the mission. To attract Jews to Christianity, the baptized were given some benefits: exemption from previous salaries, the right to enter into any taxable state and, most importantly, exemption from conscription 226. To provide newly baptized Jews with the opportunity to start life on a completely new basis and to protect them from persecution by fellow believers, state-owned lands were allocated for newly baptized Jews in the northern and southern provinces and a committee of guardianship of Israeli Christians was established in 1817 in St. Petersburg to manage the affairs of the newly formed society of Israeli Christians 227 . Since 1818, leave for the mission in China, established under Peter I, has been increased to 46,000 rubles. In the previous century, the mission received only up to 4,000 rubles. Among the heads of the mission of this time, Iakinf Bichurin stood out for his scientific research on China and translations into Chinese, from which a catechism was published. Missionary work in the proper sense was weak. However, a school was established in Beijing. The theological school reform, although in fact it lagged somewhat behind the projected assumptions, however, by the end of the reign, it managed to increase the number of theological schools from 150 in 1808 to 340; there were 3 academies, 39 seminaries, 128 district and 170 parish schools; and the number of students increased from 29,000 to 46,000. In 1820, salaries for religious educational institutions were increased: academies to 79,000, seminaries from 20,000 to 31,000, district schools from 2,000 to 2,650, parish schools from 735 to 1,060. Petersburg were allocated, and the academy received 111,000 rubles, the seminary 45,000, district schools from 3,000 to 3,800, parish schools from 1,300 to 1,600. In order to be able to provide greater benefits to theological schools from local diocesan funds, since 1810, according to Golitsyn’s report, churches have been granted the exclusive right to sell whisks and sheets of prayer of permission 228 . Previously, these items were sold by ordinary merchants, and Golitsyn wrote on this occasion in his most loyal report: “this last tribute, which a baby and an old man pays to the earth and which private people have appropriated for themselves, belongs, by its nature, to the one Church,” and the Church can be used to help future altar servers - the best use that can be made of it. In 1811, the synod allowed the teaching of smallpox vaccination in seminaries. By decree of 1805, the emperor called on the clergy to the cause of public education 229; and the clergy responded to the call, establishing many parish schools, but without organization, without funds, often, and even for the most part, in their own homes. The spiritual educational reform created excellent conditions for the development of spiritual enlightenment in the broadest sense, but during the reign of Alexander I only seeds were sown that bore fruit later. However, even at that time significant shoots were showing. The efforts and talents of academics were aimed at a positive study of the subjects of spiritual science according to their sources. Theological science, having cast off the shackles of scholasticism and turning to the study of the Holy Scriptures and monuments of Christian antiquity in connection with the movement of church-historical life, revived and gradually began to constantly improve, expanding the scope of its requirements, improving methods of scientific development, introducing new methods of research. Independent interpretations of the books of Holy Scripture, experiments on symphonies, various theological works of church history appeared both in manuscript and in print, and for the most part not in Latin, but in Russian, spiritual speakers began to speak more vividly. By the end of the century, however, only a few works were preserved from oblivion: Philaret’s immortal “Catechism”, as well as partly “Notes on the Book of Genesis”; Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov 230, from the great many of his works, “The History of the Russian Hierarchy,” written by him in collaboration with the rector of the Novgorod seminary Ambrose Ornatsky 231, who died in the rank of bishop in retirement, in the ascetic labors of an ascetic life, and partly “A Dictionary of Writers of the Spiritual Order.” Speransky called Filaret the first Russian preacher and theologian, and Evgeniy the first Russian church historian. Among the preaching works hitherto eagerly read in intellectual spheres, in addition to Filaret, are the teachings of the Right Reverend Ambrose Protasov, Bishop of Tula, and then Archbishop of Kazan and, finally, Tver. During this time, translations of some patristic works also appeared; These publications were fragmentary and infrequent until they became associated with periodical spiritual magazines and received widespread development - however, already in the following reigns. The first spiritual magazine, however, was founded during the reign of Alexander I - “Christian Reading”, at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, which began its educational work in 1821, so far in the form of a three-month magazine. In the highest church administration under Alexander I, there was a change in the staff of the Holy Synod. Instead of the 232nd number of six persons previously set by the state of 1763, according to the state of 1819 there were 7 persons - members and those present, namely: one leading member, two members - bishop, one bishop - present, two archimandrites and one archpriest. Salaries are due to members and the present bishop of 4,000 rubles, others - 3,000. The St. Petersburg Metropolitan was given the title of first member. The Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, after the abolition of the Golitsyn Ministry of Spiritual Affairs, inherited the right of the most submissive report on synodal affairs, however, for now with some restrictions - namely, he always had to send these reports in sealed envelopes with an inscription in the highest name “in his own hands.” Then the Chief Prosecutor was granted ministerial rights in relations with the department of the Orthodox confession, and in general his position was equal to that of a minister. The development of the Chief Prosecutor's Office began by leaving under the Chief Prosecutor the entire first department of the Department of Spiritual Affairs that was in the Golitsyn Ministry, i.e., the department for affairs of the “Greek-Russian confession” 233 . In the Moscow Holy Synod office for the same staff, the composition is determined from three persons: the chairman-metropolitan, or, in his absence, the vicar, the archimandrite and the archpriest. On June 12, 1805, the Chief Prosecutor, Prince Golitsyn, announced that the sovereign, “wishing to personally know the Eminences who govern the dioceses, proposed to call one of them to live in St. Petersburg and to be present upon arrival at the Holy Synod until the highest will to return to the dioceses is granted.” At the same time, Golitsyn announced the highest order “to initially summon the Mogilev Archbishop Anastasius”, to give him 1,000 rubles for the move, and to arrange the administration of the diocese in his absence after consideration by the synod. Anastasy Bratanovsky almost immediately upon arrival received an appointment to Astrakhan, Bishop of Penza Gaius Takaov, a Georgian, was summoned to the synod, and at the end of 1806, Bishop of Kaluga Feofilakt Rusakov. Professor Znamensky notes in his “Readings on the history of the Russian Church during the reign of Alexander I” that Chief Prosecutor Golitsyn subsequently began to use this procedure for summoning bishops to the synod for a short time to eliminate any opposition to his system in the synod. In the field of diocesan life, the reign of Alexander I was marked by the establishment of the Chisinau diocese in 1813 from the area of ​​​​the Moldova metropolis, which remained with Russia after the Bucharest peace with Turkey in May 1812; two dioceses were renamed - Novorossiysk to Ekaterinoslav and Pereyaslav to Poltava, in 1803. The Kingdom of Poland, annexed to Russia after 1812, was included in the Volyn diocese. Church administration in the Caucasus underwent particular changes. After the annexation of Georgia, Imereti and Mingrelia to Russia, for some time there remained only one Catholicos at the head of the church administration - Tsarevich Anthony. Previously, there were two Catholicos: one for Georgia, living in Tiflis, the other for Imereti and Mingrelia, living in Kutaisi. There were 13 dioceses in Georgia 234, two of them had only 12 churches. When the idea arose to streamline church administration in Georgia according to the Russian model, the Catholicos was summoned to St. Petersburg, asked to retire here, was dismissed on June 11, 1811, and then lived in Moscow, from 1812 in Tambov, from 1819 in St. Petersburg and, finally, in Nizhny, where he ended his days in 1827. According to the report of the synod, approved on June 30, 1811, the Georgian Church was part of the Russian Church, with subordination to the Holy Synod; out of 13 dioceses in Georgia, two were formed: Mtskheta-Kartali and Alaverdi-Kakheti; the Metropolitan of Mtskheta was given the title of Exarch of the Holy Synod, following the example of the then exarch of Moldova, Gabriel Bodoni; One dicastery was formed for both dioceses. The first exarch was appointed Archbishop of Akhgyl, who lived in St. Petersburg, Varlaam Eristov, who was promoted to metropolitan. In 1814, a new draft regulation on the church structure in Georgia was developed, written by Bishop Dosifei Pitskhelaurov, who was taken out three years ago in the rank of archimandrite by Catholicos Anthony and remained to live in St. Petersburg, in the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, and almost immediately upon arrival received the rank of bishop. The church administration of Georgia and the kingdom of Imereti, as well as the principalities of Mingrelian and Gurian, was united under the head of one exarch, and instead of the dicastery, out of respect for the recent independence of the Georgian Church, the Georgian-Imereti synodal office was established; instead of the previous two, three dioceses were established: Mtskheta, Telavi and Sighnakh. The office was opened on May 8, 1815. It soon became clear that both eminences, Varlaam and Dositheus, were unreliable for church administration and it was decided to appoint an active and capable person as exarch in Georgia, and remove Dositheus and Varlaam, the first due to unreliability, and the second due to inability. The first was placed on retirement in Moscow, in the VysokoPetrovsky Monastery, and the second was summoned to St. Petersburg to be permanently present at the synod. Archbishop Feofilakt Rusanov of Ryazan was sent to Georgia in 1817 with a special mission to introduce the rules of church administration adopted in Russia. Theophylact arrived in Tiflis on August 31, on October 1 he already opened a seminary in the Avlabar bishop's house, on October 11 he opened a district and parish school in Telava, and then immediately presented a project for a new reorganization of church administration in the exarchate. For all of Georgia, which had up to 700 churches, a third of which were non-parishable, differing “from Russian chapels only in bad architecture, untidiness and squalor of utensils,” he decided to leave only one diocese with the name of the two former Georgian kingdoms of Kartalin and Kakheti; in Imereti, Mingrelia and Guria, as having special sovereign princes, leave one diocese each, subordinate to the exarch, abolish the office. These assumptions, except the last one, were approved by the sovereign according to the report of the synod, December 28, 1818 235. However, the circle of responsibilities of the office was significantly limited and precisely defined. The application of Russian rules of church governance caused a whole revolt. In some places, the clergy with their wives and children, taking church things, retired into the forests. The unrest was aroused by the clergy, who feared the confiscation of church estates and income. The church order here was completely different from the Russian one. The population is accustomed to listening to clergy rather than following instructions; the sovereign prince of Mingrelia and the nobles, according to a long-standing custom, gathered with their metropolitan for meetings on public affairs; Most of the bishops were members of local ruling houses, bishops ruled dioceses without any writing, were supported by taxes from the clergy and some spiritual taxes from the population for various offenses and sins, there was an undeniable surplus of clergy, in other parishes with a hundred houses there were 8 priests, nuns lived in monasteries as servants, bishops led a nomadic lifestyle, moving from one place to another and being primarily engaged in collecting taxes, they served rarely; one bishop “did not serve more than 10 times during his 30 years as a bishop.” However, although with great difficulty, Theophylact managed in 1820 to arrange Imereti according to the new situation. After the formation of four dioceses in Georgia, Mingrelia, Imereti and Guria, all dioceses in the empire became 41; Georgia brought 13 new ones, Imereti 4 and Mingrelia 3. In 1820, the highest command followed that deans everywhere should be appointed by the bishops themselves, as their eye in matters of church supervision; Until then, in some dioceses deans were elected. Real estate belonging to monasteries, churches and bishops' houses and clergy began to be exempt from all duties and fees, except for pavement and lampposts 236. Monasteries and bishops' houses are allowed to acquire real estate, however, with the highest permission each time. Then permission was given to the monasteries to accept real estate and wills - under the same conditions. Decrees were also issued on permission to alienate immovable church property, also each time with the highest permission 237. In 1808, instructions were issued to church elders regulating the economic part of churches. A serious program was conceived to improve the life of the parish clergy, but, due to circumstances, was not implemented. Real improvements are of a private nature. In 1801, the tax for services was doubled and the Pavlovian law was repealed, so that the parishioners would cultivate the church land for their own benefit, and the clergy would be given ready-made grain in quantities according to the calculation of the land. The law had a hard impact on the clergy due to constant arrears and abuses: they were given something worthless. In the very first days after ascending the throne, by decree of May 22, 1801, Alexander exempted the clergy from corporal punishment, to which they were subjected in cases when they were subject to criminal court 238; in 1808, the wives of clergy were also exempted from it; 239 in 1811 the law was extended to ordinary monks. In 1804, clergy were allowed to buy land, but not populated, and populated land was only allowed to be bought by clergy who had noble rights - by origin or by service rights and insignia 240. In 1808, the Right Reverend Theophylact Rusanov drew up “a regulation on the maintenance of poor students of district and parish schools and on the method of charity for remaining spiritual orphans.” This provision established the provision of clergy and deacon places in double-clergy churches and in single-clergy churches where there is a deacon to poor students and male orphans, who received two-thirds of the income from their places, providing the remaining third to those correcting their position; income from church land from positions granted to minors was used to feed their widowed mothers and their families. Then, when assigning clerkships after the death of clerks leaving the family, preference was established for those persons who wished to marry one of the daughters of their deceased predecessor with the obligation to provide food to their widows-in-law until her death, and to their wife’s sisters until their marriage. Childless widows or those left with young or crippled daughters who had no hope of marriage were supposed to be appointed to the places of mallow; Elderly and crippled clergy and childless ministers should be sent to monasteries for government support. It was also possible for childless elderly and disabled clerics to rent out their places to less successful students, according to a mutual agreement regarding the division of income. The committee approved all these assumptions and added an invitation from the monastic and white clergy to make voluntary donations in favor of poor students and a preference for clergy widows to be placed in almshouses at bishops' houses and monasteries. To provide for the parish clergy, according to the project drawn up in the committee for the improvement of schools and already approved by the highest in 1808 241, it was planned to distribute all church places into five classes, assigning each class a certain amount of salary, from 300 to 1,000 rubles, and introduce the payment of salaries from 1815. In addition, the project proposed to designate all clergy houses and outbuildings. Meanwhile, the Twelfth Year significantly depleted the fund with which the project provided salaries for the clergy. Then a new project appeared in the commission of theological schools, drawn up by Archimandrite Philaret Drozdov, to assign salaries, at least, to clergy with outstanding education: doctors 500 rubles, masters 350, candidates 250 242. This was done. In 1823, the report of the synod with the regulations developed by His Eminence Philaret Drozdov on diocesan guardianship of the poor of the clergy, that is, the elderly, widows and orphans 243, was highly approved. The Holy Synod allocated 150,000 rubles to the trusteeship fund; a fundraiser was announced. Among the measures concerning the life of the clergy, it should also be noted that in 1816 a decree was issued not to pay attention to the recommendations of secular persons when appointing priests; an exception was made only for military commanders 244. In 1822, it was decided not to return civil rights to those persons who, having taken monastic vows, resigned their monastic rank. In the sphere of the military, or, as it is now called, military clergy, attention is drawn to a decree that sets a limit to the development of the isolation of this clergy from the general order of church administration. Since 1816, a second chief priest appeared in the department of military clergy - the main headquarters of His Imperial Majesty and the Guard 245. The merits of the clergy in the Patriotic War of 1812 prompted, at the end of the fight against Napoleon, a decree from the sovereign in 1814, which awarded all priests a bronze cross in memory of the war. An educational measure common to all is the decree of 1804 that the laity should not enter the altar; in the church they should behave decently in the sanctity of the place, not moving from place to place, not talking, not turning their backs to the altar. In 1816, a decree was issued on maintaining proper order and silence in churches 246. Rich in great events, the reign of Alexander I left behind several majestic material monuments. But such is fate! Just as all the great undertakings of Alexander I remained unfulfilled, so the grandiose buildings of his reign remained unfinished. The magnificent Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg, on Nevsky Prospekt, this wonderful creation of the construction genius of the architect Andrei Nikiforovich Voronikhin, the first stone of which was laid on August 27, 1801, was built until 1811 and remained unfinished, with a colonnade only on two sides facing Nevsky Prospekt, while according to the plan it was supposed to build the same colonnade and with other, opposite, two sides 247. Now the area intended for the last colonnade has been built up. Later posterity found it possible to give symbolic meaning and moral beauty to such an unfinished structure of the Kazan Cathedral. The fact is that on the side of Nevsky Prospect opposite the cathedral, almost opposite the cathedral, there are three heterodox churches: Catholic, Reformed and Lutheran. And so, the Kazan Cathedral seems to be extending its open arms to all of them. “Silence speaks volumes” 248. In 1807, on October 12, on the fifth anniversary of the liberation of Moscow, the grandiose Cathedral of Christ the Savior was laid in Moscow, on the Sparrow Hills, as a monument to the deliverance of Russia from the invasion of twenty nations, according to the vow of the sovereign given when publishing the manifesto in Vilna on December 25, 1812 on the liberation of Russia. According to the project of the architect Karl Witberg, it was supposed to be, one might say, an unprecedented structure, with a colonnade of 300 fathoms, a new wonder of the world, but the unstable soil of the Sparrow Hills could not withstand this bulk, the construction was suspended and in the next reign it was moved to another place and executed according to a different plan, and the unlucky builder was exiled to one of the remote provinces. In 1819, on the site of the dismantled previous one, the monumental St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg was founded, and was not completed during the reign of Alexander I. Chapter XIV. Death of Emperor Alexander I Psychological results to the characterization of Alexander I. – Death in Taganrog. – The view of church historians on Alexander I and factual material to correct the established view. – Accession of Nicholas I to the throne. Alexander had the hard lot of being disappointed in his most cherished dreams all his life. At first he became disillusioned with his constitutional aspirations. Then he became internally disappointed in his dear creation - a sacred union created for the mystical world worship of God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; He was disappointed, although he continued to insist that this is the work of God, inspired by the Redeemer Himself, and whoever sees in it only politics does not distinguish between a holy work and an unholy one and has no voice in this matter. Then, at the insistent demand of the Church, he was forced to abolish his united ministry of spiritual affairs and public education and generally close the path along which he directed the education of the people, considering this path the only true one. Finally, he could not help but be convinced that the implementation of peasant virtuous well-being undertaken by him through military settlements did not achieve his goal. Finally, he seemed to have lost that love on the part of his subjects, which he had the right to count on, in his dreams of devoting his whole life to their well-being; The last year of his life was marred by the discovery of a widespread anti-government conspiracy. All this made the burden of ruling the state, which was already burdensome for him, even more difficult, left the mark of weariness with life on him, and he more than once, in the very last days of his life, complained that the burden of the crown was terribly burdening him, and expressed the idea of ​​​​his desire to renounce the throne and retire, after twenty-five years of service, to “retire” to rest. The painful burden that lay on his soul that with his reign he did not justify his accession to the throne after his father, did not bring happiness and prosperity to the people, did not give him peace, and he spent the entire second half of his reign traveling, first around Western Europe, then around Russia, as if wanting to have fun and forget. Shortly before his death, on September 1, 1825, for the sake of his wife’s health, he went from St. Petersburg to the south, to Taganrog. Here, traveling around the Crimea, he caught a cold, fell ill with a fever and, returning sick to Taganrog, died on November 19, 1825. Just before his death, he confessed for a whole hour to an invited priest, then, in the presence of those close to him, he received Holy Communion, told the Empress, who was present, that he had never experienced greater joy, and died with a calm spirit, quietly and peacefully, without agony, in his dying sleep, repeating prayers and psalms with his eyes closed. The body of the deceased emperor was embalmed and transported through Moscow across the entire length of Russia to St. Petersburg, where it was buried in the common tomb of the All-Russian emperors, in the Peter and Paul Cathedral, on March 13, 1826. It is customary among historians of Alexander’s time to call Emperor Alexander an unsolved sphinx who took the secret of his personality with him to the grave. This mystery of Alexander’s personality undoubtedly depends to a large extent on the misunderstandings accumulated around her by both contemporaries and historians. A prominent place among such misunderstandings should be placed when, as if not recognizing Alexander as Orthodox, they say that he “developed for himself a unique religion of his own without definite dogmatic convictions, which did not belong to any religion, closer to Protestant mysticism than to Orthodoxy.” They say that “he had no information about church affairs, and therefore at the first stages of his reign he did not show proper attention to them for a long time, completely devoting himself to the fulfillment of his cherished youthful dreams about a new structure of the state, about introducing the principles of legality and freedom throughout its structure and about enlightening his people through the multiplication of various kinds of schools.” With the light hand of the Pharisees contemporary to Alexander, they reproach him for religious indifference, again especially in the early stages of his reign, and the blame for this is laid on his supposedly poor religious upbringing. During the reign of Alexander I, the Orthodox Church allegedly “stood alone in deplorable separation from the tsar and society.” Throwing to the wind, such frivolous thoughts became the most widespread. Are there any solid grounds for this? It’s somehow strange to talk about poor religious education or indifference to the religion of the emperor, who in his youth, by his own admission, got out of bed at night and threw himself on his knees before God, asking Him for forgiveness for his sins committed in the past daylight hours; who spent all the years of his mature life in a painfully persistent search for God; who called people who had lost their faith beasts; whose entire reign was marked by “caring care for the religious development of the people and the success of spiritual enlightenment,” and who spoke with full conviction to the Moscow nobility in 1816: “I have seen a lot of states and different peoples, and I myself am an obvious witness of what a people full of faith is, and what one is without law.” They see proof of the lack of religiosity in the early stages of his reign in the fact that Alexander did not issue decrees concerning the Church. And if he published it, then he would be accused of interfering in the affairs of the Church. It is high time to remove from the bright and holy face of the pious emperor this shameful veil of reproach for “not being Orthodox” - shameful not for him, but for his stupid posterity. Just as he was born a faithful son of the Orthodox Church, so he died without betraying her, in perfect obedience. His obedience to the Church extended to the point that, being brought up on the ideas of broad freedom and tolerance, he sometimes acted contrary to his inner conviction, when official representatives of the Church, people of narrower views than he, demanded from him actions that contradicted his convictions. When Archimandrite Photius, recognized at that time by some circles as a saint, appeared to him in a well-known audience, and began to cry out to him about destruction, revenge, extermination, the pious, meek sovereign listened to his cries for two whole hours, not daring to contradict this supposedly chosen church vessel, but, not agreeing with him in his heart or soul, kissed his hands, knelt before him and asked to pray, in the vague hope that prayer would bring grace and mercy to hostility and destruction, like healing oil to wounds. And then, clearly contrary to his sympathies and convictions, when Photius’ call was supported by the leading member of the synod, Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg, he stopped the translation of the Bible into Russian and removed his friend, Prince Golitsyn, from church affairs. No, he was a religious and Orthodox blessed 250 sovereign and, as Metropolitan Philaret put it, “no one more truly justified the Church title of the most pious assigned to him,” than he, “whom Providence chose as the universal preacher of piety.” The Moscow ruler, with full moral right, began his speech over the tomb of Alexander when he stopped in Moscow, in the Archangel Cathedral, on his way to St. Petersburg, with a text from chapter 23 of the 4th book of Kings, verse 25, referring to the pious Jewish king Josiah: “there was no king like him before him, who would turn to the Lord with all his heart and with all his soul and with all on our own” 251. The reproach that Alexander, having no information at all about church affairs, was not interested in them for a long time, or was even completely alien to the Church, addressed by a historian to the sovereign, whose reign, one might say, gave birth to both spiritual science and spiritual literature, sounds, of course, only strange and does not require refutation. This sovereign, just as he ascended the throne in the bright aura of universal joyful aspirations addressed to him, also left the field of life in the aura of legendary asceticism. There is a legend that Alexander did not die in 1825, but retired to Siberia, where he lived for a long time in complete obscurity and complete solitude under the name of the old hermit Kuzmich. In recent years, there has been a noticeable desire among historians to point out various minor shortcomings in Alexander’s personality and character, observed in his private, everyday life, as if with a barely restrained desire to bring him down from the pedestal on which he was placed by his contemporaries and posterity. Against this, it must be said that, firstly, there is no person who would live and not sin, and, secondly, if someone turns his observations exclusively towards the administration of bodily needs, ordinary for a person, he cannot notice a serious difference between people. However, more serious reproaches are and have been made in relation to Alexander. Thrifty old people treated the emperor with reproach and condemnation, seeing how, in dreams of all kinds of constitutions, about the unrealizable freedom and happiness of mankind, in the name of the abstract common good of people, the young idealist easily squandered the wealth of his native nest over the centuries, the isolation of Finland, the kingdom of Poland, was carried out, wars were waged that were not justified by national interests. And to this day one can hear, and undoubtedly will always hear, reproaches to Alexander for his lack of state egoism, for sacrificing his own state interests for the sake of the ephemeral human good. The feeling is natural and human! However, the historian of the Church will not begin to evaluate the views and actions of Emperor Alexander from the point of view of political or state interests and benefits, to calculate how many extra square miles the sovereign acquired for his empire, how many millions he collected into its treasury... Already in the last years of the reign of Alexander I, criminal plans of a certain part of society began to be discovered from time to time, aimed at the forcible implementation of the constitutional principles once conceived by the emperor himself, but then abandoned by him, against the autocracy. When Alexander was once informed about the many conspirators who had been discovered, he, after a difficult, painful thought, replied: “It’s not for me to punish!” When news of Alexander's death in Taganrog arrived in St. Petersburg on November 27, restless elements immediately arose. The circumstances were extremely favorable for the turmoil. Alexander had no offspring left, the throne should have passed, according to the law, to Alexander’s eldest brother Konstantin, but Konstantin, who was the governor in Warsaw, was not capable of governing the state by nature, and, in addition, having divorced his wife, he married a Polish woman in Warsaw, Countess Grudzinskaya, who received the title of Princess Łowicz, and lost royal rights for his offspring. As a result, Alexander arranged for Constantine to abdicate the throne in favor of his third brother, Nicholas, who was seventeen years younger than Constantine. Constantine willingly abdicated the throne and never dreamed of occupying it, but Nicholas did not know anything about this, and the act of this, in the form of a manifesto on August 16, 1823, was kept secret: the original in Moscow, in the Assumption Cathedral, copies in the Synod and in the Senate, under seals. Only three loyal subjects knew about this: Archbishop Filaret of Moscow, Prince Golitsyn and Arakcheev. For some reason, Alexander kept this act a deep secret. One historian suggests that Alexander did not announce Constantine’s abdication because he intended, along with the announcement of Constantine’s abdication, to lay down the burden of the crown and transfer the throne to Nicholas 252. Be that as it may, when, before leaving for Taganrog, Alexander Golitsyn advised him to reveal the secret of the act, in case of any possibility on a long journey, Alexander did not agree to this and after a short silence, pointing his hand to the sky, he said: “let’s rely on God for this - He will arrange everything better than us, weak mortals.” When the news of the death of the sovereign came to St. Petersburg, everyone, including Nicholas himself, swore allegiance to Constantine. When he found out about this, he categorically confirmed his previous renunciation, but since the distance between St. Petersburg and Warsaw was not close, and there were no railways and telegraphs yet, more than two weeks of an uncertain situation was enough time for the unrest to grow into an open rebellion, when the conspirators did not think about appearing on the square of the winter palace with their demands on December 14, the day appointed to take the oath to Nicholas. Since the conspirators were, in general, an insignificant handful and their entire conspiracy was the fruit of an invention of heads cut off from the people with their dearest traditions by which they live and are happy, the rebellion was pacified in a few hours, and by the evening of December 14, 1825, the powerful figure of Emperor Nicholas I appeared on the throne of the Russian Empire. St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg Part 2. Nikolaev time Chapter I. Emperor Nicholas I Childhood and upbringing of Nicholas I. – Impressions of youth. - The character of the sovereign in his reign. – Influence on church life. Nicholas I was born on June 25, 1796. On the same day, Catherine II wrote to one of her foreign friends: “today at 3 o’clock in the morning my mother gave birth to a huge boy, who was named Nikolai. His voice is bass and he screams amazingly. It is an arshin long minus two inches, and its hands are only slightly smaller than mine. This is the first time in my life that I have seen such a hero. If he continues as he began, the brothers will find themselves dwarfed by this colossus.” After 10 days, she writes: “The hero Nikolai has been eating porridge for 3 days because he keeps asking for food. I believe that an eight-day-old child has never enjoyed such a treat; this is unheard of. The nannies just drop their hands in surprise. If this continues, I believe that after six weeks we will have to wean him. He looks at everyone with wide eyes, holds his head straight and turns no worse than me.” These poetic lines from the insightful empress give an apt description of Nicholas I, as he remained throughout his life. As a child, Nikolai had a great influence on his nanny, the Scottish woman Lyon, a woman of courageous, firm, noble character. Always remembering her with gratitude, Nikolai called her a lioness. But from the age of seven, Nikolai fell into the inept hands of a teacher, a general, and, later recalling the time of his studies and his teacher, Nikolai said: “God is his judge for the poor education that this obnoxious man gave me and my brother Mikhail.” During lessons from incapable teachers, the grand dukes mostly dozed off, drew, generally did unrelated things, and “for the exam they learned something in a boring way without fruition or benefit for the future.” The teacher of the law was no different from his comrades. Emperor Nicholas later said, in 1847, recalling his childhood: “in terms of religion, my children were better off than us, who were taught only to be baptized at a certain time of mass, and to recite various prayers by heart, without caring about what was happening in our souls.” Since childhood, Nikolai loved drawing and music, but especially loved everything military, and only perfectly studied geometry, feeling a great inclination towards the art of engineering. In 1817, he married the daughter of the Prussian king Frederick William III, Louise-Charlotte-Wilhelmina, who was named Alexandra Feodorovna after accepting Orthodoxy; at the wedding ball he was appointed inspector general of the corps of engineers and immediately took up his favorite work with the greatest zeal. In his early youth after the Twelfth Year, he became acquainted with Europe while traveling. Later he rode (he loved to ride fast) all over Russia. And everywhere he left behind unforgettable impressions. Both the figure and the address breathed with royal power. Anyone who saw him once could not forget him. Everyone knew him, and abroad more than once, without thinking at all about his purpose, they called him “a real king.” “Totally devoted to the sense of his duty,” “too strict towards himself and towards others,” in the St. Petersburg intelligentsia, full of romanticism of the Alexander century, he, according to contemporaries, “did not attract hearts to himself” and “was not loved at all”: for them he was too uncommunicative, cold, too strict and stern, without a kind smile and a friendly bow, with one demand from everyone what was due in a strict look. In any case, “no one knew, no one thought about its purpose.” And Emperor Nicholas I remained as strict and somewhat stern as he had been before, was invariably straightforward, did not tolerate intrigue, ambiguity, compromise, half-measures, waiting, sentimentality, was a true knight of duty and service, loved harmony, uniformity, order. Completely definite in his entire makeup, he demanded the same complete definiteness from others. The principles themselves received greater definition. Peter’s motto “for faith, tsar and fatherland” was understood and received the expression in a new form: “Orthodoxy, autocracy, nationality.” Nikolai was unaware of the doubt that always gnaws at the soul of humanity. He courageously dealt with the rebels on Senate Square on December 14, 1825, knightly crushed Turkey in 1828, pacified the Polish rebellion twice - once within Russia, the other even abroad, within Austria, conquered the Caucasus, built fortresses, highways, bridges, barracks, institutes, boarding houses, various government buildings, palaces, and even created a special type Nikolaev buildings with their grandeur of size, extraordinary strength of the walls and simplicity of appearance. The first complete collection of the laws of the empire and the first edition of their code belonged to his reign. Any order could choose his name as its motto. When, towards the end of his life, fate sent him a test, and he could not cope with the coalition of Western European powers that attacked Russia on the Black Sea, near Sevastopol, he did not survive this, went to bed, and two weeks later this tireless sovereign knight committed suicide. The sovereign died of the flu, in full consciousness, having confessed and received communion and said goodbye to his august family. In his will, he wrote: “I was a man with all the weaknesses to which people are subject; I tried to improve in what I knew was bad about myself; In some cases I was successful, in others I was not. I sincerely ask you to forgive me. I die with a grateful heart for all the good that God was pleased to reward me with in this transitory world, with ardent love for our glorious Russia, which I served, in my utmost understanding, with faith and truth; I regret that I could not produce the good that I desired.” He expressed the desire to his son and heir to “establish Russia on the solid foundation of the fear of God.” Living under the roar of European revolutions, having ascended the throne during the outbreak of rebellion, Nicholas I was imbued with the conviction that by the will of God he was called to be the leader of the monarchical movement against the impending revolution. This conviction became the dominant motive in his thoughts and guidance in his actions. With the accession of Nicholas I, the cosmopolitanism that dominated during Alexander's time will come to an end. The life of the state took a different path, a new era began. The character of the sovereign, which gave color to the thirty-year period of “Nicholas’ time,” was reflected in a very noticeable influence on church life. And here the immediate tasks became duty, uniformity and order, the distinctive nature of the activity was an irresistible energy that did not inquire about other people’s desires or moods. Once, in 1847, Emperor Nicholas I very characteristically told cadets graduating as officers: “serve as your ancestors served; climb where they tell you to, and climb in such a way that others will climb after you!” The sovereign’s particular zeal for church affairs was caused by his piety: he strictly observed church regulations, did not begin a single important task without prayer and blessing, did not miss a single church service if possible, took off his cap when the church bell rang and crossed himself with concentration; “He was often seen fervently praying alone, in the silent darkness.” Like Alexander I, he knew the unsightly aspects of our social and state life of that time, theft, slander, covetousness, and, like Alexander, he was full of dreams of establishing truth, justice, honesty, contentment: he only followed a different path in realizing his dream 253. Of the various aspects of church life, the influence of the new emperor most affected the following: the spread of Orthodoxy, spiritual education and the life of the clergy. Chapter II. Spread of Orthodoxy among foreigners The work of missionary work during the reign of Nicholas I. – New missions among foreigners. – Study of foreign languages ​​by clergy. – Instructions to missionaries. - Benefits for the newly baptized. – Missionary figures: Archimandrite Veniamin Smirnov, Archimandrite Makariy Glukharev, Eminence Nil Isakovich, Archpriest John Veniaminov. – Missionary successes in the Caucasus. – Benefits for newly baptized Jews. - Affairs of foreign missions. In missionary work, the reign of Nicholas I is characterized by increased energy, clarity of vision and increased benefits from the state. Of the general orders of the highest authorities on this subject, the following are noteworthy. In 1828, when mass apostasy of foreigners from the Orthodox Church was discovered, the highest approved resolution of the Holy Synod decreed that “in those parts of the state where people live who have not known Christianity, or who have converted, but are not sufficiently established in the right faith, special missionaries should be established.” After this, special missions began to appear: in 1830 in the Kazan diocese, then in other dioceses along the Volga: in Vyatka, Perm, Samara, Orenburg; in Siberia: in 1830 Altai, in 1832 Obdorsk, in 1838 Buryat, in 1844 Kondinskaya - for preaching among the Kondinsky Ostyaks, in 1850 - Turukhanskaya in the Yenisei diocese. And in 1829 and 1830, the synod drew attention to the importance of appointing priests who knew local languages ​​to newly baptized foreigners, and only, strictly speaking, would it be possible for pastors to instruct and confirm their flock in the Christian faith and life. As a result of the latter, teaching of foreign languages ​​was introduced in many seminaries, and subsequently, in 1854, even a special anti-Muslim department was established at the Kazan Academy, necessary for the needs of the Kazan region. Among the seminaries where foreign languages ​​were taught, the following are known: Kazan, Nizhny Novgorod, Vyatka, Penza, Perm, Orenburg, Vologda, Don, Samara, Saratov, Simbirsk, Ufa, Tambov, Astrakhan, Caucasus. The leadership of missionaries and priests of foreign parishes more than once provided instructions defining their responsibilities and method of action. The instruction drawn up by Kazan Archbishop Filaret Amfitheatrov, later Metropolitan of Kyiv, and approved by the Holy Synod in 1829–1830 deserves the greatest attention. In 1830, the government, on the initiative of the Saratov governor, promised the Kalmyks various benefits when they converted to Christianity: exemption from taxes and duties for ten years, allotment of land, thirty dessiatines per family, cash benefits - fifty rubles for families and twenty-five for single families 254 . For baptized Kalmyk children, a school was established in Tsaritsyn in 1838, and a camp church was established for nomadic Astrakhan Kalmyks in 1853. Services in the Kalmyk language have been performed since 1848. The translation of sacred books into the Tatar language has been carried out at the Kazan Academy since 1847. In 1833, on the initiative of the synod, the highest order was issued to appoint three missionary priests to the Transbaikal parishes in the Irkutsk diocese, so that they would exclusively be engaged in preaching the word of God to local foreigners. The missionaries' salaries were set at 300 and 400 rubles 255. The reign of Nicholas I was fortunate in the missionary field in that it produced several remarkable figures in the missionary field, who left a lasting memory. These were: Archimandrites Veniamin Smirnov and Makariy Glukharev, Eminence Nil Isakovich, Archpriest John Veniaminov. Archimandrite Veniamin worked in the north of European Russia, among the Samoyeds. An Arkhangelsk native by birth, he spent his first years serving in the Arkhangelsk seminary, where he was a prefect; reign The mission opened its operations at the end of 1825. The archimandrite, with several clergy and secular persons, traveled through the tundra, looking for Samoyed nomads, crushing and burning idols, erecting a cross everywhere and preaching in Russian and Samoyed. He managed to find the main idol of the Samoyeds on the island of Vaygach, surrounded by other four hundred idols, and destroyed them all. The main destination of the mission was the city of Mezen. Archimandrite Benjamin translated the Gospel, the Acts of the Apostles, the Council Epistles and the first three letters of the Holy Apostle Paul, the catechism, some prayers and rules into Samoyed, and compiled a grammar and dictionary of the Samoyed language. By 1830, over 3,300 Samoyeds had been converted. Three parishes were set up for them, with maintenance from the treasury of 21½ thousand rubles. After this, the task of the separate mission was considered completed, and the mission was abolished in the same 1830. Further missionary work is left to the parish clergy. Archimandrite Veniamin died in 1848 at rest in the Glukhov monastery of the Chernigov diocese. Contemporaries spoke of him as a man of high meekness and piety. It is noteworthy that the missionaries complained about the opposition to them from the Russian settlers, who were afraid of losing their uncontrolled dominance over the dark Samoyeds when they converted to Christianity, after which, naturally, they came under the supervision and protection of spiritual authority 256. Archimandrite Makariy Glukharev was the son of a Vyazemsk priest, received his education at the Smolensk seminary and the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, which he graduated in 1817, began serving as a teacher at the Ekaterinoslav seminary, here in 1818 he became a monk, was for some time an inspector of the seminary, in 1821 he was appointed rector of the Kostroma seminary, three years later he left the theological school service and retired to the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, and in 1825 he moved to the Glinskaya hermitage, Kursk diocese. Archbishop Evgeny Kazantsev, appointed to Tobolsk in 1825, upon arrival in the diocese, found that many of the baptized foreigners had no idea about the Christian faith, they visited churches very rarely, they prayed to idols at home, many did not even know the name of Jesus Christ, and did not know how to depict the sign of the cross on themselves. In addition, there were still many unbaptized foreigners in the diocese. The zealous archpastor 257 thought about leaving the pulpit and going as a missionary to those who do not know the true God, but then he decided that he could do more useful things in the pulpit. At his petition, the Holy Synod established two missions in the Tobolsk diocese: in the north - Obdorsk and in the south - Altai. Since there were no suitable monks for missionary work in the Tobolsk diocese, the bishop made an appeal to the monasteries of European Russia. They responded to the call: from the Glinskaya Hermitage, Archimandrite Macarius in 1829 and from the Borovsk Pafnutievsky Monastery, Hieromonk Macarius in 1831. The latter became the head of the Obdorsk mission, which was opened in 1832. The mission operated among the Samoyeds, Ostyaks and Zyryans, and consisted, in addition to Hieromonk Macarius, of a graduate of the seminary of Luke Voevodsky, who knew the Ostyak language, a novice and an interpreter. In two years, she managed to convert 17 people to Christianity, and then the members of the mission, tired of almost fruitless hard work, asked to be dismissed from their duties. In 1833, the mission was abolished, and three years later Luka Voevodsky was appointed a priest in Obdorsk for missionary purposes. He soon converted up to twenty foreigners to Orthodoxy, began translating liturgical books and prayers into the Ostyak language, translated the Creed, the Decalogue, the Lord's Prayer, one Gospel, and compiled the Ostyak alphabet and dictionary. All this, however, remains in the manuscript. In 1854, at the request of Tobolsk Archbishop Evlampy Pyatnitsky, the Obdorsk mission was restored. The Altai mission, opened in 1830, headed by Archimandrite Macarius, had a completely different fate. The first steps were also difficult. Makariy at first had two employees from the students of the Tobolsk seminary, but soon he was left alone. Then, however, new ones joined: Landyshev, his brother Akaki, followed by others. The Biysk and Kuznetsk districts, then part of the Tobolsk diocese, but soon, in 1835, were transferred to the Tomsk one, were chosen as the area for missionary activity. Up to forty thousand Kalmyks, Kyrgyz, nomadic Tatars, and Teleuts lived here. The mission with its traveling church moved from place to place and spread Christianity. Macarius soon translated the Lord's Prayer, the 10 Commandments, the Gospels of Matthew and John, a short sacred history, the rite of confession, the rite of baptism, and several psalms into the Altai dialect of the Tatar language. Unlike many others, this mission was in no hurry to baptize foreigners, but first tried to teach and establish them in the faith, tear them out of the conditions of their former wild life and convert them to settled life, organized schools, conducted conversations, helped in organizing the household, even opened a hospital - in a word, they carried Christian culture with the Orthodox faith. On the occasion of the famine in Altai, Archimandrite Macarius traveled to Moscow and St. Petersburg in 1839 and, returning in 1840, established a women’s community with the goal of spreading through it not only faith, but also Russian culture. Having become in the forefront of the community, taken by Macarius from Moscow, the Frenchwoman Sophia de Valmont, the daughter of an officer killed in the Battle of Borodino, who was educated at the Smolny Institute, announced the newly converted women, and together taught them about farming and all household chores, treated them, led conversations, and readings. Macarius himself conducted the business with extreme dedication, having no funds, donating even his master’s salary to the mission. At the age of 13, the mission had converted about 650 people to Christ. It was a small grain, but it promised good fruit. In 1844, Archimandrite Macarius, due to poor health, left the mission and received abbot of the Bolkhov monastery. This famous educator died here on May 18, 1847 with the words: “the light of Christ enlightens everyone” 258. The missionary activity of the Right Reverend Neil Isakovich 259 belongs to the Irkutsk diocese. The Eminence received the Irkutsk see in 1838. The ground here for missionary activity was already prepared. Since 1821, a Transbaikal mission led by priest Alexander Bobrovnikov, who compiled a Mongolian grammar, operated, although, due to lack of funds, it had little success. In 1883, as already mentioned, three positions of special missionaries were established for foreigners of the Irkutsk diocese. In 1834, a priest who knew the Mongol-Buryat language was found and assigned as a missionary. The Chikoi monastery also arose for missionary purposes on the border of China, under the leadership of Hieromonk Varlaam. In 1844, Bishop Nil requested the establishment of two camp missionary churches for the Yakut region. Each church was assigned two missionary priests and two clergy. In 1848, a missionary church with a movable antimension was built for the Chukchi in the Chukotka land. There was a mission in Transbaikalia, and preaching was carried out in other places of the diocese. In 1851, for missionary purposes, the Bishop established the Nilo-Stolbensky hermitage on the Mongolian border at the foot of the Sayan ridge. He himself studied the Mongol-Buryat language and, with the help of the Buryat archpriest Nikolai Dorzhev, was engaged in translations and editing of translations made by others. All this contributed to the fact that cases of baptism were frequent: during the 15 years of the reign of the Most Reverend Nile, up to 20,000 Buryats were baptized. Attention was paid to encourage the most influential foreigners to be baptized. In 1853, the bishop moved to Yaroslavl, but continued to work on his favorite task of translating sacred and liturgical books into the Mongol-Buryat language. In 1854, translations of the liturgy, vespers, matins, rites of baptism, communion, confession, betrothal, wedding and blessing of water were already printed, the Service Book and the most important parts of the Breviary were lithographed, translations of the Book of Hours, the Easter service and partly the Gospel were prepared. Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna Archpriest John Veniaminov, monk Innocent 260, was the son of the sexton of the Irkutsk diocese Eusebius Popov, he received his education at the Irkutsk seminary, where he was given the surname Veniaminov, in memory of the Irkutsk bishop Veniamin who died around that time, and after completing the seminary course he was a priest in Irkutsk, then a missionary priest on the islands Unalaska since 1824 and Sitkha since 1884. On Unalaska he built a church and a school. On this island lived foreigners who spoke the Aleut-Lisev dialect. Father John studied this dialect, compiled an ABC book, a grammar, and laid the foundation for translations. The Koloshi lived on Sith. And their language was studied by a zealous missionary. Instructing foreigners in the Christian faith, Father John at the same time instilled in them the rudiments of culture: he taught them literacy, skills, and smallpox vaccination. In 1839, he undertook a trip to St. Petersburg to work on improving missionary work, here he personally reported on his affairs to the synod; published several articles about Siberian foreigners in newspapers and magazines, as well as the famous brochure “Indicating the Path to the Kingdom of Heaven”, attracted rare universal attention and received an archpriest; traveled to Moscow and met Metropolitan Philaret, who said of him that there was “something apostolic” in him. Meanwhile, his wife died in Irkutsk. When news of this reached Moscow, Metropolitan Philaret began to persuade Father Veniaminov to accept monasticism. After much thought, Father John heeded these convictions and was tonsured by Philaret himself, on November 29, 1840, in St. Petersburg, in the Church of the Trinity Metochion, with the name Innocent. On November 30, the day the sovereign approved the synodal report on Innocent's project on the restoration of the Kamchatka diocese, Innocent was elevated to archimandrite, on December 1 he was presented to the sovereign, and on the same day he was appointed bishop of the newly discovered Kamchatka diocese. His mind is highly administrative, he continuously sent from Kamchatka to the synod projects on the better organization of missionary and church affairs in general in the vast region of which he was the archpastor and which he studied excellently, and, although slowly and with difficulty, he achieved the goal. The department was in the city of Novoarkhangelsk on the island of Sitkha. Having become the imperious leader of the missions he himself created, the bishop expanded the work of missionary work. In 1844, new missions were opened: Nushegak, Kenai, and in 1845, Kvikhpak. Under Nicholas I, the Caucasus was flooded with a wave of muridism, a religious doctrine preached by Mullah Muhammad and demanding from his followers kazavat, that is, a holy war against the “infidels” - Christians, unconditional obedience to the imam - the highest clergyman and complete renunciation of everything earthly. The fanatical rebellious unrest of the Caucasian highlanders, which began under Alexander I, continued throughout the reign of Nicholas I, and the Caucasus for a long time became a place where Russian military men went to sharpen their bayonets and sabers. However, despite this, during the reign of Nicholas I, the Ossetian commission, from 1886, managed to count up to 20,000 highlanders converted to Orthodoxy. For newly converted Jews during the reign of Nicholas I, it was established, by the highest approval of the Committee of Ministers in 1842, to issue cash benefits, from 15 to 80 rubles per capita, it was supposed to release them from their previous salary with the assignment of new citizenship rights; at the same time, it was established that when the father of the family is baptized, male children under seven years of age must also be baptized, and when a mother is baptized, female children under seven years of age should be baptized 261. Since 1847, newly baptized Jewish soldiers were supposed to be given 7 rubles 15 kopecks as a reward 262. But in 1833, the society of Israeli Christians ceased to exist. The activities of our missions abroad were marked by the annexation of five hundred Manchus in 1888 263 . Chapter III. Reunification of the Uniates Union in Western Russia. – Joseph Semashko. – Preparatory measures for the reunification of the Uniates. - The act of reunification. – Acceptance of the Uniates by the Orthodox Church. – Organization of former Uniate dioceses. – A wave of reunification in the Kholm region. – D.N. Bludov. – Reverend Joseph Semashko. – Reunification of Protestants in the Baltic Sea region and Roman Catholics. In 1839, the reunification of the Western Russian Uniates took place. Union in western Russia was as much a religious phenomenon as it was a political one. Since the Lithuanian-Polish state captured the indigenous Russian regions on the western outskirts, the Latin-Polish government has continuously sought to implant Latinism in them, not only ad maiorem Dei gloriam, but also in order to destroy or undermine the strongest thread connecting the seized regions with great Russia. The Union was only a transitional stage to Roman Catholicism, which was gradually reduced by the successive extermination of the Eastern rite in the Union and the introduction of the Latin. The loss of faith is always followed by the loss of nationality. The imposition of Latinism occurred with violence, often with the help of depriving Orthodox confessors of civil rights. When, under Catherine II, the Western Russian regions were returned to Russia, the uncontrollable desire of the people for reunification with Orthodoxy immediately began. The hot wave of reunification, however, soon cooled down due to strong resistance, developed partly by a fairly deep-rooted tradition, and mainly by very significant local forces of Latinism, which took full advantage of the fact that Catherine’s government, more cosmopolitan than national-religious, in this matter, after the first hours of patronage, immediately completely washed its hands, leaving both sides to fight among themselves: disorderly the spiritual impulse of the peasant people and the strictly disciplined forces of Latinism, and all this under the Russian power, but at the same time under the heavy burden of the economic conditions of serfdom among the Latin landowners. The reigns of Paul and Alexander I suffered from the influence of the Jesuits, and the latter, moreover, like Catherine’s, was most cosmopolitan. But already during the reign of Alexander I, among the Uniate Church, too suppressed by Latinism and Polonism, a desire began for liberation from heavy oppression and for rapprochement with the Eastern Church. This desire was expressed in the struggle of the white Uniate clergy, inspired by the Slavic idea, with the Uniate Basilian order, devoted to the papacy. However, so far only the ground was being prepared, and there was no direct talk about reunification with Orthodoxy. When, with the accession to the throne of Nicholas I, politics became national, the position of the Uniates in western Russia inevitably had to change. The “Organic Statute” of 1882, issued after the pacification of the Polish rebellion of 1830–1831, destroyed the self-government of Poland and its isolation from the empire. This dealt a decisive blow to Polonism. And along with Polonism, as its fruit, the union also lost ground. The soul, or, as he himself put it in the addition to the will, the instrument of the work of reunification, was the Right Reverend Joseph Semashko. Semashko was the son of the owner of fifty acres of land in the Kyiv province, who came from the clergy and was later a Uniate priest, was born in 1798, in the early years he shared the fate of peasant children, being engaged in shepherding, he received his education at the Nemirovsky gymnasium and, like all Uniates, at the Roman Catholic main seminary at the University of Vilna. Both at home, under the guidance of the Orthodox sexton Bochkovsky, and at school, he was brought up under the beneficial influence of the Slavic idea, hostile to Rome. As a child, Semashko attended an Orthodox church, read and sang in the choir with Bochkovsky. Upon completion of the course, in 1820, he was soon appointed Lutsk cathedral preacher, a member of the Lutsk consistory and a professor of theology at the local seminary, in 1821 he was ordained, unmarried, as a priest, in 1822 he received protopresbytery and was appointed to St. Petersburg as an assessor of the Uniate department of the Roman Catholic college from the Lutsk diocese, and thus became the center of government of the Uniate Church. In 1823 he was elevated to canon, and in 1825 to prelate. His soul, by his own admission, was devoted to the Eastern confession and Russia, he was burdened by the union with Rome and obligatory Polonism and was thinking about personal reunification with Orthodoxy. In 1827, he became close to the director of the department of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions, Grigory Ivanovich Kartashevsky, and under his influence presented the government with a report on the plight of the Uniate Church, absorbed by Latinism, and a plan for the liberation of the Uniates from Latin oppression for their reunification with Orthodoxy. The Emperor was sympathetic to the project and wrote about Semashka’s note to the chief administrator of affairs of foreign confessions, Shishkov, who presented it to him: “I read with particular pleasure the note that you sent me. Sharing completely this way of thinking, I rejoice that I accidentally found in the Uniate Church a person who may be able to help us in the work that I am constantly engaged in and, with God’s help, will bring to fruition. You can tell him that I am very pleased that I recognized him.” Semashko soon saw the beginning of his project. Everything was based on strict gradualism. In 1828, the Uniate department was separated from the Roman Catholic theological college into a special Greek-Uniate theological college; measures were taken to ensure that the Uniates did not end up studying with the Latins, which had previously been almost always practiced, and for this purpose, in addition to the already Belarusian one in Polotsk, a new Uniate theological seminary was established in the town of Zhirovitsy, modeled after Orthodox seminaries. The process of returning from the monasteries of the Uniate Basilian Order, devoted to Latinism, to the more devoted to Russia and alien to Latinism to the white clergy, those estates that were once donated to the benefit of the churches, but then seized by the Basilians, has begun. After the Polish rebellion of 1830–1831, largely supported by the priests and Basilians, a strong blow was dealt to the main force of Latinism in the union - the Basilian order, almost half of whose monasteries were, however, not immediately, but gradually, either closed or transferred to the Orthodox for participation in the rebellion. At this time, in October 1831, the famous Pochaev Lavra with the relics of St. Job and the miraculous icon of the Mother of God was transferred to the Orthodox, among other monasteries. The separation of the union from Roman Catholicism was carried out with persistence. Roman Catholics were evicted from the surviving Basilian monasteries, where they were already accustomed to living at home. Uniate priests are prohibited from being vicars in Roman Catholic churches. Uniates are prohibited from living in Roman Catholic monasteries. Archpastors recognized as outstanding in their abilities were appointed to the episcopal departments of the Orthodox Western dioceses, seminarians of purely Russian education were called to priestly positions in the Western dioceses, and the best students of Western seminaries were sent for higher education to the St. Petersburg and Moscow academies. The Lutsk Uniate diocese was closed, then the Brest diocese, after which only two Uniate dioceses remained - Lithuanian and Belarusian. In 1833, the ancient Polotsk Orthodox diocese was restored. The civil authorities, aware of the highest will, contributed in every possible way to the cause of reunification. Under the influence of all these measures, the zealous Polotsk Bishop Smaragd Kryzhanovsky began a partial reunification of individual parishes and individuals in his diocese. But the main leader of the reunification, Semashko, rebelled against this, arguing that when those most inclined to Orthodoxy are individually reunited in parts, then the common cause will be deprived of the most reliable element, and the hesitant and timid, when the time for general reunification comes, not seeing a mass example before them, will begin to persist, or, in any case, will not dare to take the first step. The Emperor agreed with this argument. Meanwhile, since 1834, the Eastern Russian rite was gradually restored: instead of Uniate ones, liturgical books of the Moscow press were introduced, iconostases that had disappeared from them were restored in Uniate churches, church utensils and clothes of the Orthodox Russian rite were introduced, displacing Latin ones, even some of the Orthodox priests were allowed to serve in Uniate ones churches. Church documents are required to be kept in Russian. All this gradually, and therefore little noticeable for current life, moved the union away from Latinism and Poland and brought it closer to Orthodoxy and Russia. In 1829, Semashko was ordained in St. Petersburg as bishop of Mstislav, vicar of the Polotsk archdiocese, and the sovereign granted him Orthodox bishop's vestments; in 1883 he received an independent Lithuanian department. In 1835, when it seemed that the Uniates were already sufficiently prepared for reunification and only the Orthodox were not yet prepared for their acceptance, according to the thoughts of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, he established in St. Petersburg a special secret committee on Uniate affairs to “agree on the rules regarding the mutual relations of the Greek-Russian and Greek-Uniate Churches” and prepare measures for the successful progress of the Uniate affairs, with a special, even most secret, department of Metropolitan Philaret, Bishop Joseph Semashka, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Nechaev and Minister of Internal Affairs Bludov, for preliminary discussion and agreement on the most important measures. In 1835, Uniate children were allowed to enter Orthodox theological schools; by the highest decree of December 19, 1835, all Uniate schools were subordinated to the authority of the commission of theological schools, and Uniate Metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak and Bishop Joseph Semashko were made members of the commission; since 1837, the management of the affairs of the Uniate Church was transferred from the Ministry of Internal Affairs chief prosecutor of the synod. His Grace Joseph repeatedly went to inspect both Uniate dioceses and personally significantly prepared the matter of reunification. In short, the cause of reunification moved forward with decisive steps. Not encouraged, but not prohibited either, individual reunions found here and there paved the way for a general reunion. From 1833 to 1837, up to 150,000 Uniates were reunited, all the rest were also already prepared. When in 1838 the Uniate Metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak and the Pinsk Bishop Josaphat Zharsky, who did not sympathize with the reunification, died, the Uniate church power passed into the hands of the three remaining Uniate bishops - persons who sympathized with the reunification. The governor of the Polotsk diocese was Bishop Vasily Luzhinsky of Orsha, 264 who had previously been a vicar here. In the Lithuanian diocese, the vicar was an active supporter of reunification, the Reverend Anton Zubko. Bishop of Lithuania Semashko was appointed chairman of the Greek-Uniate College. For greater success of the matter, before the decisive moment, it was decided to remove all the few unreliable elements from among the clergy: clergy who did not sympathize with the reunification and incited others against it were evicted to the provinces of inner Russia. Written statements were required from the clergy expressing their desire to reunite with Orthodoxy. And when it was documented that the vast majority of the clergy wanted reunification, a council of the Uniate clergy was drawn up in Polotsk on February 12, 1839, the week of Orthodoxy, headed by all three Uniate bishops and with the participation of the Orthodox Bishop of Polotsk Isidor Nikolsky, later the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, and here the act of reunification was signed. In the act, the representatives of the union said: “we decided to firmly and invariably recognize again the unity of our Church with the Orthodox-Catholic Eastern Church and therefore to remain from now on together with the flocks entrusted to us in unanimity with the most holy Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and in obedience to the most holy governing All-Russian Synod.” On this day, all three bishops served a thanksgiving prayer together and remembered only the Orthodox patriarchs. On February 16, they all went to Vitebsk, where His Grace Isidore Nikolsky arranged for them to meet with the clergy in his cathedral, with ringing and vestments, with the cross and singing, and after the many years of the synod, many years were proclaimed to the arriving visitors. The act was brought by His Eminence Joseph to St. Petersburg and presented to the Synodal Chief Prosecutor Protasov with two all-submissive petitions: one for permission to join the Orthodox Church, the other for lenient permission for the reuniting Uniates to retain for the time being some deep-rooted Western customs that are not contrary to the unity of faith. The Emperor referred the matter to the synod. The act of reunification was heard and adopted by the Synod on March 6, and then the consent of the synod was approved by the sovereign, who on March 25, 1889, on the Annunciation, put on the act of the synod, or “synodal act,” the inscription: “I thank God and accept.” These words reflected the closeness to the heart and the ardent participation that the sovereign showed in relation to the matter of reunification. All Uniate clergy who expressed a desire to reunite were over 1,300, of this number two thirds in the Lithuanian Uniate diocese and one third in the Belarusian; those who did not wish to be reunited at that time numbered up to 600, and in the last figure there were many ordinary elderly people who were not bothered by the survey. As for the Uniate “people,” they, in the words of His Eminence Joseph, “with very few exceptions, are almost” in these days, “as they were before their conversion to the union, and will be Orthodox, just as their shepherds will soon be Orthodox,” therefore, formal consent to reunification was not sought from the parishioners, as such consent was unnecessary and essentially pointless. Joseph Semashko, Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna On March 30, 1839, the Right Reverend Joseph was solemnly introduced into the meeting of the Holy Synod, here the highest permission for reunification was announced to him, the blessed charter of the synod was presented to the reunited bishops with their flocks, and a fraternal kiss was given by the members of the synod, as well as by representatives of the Orthodox Russian Church. After this, a prayer of thanksgiving was performed in the synodal church by all members of the synod in concelebration with His Grace Joseph, who had now been elevated to the rank of archbishop. In memory of the reunion, a medal was stamped with the inscription: “those separated by violence - 1596 - reunited by love - 1839.” Setting off through western Russia to his diocese from St. Petersburg in May 1839, Metropolitan of Kiev Filaret Amfitheatrov already served everywhere in former Uniate churches and was greeted as his boss. Following him, His Grace Joseph rode and performed solemn services in ancient Orthodox churches. According to the accepted rule of gradualism, the management of the former Uniate Church was left as before at first, and only in October was there a nationwide announcement of reunification through a Senate decree. Then the Greek-Uniate collegium was renamed the Belarusian-Lithuanian collegium, subordinate to the synod 265. Then the parishes of the former Uniate dioceses, which were located in the territories of Orthodox dioceses, were included in the latter, and an Orthodox one was formed from the Lithuanian Uniate diocese. In 1843, the Belarusian-Lithuanian collegium was also abolished, 266 after which the reunited Uniate dioceses, in terms of their administration, were no longer different from Orthodox Russian dioceses. Following the first joiners, those who hesitated followed, so that after February 12, 1839, the number of those who declared a desire to reunite increased significantly, the number of parishes increased to 1,607, and parishioners to 1,600,000 souls. The wave of reunification spread from western Russia to the Kholm region, and here in 1842 the parish of the church in the village of Babic, Lublin province, consisting of 1,884 people, converted to Orthodoxy. But in general, in the Kholm region, the reunification had an unfavorable effect: under the pressure of intensified Latin propaganda here, a lot of seductions appeared, and the number of Uniates was reduced by two hundred thousand. The Holy Synod supplied the reunited churches with peace, antimensions, and liturgical books. Of the persons who most contributed to the reunification, it is necessary to mention Dmitry Nikolaevich Bludov, who from 1828 managed the affairs of foreign confessions, first as a fellow minister of public education, and then, from 1842, as the minister of internal affairs, and the management of these affairs was transferred from the Ministry of Public Education to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Right Reverend Joseph, having completed the work of reunification, left St. Petersburg forever in 1884, to which he returned only once more, in the winter of 1859–1860 to attend the synod, settled in his diocese, transferred the diocesan administration from Zhirovitsy to Vilna in 1845 and devoted the rest of the quarter century of his life to the internal structure of the Orthodox Lithuanian diocese. In 1847 he received the title of member of the synod, in 1852 he received the rank of metropolitan, and in 1856, at the coronation, the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called. The saint died on November 23, 1868 and was buried in a coffin he had prepared for himself under the cave of the holy Vilna martyrs, in the church of the Holy Spirit Monastery in Vilna 267. The reunification of the Uniates also affected other heterodox confessions in Russia. In 1841, under the Bishop of Riga, vicar of the Pskov diocese, Irinarch Popov, a mass movement towards Orthodoxy began to be discovered among the Protestant population of the Baltic region. It was soon suppressed by the organized efforts of the local German nobility and pastors, who managed to give this movement the character of popular unrest, but in 1845, under the Reverend Philaret Gumilevsky and thanks to his activities, it opened again. By 1848, up to 63,000 Estonians and up to 39,000 Latvians were considered to have joined Orthodoxy here. Several new parishes were opened for them and Orthodox churches were built; a theological school was opened in Riga in 1846, teaching local languages. Local languages, in addition, were studied in the Pskov seminary, since 1842, and Estonian also in St. Petersburg - since 1846. In 1848, the Lutheran force managed to weaken and then completely stop the movement towards Orthodoxy 268, despite the fact that here, first as a vicar, and then as an archbishop, after the opening of an independent Riga diocese in 1850, such a major church figure as the Right Reverend Platon Gorodetsky, later Metropolitan of Kiev 269, appeared here. The number of Roman Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy in the western region in 1840 immediately rose from the usual annual two thousand to seven and a half, and the next year it grew to twelve and a half, then, gradually decreasing, again returned to the usual norm. The total number of Protestant conversions was in 1845, instead of the usual five hundred, 14,500, in the next 88,000, in 1847 55,000, in the next 9,000, then there was a sharp drop to the previous norm of 270. Chapter IV. Preservation of Orthodoxy Freedom of religion in the empire. - Laws. – The government’s attitude towards sectarians and schismatics. – Measures for the conversion of Old Believers. - Unity of faith. The reign of Emperor Nicholas I, with its characteristic clarity of relations, shaded the dominant position of the Orthodox faith in the empire and categorically clarified the state meaning of the freedom of religion granted in Russia by laws. In the previous reign there was a tendency to understand freedom in the sense of equality. The view, of course, is erroneous, for history knows many “bitter experiences confirming that freedom does not depend on equality and that equality is not freedom at all.” “It would be the same mistake to assume that the equation of Churches and beliefs before the state consists and freedom of belief itself depends on the equation. The whole history of recent times proves that here, too, freedom and equality are not the same thing and that freedom does not depend at all on equality” 271. From a state point of view, freedom in the sense of equality and unhinderedness is, of course, a mistake, which would mean nothing more than a rejection of all culture. If children are given complete freedom in the sense of equal strength of all their aspirations, then the vast majority of children will grow up to be ignoramuses and robbers. An apple tree without grafting turns into a wild rose, a rose without pruning does not produce flowers and degenerates into a rose hip. All life is structured in such a way that it requires continuous attentive education, that is, various restrictions, constraints, cuts, restraint. World happiness is based on self-restraint and self-sacrifice. The state, having at its disposal the mind accumulated over centuries, educates childhood and ignorance on its basis, and cannot put it on the same scale with an individual young mind, always somewhat violent, no matter how genius it sometimes shines - simply out of caution, so as not to lose the efforts of centuries of work in pursuit of a deceptive swamp light. According to the laws compiled in the time of Nicholas, all people of other faiths in the empire were granted everywhere the free exercise of their faith and worship; but every faith, except the Orthodox, is strictly limited by the limits of its available confessors: those of other faiths are strictly obliged not to touch the convictions of the conscience of those not belonging to their religion, otherwise they are subject to penalties; it is only allowed, and then with the permission of the state authorities, to accept into another faith from the infidels, i.e. Jews, Mohammedans, pagans; All Orthodox Christians are prohibited from accepting another faith, even a Christian one, under threat of criminal liability. Since 1832, the management of affairs of non-Orthodox confessions was transferred from the Ministry of Public Education, in which it had been located since the time of the spiritual ministry of Prince Golitsyn, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, under which a special department was formed for this purpose, spiritual affairs of foreign confessions. The Roman Catholic Church was given a state structure by a special treaty with Rome, or the papal concordat in 1847, and all relations with Rome were allowed to be conducted only through the Ministry of the Interior. The leaders of the sectarianism of Alexander's time have now found their final fate. Kotelnikov in 1826 was sent from the Shlisselburg fortress to Siberia, where in 1850 he died in repentance. Tatarinova’s union was destroyed, all her followers were sent to different monasteries, and since 1837 she herself was imprisoned in the Kashin Sretensky monastery, from where ten years later, due to harmlessness, she was released. Many mystical and Masonic books were to be burned in 1845. The Khlysts were persecuted. Skoptchestvo was recognized as a harmful sect, and by decrees of the thirties and forties, just being a member of it was threatened with criminal prosecution. In 1830, the Doukhobors and Molokans sects were also declared harmful, with whose followers the previous reign fought as if under patronage: namely, to suppress the Doukhobor and Molokan propaganda, the Doukhobors and Molokans were evicted to the wonderful steppe places of the Tauride province, and they were given from the treasury 15 dessiatinas per capita, a tax exemption for 5 years and a loan for moving. Under Nicholas I, such eviction of the Doukhobors and Molokans was stopped, but instead, the eviction began to the border line beyond the Caucasus, also to wonderful fertile places, where both the Doukhobors and Molokans of the Taurida province, over 4,000 people, were soon transferred. These evictions were aimed at protecting the Orthodox from sectarian propaganda. The measures of Nicholas's reign in relation to the Old Believers exude a certain severity. The word schismatic was restored in official documents. True, existing schismatics were not forbidden to either maintain their faith or perform their rituals. But these rituals were not given legal significance. Schismatic societies were not recognized as legal and, therefore, they were not given the right to receive inheritances or make donations. Dissenters were deprived of the right to hold public positions, receive orders and medals, enroll in merchant guilds, and could only trade with a temporary license. The right to obtain passports for absences was limited for them. The prohibition to build new prayer buildings was confirmed, even repairing them was prohibited; from 1832, the maintenance of fugitive priests, permitted by the decree of 1822, and any public display of schism was prohibited. Charitable schismatic institutions were ordered either to be closed or added to the orders of public charity. There was even an order to baptize schismatic children in Orthodox churches. The decrees against fugitive priests, which resulted in the impoverishment of the priesthood among the Old Believers, prompted the latter to apply special persistence to the fulfillment of a long-standing dream - the establishment of their own hierarchy. A long and persistent search for an “ancient Orthodox” bishop through the wilds of the Caucasus, Syria, Palestine, and Egypt ended with the discovery in Constantinople of a Bosnian metropolitan, the Greek Ambrose, deprived of his see, who was brought in 1846 to Belaya Krinitsa, here smeared with oil, and in 1847 installed two bishops for the schismatics. At the request of the Russian government, the very next year he was sent away to live a hopeless life in the city of Zill in Styria, and his cathedral monastery in Belaya Krinitsa was sealed. All these measures had mainly one goal: the creation of unity and order. And most often the means used to achieve such a goal corresponded to the goal. But when in the religious sphere such words as constraint and curbing were constantly heard, it was too harsh, as the best representatives of the Church, such as Philaret of Moscow 272, pointed out in their time. Along with measures of an external and, so to speak, coercive nature, other measures were also practiced during the reign of Nicholas I, especially towards the end of his reign. Since 1853, special departments for the study of schism began to be established at theological seminaries and academies for the preparation of anti-schism missionaries; the next year, for the same purpose, priests from fourteen dioceses infected with schism were called to St. Petersburg to prepare for the anti-schism mission under the leadership of Archbishop of Kazan Grigory Postnikov, who was then sitting in the synod, and later the former Metropolitan of St. Petersburg. The printed controversy with the schism continued, in which the most prominent works were the works of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow - “Conversations to the Verbal Old Believer”, 1886, Archbishop Ignatius - “Conversations about the Imaginary Old Believers”, 1846, and “The Truth of the Holy Solovetsky Monastery”, 1844, Archbishop Grigory Postnikov - “The Truly Ancient and True Orthodox Church of Christ”, 1854. Thanks to the measures of Nicholas's reign directed against the schism, the cause of unity of faith became especially revived. Unity of faith reigned in the Irgiz monasteries, in the Moscow Rogozhsky and Preobrazhensky cemeteries, in Kerzhenets, and spread in Starodubye and in many dioceses. During the 25 years of the reign of Nicholas I, up to 150 Edinoverie churches were built, and many schismatic monasteries were converted into Edinoverie monasteries. Chapter V. Second spiritual educational reform and spiritual education Requirements of the Nicholas time in relation to spiritual education and upbringing. – Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod V.A. Pratasov. – Reform of religious educational institutions. – Abolition of the commission of theological schools and the establishment of the spiritual educational administration. – Women’s schools during the reign of Nicholas I. – From the life of theological academies. – Decree on the participation of the clergy in public education. The direction given to spiritual education by the first spiritual educational reform of the 19th century, undoubtedly, was not entirely sympathetic to Nicholas’s time. It seemed too general, representing excessive scope for initiative and originality, little practical, raising people generally theologically educated and developed, but not prepared for the profession ahead of them as directly and decisively as, for example, officers prepared for command in the cadet corps, when the slightest mistake in command, marching, or turn was simply unthinkable and when in relation to professional occupations there could be almost no talk of the best and the worst: everyone was good. Spiritual education achieved the development of the spirit, knowledge, which does not lend itself to accurate and obvious accounting for everyone, and seemed to ignore the development of discipline, skill, and practical adaptability to the direct performance of upcoming duties, so valued in Nicholas’s times. The sovereign’s view on this subject was already partially revealed in 1826, when at the coronation in Moscow the sovereign expressed the desire that for the uniform teaching of the law of God in all educational institutions in general, and especially in military schools, a compulsory textbook on this subject should be compiled, and also that a catechism for military ranks should be compiled. As a result of this sovereign desire, the well-known Philaret’s beginnings of Orthodox teaching appeared the very next year. Soon, by order of the highest, the synod discussed projects on measures to improve the methods of educating spiritual youth 273. These, however, were only symptoms, and events occurred when the sovereign happened to find in the spiritual department an executor who fully corresponded to his aspirations and character in the person of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Count Protasov. Count Nikolai Aleksandrovich Protasov came from a noble family of the Moscow province, was educated at home, according to some sources - under the guidance of a Jesuit, at the age of fifteen, in 1817, he entered the Life Guards Hussar Regiment as a cadet, from 1819 he served as an adjutant, first under Adjutant General Vasilchikov, then under Count Benckendorff and Field Marshal General, Count Dibich-Zabalkansky. In 1831 he was promoted to aide-de-camp. In 1834, with the rank of Colonel of the Life Guards Hussar Regiment, he was appointed a member of the Main Board of Schools, the Main Board of Censorship and the Committee for the Organization of Educational Institutions, and in 1835 - the correcting position of Comrade Minister of Public Education. In the same year, he was entrusted with overseeing the main pedagogical institute and the Rumyantsev Museum, reviewing the Belarusian educational district, and then the immediate management of this district. He was married to the daughter of the Moscow military governor-general, Prince Golitsyn. At the beginning of 1836, the chief prosecutor of the synod, Stepan Dmitrievich Nechaev, who had replaced Prince Meshchersky since April 1833, leaving for the Crimea for the sake of his sick wife and not having anyone from his department to entrust with the administration of his post, asked the sovereign to entrust a report on synodal affairs to Protasov. On February 24, Protasov took up his duties, and conducted the matter in such a way that by the highest decree on June 25, he was appointed chief prosecutor, and Nechaev, who had just returned from vacation, was appointed to attend the Senate with the promotion from active civil servants to privy councilors 274. Prince Golitsyn, who had once himself been dismissed from the post of chief prosecutor almost without warning, now wrote to Philaret in Moscow that on the day of his return, Nechaev, having learned that Protasov had been appointed a member of the commission of theological schools, hastened to send a report to the sovereign about his return, asking for the sovereign's order to take office, and on June 25 received from the manager of the first department of His Majesty's own Taneyev's office, a copy of the decree appointing him as a senator. “Nechaev did not expect this at all” 275. They say that the synod itself, dissatisfied with Nechaev, asked the sovereign, through Metropolitan Seraphim, to appoint Protasov. Many hierarchs, led by Moscow's Filaret, welcomed Protasov's appointment very sympathetically. They were tired of the impersonality and lack of government initiative of Prince Golitsyn’s two successors, and they joyfully welcomed a living person with intelligence, character, talents, and aspirations who had once again appeared at the chief prosecutor’s table. True, later they had to bitterly repent of their delight. The businesslike Protasov entered the ecclesiastical department with the traditions of military education and military discipline. With regard to spiritual education, he found that seminaries were not sufficiently adapted to fulfill their direct goal - to prepare “worthy clergy,” in the vast majority, for rural parishes, that their programs included excesses that were not required by their special purpose, and, on the contrary, at the same time, there was a lack of subjects, the study of which is necessary for future shepherds of the people. Seminarians in schools are not properly acquainted with the church charter, church rules, spiritual laws, and are not even sufficiently familiar with examples from the history of Christian life. Training is conducted in the sphere of abstract general considerations, without practical application to the conditions of real life and activity. Young priests, having graduated from the seminary, do not know how to sing, or read in church, or conduct divine services; They will only make the laity laugh with their ineptitude in their special business: “literate philistines mock them.” The clergy, with their lofty, bookish speech, became alien to the flock: “we don’t understand you,” he said. It cannot be disputed that these remarks were filled with sincerity and sensitivity and were in keeping with the expectations of the best representatives of society. So, for example, Speransky complained that the contemporary sermon of the clergy attached excessive importance to reason and dialectics, only argued with non-believers, but did not edify the believers. For all these reasons, Protasov sought a new transformation of theological schools, convinced that “the entire educational part requires a complete transformation.” But the commission of theological schools steadfastly defended its brainchild and agreed only to the formation of a special committee to revise the textbooks, to which it reduced all the reasons for the shortcomings noticed in the structure of theological education. Not having the habit of stopping before carrying out a task, the benefits of which he was convinced, Protasov did without a commission. In 1838, he independently asked for the highest permission to revise the statutes of theological educational institutions without the help of a commission and theological schools, with the funds and forces of two or three specialists he had designated from the rectors of the seminaries, under his direct supervision. For this purpose, Archimandrite Nikodim Kazantsev, the rector of the Vyatka seminary, was summoned, and, in his own words, at least, with great reluctance, at the insistence of the chief prosecutor, he set to work, constantly running for advice to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who was present in St. Petersburg. Filaret was outraged by this formulation of the reform, admitting that such important tasks cannot be solved with one head, and, sighing heavily, said: “Where are they going? what do they want? He also felt sorry for his creation, which he loved, and he noticed that “truly, nowadays they pay more attention to the shortcomings” of spiritual educational institutions, “than to what is best in them, and from here comes the desire to transform, as anyone thinks, instead of true correction and improvement.” The “majority of the clergy” was also unsympathetic to the transformations, and in this regard, discontent seemed to go even beyond the limit. So, for example, they treated Protasov’s scrupulous demands regarding the cleanliness of students’ premises with irony, and even Filaret himself, regarding Protasov’s ban on opening bedrooms in the St. Petersburg Academy outside the time set for sleep, expressed that “now the students will be fools - they have been deprived of the freedom to dispose of their own room,” and another time, on a different occasion, he wrote: “this century is for an unclean floor or wall condemns the establishment." Having encountered opposition to his transformative intentions in the commission of theological schools, Protasov tried to quickly end it completely. It was presented to the sovereign that the commission “does not achieve its goal with the multitude of heterogeneous matters burdening it, especially economic ones, and when its members are distracted by other, more direct duties of their rank.” And on March 1, 1839, completely unexpectedly for those interested in this matter, the highest decree was issued on the abolition of the commission of theological schools 276. It was recognized as good that “the highest management of the spiritual and educational part, which hitherto had been entrusted to a special commission of theological schools, should be concentrated in the Holy Synod, as in the single main spiritual government of the empire to be entrusted to the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod.” For the direct management of religious and educational institutions, their educational, educational and economic parts, a spiritual and educational administration was established, under the direct command of the chief prosecutor, on the usual clerical basis, with a director at the head, which was opened on April 1, 1839. The director of affairs of the commission of theological schools, Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsky, was appointed director, who held this position for a long time and immediately collected into his own hands the entire management of theological educational institutions. The impression was that the synod retained only the “higher management” of theological educational institutions, which belonged to it previously, and the commission of theological schools, independent of the chief prosecutor, was transferred entirely to the spiritual educational administration, completely subordinated, on a clerical basis, to the chief prosecutor. The famous preacher, the Reverend Innokenty Borisov, wrote in 1839, regarding the establishment of the spiritual educational administration, that it “is a new status in statu,” “a nodule on the body that will draw all the juices into itself and make the whole body lose weight.” Even before the establishment of the spiritual and educational administration, transformations began in religious educational institutions: in 1836, the allocation of money for religious educational institutions was increased by an amount of up to 500,000 rubles; in 1838, it was decided to introduce new sciences into the seminary course - biblical history and the historical teaching of the Fathers of the Church, to strengthen the study of the Holy Scriptures and Russian church history, and to start catechetical conversations on holidays for practical training of seminarians for their upcoming classes. By the beginning of 1840, a project for transforming the seminar program was developed, considered by a committee of rectors, in fact, regarding its practical implementation, and then gradually put into effect, starting in September 1840 and with the Moscow and Kazan spiritual educational districts. The new project introduced a special adaptation of pastoral and conversational theology to the duties of the rural priest, agriculture, land surveying, medicine, and natural history. Since space was required for new subjects, auxiliary general education subjects were reduced. The general direction of the reform was application to life, practicality. The previous system was recognized as being too “mental” and far from life. In some seminaries, teaching of icon painting was introduced, in many, in accordance with the emerging practical need, the teaching of foreign languages. In accordance with the purpose of the transformation, the main attention was now paid to the seminaries, as before to the academies. This had its own meaning: during the training of teachers by the system of 1808, it was necessary to think about the streamlining of their work and its fruits. In order to adapt to the change in the seminary program, changes were also introduced in the academic course: patristics, logic, psychology, pedagogy appeared here, the study of Russian church history was strengthened, and the study of physical and mathematical sciences was made compulsory. It was proposed to connect parish schools with district schools and divide them, following the example of seminaries, into three two-year departments. It was intended, as needed, to open clergy classes with them. At this time, it was discovered that theological educational institutions were overcrowded with students, and the Holy Synod, in 1850, was forced to cancel its decree, made in the previous reign, on the obligation for children of the clergy to study in theological schools. And next year normal staffing levels for students were assigned. The establishment of the first girls' schools of the ecclesiastical department with the same practical purpose belonged to the reign of Nicholas I. Initially, such schools were opened at nunneries and were maintained without benefits from the treasury, using funds from the monasteries and local diocesan funds. Actually, these were not so much schools as shelters for orphaned girls of the clergy and, in addition to training in housekeeping and handicrafts, generally speaking, they barely provided simple literacy, although some, such as in Moscow, established by Metropolitan Philaret, approached the type of educational institutions 277. In 1848, the first girls' theological school with a state staff from spiritual and educational capital was established - in Tsarskoye Selo, under the patronage of the Empress and under the main guardianship of the sovereign's daughter, Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna 278. The goal was set clearly: to prepare worthy spouses and mothers for the clergy. The curriculum included handicrafts and housekeeping. In 1845, the same school was opened in Soligalich, in 1848 it was transferred to Yaroslavl, in 1853 - in Kazan, in 1854 - in Irkutsk. In 1853, the first diocesan girls' theological school was opened, using diocesan funds, and in 1854, the second. At the monasteries there were girls' theological schools by the end of the reign of Nicholas I - 22. In the higher spiritual and educational spheres, the reign of Nicholas I was marked by the completion of the spiritual and educational plan of Alexander's time regarding the opening of a theological academy in Kazan. It was then decided to open the academy in 1818, but due to a lack of teachers, the academy was not opened and the spiritual and educational district assigned for it was subordinated to the Moscow Academy. Now the Kazan Academy had been open since the 1842/1843 academic year, under external conditions so unfavorable that its opening would have been completely unthinkable at any other time: just in the summer of 1842, the whole of Kazan was burning down, there was absolutely no place to locate the academy, this was reported from Kazan to St. Petersburg, but from St. Petersburg they replied that since the highest command had been made about the opening of the academy, then it certainly had to be fulfilled 279. According to its location in a foreign region, the Kazan Academy adopted the special task of Christian scientific education of foreigners. Among the changes in the spiritual and educational life of this time, it is worth noting that, with the approval of the sovereign, since 1826 the image of the crown of thorns on the master's cross was replaced by the image of a miraculous image. By the decree of 1836 on the opening of public schools at churches and monasteries, the clergy was again called, not for the first time, to the cause of public education. Chapter VI. Church administration and life of the clergy Improving the life of the clergy. – Formation of new dioceses. – Publishing guide books. - Military clergy. – Transformation in the central spiritual administration. – Development of bureaucracy under Protasov. – New synodal building. In terms of church administration and the life of the clergy, the reign of Nicholas I was also marked by the strengthening of formal order, uniformity and centralization. Already in 1826, in the synod, by order of the highest order, questions about improving the condition of the rural clergy were discussed, in 1827 a project on improving spiritual administration was discussed, in 1828 - on providing for the parish clergy, and from 1830, 500,000 rubles were assigned to annual leave from the treasury for the salary of the clergy and the previous law was confirmed, suspended during the previous reign, on the endowment of churches, monasteries and bishops' houses with land and various lands and the provision of houses for parishes; After this, the allocation of land was practiced on a wide scale, so that the allotment often far exceeded the established norm 280. However, it should be noted that during the same reign, in 1841, the “inhabited” estates, i.e. with serfs, Uniate churches, monasteries and bishops' houses that reunited with Orthodoxy were taken into the treasury, with the assignment of their salaries to the clergy in return 281, in 1852 they were taken into the treasury, while for management, and church estates in Georgia 282. In 1827, a leave of 25,000 rubles was established annually from the sums of the commission of theological schools to benefit clergy who suffered from fires; starting next year, this amount is increased to 40,000 283. In 1828, the salaries of employees in consistories and ecclesiastical boards were doubled, and official runs were assigned to bishops when touring dioceses 284 . The main principles for providing for the clergy were established by a special regulation developed by the synod and supremely approved in 1829. An order was issued that persons of clergy rank who do not hold church positions and have not completed their ecclesiastical education should be dismissed for election at a certain time to a type of life other than their clergy rank, under threat of punishment for loitering. In 1831, the last “analysis” of the clergy was carried out, when all idle clergymen and persons of clergy rank, from 15 to 40 years old, not in rank, or in office, or in schools, were taken into military service, excluding persons who had received a philosophical or theological education, and outlying dioceses, where there was not an excess, but rather a shortage of clergymen 285. Since 1832, the dismissal of spiritual students to the secular rank has been facilitated, first by the fact that diocesan bishops themselves were given the right, without the permission of the synod, to dismiss from the diocesan department, into the civil service, those students of theological seminaries who were expelled or dismissed from the philosophical class, and then by granting the right to all who graduated from the seminary “to join all departments of the civil service” 286. At first, however, these were only partial measures. General, systematic reforms began only with Protasov taking office as Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. It was noted that among the rural clergy, “ignorance and rudeness of morals” reign, insecurity and the sad consequences generated by it; that supervision of the clergy “has not yet been given proper certainty”; that diocesan administration and its office work do not have “general uniform forms”; that “correct reporting of amounts is only just being introduced in the clergy, and for some types it does not exist at all”; that “the sources of church income require special government attention to strengthen them”; that “the spiritual court and, most importantly, the very dogmas of the Church need the publication of books that would serve as the basis for Orthodoxy and which have not previously existed in our fatherland.” A reform of spiritual education and upbringing was adopted against “ignorance and rudeness of morals.” Against other disturbances there are other, albeit less drastic, measures. Large sums were allocated for the construction of the ecclesiastical department; the loan sometimes reached half a million, as in 1836–1839. In 1838, by imperial command, a new advisory committee was established to resolve the issue of ways to support the clergy. The committee was under the leadership of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod and the Minister of Internal Affairs. He developed a new regulation on the maintenance of the clergy, which was then applied to application, first, from 1812, in the western dioceses, where the reunification of the Uniates took place, and then, from the next year, in others 287. According to the new normal states, parishes were divided into 7 classes, according to the number of parishioners and, depending on the latter, members of the clergy. Salaries for clergy ranged from 140 to 576 rubles, while the priest received from 100 to 180 rubles. Receiving a salary, the priests agreed not to demand payment for certain services: childbirth prayer, baptism, confession and communion, blessing of oil, burial, joining of non-believers. By the end of the reign of Nicholas I, the number of clergy and church ministers receiving salaries exceeded 55,000 people with over 18,000 churches, the allocation from the treasury exceeded 3,000,000 rubles. Such a system was practiced that every year the state allocation for the salaries of the clergy increased by several hundred thousand rubles, with the goal of eventually achieving the provision of all parishes with state salaries. During the reign of Nicholas I, 13 new dioceses were established: in 1828 Olonetsk from the Novgorod region and Saratov from Penza, in 1829 Novocherkassk, in 1842 renamed Don, in 1832 Simbirsk from Kazan and Tomsk from Tobolsk, in 1838 Polotsk, in In 1837 Kherson from Ekaterinoslav, in 1839 Lithuanian, in 1840 Warsaw from Volyn and Kamchatka from Irkutsk, in 1842 Caucasian from Astrakhan, in 1850 Riga from Pskov and Samara from Simbirsk. In addition, one diocese, Ukrainian, was renamed Kharkov in 1837. In Georgia, one diocese was renamed, in 1829, Mingrelian from Chkondidi, one was replaced, in 1844, Gurian in place of the abolished Jumatian, in 1837 Sighnakh was abolished and in 1851 the Abkhazian diocese was restored. In 1828, instructions were given to the deans of monasteries. In 1839, a book of rules of the holy apostles, holy ecumenical and local councils and holy fathers was published, processed by a commission compiled in 1836 under the direct supervision of the Holy Synod. First, the book was published with a Greek text, then, in 1848, it was republished in one Slavic language. In 1843, a saintly teaching to the newly ordained priest was published. In 1840, in connection with the development of the charter for spiritual consistories, the previous spiritual boards, considered unnecessary, were abolished. The following year, the newly drawn up statute of ecclesiastical consistories, after the highest approval, was published for general use 288 and brought, in comparison with previous orders, a strict organization to our diocesan administration. Previously, in 1888, the draft charter was sent to the diocesan authorities for temporary use and for conclusion. In 1840, the third position of chief priest was established to manage the clergy of the Caucasian army 289 and, since 1846, the line Cossacks. The department of the military clergy was significantly expanded to include the diocesan one, after stationary military churches were transferred to it in 1826: hospital, serf, battalion. In 1853, the rights of chief priests to manage the clergy under their supervision were increased. Important changes followed in the central administration of the spiritual department. The rights and role of the chief prosecutor in the synod were finally clarified and significantly strengthened. Prince Golitsyn also received ministerial rights from Alexander I. What belonged to Golitsyn personally, in 1824, with the abolition of the “Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education,” was to some extent officially assigned to the chief prosecutor; Chief Prosecutor, Golitsyn's successor, by his very position was equal in importance to ministers and received ministerial rights in relations on matters of the Orthodox, or, as they called it, the Greek-Russian confession. Since 1835, he began to be invited, along with ministers, to the State Council and the Committee of Ministers 290. Recognized as equal to the minister, the chief prosecutor still in reality did not have ministerial power, and the power-hungry Protasov tried in every possible way to become equal to the minister in practice. To a large extent, he achieved this through the establishment of separate departments for different branches of the synodal administration, headed by directors, subordinate directly to the chief prosecutor. The establishment of a spiritual educational administration 291 has already been mentioned. In 1839, the position of manager of the synodal office was established - in the general class 292. In 1836, an economic committee was established under the synod and special control under the committee 293; in 1839, on February 22, the committee was transformed into an economic department, again with direct subordination to the chief prosecutor 294. In 1839, on August 1, a special office of the chief prosecutor was established, also with a director at its head 295. All these offices with directors, as everyone knows, represented whole separate little worlds, or status in statu, contributed to the external ordering of office work, but, we must admit, they unnecessarily increased correspondence and undoubtedly slowed down the flow of affairs. Some papers, before final resolution, underwent three or four complete paperwork - the so-called clericalism developed, when the simplest task could not be done simply and quickly, and sometimes surprisingly complex conditions were required to complete it. The military character of Protasov, who valued diligence and discipline most of all, was very noticeably reflected in all his offices, but diligence without reasoning degenerated into exclusively external diligence, form, and they rightly note that Protasov’s chief prosecutor was accompanied by the extreme development of the so-called bureaucracy - in the sense, of course, of this word in which this concept is conveyed only the worst features of bureaucratic “classes”: formalism, imitation, routine, and especially the so valued complete impersonality, the absence of one’s own personality and thought, absorbed without a trace of servility to the authorities, and every desire of the boss was considered above the law, and if the boss wanted to do something impermissible or harmful in any respect, not realizing this quality of his goal, then none of the subordinates dared to indicate to his Excellency or the Resident that the fulfillment of his desire would be be accompanied by bad consequences, and everyone, on the contrary, tried to pretend as if they were confident that the most beneficial results would come from such execution, as if the dignitary could never make mistakes and as if he wanted such an attitude towards him. If the boss, for example, walked around only with a mustache, then all the officials diligently shaved their beards; if the boss signed his name with a flourish, then his subordinates seriously practiced the art of making a beautiful flourish. Of the senior officials on Protasov’s board, the most prominent and left their mark, each in his own area, were Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsky, who was the director of the spiritual and educational directorate, Alexey Ivanovich Voitsekhovich, the head of the synodal office, and Konstantin Stepanovich Serbinovich, the director of the office of the chief prosecutor, and then also the economic and spiritual educational directorates. This was a typical senior official of that time. He was Protasov’s right hand, drew up projects for various transformations for him, carried out all kinds of his most important assignments, strictly observed spiritual censorship and, zealously guarding Protasov’s department and becoming necessary for Protasov, acquired enormous influence in the spiritual department, and as a legacy to posterity he left behind a collection of the most successful phrases for chief prosecutor’s correspondence with bishops and ministers. It may be worth noting that during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I, in 1835, the synod moved from Peter’s building of twelve colleges on Vasilyevsky Island, where now the university, to its own monumental building, on the corner of Senate Square and Horse Guards Boulevard, built by order and under the direct supervision of Emperor Nicholas. The building cost 1,915,000 rubles. The money was taken from the commission of theological schools, which itself moved to the synodal building from its former home on Nevsky Prospekt. On May 27, on the day of the Descent of the Holy Spirit, the synodal church was consecrated, and on June 4, the first meeting of the synod took place in the new building, in the presence of the sovereign and the heir, and the sovereign sat not on the throne, which is available for him in the meeting room of the synod, but in armchairs, stayed for almost the entire meeting and after that visited the synodal office and the commission of theological schools. This meeting is especially memorable for the highly sincere speech with which the sovereign addressed the members of the synod. The Emperor said: that he ascended the ancestral throne without expecting it and therefore without preliminary preparation; the burden of government, as if from heaven, fell on his shoulders; the beginning and the completing ten years of his reign met with extraordinary difficulties and severe trials; the synod remembers what happened on this very square, which is now before our eyes, and where the leading member rendered a loyal service to the sovereign; soon followed by the Persian and Turkish wars, which, however, ended so successfully that the Russian state, through the generosity inspired by Christianity, brought peace and protection to Turkey, which was previously hostile; then it was necessary to pacify the rebellious uprising of Poland, endure the disasters of a destructive disease and the internal unrest that happened in some places as a result of it. The sovereign attributed overcoming all these difficulties to the special help of God, on which he most of all places his hope in the future, having been confirmed mainly in such feelings by the instructions of his mother. In accordance with this conviction, the sovereign, as he himself considers the preservation of Orthodoxy to be the closest concern to his heart, is equally confident in the same successive feelings of his heir, and in this, as a parent and as a sovereign, he testifies to him before the Church. The Emperor responded favorably to the activities of the synod and said that among the matters before the synod, due to the present circumstances of the time, those that require special attention are the undertaken reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church and the matter of converting schismatics, which requires unremitting vigilance, firmness and constancy in the adopted rules, without any kind of persecution. By extending care of church affairs to future times, the sovereign wishes to prevent the experienced difficulty of accidentally entering into them, which was a consequence of the fact that the deceased emperor did not have an heir to the throne in a direct line. As a result, the sovereign, by the goodness of God, having sons, and preparing the first-born of them to inherit the throne, just as he had already introduced him to the Senate and soon intends to introduce him to the State Council, considered it useful to acquaint him with church affairs, and therefore deigns that the heir would sometimes be present during the sessions of the synod, and under his leadership would first acquire the information necessary in this regard for his high appointment; in this, the sovereign fully hopes for the desired successes of the heir, and in due success he relies on the zeal of the synod and entrusts it to the prayers of his beloved firstborn. At the same time, the sovereign hugged the heir 296. Synod and Senate building (general view) Chapter VII. Worship, spiritual literature, education and upbringing of the people Discovery of the relics. – New church services. – Completion of churches. - Church singing. – Iconography. – Communication with the Eastern Churches. – A new direction of spiritual literature. – Closing of the Bible Society. – Translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian. – New statute of spiritual censorship. – Spiritual magazines. – Famous spiritual writers: Eminences Innokenty Borisov and Macarius Bulgakov. - Secret censorship committee at the synod. – Measures for the spiritual education of the people. – Study of native church antiquities. The reign of Nicholas I was happy with the discovery of holy relics. In July 1826, the relics of the holy Vilna martyrs Anthony, John and Eustathius, who suffered in the 14th century, were solemnly opened in the Vilna Holy Spirit Monastery 297. On August 7, 1832, there followed the solemn opening of the relics of St. Mitrophan of Voronezh in the cathedral in Voronezh 298. In 1832, with the discovery of the relics, the celebration of the memory of St. Mitrofan was established - on the day of his death, November 28. In 1844, a service and akathist to Saint Mitrofan were compiled, in 1853 to Saint Prince Alexander Nevsky, around the same time - the Protection of the Most Holy Theotokos to the Suffering Savior - the last two were compiled by the Right Reverend Innokenty Borisov. Regarding churches, an order was made in 1841 that they should be built in the ancient Byzantine style, and for this purpose the drawings of architecture professor Konstantin Ton 299 were recommended for the guidance of the law. Throughout almost the entire reign, the famous St. Isaac's Cathedral was built in St. Petersburg, according to the design of the architect Montferrand, construction was suspended during the previous reign due to doubts whether its bulk was collapsing on swampy soil, and, of course, this granite bulk owes its existence to Nicholas, although the cathedral was founded under Alexander I, and completed under Alexander II - consecrated on May 30 1858 300. However, Nicholas I had already seen the domes of the cathedral cleared of forests from his winter palace. The height of the cathedral with the cross is 47 fathoms 2 arshins, the capacity is 1,405 square fathoms, more than half a tithe. In 1836, the Tsar Bell in Moscow was raised from the ground into which it went after falling in 1737 and placed on a raised platform near the bell tower. In 1839, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow was founded in a new location and according to a new plan. The streamlining of church singing continued, under the leadership of a very famous composer of church chants, director of the Lvov court singing chapel 301. It was made mandatory that any new musical melody of church hymns could be used during divine services only with the permission of the synod. Several measures have been taken to streamline icon painting: examination of printed icon paintings has been transferred to spiritual censorship, it is recommended to avoid different images above iconostases, schismatics are prohibited from enrolling in icon painting workshops 302 . There was a desire to free ourselves from the so-called icon painting, which had absorbed many Western elements, and the desire to restore ancient icon painting and painting increased noticeably. Communication with the Eastern Churches was supported by donations for their needs from Russia. In 1884, a circle in favor of the Holy Sepulcher was established in all churches, in 1849 a courtyard of the Patriarch of Antioch was established in Moscow, and in 1855 - of Alexander Nevsky. Spiritual literature during the reign of Nicholas I took a completely different path than it had taken during the previous reign. However, even then, very recently, a sharp turn was revealed. There could now be no mention of mysticism, which filled almost the entire reign of Alexander. In 1826, by decree of April 12, the Bible Society was closed. He was accused of spreading all kinds of sects by distributing mystical books, as well as by distributing books of the Holy Scriptures translated into Russian. There is no doubt that the society had some falsehood in its organization, being made up of secular people, mostly unfamiliar with theological foundations, without the influential participation of representatives of the Church - hierarchs and clergy. They accuse him of “religious cosmopolitanism” for dreaming of the unification of churches, but, really, it is not a sin to dream about what the Church itself prays for every day. The matter of translating the books of Holy Scripture into Russian was in a deadlock. Printed and prepared for release, the first volume of the translation of the Old Testament, as it was stopped under Alexander I, remained unreleased into circulation, despite the obvious sympathy for the translation of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and some other clergy whose names remained alive in posterity: Archpriest Gerasim Pavsky, Archimandrite Makariy Glukharev 303. Pavsky, who published an lithographed translation of his own for students, was even denounced as unorthodox on this occasion, and Macarius, for his insistence on publishing the translation he had made, was subjected to penance and then another reprimand. Filaret of Moscow several times started talking about resuming the translation, but Metropolitans Seraphim of St. Petersburg, Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov of Kiev, then Filaret Amfiteatrov of Kiev, Chief Prosecutor Protasov always rebelled against this, and the matter did not move forward. In 1828, a new statute for spiritual censorship was approved, which had been developed since 1818 304. Censorship committees are still left at the academies, but the committees in St. Petersburg and Moscow are given greater rights than those in Kyiv and Kazan; The latter have the right to omit only minor works. All committees are obliged to report to the synod. Some publications are made directly dependent on the decision of the synod itself. Not suppressed by extraneous trends, free from being scattered in petty polemics, spiritual literature during the reign of Nicholas I bore excellent sprouts and quite significant fruits. In 1837, at the Kyiv Theological Academy, the rector, Archimandrite Innokenty Borisov, founded the magazine “Sunday Reading,” a popular spiritual magazine that soon became very widespread thanks to the popular name of its founder; in 1843 at the Moscow Academy “Creations of St. Father". The organ of the St. Petersburg Academy “Christian Reading”, which since the late thirties has turned into a monthly publication, and the Moscow “Creations of St. Father" paid special attention to translations of patristic works; both began systematic translation and gave the Russian Orthodox world a whole treasury of patristic thought and poetry in their native language. With each new work, the brilliant preaching talent of the Right Reverend Innokenty Borisov flared up spectacularly, like multi-colored fireworks. The son of a priest of the Oryol diocese, born in 1800, received his higher education at the Kyiv Theological Academy, then, as the best student, called to St. Petersburg and served in St. Petersburg, where in the year of his arrival he became a monk, first as a teacher at the seminary, then as the rector at the school, then as an inspector and professor at the academy, Innocent here at the academy acquired with his sermons, said, however, outside the academy, and, as happens positively, it seems, with all outstanding people, he was subjected to various persecutions from stupid literalism. He was accused of being a “neologism,” allegedly moving away from strict Orthodoxy. With his preaching, he, along with some other new employees, contributed to the revitalization of the academic journal Christian Reading, which, after an initial flourishing, soon began to experience a period of withering. In 1830, Innokenty was appointed rector of the Kyiv Academy and during his rectorship the flourishing of this academy coincided, or rather largely depended on him. Ten years later, Innocent received the episcopal see in Vologda, then, ten months later, he was transferred to Kharkov and, finally, ten years later to Kherson, where he died in the rank of archbishop, in 1857, mourned by all reading Russia. The Kherson diocese owes him the restoration of many sacred places of ancient Taurida. In the difficult times of the Crimean campaign, he showed with particular clarity the heroism of his high character, as much as was available in his position, he served bravely in his cathedral in Odessa, which was a target for gunfire from the enemy fleet, appeared as an inspired comforter amid death and destruction under enemy cannonballs in Sevastopol, and earned from historians the name “great citizen of the Russian land.” There are up to 500 sermons left from the Right Reverend; all of them did not die in full with the death of their author and are well known throughout the Orthodox world, some have even been translated into foreign languages ​​305. Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson The bright star of our famous dogmatist and church historian, the Right Reverend Makarii Bulgakov, was rising. The son of a priest of the Kursk diocese, in childhood he was distinguished by amazing stupidity; by some miracle, after being hit in the head with a stone thrown by some naughty comrade, which resulted in an inflammatory process and then recovery, he immediately became a most capable student, graduated from the Kyiv Academy, where, while still a student, he became a monk, and then was a bachelor of the Kyiv Academy, then a bachelor, and after a while time inspector and rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, from 1851 in the rank of bishop of Vinnitsa, vicar of the Kamenets-Podolsk diocese. During this time, he already managed, in 1847–1852, to publish his famous “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology”, which remains to this day unreplaced by subsequent scientific works. Now he changed his scientific field, publishing his first historical works 306. The revival of spiritual literature aroused some concerns in the highest spheres, the severity of spiritual censorship was considered insufficient, and in 1851 a secret censorship committee was established at the synod to monitor the actions of spiritual censorship. Attention was paid to the church education of the people: catechetical teaching was introduced into the seminary course, as already mentioned, in order to practically prepare the pastors of the Church for the education of the people, and parish priests were obliged to hold catechetical conversations on holidays and Sundays. For the purpose of church education of the people, during the reign of Nicholas I the law required that all parishioners, with the exception of the sick, attend church services on Sundays and holidays, under fear of penalties; on these days, until the end of the service, trade and public entertainment and public work throughout the day remained prohibited. Diocesan authorities were required to exercise unrelenting care so that none of the parishioners shied away from confession and holy communion 307 . In accordance with the general national direction, attention was paid to the preservation and study of native antiquities. In 1842, it was forbidden to begin renovating ancient churches without the highest permission 308. The following year it was confirmed that in the ancient churches, without the permission of the synod, not the slightest correction, renewal or alteration of paintings and other objects of ancient times would be allowed 309. In 1850, the synod issued an order that a historical and statistical description of each diocese be compiled. Chapter VIII. Spiritual figures - former and Nicholas's time Prince A.N. Golitsyn. – Archimandrite Photius Spassky. – Metropolitan Philaret. - St. Petersburg metropolitans. - Count Protasov. Those persons who during the last reign made the history of the spiritual department and who were still alive were now at rest and plunged into obscurity. Golitsyn remained close to the royal family, but no longer participated in the administration. The last years of his life have already been mentioned. Photius, left out of work, turned all the power of his extraordinary energy to his own asceticism, wore a hair shirt on his body, chains over a warm tunic, remained in prayer before the icon of the Mother of God with an unquenchable lamp in his reclusive cell in the Yuryev Monastery, a fathom long and an arshin wide, the height of a man. From this cell there was a passage to the tomb of the basement Church of the Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary, where Photius had long ago prepared a coffin for himself and where he was later buried after his death on February 26, 1888. In 1835, Emperor Nicholas I visited the Yuriev Monastery, examined the churches, buildings, gardens, it was a wonderful day at the end of May, the sovereign was very pleased and testified about this to the synod 310. At first, Philaret of Moscow was very respected: in 1825 he received a diamond cross on his hood, in 1826 the title of metropolitan, in 1831 the Order of St. Andrew the First-Called, in 1839 - Vladimir 1st degree; but soon even he seemed to lose importance in management: in 1842, not getting along with Protasov, he left for Moscow and never returned to St. Petersburg again, there in Moscow, gradually forging that moral authority with which he found himself at an absolutely exceptional height by the end of his life. In difficult cases, however, they did not dare to do anything without consulting him, and his instructions had unquestionable authority. In 1849, he received the last order award: diamond signs for St. Andrew's Star, and in 1851, for lack of more state awards, he received a panagia strewn with diamonds. The exceptional life path of the Moscow ruler followed a road strewn with cruel thorns. The relationship of the Right Reverend Theophylact Rusanov to Filaret, at the first stages of his life career, has already been said. Towards the end of the reign of Alexander I, Photius and his entire strong party rebelled against Philaret. Photius calls Philaret “a friend and ally of all secret and open enemies of faith and the Church”: “wherever I have tried to destroy the accumulation of evil, here Philaret is the culprit and participant.” “His ambition consumed him.” “He likes to let himself go and thinks that he himself has the right more than others to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.” “He loved to offer the cup of sorrow with smiles” 311. In Moscow, at first, many were dissatisfied with Filaret, because he was “too learned” and his sermons were incomprehensible; he was reproached that he preaches sermons “only from the mind, without the participation of the heart, which in some cases is too strict.” However, they were respected for their fairness. But sometimes they spread the most incredible slander about him 312. Metropolitan Seraphim was not a figure of broad views and undertakings. Photius said of him that “everything with him is based on externalities,” but he knew how to resolve misunderstandings and calm the storms that arose. The Tsar had always been grateful to him, remembering how, upon his accession to the throne on December 14, 1825, he tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to pacify the rebels, appearing before them in bishop's vestments and with a cross. Towards the end of his life he became difficult to reach and was almost not involved in diocesan affairs, entrusting them to his vicar. His entire administration of the St. Petersburg diocese, according to its historian, “was not marked by any outstanding phenomena” 313. The bishop died at the age of eighty, in 1843. His successor was Anthony Rafalsky, one of the Volyn archpriests, who did not receive a higher theological education, but who attracted the highest attention for his decorum and politics during the management of the Pochaev Lavra, in the position of governor, and the Warsaw diocese, in the rank of bishop. He lived in St. Petersburg for five years, was recently very ill and died in 1848 314. After him, the charitable archpastor Nikanor Klementyevsky was Metropolitan of St. Petersburg from 1848, also transferred from Warsaw. He died in 1856, shortly after the coronation of the new sovereign 315. Protasov died on January 16, 1855, and on the report of his death, Emperor Nicholas I wrote: “I sincerely and sincerely mourn the loss of this worthy and faithful servant, whom I knew and respected for so long.” During the life of Protasov, who always acted extremely independently and quickly, so to speak, in a military way, it was customary to say that the bishops were, as it were, under the yoke of the pharaoh, but when he died, they began to feel sorry for him, and, for example, the well-known spiritual writer and figure in his time, Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov, spoke of Protasov’s successor Akhmatov, that he was worse than Protasov and that Protasov, “although he personally insulted bishops, but would never have agreed to such a desecration of the Church,” which was allowed under Akhmatov 316. Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow Part 3. Liberation era Chapter I. Tsar-Liberator Birth and upbringing of Alexander II. - Accession to the throne. - Manifesto of March 19, 1856 with the program of the reign. – Liberation reforms. On February 19, 1855, after the death of Emperor Nicholas I the previous day, Alexander II ascended the throne of the Russian Empire. He was the eldest son of Emperor Nicholas I, born on April 17, 1818 in Moscow, when Nicholas I could not yet know or think about the imperial throne. However, in some kind of poetic foresight, or premonition, our Russian accordion of that time, Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, welcoming in his poem the new “dear stranger into God’s light,” sang that the newborn would be a representative of “a century rich in honor,” “he will be a glorious participant and on the high line will not forget the holiest of titles: man.” By the end of the reign of Alexander I, due to the childlessness of Alexander I and Constantine, everyone looked at the little Grand Duke Alexander Nikolaevich, for a simple reason, as a future emperor; the poet Ryleev wrote in his honor: “the crown was assigned to you by the Creator, learn in advance to be a king,” and the historian Karamzin presented a note to Nicholas in 1823 about the need for Alexander Nikolaevich to have a strictly national education. Alexander Nikolaevich’s educators were General Merder and the poet Vasily Andreevich Zhukovsky, and his teacher of the law was Archpriest Pavsky. At the age of eleven, Alexander Nikolaevich traveled to Warsaw, in his twentieth year he traveled around Russia for eight months and got acquainted with his future kingdom; in 1841 he entered into marriage with the princess of Hesse-Darmstadt, who was named Maria Alexandrovna upon joining Orthodoxy. Vladimir, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna It was a difficult time during the Crimean War, when all of Russia was languishing from the revealed powerlessness to repel an enemy attack. Soon Russia, although with some damage to itself (lost the mouth of the Danube and the Black Sea Fleet), achieved a more or less tolerable peace concluded in Paris in 1856, and turned all its forces to the resurrection of public initiative, which had become somewhat dead during the previous reign, when everything, it seems, both great and small, was allowed only by order of the authorities. The so-called liberation reforms immediately began, completely changing the internal appearance of Russia and making post-reform Russia completely different from pre-reform Russia. The Manifesto of March 19, 1856, on the conclusion of peace, proclaimed: “with the help of heavenly Providence, which has always benefited Russia, may its internal prosperity be established and improved; Let truth and mercy reign in her courts; May the desire for enlightenment and all useful activities develop everywhere and with renewed vigor, and may everyone, under the shadow of laws that are equally fair and equally protective for everyone, enjoy in the world the fruits of the labors of the innocent. Finally, this is our first most living desire, the light of saving faith, illuminating minds, strengthening hearts, that it preserves and improves more and more public morality, this surest guarantee of order and happiness.” At the end of 1856, a secret committee was established and opened on January 8, 1857, under the chairmanship of the sovereign himself, to discuss issues of the emancipation of the peasants, and despite the unsympathy of the majority of the committee members, only thanks to the steady will of the sovereign himself, on February 19, 1861, as a result of the committee’s work, an ever-memorable, glorious manifesto on the emancipation of the peasants from serfdom was issued. On April 17, 1863, corporal punishment was abolished. On June 18, 1863, a new university charter was issued, giving universities a significant share of self-government. On January 1, 1864, the zemstvo regulations were promulgated, which granted the zemstvo broad rights to manage economic and public local affairs: communication routes, the development of trade and industry, national food, public charity for the poor, partly public education, etc. On June 14, 1864, a regulation on primary public schools was issued, which contributed to the proliferation of schools. On November 19, 1864, a new charter on gymnasiums was issued, then significantly amended in 1871, introducing the dominance of the so-called classical education system. On November 24, 1864, judicial statutes were promulgated, radically changing the previously existing legal proceedings: the judicial power was now completely separated from the administrative and accusatory power, openness and publicity of the court were established, the independence of judges was ensured, the legal profession and the adversarial procedure of legal proceedings were established, and more or less important criminal cases were transferred to the court of public conscience in the person of jurors. On April 6, 1865, regulations on press matters were published, significantly softening the former difficult censorship conditions and thereby contributing to the proliferation of magazines and newspapers and the development of public self-awareness. In 1867, public courts were introduced in the army. In the military department, military settlements were destroyed, the period of military service was reduced from 25 to 15 years, corporal punishment was abolished, special attention was paid to raising the level of education among the military, military educational institutions were transformed, and military administration was transformed. On May 24, 1870, a new regulation was issued on women's gymnasiums by the Ministry of Public Education. On June 16, 1870, the city regulations were approved at the highest level, giving cities a significant share of self-government. On January 1, 1874, the statute on military service was promulgated, according to which military service was made compulsory for everyone. In a word, as the State Council put it when congratulating the sovereign on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his reign, “the transformations and improvements in laws that took place during this reign renewed the entire structure of the state.” In addition to the twenty-two million liberated serfs, many millions more of the so-called lower stratum, the people who had remained voiceless during the previous reigns, were called to civil life and public activity. It was a highly popular reign, a reign of public initiative and the fullness of life of the entire state. Social forces were called upon to carry out the transformations themselves: to develop various measures and projects, all kinds of committees and commissions were constantly established with the participation of social forces. All these transformations depended to a large extent on the spirit of the times, when the development of the use of steam and electricity completely changed the conditions of social life. Rich in liberation reforms for all layers of the state, the reign of Emperor Alexander II introduced the same reforms into the spiritual environment, and on the other hand, caused the initiative of the latter and was reflected in many noticeable phenomena of a social nature in it 317. Chapter II. Government reforms in the spiritual department Measures to eliminate class isolation in the clergy. – Special presence for the affairs of the Orthodox clergy. – The influence of the liberation reforms of the reign of Alexander II on the life of the clergy. – Destruction of the heredity of parishes. – Scope of clergy. – Reduction of parishes in clergy. – Salary and pensions. - Higher church administration. - Dioceses. – Conciliar and elective principles. First of all, measures were taken to destroy the class isolation of the clergy. Back in the late fifties and at the very beginning of the sixties, laws were issued that opened up access to the clergy for secular persons through receiving spiritual education, and on the other hand, access to the secular rank for students of religious educational institutions and, in general, children of the clergy. On June 28, 1862, a special presence of clergy and secular persons was established to find ways to better provide for the life of the clergy, under the chairmanship of the St. Petersburg Metropolitan Isidore, from members of the synod, Adjutant General Prince Dolgorukov, Chief Prosecutor, ministers of internal affairs and state property and the director of the spiritual and educational administration, Prince Urusov; Three persons were appointed to manage affairs: the Privy Councilor, Count Tolstoy, Chamberlain Batyushkov and Actual State Councilor Domontovich 318. The task of the presence was to find ways to expand the means of providing for the clergy, increase their civil and personal rights and benefits, open ways for the children of the clergy to ensure their existence in all fields of civil activity and provide the clergy with immediate participation in parish and rural schools. The work of presence began on a broad scale. First of all, all questions were proposed for discussion by local forces, the spheres themselves interested in the matter, i.e., the Right Reverends and the “provincial presences that opened from the next year on improving the life of the Orthodox clergy,” chaired by diocesan bishops 319. The presence did not carry out the tasks assigned to it, but still managed to develop some provisions on the structure and rights of children of the Orthodox clergy, which radically changed the life of the clergy. These rules, set out in the opinion of the State Council, were supremely approved on May 26, 1869 and supplemented in 1871 320. Meanwhile, regardless of the work of the presence, the life of the clergy changed in some parts under the influence of other liberating reforms of the glorious reign. In 1863, corporal punishment for clergy was abolished as part of the general abolition of corporal punishment. In the same year, students of theological seminaries were allowed access to the university, although, however, for now, as a temporary measure, and after 12 years, seminarians at universities already accounted for 46%; in 1879, access to the university for seminarians was terminated. The regulation on gymnasiums of 1864 opened the doors of these educational institutions for children of all classes, not excluding the spiritual. The 1866 regulations on military schools granted religious children access to military service. The new charter of theological schools and seminaries of 1867 granted the clergy the right to raise their children in secular educational institutions, and access to theological schools and seminaries was open to children of all classes. The Zemstvo Regulations of 1864 granted the clergy the right to participate in zemstvo elections on the basis of ownership of church-clergy land and, if there was an ownership qualification, the right to be elected to the council of district and provincial zemstvo assemblies. In 1867, the heredity of parishes was formally destroyed, which, due to special historical conditions, received a terrible development and was supported at one time by both Metropolitan Seraphim of St. Petersburg and Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. According to the synod, the highest approved opinion of the State Council was that when assigning vacancies after the death or dismissal of clergy, kinship with them should not be given a special advantage to candidates applying for these places, the assignment of church places to the daughters or relatives of the persons occupying these places should no longer be allowed, and obligations issued by persons applying for places regarding the issuance of benefits to their predecessors or their families should not be allowed. recognize as valid 321. The attempt made by the clergy the very next year to restore the inheritance of parishes failed. The provisions of the presence on the clergy, approved in 1869, supplemented in 1871, introduced a radical reform in the ecclesiastical department. All persons who did not have holy orders and were not in church ministerial positions were excluded from the clergy, i.e., singers, watchmen, bell ringers, supernumerary psalm-readers and all children of the clergy, but at the same time, all these persons were not deprived of the right to enter church positions and religious educational institutions and to benefit from benefits from the diocesan trustees for the poor of the clergy. Children of clergy are given the rights of personal nobles or hereditary honorary citizens, and children of clergy are given the rights of personal honorary citizens. This provision legally abolished the previous isolation of the clergy and terminated its class status. The reform was based on the principle of freedom and election of pastoral ministry according to vocation, and not due to the hopelessness of the situation or heredity. At the same time, the highest approved position of the presence on the composition of parishes and church clergy 322 was intended to improve the provision of the clergy mainly by reducing parishes and priestly clergy positions. Sparsely populated parishes joined neighboring ones; the usual staff of a parish rural clergy was recognized to consist of only two persons: a priest and a psalm-reader. Over the next ten years, about 2,000 parishes were abolished, the number of full-time priests was reduced by 500 out of a total of 89,000, deacons by 5,000 out of 14,000, and priests by 12,000 out of 62,000. This system of providing for the clergy by reducing parishes and clergy was not a new invention of the reign of Alexander II: it was in effect during the previous reign, and now it has only received somewhat greater development 323. Parishes in the form of newly established parish trustees were also called upon to provide assistance to clergy. In the minds of society, the conviction was maturing about the need to designate the entire clergy with a salary; various projects appeared from time to time in journalism, but since, according to a moderate estimate, up to thirty million rubles were immediately required for this project, it remained unfulfilled. However, the Nikolaev tradition continued to work, albeit very slowly and for a relatively short time, the number of clergy receiving salaries increased every year at first, but, due to a lack of money in the treasury, it soon froze at about 18,000, without reaching even half of the clergy. In 1864–1871, the salaries of clergymen were gradually increased by more than double, with rural priests beginning to receive from 144 to 240 rubles, and sextons from 48 to 80. In the western provinces, where the Orthodox clergy had to fight against well-designated priests, the salaries in 1868 and 1870 were set significantly higher, usually up to 400 rubles for a priest and up to 100 rubles for a psalm-reader. From the salary since 1866, 2% was calculated in favor of the pension capital. By 1860, the spiritual department’s pension capital, which had been collected since the reign of Catherine II, increased to 5½ million rubles. This year it was transferred to the state treasury, so that from there an appropriate loan for pensions and benefits would be issued annually. In 1866, new rules on pensions for the clergy were approved: priests were supposed to be given 90 rubles a year for 35 years of service, and up to 65 rubles to their orphaned families. In 1878, pensions were increased - up to 130 rubles for priests and up to 90 rubles for their families. Since 1876, protodeacons have been included in receiving pensions, and since 1880, all deacons in general, and they are entitled to up to 65 rubles, and their families up to 50 rubles. In the highest church administration, the reign of Alexander II was marked by the establishment in 1865 of the position of comrade chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod 324 with the rights of comrade minister, and then, after some partial changes, the publication in 1872 of new states of the central institutions of the Holy Synod, i.e. the synodal office, economic management under the synod, control and office chief prosecutor. These states operated until the end of the century 325. All subsequent changes in the staff concerned mainly internal clerical procedures and an increase in salaries for officials. But at the same time, in 1867, a special control was established under the synod, which degenerated from the previous department under the economic administration 326, and an educational committee, transformed from the spiritual and educational administration 327. The difference between a committee and a management was mainly that a clergyman was supposed to chair the committee, while the management previously had a director. In diocesan life, the reign was marked by the opening of new dioceses: Tauride and Ufa in 1859, Yenisei in 1861, Yakut in 1869, Aleut in 1870, Turkestan in 1871. The formation of the last three dioceses was caused mainly by the expansion of the territory of Russia through the annexation of the vast Amur region from China in 1858 and the conquest of Turkestan in 1865. The Warsaw diocese, enlarged by the reunited Kholmsky Uniates, was renamed Kholmsky-Warsaw in 1875. In 1873, the Mingrelian diocese was converted into a vicariate of Imereti. In 1865, it was allowed to open vicariates wherever there were local funds for this. In 1867, the division of dioceses into classes was abolished and new states of bishops' houses were issued 328. According to the previous states, dioceses were divided into three classes: the first two - for archbishops, the third - for bishops. Only three dioceses were included in the first class: Novgorod-Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev and were almost always occupied by metropolitans. In 1855, diocesan audit committees were established. In 1857, the instructions to deans were corrected. In 1858, military chief priests were renamed chief priests. In 1858, permission to build churches was granted to the diocesan bishops - previously permission had to be sought from the synod. In 1865, diocesan bishops were granted the right to tonsure monastics without the permission of the synod. In 1868, some changes were made to the structure of the Moscow Synodal Office. In 1869, new staff of ecclesiastical consistories were approved, almost tripling the amount allocated for their maintenance 329. In the same year, church estates in Georgia, which had already been in state management since 1852, were converted into state ownership, in 1871 - in Imereti and Guria, in 1880 - in Mingrelia, and the annual payment of an amount equal to the annual rental income in the year the estates were transferred to the treasury was designated in favor of the former owner. In 1870, a special committee was formed to develop a project for judicial reform in the ecclesiastical department, depending on the general reform of the court that had just been carried out. In 1873, the Committee presented a draft reform that would bring spiritual justice closer to secular justice, with the separation of judicial power from administrative power. But - the reform did not materialize 330. Since the 60s, the clergy has been granted a certain degree of self-government through the introduction of conciliar and elective principles. The new statutes of theological schools and seminaries empower the clergy to convene congresses of deputies to resolve issues primarily regarding the provision of theological educational institutions, to elect from their midst deputies to the boards of seminaries and theological schools and caretakers of theological schools, as well as to discuss some other issues of diocesan life of an educational, educational and church-economic nature, such as parochial schools, diocesan candle factories and etc. 331 The positions of dean were made elective. In some dioceses, “councils” of dean 332 were introduced, in others meetings of priests of the deanery district, for the exchange of thoughts, information and observations on issues of pastoral practice, for the resolution of various doubts and perplexities in this area by common efforts, for discussing measures to meet the needs of churches and clergy, for the improvement of parishes, parochial schools, church trustees, for a peaceful settlement by a common decision and suggestion various displeasures between members of the clergy. In some dioceses, deanery councils have been established, consisting of a dean and several priests, for the administrative investigation of disputes and discord that arise among the clergy with the right, in addition to penalties of a moral nature - admonitions and reprimands, to impose a fine of up to five rubles on those found guilty in favor of the diocesan guardianship of the poor of the clergy 333. Chapter III. Theological schools and the third spiritual-educational reform Awareness of the need for the third spiritual and educational reform. - Preparation. - Special committee. – Partial reforms. - New committee. – New charters and staff. And the reign of Alexander II, like both previous ones, was marked by the reform of the theological school. The new reform was in connection with the general reform of education in the state, and the awareness of the need to “revise the system of upbringing and education of our spiritual youth, in accordance with modern needs” was expressed already in the very first years of the new reign. It was recognized that in theological schools the teaching is extremely multifaceted, scatters attention, tires abilities, depletes bodily strength, education is rude, and the content is extremely meager. Issues of spiritual education were also vigorously debated in the secular press, where notes and memoirs about the old “bursa” by several talented writers appeared. The whole society was interested in the subject, and the sovereign himself, while traveling around Russia in 1858, visited several seminaries: Yaroslavl, Vologda, Nizhny Novgorod, Lithuanian. The Reverends, warmed by the wave of time, began to show exceptional interest in the issues of theological school education, wrote notes, objections, and even Philaret of Moscow himself, the creator of the first theological school regulations, who lived to see the third theological school reform, wanted a speedy new transformation of theological schools, although he stipulated more than once that “the deficiency is not so much in the regulations of the schools, but in the executors,” and that “it is more necessary to encourage and instruct people than to rewrite statutes.” Like all reforms of that time, this one was started within a broad framework. Information was collected “about the state of such institutions in France” and about “how young people preparing to serve the Orthodox Church are educated and taught in the East.” Intensified audits of seminaries were carried out throughout Russia. All rectors were invited to express their opinions on the needs of theological schools. When enough preparatory material had accumulated, the synod at the beginning of 1860 formed a special committee of clergy and secular persons, with the right to invite outsiders at its discretion, to discuss the upcoming reform. Archbishop of Kherson Dimitry Muretov was appointed chairman, and Tertiy Ivanovich Filippov, who was then an official of special assignments under the chief prosecutor, and later reached the post of state controller, was appointed as the clerk. I had to deal with a wide variety of opinions. Some were in favor of admitting into the seminary only those who would pledge to remain in the clergy, and of dressing seminarians in half-caftania and kamilavkas. Some advocated the abolition of “benevolence awards and rank lists,” attributing them to a harmful effect on students. Others insisted on the need to introduce walks, games, gymnastic exercises, manual labor, singing, and music. Others denied the importance of classical languages ​​in the general education course. Meanwhile, while waiting for the issue to be resolved, partial changes began to be introduced. In 1858, geodesy was excluded from the seminar program and the course of natural sciences was limited. In the Smolensk seminary in 1857, a dormitory for students was set up, and from the seminary program, at the request of the bishop, in 1865, medicine, natural history, agriculture were excluded, in the form of experience, the study of classical languages ​​was strengthened, pedagogy was introduced, etc. The economic part was a particularly sore spot. With the destruction of the ties of the ecclesiastical department and the opening of many new positions, seminary mentors were drawn to the secular service, which was better paid, and the seminaries were left without teachers. The energetic new chief prosecutor, Count Dimitri Tolstoy, hastened to stop this sad phenomenon with a completely extraordinary measure: in 1866 he asked for the highest permission for additional leave from the treasury for religious and educational institutions of 1,500,000 rubles. The committee worked for about three years and developed its project. This draft was sent to the diocesan bishops for approval. Discussion of the project continued for about three more years. Seeing no end to the discussion and in view of very significant objections to the project, Count Dmitry Tolstoy asked for the highest permission in 1866 to form a new committee, chaired by the Kyiv Metropolitan Arseny Moskvin, with the participation of one member of the council of the Minister of Internal Affairs, the rector of the university and one representative of the Ministry of Public Education. The committee quickly developed general provisions and, upon approval by the synod, immediately began their detailed development. The final work was sent to Metropolitan Philaret for approval, then reviewed by the synod, and finally, on May 14, 1867, the new states and charters were approved by the highest 334. In 1869, new charters and staff of theological academies were approved 335. At the same time, the district and external academic boards were abolished, the spiritual and educational administration was also abolished, “received the character of an exclusively administrative bureaucratic establishment”; in its place, an educational committee was established at the Holy Synod 336, not with a director at the head, but with a chairman from the clergy, at first it was even supposed to be a bishop. In general, there was now a noticeable desire to free ourselves from the yoke of bureaucracy and achieve greater or lesser self-government. The new statutes were put into effect gradually, starting in the fall of 1867. The essence of the reform was that, administratively, theological seminaries and schools were transferred under the direct supervision of diocesan bishops, academic district boards were abolished, the positions of seminary rectors were made elective, a council was established in the academy to manage the pedagogical and educational parts and a board for the economic part, boards were established in seminaries and schools, which were given extensive competence, with the right, among other things, elections and teachers; The clergy is called to participate in seminary and school affairs, both by the selection of rectors and inspectors, and by the participation of members elected from the clergy in seminary and school boards. In economic terms, the maintenance of students and teachers has been significantly improved, and theological schools received almost full support from local diocesan funds from churches and clergy, excluding the salaries of the administration and teachers, which were issued from the treasury. In terms of education, courses and classes are made year-long everywhere: in the academy there are 4 years, in the school there are 4 years, in the seminary there are 6 classes; in fact, theological education is separated from general education and assigned to the last two years of the seminary course; the system adopted at that time was generally accepted - classical, for each subject, with minor exceptions, a special teacher was appointed; Certain programs were developed for each subject and textbooks were adopted. Persons in command and teaching who were not in the priesthood are recognized as being in the civil service with length of service and the right to receive orders 337. In the academies, the course of sciences was shortened, physical and mathematical sciences were excluded, few general education subjects were left, the rest were distributed into three departments: theological, church-historical and church-practical. The fourth year was intended almost exclusively for practical preparation for seminary teaching, and academic education, in essence, ended already in the third year. Censorship from academies has been completely removed; the right of censorship is reserved only for one’s own academic works. Excluded from the seminar course are natural sciences, agriculture, medicine, catechetical teaching, biblical history, patrolology, polemical theology, church archeology, hermeneutics; Basic theology and pedagogy with practical studies were reintroduced, and the freed teaching hours were devoted to strengthening the study of classical languages, philosophy, mathematics and the Holy Scriptures. It has been made mandatory to study one of the new languages: French or German. Civil history was excluded from the course of theological schools. Access to seminaries, schools and academies was open to everyone. The seminary course was almost equal to the gymnasium course, with the addition of two theological classes, and seminarians, upon completion of the fourth grade, were given the opportunity and right to enter secular higher educational institutions. However, this right was soon taken away. By the end of the reign, there were 4 academies, 35 seminaries and 183 theological schools. Women's religious education was placed on solid ground with the publication in 1868 of the charter of diocesan women's schools 338. These schools, according to the charter, are supported by the clergy and have 6 one-year classes. Sometimes preparatory and special pedagogical classes are added. By the end of the reign, there were 47 women's religious schools, of which 35 were actually special, and 12 were under the patronage of the Empress and maintained by the general funds of the synod. Chapter IV. Public initiative of the clergy. Public education The influence of the liberation reforms of the reign of Alexander II on the social consciousness of the clergy. – Moscow Cathedral of 1856. – Church and public education. – The initiative of Metropolitan Isidor Nikolsky and the assistance of Governor General Vasilchikov. - Voice of the Synod. - Church schools. - Attention of the sovereign. – Opposition from some quarters. - Special committee. – The highest command of January 18, 1863. – Regulations on primary public schools of 1864 and 1874. - Sunday schools. – Sunday schools at seminaries. – Non-liturgical interviews. – Religious and moral readings. Under the influence of the liberation reforms of the reign of Alexander II, the social initiative of the clergy manifested itself with particular force. Immediately under Alexander II, a different spirit was breathed in: instead of exclusively submissive diligence in relation to the will of the authorities, a general consciousness of necessity and a general desire to work for everyone to the best of their own understanding for the common good appeared. Already at the usual meeting of bishops for the coronation of the young sovereign in 1856, Moscow Metropolitan Philaret came up with a project for a conciliar discussion of certain aspects of church life that required correction: on measures to preserve reverence and splendor during the celebration of the sacraments and to enhance the deanery during church services, on facilitating the supervision of the clergy and flocks through the formation of new dioceses and institutions vicariates, affairs of schism, etc. The Bishop himself presented at the cathedral his own projects for correcting the rite of the bishop's promise and the rite of joining non-believers: both projects were accepted by the cathedral. At the same council, the Moscow ruler made a proposal to resume the work of translating the Holy Scriptures into Russian, dear to his life. The proposal was accepted. But Count Alexander Tolstoy, soon after assuming the post of Chief Prosecutor, suspended the execution of the decision, which, however, had not yet been signed, got it sent to the conclusion of the Kyiv Metropolitan Filaret Amfitheatrov, who obviously did not sympathize with the translation of the Holy Scripture into Russian, and when he received a response from Kyiv with the wish that the sovereign would stop the translation work with his authority, Tolstoy presented the review to the sovereign and asked for permission to bring it back to the synod for general consideration, having previously communicated the response of the Kyiv Philaret to the Moscow one and proposing for his part that affairs should not begin without communication with the Greek Church. The Emperor, attentive to the voice of the hierarchs, wrote on the report: “I agree, and thank you for acting so carefully in this important matter. It’s interesting to know what the Metropolitan of Moscow will say after reading the remarkable letter of the Metropolitan of Kiev” 339. Perhaps most of all, the public initiative of the clergy during the reign of Alexander II was revealed in the matter of public education and in the revitalization of parish church life. Until the sixties, as a circular from the Minister of Public Instruction put it in 1884, “clergymen were almost the only teachers in rural schools; they not only taught children, but also supported schools with their own funds.” However, the matter in general was so insignificant that it gave rise to the historian of the activities of the Russian clergy in relation to public education during the reign of Emperor Alexander II to say the following: “the spread of literacy among the peasant population was so weak and insignificant that it still made it possible to put on the queue and consider unresolved the very question of whether literacy is necessary and useful for the peasants, or whether it is unnecessary and even harmful for them.” Similar questions were debated both in society and in journalism. And indeed, when the synod at the end of 1855 wanted to collect accurate information about the number of church schools and students in them, it turned out that the number of parish schools proper was “very insignificant.” But when, from the beginning of the sixties, both the government and society aroused a special interest in the spread of public education, the clergy did not remain deaf to the demands of the time and energetically began to educate the people. The initiative in this matter is attributed to the Metropolitan of Kyiv, later of St. Petersburg, Isidor Nikolsky, who in 1859 gave his consistory the following proposal: “Taking into account the present state of Russia, which is striving for education, I find it necessary that the rural clergy should not be alien to this general movement and, if possible, should try to promote the dissemination of useful knowledge in rural societies; For this purpose, I propose to the consistory to order that in all towns and villages schools be opened in the very houses of priests, if such are not established by rural society, and that in these schools they teach reading, writing and teach the law of God in relation to the concept of rural children.” The order of the Metropolitan aroused universal sympathy, and with the warm sympathy of Governor-General Vasilchikov, whom some consider the initiator of this very matter, it was quickly marked by success. Following the Kyiv diocese came the Volyn-Warsaw diocese with Archbishop Arseny, who the following year became Isidore’s successor in Kyiv. By the end of the year, there were, instead of the previous fifteen, church schools in the Kyiv diocese, 151 with more than 3,600 students, and in Volyn - 893 with 4,000 students. The Kiev case aroused the full approval of the synod, which promised for its part all support and expressed that the establishment of rural schools for the spread of literacy among the peasant population can lead to the beneficial results expected from them only in the case when, if not the only, then their main mentors and guardians are rural priests, on whom the Church itself has entrusted the sacred duty of instructing children in faith and piety. After this, the issue was resolved. Following the Kyiv and Volyn dioceses, other dioceses also counted newly opened church schools by the end of the year. The heyday began in the southwest, but in interior Russia things were slow. In 1860, the Volyn diocese counted 1,055 schools with 10,100 students, Podolsk 1,263 with 20,100 students, Chernigov 764 with 18,300 students, Minsk 347 with 4,300 students, Lithuanian 175 with 2,000 students, and at the same time Kostroma 12 with 244 students, Saratov 3 with 176 students, Tula 1 with 52 students, etc. In 1861, the sovereign paid special attention to this matter and ordered that monthly information about church schools be submitted to him. The clergy, inspired by the highest attention, doubled their efforts: in April 1862, there were already 21,328 schools with 370,000 students in all dioceses. But alongside these undeniable successes of the clergy in the matter of public education, oddly enough, opposition to the whole matter developed in secular circles, in which positivism was then gaining dominance. It was stated that the methods and methods of teaching the people by the clergy were not rational and a demand was made to take the matter of public education out of the hands of the clergy and transfer it entirely to the Ministry of Public Education. The dispute that arose found a response in the highest spheres and the Committee of Ministers in 1861 decided to establish a special committee to develop a general regulation for all primary public schools. The committee was composed of representatives of all interested departments: the ministries of public education, state property, appanages, internal affairs and finance, as well as the department of the Orthodox confession. The Committee came to the conclusion that supervision over the correctness of teaching in all primary public schools should be provided exclusively to one Ministry of Public Education, and classes in schools should be entrusted to special teachers, since the clergy cannot properly conduct school teaching while being busy with parish needs. However, due to the open protest of the synod, the committee’s assumption did not come true and the sovereign, by decree on January 18, 1862, left the schools under the management of the departments by which they were opened, and the Ministry of Public Education was obliged to provide assistance to church schools as far as possible 340. Finally, the regulation on primary public schools 341, approved by the Supreme on July 14, 1864, regulated the matter of public education. It was recognized that the education and upbringing of the people must necessarily be carried out in the spirit of religious principles and that only with the direct participation of the clergy in teaching and supervising all public schools can public education receive correct and successful development. But at the same time, concerns about public education were entrusted to society itself, with possible complete freedom in this matter for all departments. Secular society, the private zemstvo, understood the new law in such a way that the previous system of public education under the leadership of the clergy was recognized as untenable, and, depending on the then public mood, which was generally hostile to the clergy, it gradually tried to completely push the clergy away from the cause of public education. The number of parochial schools began to decline every year, despite all the efforts of the Holy Synod to promote the development of the matter and despite the fact that the new Minister of Public Education, from 1866, Count Dimitri Andreevich Tolstoy, was sympathetic to the participation of the clergy in the matter of public education. In 1872, there were already 9,059 church schools, only half the previous number, and still one and a half times more than the number of public schools of secular departments. Finally, with the new regulations on public schools, approved on May 25, 1874, 342 and entrusting the matter of public education directly into the hands of the Ministry of Public Education, the clergy was almost eliminated from school affairs, retaining only the right to monitor the religious and moral direction of education and the right to teach the law of God. After this, by 1881 there were no more than 4,000 343 church schools left. Granted, these schools were poor and poorly organized, but they were still schools. Thus, instead of common work, even if completely independent, with the sole goal of the greatest possible success, obstacles were put in place for a good cause, and in disputes about the unimportant, those who allegedly fought for enlightenment served the rule of ignorance. In addition to parochial schools, the clergy took an active part in the establishment of so-called Sunday schools, that is, lessons on Sundays and holidays for adults for whom weekdays are busy with work. The idea of ​​Sunday schools belongs to St. Petersburg, where the craft council in 1858 petitioned for the opening of Sunday classes for male artisans, and where one girl opened a Sunday school in 1859 in her apartment in the Izmailovsky regiment. But the council’s petition was not implemented, and the school in the Izmailovsky regiment languished in obscurity, so in all fairness they indicate that the first Sunday schools of public importance appeared in 1859 in Kyiv and owe their origin to university professor Pavlov and student Voronov, as well as to the trustee of the educational district Pirogov, who took them under his patronage. In 1860, Sunday schools appeared “in almost all cities of Russia.” The Ministry of the Interior, meeting society's concerns about public education, issued general rules for Sunday schools in 1861. There was a lot of talk about the schools and high hopes were placed on them. But since some individuals and circles tried to use them to propagate their anti-government ideas among the people, the administration was forced to introduce some restrictions in relation to Sunday schools. After this, society somehow ceased to be interested in Sunday schools, and already at the beginning of 1862, in magazine reviews one could read the fear that Sunday schools would end their days after a year: “so quiet and poor is their existence.” The words turned out to be prophetic. In June 1862, after a discussion in the Council of Ministers, all Sunday schools were closed until new rules for them were developed. And when the general regulations on primary public schools came out on July 14, 1864, Sunday schools were allowed to open only under the direct supervision of the clergy. After this, only a few Sunday schools were opened by the clergy in the Samara diocese in 1865, at first mainly with missionary anti-schism goals, but then, under the patronage of the Samara Bishop Gerasim, this business grew in the diocese, and then moved to other dioceses. Immediately, the sympathetic attention of the highest spiritual administration was drawn to him and, for the benefit of the matter, the study of pedagogy in theological seminaries was intensified and for the practice of seminarians, Sunday schools were opened at the seminaries, from the 1866-1867 academic year. In some seminaries, Sunday schools turned into permanent ones. In some rural parishes, Sunday schools have degenerated into extra-liturgical interviews of priests with parishioners on Sundays and holidays. In his most humble report for 1873, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod already noted the “great development in some dioceses” of extra-liturgical interviews. The beginning of extra-liturgical interviews is also attributed to the Samara diocese and dates back to 1867. In the cities, non-liturgical interviews have changed into so-called religious and moral readings, a more correct name, because at interviews there is never actually an interview, but only one person speaks. These readings, when done for the so-called intelligent public, were sometimes paid for and sometimes attracted the exclusive attention of society 344. Chapter V. Church brotherhoods and societies Revitalization of church and parish life. – Priest A.B. Gumyalevsky. – First Society for the Welfare of the Parish Poor. – Rules for the establishment of church fraternities. – Regulations on parish trustees. – Growth of brotherhoods and church-educational societies. – Society for the Restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus. – Society for the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures in Russia. – Society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment. - Missionary Society. – Brotherhood of St. Gury in Kazan. – Charitable and economic public institutions of the spiritual department. Under the influence of liberation ideas, many church leaders tried to revive parish life. In society and literature, not only spiritual, but also secular, questions about ancient church brotherhoods were treated with rare interest. One of the most prominent figures in this field was the founder of organized parish charity in St. Petersburg, master of the St. Petersburg Academy, priest of the Church of the Nativity on Sands, Alexander Vasilyevich Gumilevsky. Father Gumilyovsky was the son of a rural deacon of the St. Petersburg diocese, was left an orphan early, found shelter with an uncle-deacon in St. Petersburg, graduated from a theological school, seminary and academy, spent about a year as a teacher at the seminary, got married and entered the priesthood in St. Petersburg at Peski in 1856. He was an exceptional priest at that time, completely captured by the beginning of the sixties, thirsting for social activity. He performed absolutely exceptional service to the parish, knowing no rest day or night, preached bold sermons in church, loved to talk in society, spoke in spiritual journalism with semi-fictional creations and with journalistic articles of an accusatory direction, even founded his own magazine “The Spirit of a Christian”, rushed to every public cause where he could be a participant, had long been toying with the idea of reviving ancient church brotherhoods and was well known throughout St. Petersburg: alone praised, others were hostile. A mind and character, full of impulse and fire, but not at all organizational, Father Gumilevsky tried to make something completely fantastic out of his parish, like an Orthodox-Masonic community, the dreams did not come true, but, however, something was done. Father Gumilevsky managed to start a Sunday school in 1860, which was soon closed, however, and founded an orphanage in 1863, and then a brotherhood, which subsequently received widespread development and exists to this day. While he was running around with his ideas, unable to implement them, at the Annunciation Church on Vasilievsky Island in St. Petersburg, quietly and very practically, priest Delitsyn and his colleagues opened the first “society for the benefit of the parish poor” 345 in 1862. The social and literary movement did not go unnoticed by the spiritual government, and, after quite complex work on discussing issues of revitalizing parish life through the revival of ancient brotherhoods or the establishment of church councils 346, the publication of the highest approved on May 8, 1864, the basic rules for the establishment of Orthodox church brotherhoods 347 and on August 2, 1864, the regulation on parish trustees 348. The tasks of the trustees were determined by concerns about finding funds to improve the maintenance of the parish church and clergy and to establish and maintain a school, hospital, and almshouse in the parish. In 1868, 5,327 guardianships were noted throughout Russia, the next year 2,000 new ones were added, and then the annual increase never reached a thousand; in 1880 there were 11,816 total parish wards. In general, during this time, parish trustees did not live up to the rosy hopes with which their appearance was greeted, but still, this cannot be denied, they brought a certain amount of benefit in the improvement of parish churches, schools and charitable institutions. After the publication of the rules of 1864, 63 brotherhoods were founded by 1880: the number is not very significant. Next to the brotherhoods, completely identical in their tasks and activities and only somewhat less constrained in their statutes, various educational and charitable societies began to arise. Some of these societies, as well as some brotherhoods, thanks to the good quality of the soil on which they arose, and mostly thanks to their animated organizers, stood out from the parish and diocesan sphere and achieved brilliant prosperity and wide, all-Russian fame. Some were founded with the objectives of all-Russian activities. These are: a society for the dissemination of the Holy Scriptures in Russia, a society for lovers of spiritual enlightenment, a missionary society, the brotherhood of St. Gurias in Kazan, a society for the restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus. The first of these to appear was the society for the restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus. It owes its emergence to the then governor of the Caucasus, Prince A.I. Baryatinsky, and the Exarch of Georgia, Archbishop Isidore Nikolsky, who, however, soon gave up his place to His Eminence Eusebius. Prince Baryatinsky’s note on the establishment of the society at first, in 1857, was met with distrust, and even the sovereign himself expressed doubts about “the compatibility of such a brotherhood with our institutions.” However, less than three years passed, and not only was the society’s charter approved by the highest order, on June 9, 1860, but the sovereign presented the society with a large allowance from the treasury and marked the approval of the charter with a special letter addressed to the governor with wishes for good success and with the notification that the empress had accepted the society under her special protection. The society was dedicated to Saint Nina, the enlightener of Georgia. To attract more members, the society established for them the signs of the Order of St. Nina, in the shape of a cross 349. The Society for the Dissemination of the Holy Scriptures in Russia was founded in 1868 by a circle of eight secular persons, including only two Russians, and was headed by Nikolai Astafiev, in whose apartment the circle met. Initially, those gathered decided “not to form a society yet,” but to act without any formalities, in a close circle. The goal was to distribute the books of Holy Scripture published by the Holy Synod. The very emergence of society depended on the appearance of the Russian translation of the sacred books. The meaning of the society's activities was that it distributed the synod's publications either on credit, or at a reduced price, or for free - in a word, it facilitated the methods of acquiring sacred books, had its own book dealers who went to taverns, factories, traveled along the railways and, so to speak, convinced people to purchase books of the Holy Scriptures. In the first 6 years, the circle distributed up to 65,000 copies of sacred books. In 1869, the circle was transformed into a society, with a charter, which was approved by the highest on May 2, 1869. The society began to receive a small subsidy from the British Bible Society and a more significant one, from 1880, from the American Bible Society, equipped book dealers in Siberia, the Amur, Turkestan, and annually distributes an average of 50,000 copies. The society itself does not publish any books and this differs from the former and closed Bible society 350. The Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment opened in Moscow also in 1863. Its establishment was caused by “the desire of the Moscow clergy to have more book aids for their education than each clergy individual could have,” and then “the revealed need for closer mutual communication between educated clergy for joint activities in the dissemination of spiritual enlightenment.” Initially, only a library was founded, and then a society was born under it. The charter was approved by the highest on June 22, 1863. From the same year, the society began to publish the scientific journal “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment”, and then, from 1869, the diocesan “Moscow Church Gazette” and from 1870, sheets of spiritual and moral content for public reading. Since 1871, the society opened a special department for distributing spiritual and moral books among the people, which was later accepted under the august patronage of the Empress Maria Feodorovna, then a special department for icon studies was opened. Since 1866, Sunday religious and moral readings have been open to the public in the library hall. Since 1872, the society opened its department in St. Petersburg 351. The missionary society was opened at the end of 1865, the charter was approved by the highest on July 16, it was founded by a circle of secular people in St. Petersburg with the aim of spreading Christian teaching and culture among the pagans remaining in the empire, and from the very first days it energetically began its activities. The society did not shy away from clergy, it had in its composition, along with secular and clergy, and in its council - a member of the synod, Archbishop Vasily Luzhinsky, and the rector of the theological academy, Archpriest Yanyshev, but, little familiar with the usual conditions of activity of clergy, it soon entered into extremely sharp disputes with the head of the Altai mission, Archimandrite Vladimir Petrov, who later became a bishop in Nizhny Novgorod, his closest and highest authorities took the side of the archimandrite, the issue turned to the fundamental basis of competition between the secular and the spiritual, the spiritual causticly noticed that the sheep wanted to be led by the shepherds, and the secular ones venomously pointed out that pagans had existed in the empire for a long time, and the spiritual ones did “nothing” for them, but now, when the secular ones took up the work, the spiritual ones rose up to extinguish them too beginnings. In its printed report, the society’s council wrote without hesitation that the society, “met at first with hidden disapproval in that very sphere from which it had the right to expect the warmest sympathy, from the second year of its existence was subjected to persistent persecution by all the forces in this sphere.” With the then degree of glasnost, a terrible newspaper and magazine controversy broke out. The society was under the patronage of the Empress Maria Alexandrovna, the fire of discord that broke out, which, moreover, had no end in sight, was extremely inconvenient, the case was reported by the chief prosecutor of the synod to both the sovereign and the empress, and, in the end, the spiritual side invented a combination of a happy solution: to move the main administration of the society to Moscow under the permanent chairmanship of the Moscow metropolitan Innokenty Veniaminov, whose complete competence in missionary work and familiarity with Siberia, which was the main focus of the missionary society’s activities, were not subject to the slightest doubt. This combination was accepted by the empress, who announced that, in the event of society’s disagreement with the transfer of the main administration to Moscow, she did not want to leave it under her august patronage. The chairman of the society's council at that time was Prince Nikolai Sergeevich Golitsyn, and the position of chief prosecutor was filled by fellow chief prosecutor Yuri Tolstoy 352 . No matter how the society grieved, it had to submit to circumstances, and in 1870 the society moved to Moscow, received a new charter and began to consider a new era. Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna The Brotherhood of St. Gury in Kazan was founded in 1867 with the special purpose of educating foreigners by publishing religious books translated into foreign languages, establishing missionary shelters, interviews, sending missionaries, establishing foreign schools, and for a long series of years it honorably fulfilled its mission 353. In addition to educational and charitable societies and brotherhoods, with the participation of the clergy and among them, many mutually auxiliary and economic public institutions of a charitable or auxiliary nature appeared: emerital diocesan clergy funds, or mutual benefit societies, societies for the benefit of disadvantaged students of religious educational institutions, diocesan candle factories began to be established in order to generate income and use them for spiritual needs, etc. p. Chapter VI. Spiritual literature and science Increased mental activity. – New spiritual magazines: “Orthodox Interlocutor”, “Spiritual Conversation”, “Orthodox Review”, “Soulful Reading”, “Wanderer”, “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”. Magazines: “Church Bulletin” and “Church and Public Bulletin”, “Home Conversation”, “Diocesan Gazette”. – Spiritual science. – His Eminence Macarius Bulgakov. – Eminence Filaret Gumilyovsky. – History of the Russian Church. – Spiritual speakers. – Publication of books of Holy Scripture in Russian. – Translated literature. - Censorship. Under the influence of liberation reforms and an extremely energetic upswing in social life, there was a high rise in mental activity. In the spiritual world, this time was also affected by the high development of spiritual journalism and the prosperity of science. In a short time, a hitherto unprecedented number of spiritual periodicals appeared. The first of the new spiritual magazines during the reign of Alexander II appeared in May 1855, “Orthodox Interlocutor,” published at the Kazan Theological Academy. This magazine owes its appearance, however, entirely to the previous reign. The initiative came from St. Petersburg. In November 1853, Count Protasov informed the Archbishop of Kazan Grigory Postnikov of the highest will that the Kazan Academy, “as not yet occupied with any temporary publication,” would publish a spiritual journal with a predominant direction against schism in its various forms - “in the form of strengthening the spiritual and moral influence on schismatics.” A year passed in developing the magazine's program, and correspondence on its approval by the synod. The rector of the academy since 1854 was Archimandrite Agafangel Solovyov, who was later the Archbishop of Volyn and died in 1876. The program was developed, however, mainly by Archbishop Gregory, who, while he was in Kazan, took a close part in the editorship of the magazine. In the early years, the magazine was published in the form of four three-month issues per year. Since 1858, the new rector, Archimandrite John Sokolov, a famous preacher-publicist who died a bishop in Smolensk, the magazine was transformed into a monthly publication and in a short time received enormous success for that time, so that it was printed in 3,000 copies and could pay employees 100 rubles for a small printed sheet. The magazine was really very good. He intended to become “a strong organ of the church word in relation to the then burning social issues and movements” and paved the first way for the emergence of spiritual journalism. In 1859, already a year ago, he fell under censorship punishment; he was obliged to submit his articles to censorship in Moscow, which lasted about a year and a half. Since 1860, with the appearance in both capitals of new magazines with a similar program, but more accessible to the public, Sobesednik began to quickly lose its subscribers and for a long time experienced a financial crisis, although at first it still maintained its previous height, until the reduction of the fee, brought almost to zero, discouraged employees from publishing anything in the magazine, except perhaps some rubbish. In 1867, at the request of Archbishop Anthony of Kazan, in order to increase the number of subscribers by compulsory subscription of all churches of the diocese, “Interlocutor” was allowed to publish “News of the Kazan Diocese”, according to the program of diocesan bulletins 354. Metropolitan of St. Petersburg Grigory Postnikov founded at the seminary a weekly magazine for edifying reading “Spiritual Conversation”, which began publishing in 1858, then, after the death of the Metropolitan, it ceased and was resumed in 1868 by Archpriest I. Yakhontov, as a private publication. In the “Church Chronicle” under the “Conversation”, the Holy Synod soon began to publish some of its decrees and announcements, making this body its official one. The Spiritual Conversation ceased in 1876, when the synod transferred the printing of its decrees from the Conversation to the newly founded Church Messenger. The year 1860 was especially happy for spiritual journalism, in which four new magazines began to be published at once: “Orthodox Review”, “Soulful Reading”, “Wanderer” and “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”. “Orthodox Review” and “Soulful Reading” appeared in Moscow. “Orthodox Review”, a theological and philosophical magazine, owes its existence to three enlightened Moscow priests: Nikolai Sergievsky, a university professor, editor-publisher of the magazine, then P. Preobrazhensky, a seminary professor who inherited the editorship and publication after Sergievsky’s father, and G. Smirnov-Platonov. The magazine's goal was to be an organ of theological and philosophical thought for an educated secular society, in contrast to academic journals that bore a special school imprint. “Soulful Reading” was founded by priest Alexei Klyucharyov, later Ambrose, Archbishop of Kharkov, but was soon transferred to priest Vasil Nechaev, later Bishop Vissarion of Kostroma, and set the task of giving soulful, simple reading to the widest circle of educated, but not philosophizing readers. The success that greeted the publication from the very beginning followed it until the end of the century. “The Wanderer,” founded in St. Petersburg by Archpriest Vasily Grechulevich, later the former Bishop of Mogilev Vitaly, was distinguished by the fact that it introduced a fictional element into its program in the form of stories and gave portraits, on separate sheets, of the most famous archpastors, with which subscribers from the rural clergy lovingly decorated the wooden walls of their chambers in the good old days. “The Wanderer”, in general, has retained its character to this day. “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” were built according to the type of academic bodies of St. Petersburg and Kazan. A special feature of the Works was, from the very first days, a particularly zealous development of Western Russian church history. Since 1860, the “Guide for Rural Shepherds” began to be published in Kyiv. From 1861, for five years, the monthly magazine “The Spirit of a Christian” was published, founded by priest A.V. Gumilyovsky and some others, similar to the spiritual monthlies that had already been published since 1860. The magazine withered away from lack of subscribers. Since 1863, the Moscow Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment began to publish “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment,” first in separate books, then four times a year, then monthly, a venerable scientific journal. Since 1875, Nikolai Ivanovich Subbotin, a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy, began publishing the anti-schism magazine “Brotherly Word”. The weekly spiritual organs were a good success. Since 1875, according to Professor Andrei Ivanovich Predtechensky, the weekly organ “Church Bulletin” was founded at Christian Reading. Initially, the weekly publication was supposed to retain the name “Christian Reading,” but the synod drew attention to the inconsistency of the name with the immediate purpose of the new magazine, after which it was changed. The Holy Synod elected the "Vestnik" as its official organ, instead of the "Spiritual Conversation", and the magazine immediately gained material success, gaining official subscribers, and the "Spiritual Conversation", having lost the latter, ceased to exist. As if in parallel to the “Church Bulletin,” Alexander Ivanovich Popovitsky founded the “Church-Public Bulletin,” which also gained a wide readership and material success, but for a different reason: thanks to the sensationalism of the news it reported from the spiritual spheres. Since 1864, the Kharkov Theological Seminary has published the “Spiritual Diary,” which is more diocesan than an all-Russian organ. “Diocesan Gazette” appeared in large numbers. The oldest are “Yaroslavskie”, “Khersonskie”, “Tambovskie”, published in 1860. There was also the magazine “Home Conversation”, published by Askochensky since 1858, a magazine of an extremely protective direction, which at one time some spiritual figures valued very much as a means of carrying out their thoughts and plans. During this reign, spiritual science reached, one might say, its prosperity. His Grace Macarius Bulgakov, from 1857 Bishop of Tambov, from 1859 Bishop, and then Archbishop of Kharkov, from 1868 Archbishop of Lithuania and from 1879 Metropolitan of Moscow, began to publish volume after volume his “History of the Russian Church,” which, of course, is well known to everyone. Vladyka survived the reign of Alexander II for a few days and died in Moscow on June 9, 1882 355. As if the double of the Right Reverend Macarius was the Right Reverend Filaret Gumilyovsky of Kharkov, then of Chernigov, who, like Macarius, published both “Orthodox Dogmatic Theology” - in 1864, and “The History of the Russian Church” - very venerable works, but, if I may say so, of a lower class. The writer is very prolific, he published many other works, of which the most famous are: “A Review of Russian Spiritual Literature from 862 to 1858,” which is, so to speak, a scholarly revision of the “Dictionary of Writers of the Spiritual Order” by the Right Reverend Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov, and the popular “Lives of the Saints,” which are mostly an arrangement of the Chetiy Menaion of St. Demetrius of Rostov. He died in 1866 356. Professor of the Kazan Academy Pyotr Vasilyevich Znamensky in 1870 published a guide to Russian church history, which became a textbook and was republished many times, detailed readings on the history of the Russian Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I, in 1885, the history of theological schools in Russia before the reform of 1808, a study on the parish clergy in Russia, 1872, and, finally, already in the next reign, the history of its Academy, in three volumes, which had the greatest success with the public. Professor of the Moscow Academy Evgeny Evstigneevich Golubinsky wrote a major history of the Russian Church until the 18th century. The peculiarity of this story is its criticism. A born, so to speak, critic, the author subjected a bold re-evaluation of all authorities and positions considered unshakable, injected doubt into others where there was none at all, and rearranged others in his own way, quite the opposite. This critical history explains and evaluates everything from the point of view of reason and does not want to know the elements of fantasy and mysticism, in history, as in life, which are of great importance. Like any original serious work, Golubinsky’s history aroused a whole cloud of attacks against itself, and its first volume could appear in print in 1880 only thanks to the patronage of the Moscow Metropolitan Macarius. The first half of the second volume was published only in 1900. Filaret Gumilevsky, Archbishop of Chernigov The time was especially happy for the historical sciences, and especially for Russian history. Also, the story of Karamzin, which itself was the result of the aspirations of its time, gave a strong impetus to the study of native antiquity. Under Nicholas I, it was recognized that it was necessary to strengthen the study of Russian church history in seminaries. At the same time, in 1850, the Holy Synod ordered that historical and statistical descriptions be compiled for the dioceses, and to make their appearance possible, it was recommended to establish diocesan historical and statistical committees. These committees collected a lot of expensive material, aroused interest in the study of local history, discovered many hitherto completely unknown documents and opened up the possibility of the emergence of historical and statistical descriptions of dioceses, of which quite a few were published 357 . Now an order was made to describe the consistory archives. In 1865, according to the report of the chief prosecutor, Count Dmitry Tolstoy, a commission was established to analyze and describe the synodal archive, consisting of learned archivists, and began to publish two series of their works: a detailed description of the archive and a complete collection of decrees and orders for the department of Orthodox confession. In 1855–1869, a description of the Moscow Synodal Library, Archpriest Alexander Gorsky and Professor Nevostruev, was published. Interest in native history was strongly fueled by Solovyov’s regularly appearing annual volumes of the history of Russia, which had been published since 1851 and, along with civil and military matters, dealt with spiritual matters to a large extent. All this contributed to the emergence of historical works. Of the spiritual speakers, the most prominent were His Eminence Dimitry Muretov, Bishop of Tula, then Archbishop of Kherson, Yaroslavl, Volyn and again Kherson, who died in 1883, a representative of teaching preaching, and representatives of journalistic preaching with different shades for each, the Right Reverends: John Sokolov, Bishop of Smolensk, formerly rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, deceased in 1869, Ambrose Klyucharyov, first a Moscow priest, then a Moscow vicar and then the Archbishop of Kharkov, and Nikanor Brovkovich, Archbishop of Kherson, who died in 1890. The most important event in the field of Russian writing was the appearance of the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian. The Holy Synod, in its congratulatory address to Emperor Alexander II, on the day of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his reign, enumerating the merits of the sovereign’s reign before the Church, put in the first place the fact that during this reign the translation of the sacred books into Russian was undertaken and successfully completed, “which opened up the opportunity for the Orthodox Russian flock to make extensive use of the treasure of the Word of God.” The final decision of the synod to begin publishing the Russian translation of the Holy Scriptures took place at the end of 1857. The translation was definitely intended not for church use, which was especially feared by opponents of the translation, but as an aid to understanding the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. And the sovereign, although he had recently praised the caution of the chief prosecutor in delaying the translation, freely gave his permission for the translation and its publication. The translation of the Bible was entrusted to all theological academies, the editing of the translation was provided to the professor of Greek at the St. Petersburg Academy Evgraf Ivanovich Lovyagin, and the final review of the translation remained with Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, who worked more than anyone else in this matter 358, and the Holy Synod. In 1860, a translation of the four Gospels was already published, in 1862 - a translation of the remaining books of the New Testament, in 1863 - the entire New Testament in one book. At the same time, energetic preparatory work began for the translation of the Old Testament. From time to time, translations of one or another Old Testament book into Russian appeared in various spiritual magazines: in the “Orthodox Review”, “Christian Reading”, “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy”, “The Christian Spirit”. Private translations were also published in separate publications - in Russia and abroad. In 1867, the synod decided to publish its own translation of the Old Testament books. A special committee of St. Petersburg Academy professors Golubev, Savvaitov, Lovyagin and Khvolson was tasked with revising the existing translations. The final edition of the translation belonged, as before, to the synod, of whose members Metropolitan Isidor Nikolsky and Protopresbyter Vasily Borisovich Bazhanov now especially worked in this matter. The publication of the translation of the Old Testament began in 1868, and in 1877 a complete translation of the Bible was published in one book. Concerning the end of the great work, its most important leaders, the hierarchs, received gracious rescripts from the sovereign, who expressed his royal gratitude to them for their work, which was very useful for the Church 359. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow did not live to see this day, but he still saw the victorious beginning of the implementation of the idea for which he had stood up all his long life, received praise for it, but also suffered a lot 360. It is worthy of note that there seemed to be no other people on earth in which such a hostile attitude towards their native language could have been possible. Opponents of translating the books of Holy Scripture into Russian and defenders of leaving the only existing Slavic translation forgot that our holy first teachers Cyril and Methodius lived and did their translation not yesterday or the next day, when the Slavic language is archaeological and obscure, but precisely when it was a living spoken language. Academic bodies: St. Petersburg, Moscow, and new Kazan and Kyiv continued to publish translations of the “works of the holy fathers.” “Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy” specifically took upon itself the translation of the works of the Western Holy Fathers. The “Orthodox Interlocutor,” in addition to the patristic works, gave a translation of the “Acts” of the ecumenical and nine local councils. The “Orthodox Review” published translations of apocryphal tales, the works of apostolic men, apologists. The “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” published a translation of the apostolic and conciliar “Rules”, supplied with interpretations. Many translations of the most important works of the best Western European theologians and thinkers have appeared. In the field of spiritual censorship, the changes that took place were that in 1857 the St. Petersburg spiritual censorship committee was separated from the academy; in 1859 the secret censorship committee at the synod was abolished; and in the 60s, some censorship rights were also granted to diocesan authorities - for local periodicals and brochures. The new charter of theological academies of 1869 separated censorship from the jurisdiction of the academies; the academies were left with the right to censor only their own publications. In St. Petersburg, new provisions were applied. But in the provinces, the authors, who were practically grouped in full force at the academies, found it difficult to send their manuscripts to St. Petersburg or Moscow and continued to publish them through their local academic censorship, through an academic journal, or council, when dissertations were published. Chapter VII. Matters of faith and diocese Missionary work. – Reunification of the Kholmsky Uniates. - Sectarianism. - Schism. – Opening of relics, new holidays, services. – Construction of churches. A special development of missionary work was revealed during the reign of Alexander II in the Volga region, where several figures dedicated to the cause of educating foreigners appeared, grouped mainly at the Kazan Theological Academy. The Baptized Tatar school founded in Kazan trained teachers for foreign schools and clergy members for foreign parishes. Missionary activity among foreigners has become especially active since the opening of the Brotherhood of St. Gurias in Kazan in 1867. In Kazan, at the Transfiguration Monastery, a missionary shelter was established in 1875 with teaching foreign languages ​​​​and missionary conversations. In missionary work in the Volga region, the famous scientist Nikolai Ivanovich Ilminsky 361 made his name immortal. In 1857, the release from the treasury of money for the maintenance of the Altai mission was increased to 5,500 rubles per year, instead of the previous 571; in 1874, the mission was allowed to set up its own printing house; in 1879, a catechetical school was opened in the city of Biysk at the department of the bishop of Biysk, the vicar of the Tomsk bishop. The resources of the Obdorsk mission have been strengthened. In 1867, the Surgut mission was established in the Tobolsk diocese, in 1861 - the Irkutsk one, in 1862 - the Transbaikal one. In his Kamchatka diocese, located on two continents, in Asia and in America, the Right Reverend Innokenty Veniaminov worked with apostolic zeal, established missionary camps, directly supervised the work, constantly traveling around the diocese, sometimes covering over 8,000 miles. By order of the Right Reverend and with his direct participation, liturgical, biblical and other teaching books were translated into the Yakut language. In 1859, the first divine service was held in the Yakut language in the city of Yakutsk 362. Archpriest Khitrov, later the Right Reverend Dionysius of Ufa, compiled a grammar of the Yakut language and a Yakut-Russian primer, Archpriest Popov compiled a Tungus primer and dictionary. Since 1867, services began to be performed in the Buryat language. With the pacification of the Caucasus - in 1859 in its eastern part and in 1864 in its western part - a limit was put to the violent propaganda of Islam here. The Ossetian commission, abolished in 1862, and the Society for the Restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus worked here since 1860, which opened the Pitsunda monastery in Abkhazia to educate the mountain people, maintained shelters, built churches, started schools and published religious books in Georgian, Ossetian, Abkhazian, Svaneti and Chechen languages. In the 60s, sometimes up to 8,000 mountaineers converted per year, in 1876 there were only 13 converts, in 1879 - 7. In 1870, a shelter for baptized Jewish children was opened in St. Petersburg. For missionary work beyond the borders of the Russian Empire, the reign of Emperor Alexander II was favorable. According to the treaty of 1858, China opened its doors to Russia and gave its subjects complete freedom to convert to Christianity. The Chinese mission received an increase in salary to 15,600 rubles per year; however, she turned her primary attention to publishing translations of books into Chinese, but there were almost no requests. The same Count Putyatin, who concluded a treaty with China, peacefully opened the doors of Japan to Russia. Here, in 1858, the first Orthodox church in Japan was built in Hakodate. In 1870, an Orthodox mission was established in Japan. Our mission in Japan reached a brilliant peak thanks to Hieromonk Nikolai Kasatkin, who appeared in Japan in the late 60s, became a bishop in 1880, and now runs the mission. In 1871 the mission received organization. In 1872, the center of the mission was moved to the city of Ieddo, catechetical and translation schools began to open, translations were published, and in 1873, services began in Japanese. Of the heterodox confessions within Russia, up to 2,000 Roman Catholics and 500 Protestants converted to Orthodoxy annually; This last figure began to rise in the late sixties, rose to 1,500 by 1871, and then stopped at 700. Sometimes, under the influence of exceptional circumstances, these figures rose unusually high. Thus, in 1866, after the pacification of the Polish rebellion, under the influence of the Russification measures taken in the western region, the number of reunited Roman Catholics immediately increased to 49½ thousand and continued to remain at a relatively high level for another seven years, until it became normal. The greatest number of lost sheep returning to the bosom of the Mother Church was brought about by the reunification of the Kholm Uniates in 1875. The main figures of the reunification were, on the Russian side, the chief director of internal and spiritual affairs in the kingdom of Poland, Prince Cherkassky and the Secretary of State for Polish Affairs Milutin. Measures for reunification were taken that were already known and had been used previously with success. The power of the Basilians was weakened, the importance of the white clergy was raised, the purification of church rites from Roman Catholic layers began, two Uniate bishops who opposed the reunification were successively removed from their cathedras, and the management of the Uniates was entrusted to the Kholm Cathedral Archpriest Markell Onufrievich Popel, who stood at the head of the matter of reunification. Popel came from a noble family in the Austrian town of Galich, was born in 1825, studied at a German elementary school in his homeland, then at a classical gymnasium, then at the Faculty of Philosophy in the city of Chernivtsi in Bukovina, and finally at a theological course at universities in Lviv and Vienna. For about a year he was a teacher of pedagogical courses in Lvov, then he accepted the priesthood and served as a parish priest in the city of Bugach, in Galicia, then as a teacher of law at a classical gymnasium in the city of Tarnopol, then as a teacher of the Russian language at an academic gymnasium in Lvov and, finally, as a teacher of law at a German gymnasium there. He entered the literary field early, published a tragedy in one of the Russian newspapers in Austria, and a treatise on Bayan from the word about Igor’s Campaign in another. He soon switched to special theological works and in 1857 he published moral theology, in 1862 liturgics, which introduced the Eastern rite, and in 1865 the anthology “One Hundred Icons”, i.e. examples, in one of the newspapers he published a detailed analysis of the resolutions of the Zamoysky Cathedral and, finally, he himself began to publish the religious and moral newspaper “Nedelya” in Lviv. In his writings and articles he managed to reveal his devotion to the Greek-Oriental rite. The government commission of the kingdom of Poland hastened to take advantage of such an educated figure and summoned him to Russia, where at that time, however, at the beginning of classical gymnasiums, a whole wave of Czechs and Galicians flowed, and in 1867 gave him the position of a teacher of the law at the Kholmsk gymnasium and a teacher at the Kholmsk Uniate Theological Seminary, and the very next year he was elevated to senior cathedral archpriest of the Kholmsk cathedral. Already in 1867, he happened to become an activist for reunification, still in its preparatory stage, when he was sent to pacify thirty parishes of the Siedlce province, which opposed the cleansing of Uniate church rites from Latin accretions undertaken by the Kholm Uniate Consistory. On March 16, 1871, he was appointed administrator of the Kholm Uniate diocese, and immediately began to realize his cherished dream of reunification with Orthodoxy. The cleansing of the rites caused unrest in 26 parishes, but in the remaining 240 everything was quiet and peaceful. Finally, on February 18, 1875, the clergy of the Kholmsky Uniate Consistory and the Cathedral, headed by the administrator, decided to draw up an act on the reunification of the Kholmsky Greek-Uniate Church with the Orthodox All-Russian Church and to petition for the highest permission for this. On March 25, 1875, Popel presented himself to the sovereign at the head of a deputation from the reunifiers, consisting of cathedral archpriests, all deans and elected members of the parishioners. On March 27, the deputation was introduced into the meeting hall of the synod, towards the end of its presence. The members of the deputation reverently asked for the blessing of the members of the Holy Synod, and the leading member, Metropolitan Isidore, blessed each one with the holy icon. On April 28, the synod decided to annex the Kholm Greek-Uniate diocese to the Warsaw diocese, name the new enlarged diocese Kholm-Warsaw, and entrust the direct management of the newly reunited to Archpriest Popel, who was at the head of the reunification, with his elevation to Bishop of Lublin, vicar of the Kholm-Warsaw diocese. On May 11, 1875, on the day of remembrance of the Slavic first teachers, Saints Cyril and Methodius, the actual reunion was solemnly celebrated in Kholm. 236 parishes located in the Lublin and Siedlce provinces, with a population of up to 284,000 souls, were reunited. On July 8, Popel was ordained a bishop in St. Isaac's Cathedral in St. Petersburg without becoming a monk, after which he visited the shrines of Moscow and Kyiv and arrived at his see. The following year, another 500 souls were reunited. There were only 23 Uniate parishes left with a population of up to 28,000 souls. Three years later, he was appointed to the episcopal see in Kamenets-Podolsk and, bidding farewell to his flock, with deep correspondence with reality he could repeat the words of Simeon the God-Primer: “Now you are releasing Your servant, Master, as my eyes have seen Your salvation.” In 1882, the Right Reverend Markell was transferred to the Polotsk bishopric, and in 1889 he was summoned to St. Petersburg for a permanent presence in the synod. In the sphere of diocesan life, the Right Reverend most of all left a memory for himself with his concerns about the enlightenment of the dark people through popular church singing, constant church preaching and church schools 363. Next to the bright pages of successes in the spread of the Church, we have to put a dark page about its damage. Due to the lack of shepherds and extreme religious darkness among the common people, sectarianism developed, despite all government restrictions. In addition to the old sects, some of which grew and some of which faded, new ones arose. Between the latter, the shtunda became especially widespread, claiming many victims. In St. Petersburg, the Pashkovites 364 became especially famous, followers of the retired guard colonel, wealthy aristocrat Vasily Ivanovich Pashkov, who was carried away by the teachings of the Englishman, Lord Redstock, who came to St. Petersburg. The teaching bore the features of Protestantism and spread through meetings in Pashkov’s house, on the Neva embankment, near the Foundry Bridge, and through the publication of cheap books and even the entire magazine “Russian Worker”. In order to spread the teaching, even a “society for the encouragement of spiritual and moral reading” was founded, which was initially greeted with sympathy by society and only later recognized. The schism apparently had no conquests during this reign, but the position of the former schismatics was facilitated by granting them some rights, the main ones being the recognition of the civil legal capacity of a schismatic marriage and the permission to baptize children outside the Orthodox Church. In 1859, the Austrian government recognized the legitimacy of the Belokrinitsa schismatic metropolis, and in Russia the schismatic hierarchy began to enjoy tolerance from the government. In the midst of the schism, noteworthy were the appeals to Orthodoxy at different times by four schismatic false bishops and especially by the schismatic mentor Paul of Prussia, who became one of the most zealous and useful missionaries. On August 13, 1861, the solemn opening of the relics of St. Tikhon took place in Zadonsk, which had rested openly since 1846, and on this day, the day of the death of the saint, a church holiday was established. In 1863, the millennium since the sanctification of our language by the translation of the Gospel and the faith of Christ was celebrated, and on May 11 a celebration was established for the holy Slavic first teachers Cyril and Methodius. Eight years later, this holiday, however, was moved to the next Sunday. In 1862, from among the highly solemn days, the celebration of the birth and namesakes of only the sovereign, empress and heir and coronation day was left, and the celebration of the birthdays and name days of other members of the imperial family and Victorian days was moved to the nearest Sundays. Of the new church services, noteworthy is the appearance of the service to St. Tikhon of Zadonsk. In 1858, the Eminences themselves were given permission to build new churches in dioceses, and an atlas of normal projects for the construction of rural wooden churches was published. In 1858, the construction of St. Isaac's Cathedral was completed. Throughout his reign, the Moscow Cathedral of Christ the Savior was built. Metropolitans Grigory Postnikov, Isidore Nikolsky, Filaret of Moscow, Innokenty Veniaminov. – Rectors of theological academies A.V. Gorsky and I.L. Yanyshev. – Archimandrite Anton in Kapustin. - Chief prosecutors. From October 1, 1856, the Metropolitan of St. Petersburg was the Most Reverend Grigory Postnikov. The son of a deacon of the Moscow diocese, he studied at the Perervinsk and Trinity Moscow seminaries, then entered the newly opened and then only St. Petersburg Academy, from which he graduated in 1814 as a master. “By nature concentrated and prone to solitude,” he immediately took monasticism upon completion of the course, three years later received the rank of archimandrite, and three years later he became a bishop and a vicariate in St. Petersburg. Before becoming a bishop, he served as a professor and rector of the St. Petersburg Academy. In 1825 he received an independent Kaluga see, in 1829 he was transferred by archbishop to Ryazan, in 1831 to Tver, in 1848 to Kazan. At his coronation in 1856, on August 26, he received the rank of metropolitan, and a little over a month later, he received the metropolitan see. A student and admirer of Philaret of Moscow, he always remained his devoted friend. And Filaret loved him, perhaps not straight himself, for his exceptional directness. “Direct, honest and sincere in his actions, alien to servility, incapable of sacrificing his convictions to any influence,” “always walking the straight path, he never belonged to any party, did not please people, no matter how highly placed they were, but told everyone the truth out of conviction, directly and openly. Somewhat harsh in appearance, but extremely gentle and friendly in his soul, he knew how to attract everyone to himself.” “His main sphere was education – scientific and popular.” He was an ardent supporter of translating the Bible into Russian, composed many edifying teachings and instructive articles, in St. Petersburg at the academy, when he was rector, he founded “Christian Reading”, at the seminary, when he was metropolitan, “Spiritual Conversation”. Historians note that he was too cabinet-like and had little knowledge of the complex conditions of contemporary life, but everyone agrees that he is a famous archpastor and an impeccable personality. The bishop died in 1860. After him, the orphaned metropolitan throne was occupied by Metropolitan of Kyiv Isidore Nikolsky. His name has already been mentioned more than once. Metropolitan Isidore, the son of a deacon in the Tula province, received his higher education at the St. Petersburg Academy, immediately after completing the course he became a monk and remained a librarian at the academy. Then he was rector of the seminary in Orel and Moscow, where in 1884 he received the rank of bishop and vicariate, three years later he was appointed diocesan bishop in Polotsk, three years later he was moved to Mogilev, a year later he received an archbishopric, three years later he was appointed exarch of Georgia, at the coronation in 1856 he was elevated to metropolitan, and in 1858 year he also received the metropolis - in Kyiv, from where he was moved, after the death of Metropolitan Gregory, to St. Petersburg. He was a wise archpastor in life. His rule was the saying: “seek nothing and refuse nothing.” The first moral authority among the hierarchs undoubtedly belonged to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow. It has already been said that the position he achieved towards the end of his life was not achieved by him immediately. And now curious reproaches were sometimes addressed to him. To Filaret himself, the spiritual writer Andrei Nikolaevich Muravyov, well-known in his time, who also invented projects for the transformation of the church structure, wrote: “It sometimes seems to me that the thirty-year difficult career of the past reign has made you too cautious” 365. But all such reproaches and complaints paled in comparison with the bright moral personality and clear mind of the Bishop; in three different eras he was equally great, and died an undeniable pillar of the Russian Church, the father of fathers and teacher of teachers. In 1867, the bishop celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of his bishopric. Not only the Russian, but also the entire Orthodox Church of Christ took an ardent part in this celebration. All the Eastern patriarchs sent greeting messages to the Moscow ruler, full of sincere feelings of reverence. And on the day of the anniversary, the solemn liturgy was performed by all the bishops of the Orthodox Church, from Zion and Golgotha ​​to the wilds of Siberia. After the anniversary, Vladyka remained in solitude in the Sergius Lavra, from where he wrote brilliant answers to the congratulations received for the anniversary. On September 17, his father appeared to him in a dream and said: “Take care of the 19th.” The Bishop took this as a sign and, preparing to depart for eternal rest, received the Holy Mysteries on September 19 and October 19. In November, he ordered that the emergency be completed by the 19th. On November 19, 1867, on Sunday, while in Moscow, at his Trinity courtyard, he served the liturgy, after a short rest he received the newly appointed Moscow governor Baranov, somewhat slowed down to go to dinner, and when the cell attendant at about two o’clock in the afternoon came a second time to call the metropolitan to dinner, he found him already lifeless. The body was dressed in bishop's vestments and transferred to the large hall of the metropolitan's chambers. By evening, an unusual ringing from the bell tower of Ivan the Great notified Moscow. Immediately everyone felt an unfillable emptiness. Moscow shook. You had to be in Moscow then to understand that this was happening. Everywhere it was about the same thing. Crowds of people came to the Trinity courtyard from everywhere, without counting. And those who came at night, long after midnight, were forced to wait in line for an hour or two to bow to the deceased. Everyone wanted to say goodbye to their archpastor. The deceased lay in a cypress coffin, which he had prepared for himself in advance, with the Gospel on his chest, with a face full of majestic peace, without signs of destruction, and seemed to bless the crowded people. On the day the body was transferred to the miracle monastery, on Thursday, November 23, people from early morning blocked all the streets along which the procession was directed until the evening. After a long service, the coffin was raised and, amid the reverent silence of a countless multitude of people, accompanied by the sad chime of all the Moscow forty-forty, in a long solemn procession, it headed to the Chudov Monastery. The golden banners of the ancient Kremlin cathedrals with the faces of saints shining on them swayed quietly, as if leading the deceased ruler to their heavenly abodes. Next followed a long line of church singers, who announced the path with the sad lamentations of funeral church hymns. Then, in black vestments, an endless row of Moscow clergy from all forty forty churches of the capital. Then a council of bishops with the Metropolitan of Kyiv, the mother of Russian cities, and, finally, in the hands of the priests, overshadowed by ripids, a coffin with the remains of the deceased ruler. The evening sun was shining brightly. The funeral service was performed by the Kyiv Metropolitan Arseny with five other bishops and a large host of clergy. Muscovites insistently wanted to carry the coffin in their arms to the burial place in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. They barely settled the matter by deciding to transport the coffin openly on a special railway train. When the bishop’s body was taken out of Chudov on his final journey, Moscow resounded with the soul-tearing groan of the funeral bell ringing. The coffin was accompanied by the entire clergy: six bishops, led by the Kyiv Metropolitan, and many archimandrites and priests. The clergy put on their clothes on this day at 8 o'clock in the morning, and undressed only at 6 in the evening. The Bishop was buried in the chapel he created in the name of St. Philaret the Merciful at the Church of the Descent of the Holy Spirit - in the Lavra; in this chapel all the offerings received on the day of the anniversary 366 are collected. The memory of the Moscow saint has remained alive and unfading for more than a quarter of a century. Educational and charitable institutions are founded in his honor, and from the books that never cease to appear about Metropolitan Philaret, if they were collected for his grave, one could create a rather ponderous monument. But in all these books the memory of the deceased still lives and the judgment of history is almost unheard of. A representative of the strictly protective trend, the great Moscow ruler stands before the court of history in the happy position that he is covered by the shield of centuries-old reason and experience of state and church life, a solid, solid shield. There were no young, immature impulses, no thin threads of new ideas. Everything that came out of his head was passed through age-old reason and experience, and what passed through Philaret’s critical apparatus was already invulnerable, smooth, solid, solid, which was impossible to find fault with. But there is no doubt that under the sharp critical knife of the Moscow ruler, all the flowers perished irrevocably - not only the annoying flowers of eloquence and idle talk, but also the dear flowers of inspiration, all living greenery, young shoots - only solid parts, rules, but not calls remained; and there is no doubt that poetic youth, restless and striving, will never be among the admirers of Philaret, who is inestimably dear to wise age and knowledge, but somewhat hardened old age. And this is in everything: in actions, in resolutions, in sermons. When, after the death of Philaret, no one could name his successor from among the existing hierarchs a name capable of remaining noticeable in any way in the place left by Philaret, the name of the “Apostle of Siberia,” His Eminence Innocent, surfaced, and he took the Moscow see. Even in Irkutsk, during Filaret’s life, Innocent felt a loss of strength, dreamed of peace and, wanting to end his days in Moscow, asked Filaret to give him a free monastery. God judged otherwise. Those years in which Innocent became the Moscow Metropolitan constitute for a person, as one spiritual speaker 367 put it, “labor and illness,” and the power and glory of the ruler is not in Moscow, but in distant Siberia. However, both in Moscow and during the years of infirmity, Vladyka did a lot for missionary work 368 . He died at the age of ninety, in 1879. Protopresbyter I.L. Yanyshev, confessor to Their Imperial Majesties and head of the court clergy Two archpriests became especially famous during the reign of Alexander II - rectors of theological academies: St. Petersburg Ioann Leontyevich Yanyshev and Moscow; Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky, who died in 1876 369. Half of the remarkable work on the establishment of Russian places in Jerusalem by Archimandrite Antonin Kapustin, who died in 1894, belongs to the same reign. After Protasov’s death, the position of chief prosecutor was filled by Alexander Ivanovich Karasevsky for about a year and a half. On September 20, 1856, Count Alexander Petrovich Tolstoy, who had previously been the governor of Tver and Odessa, was appointed chief prosecutor, and Karasevsky died three months later, as they say, from grief due to the failure of his career. One historian credits Alexander Tolstoy with the fact that he recruited and promoted relatively many “wonderful statesmen.” Under him and with him, indeed, several capable persons began to serve, who later occupied the highest government positions, but there is no actual historical name among them. In 1862, Count Alexander Tolstoy was appointed a member of the State Council, and Major General Alexey Petrovich Akhmatov, who had previously been the Kharkov military and civil governor, was appointed chief prosecutor. Akhmatov remained chief prosecutor until half of 1865. The historian has essentially nothing to say about these two chief prosecutors. After Akhmatov, Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy was appointed chief prosecutor, remaining in his post almost until the very end of the reign of Alexander II. Count Tolstoy previously served in the department of spiritual affairs of foreign confessions, then in the department of public education, wrote a book in French on the then fashionable question of Roman Catholicism in Russia, published in 1862 in Paris, had a foreign doctorate in philosophy and was much more prepared for chief prosecutor than all his predecessors. A year after his appointment as Chief Prosecutor, he was appointed along with the Minister of Public Education, and in his person, thus, Golitsyn’s time was resurrected. By general recognition, Count Dmitry Tolstoy was the creator and instiller of the civil and spiritual schools of the system of classicism. This system is called dead and they say that it did not leave the school walls, although it lasted for another quarter of a century after Tolstoy. Towards the end of its existence, it provoked fierce attacks against itself everywhere, but, of course, it also served its purpose. In the world, both life and death act on equal terms, and world life is simultaneously created by dead water and living water. The deadness of the system of classicism in its implementation caused a fierce trampling of classicism itself. They began to say that the classical system was a pagan system. Yes, of course, pagan. But, probably, in classicism there is that spark of God that shines everywhere in the world and is revealed to the believing gaze in examining God’s creation. In any case, we should not forget that the influence of the classical world on the forms of Christian life is beyond doubt - in science, literature, art, and that the best that there is in theology is written in classical languages. Count Tolstoy's extracurricular activities were aimed at streamlining the external side of life, at establishing order, court, security, mastering rights and responsibilities, at introducing well-thought-out and recognized forms of statehood into church life. In 1880, Count Tolstoy left both the chief prosecutor and the ministry. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was appointed chief prosecutor. The activities of this chief prosecutor belong entirely to the next reign. St. Vladimir's Cathedral in Kiev Part 4. Eighties and nineties Chapter I. Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II Troubles in Russia. - The death of the Tsar-Liberator. – The accession of Emperor Alexander III to the throne and the sympathy of the people for the royal family. – Emperor Nicholas II. Some people who called themselves friends of the Russian people said that our people received freedom early, which they were completely unprepared to take advantage of, and used it for evil. But the real reason for the latter is not in the supposedly early receipt of freedom, but in the fact that the previous century of serfdom completely stopped the civil growth of the people and, no matter how long it continued, could never prepare the people for independent civil life. It is partly true, as they point out, that on the part of senior statesmen, after the first years of the ever-memorable reforms, proper talents were not discovered in the leadership of the young liberated people. “The civil status of the liberated peasant was carefully arranged, like nowhere else in the world, but his spiritual life, also like nowhere else in the world, was left without any care.” The field intended for sowing was neither properly sown nor cultivated at the time, and produced many weeds that choked out the young crops. Church leaders expressed that there was a time, “despite the general cries for enlightenment, progress and civilization, something was not very bright and not comforting in terms of the spiritual and religious,” that the Church was going through a “difficult time” and demanded “special protection and care” from those devoted to it, that there was an “unusually difficult situation in church affairs” 370. The criminal activities of those extravagant secret societies began, which, supposedly advocating freedom of personality and opinion, spread terror and resorted to murder whenever they encountered a person and opinion opposing them. Attempts began on the life of the Tsar-Liberator: the most shameful pages of the history of the anciently pious, God-fearing and Christian people were opened. The humane government, having no desire to use the system of eradication and intimidation, trustingly and nobly turned to society with a request to “rip out by the roots the evil that disgraces the Russian land.” The sovereign himself, when congratulating him on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his reign, said: “Pray with me, and the Lord will lead us out of the difficult situation in which we are.” In all layers of Russian society, as one professor-publicist later described the mood of that time, there was “embarrassment from our moral corruption,” which spread wider and wider from year to year and penetrated deeper and deeper into our Russian life. Serious people continually wondered what it was, and whether it was “an already uncontrollable process of our historical decomposition”? The professor-publicist considered it useful to console Russian society with historical information proving that “the historically tenacious Russian people do not succumb to decay and cope with an illness of any kind and strength”, that “we, Russians, a young and brave people, cannot succumb to the decay that has engulfed us” 371. And, as if to console the historian-professor, one could already notice that in the field covered with the prickly greenery of tares, here and there new sowers begin to appear with a supply of good seed and with a firm desire to protect and cherish what was sown until it comes into force. Brotherhoods with spiritual and educational purposes were opened in various places in Russia, Hieromonk Nikon in the Trinity-Sergius Lavra began to publish his “Trinity Leaves” for the religious education of the people, in St. Petersburg, Archpriest Dimitry Nikitin in the St. Sergius Cathedral, in artless extra-liturgical conversations, began to explain to the people the misconceptions that arose in the area of ​​his parish Pashkovism, and after him other St. Petersburg pastors began similar spiritual and educational work. But at this very time the Lord was pleased to allow the king, who freed the people, to fall from the hand of a murderer. When returning from an ordinary Sunday divorce in the engineering arena, along the embankment of the Catherine Canal, near the Mikhailovsky Garden, on March 1, 1881, an explosive shell was thrown into the sovereign’s carriage by an attacker, which destroyed it, and when the sovereign came out unharmed and approached the wounded guard with sympathy, another shell thrown by another attacker seriously wounded the sovereign, and two hours later the sovereign died in his winter palace. Eternal memory to the Tsar-Liberator! Shortly earlier, on May 22, 1880, the wife of the Tsar-Liberator, Empress Maria Alexandrovna, died, having devoted her entire life to the feats of Christian charity and maternal care for the young charges who were under her patronage at numerous women's educational institutions. Theognostus, Metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia Remembering, far later, this time, a contemporary spiritual speaker-publicist says: “The regicide, shameful for our entire land, took place long ago, and yet, with what a heavy, but constantly new reproach, the memory of this atrocity strikes our souls every time we glance at our historical past! The gloominess of this picture is intensified precisely because, according to the general consciousness of modern thinkers, the criminal event, which so greatly shook the hearts of the Russian people, did not, however, stand out of connection with the mood of the society of that time and, although it seemed to him sad, terrible, shameful, it was not completely alien to him, a completely random isolated case, but grew in the Russian field, like a prickly poisonous thorn among many other worthless grains and chaff, planted by the enemy, who took advantage of the sinful lull of the public conscience. The blessed sovereign could not be saved from the hand of the murderer by his land, immersed in sinful sleep and self-forgetfulness. True, apparently, the first period of this reign, those sixties, which many still like to boast of as a time of general inspiration, a living and active time, full of civic exploits of zemstvo leaders and the high, selfless aspirations of the youth studying at that time, cannot be called a time of spiritual lull. We will not deny the good sides of that time, we will regret, together with its sons, the subsequently lost living community, sincerity and selfless aspirations, but still we will invite them to agree that it was then that the beginning of that moral intoxication and corruption was laid, which in its further development created an ugly sect of dynamites. Even if the freedom-loving and philanthropic aspirations of that time were sincere and pure, it cannot be denied that they then wanted to embody all truth and philanthropy in external institutions, they cared about introducing them only in the content of laws and in the social system, and the most important condition for the prosperity of both these and all other spiritual benefits was forgotten - forgotten and even rejected. We mean the inner life of a person, the life of a moral person. Is it not from then that the Russian people began to become like our neighbors of other faiths in that outwardly legalistic, heartless mood in which a person cares only that every single action of his is not a violation of the precise and clearly defined laws of a conventionally enlightened society - and completely forgets about the purity of his conscience, the softening of his heart, the sincere discussion of his inner motives? Yes, our society forgot about this, carried away by the brilliant pictures of the new ennobled system of life - it forgot, giving its heart and mind to the research and establishment of fair external orders and becoming proud of them, like Ahab or Nebuchadnezzar once did with their brilliant institutions. How much, indeed, brave boasting of ourselves we hear from the representatives of that time, with what mocking contempt they began to brand the entire past of our fatherland, without distinguishing the bad from the good and even losing the ability to understand the latter! At first, that is, during the excitement of social life in the sixties, this hobby was not yet consciously criminal and vicious: it rather resembled the uncontrollable playfulness of a teenager who had forgotten about obedience to his parents: but now, the first fervor of the hobby passes, the new orders of life, that is, the peasant will, the jury and the zemstvo, ceased to be exciting news, the time has come to collect the fruits of a new sowing, the seventies have come, and what then? It turned out that the sinful and crafty soul of man, left without searching attention and exercises of the religious conscience, quickly began to replace the lowest, most vile motives with the noble institutions of public life. Magazines and newspapers were filled with publicity about how the powers of private trade institutions, zemstvo leaders, sworn attorneys and other philanthropic professions became means of extortion, blatant deception and assault, and finally, cruelty and murder - how education, imbued with the spirit of freedom, but not equipped with moral content, plunged youth into early, subtle and disastrous debauchery, unbelief, blasphemy and despair. And so, in the midst of this social corruption, which was, although unexpected, but inevitable, the fruit of the sixties, which uprooted the last roots of the spiritual church structure of Russian life, - in the midst of no longer sincere, but hypocritical proclamation of the words of love of humanity and equality - disappointed, embittered, filled with hatred for everything and from childhood, corrupted gloomy fiends of the spirit of murder were brought up, thirsting blood in order to avenge their own moral deformity, for their disappointed hopes - and who found permission for their brutal mood in the wild ideas of socialism. This is how numerous perpetrators of a terrible crime were brought up, this is how they justified the prediction of the great writer (Dostoevsky), who likened them to the Gadarene pigs, which included all the demons that temporarily possessed a person, by which this writer meant the Russian people. This prediction was justified in the sense that the terrible fall of these unfortunate sons of the curse, manifested in their disgusting, insane crime, really brought the Russian land and Russian society to their senses. It made sense, but at what cost? At the price of the king-benefactor, the king of peace and forgiveness, the king of mercy and enlightenment" 372. Emperor Alexander III ascended the throne amid complete confusion of both society and those at the head of the administration. There were ministers, and even almost a majority, who convinced the new sovereign to give up autocracy and establish a constitution. But the best statesmen of that time convinced the sovereign that the salvation of Russia lay precisely in preserving the autocracy. The first two years of unrest continued, and the sovereign spent this time almost constantly in Gatchina, but several more years passed, and in that same St. Petersburg, on the streets of which the sovereign could not appear without being subjected to an assassination attempt, the sovereign with his entire august family began to travel calmly without any security, constantly accompanied by the most enthusiastic greetings of the people and an uncontrollable explosion of popular enthusiasm, reaching the point that The people began to drag the carriage of the sovereign and empress themselves. The former clouds seemed to have gone beyond the distant sea. The extremely pure moral image of the sovereign and empress, and their appearance, the colossal stature of the sovereign, his heroic figure, kind gentle eyes, knightly straightforwardness, and the beautiful empress with her wonderful eyes captivated all hearts and attracted everyone's sympathy. In them, Russia seemed to have found the embodiment of its greatness, its power, its kindness, its beauty, and its moral purity. When this most sympathetic sovereign died, all of Russia shed tears, every family felt its loss. This was the beloved sovereign not only of Russia, but of the whole world, and on his untimely grave, together with his state, all the countries of the world placed so many memorial wreaths that they filled the entire Peter and Paul Cathedral, where the deceased sovereign found his eternal rest, and created a majestic spectacle that has not had an example on earth since history knows it. This ardent, loyal love was fully transferred to the young heir of the late sovereign, the new tsar, the now safely reigning Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Alexandrovich, who during the first days after his accession, when moving from the winter palace to the Anichkov palace, had to literally make his way at a walk, because the people positively crowded the squares and Nevsky Prospekt, expressing their condolences to the Sovereign, and your devotion and your love. Witnesses of these majestic and touching days are alive! Chapter II. Change of public mood First March. - The last years of the previous reign. – K.P. Pobedonostsev. - Public reassurance. – Revitalization of church life. - Church celebrations. – Speech by K.P. Pobedonostsev at the 900th anniversary of the baptism of Rus'. – Miracle of God's mercy October 17, 1888. – Change in public mood. In contemporary journalism, it was customary to repeat that the First of March, like lightning, illuminated the depths of our public self-awareness and turned the public mood in the other direction, so that the atrocity that took place on the day of the triumph of Orthodoxy served not as a mockery, but as a real triumph of Orthodoxy, washed by the martyrdom of the Tsar. However, the historian, not accustomed to seeing sudden changes, must look for more complex reasons for them and more or less lengthy preparation. Undoubtedly, the First of March, like the sudden thunder of heavenly punishment, stopped many on the path of hobbies and turned them to a different path; however, the ground had already been prepared for this other path. And the very crime of the first of March for the historian seems not to be the beginning of good, but rather the last burst of breath of the hellish monster, the prince of darkness, who has taken possession of the public mood of Russia. Already in the last years of the last reign, voices began to be heard more and more insistently, but still modestly, that it was time to come to their senses, that it was necessary to return to the old ideals, to the Mother Church, in this era of confusion, and to seek instructions and guidance from her. “Rumors” about the expansion of the influence of the clergy on primary public education suddenly but persistently began to penetrate into the press. All this, in general, coincided in time with the appointment of the new Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Pobedonostsev, to whose activity and influence the soon subsequent change in public mood is usually attributed to a large extent. If the new Chief Prosecutor had already found sufficiently prepared ground for himself upon his entry, then in him, in turn, all those numerous elements who, being scattered throughout Russia without communication or support, barely raised their weak voices, were completely drowned out in the noise of the orgy that was taking place, found firm support. Konstantin Petrovich Pobedonostsev was appointed chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod on April 21, 1880. Immediately, the new chief prosecutor began to get acquainted with the institutions under his control and make speeches from time to time. When visiting one diocesan women’s school, he told the students: “Take care of the good with which they let you out of here: it is the first good of your life. Bring it with you to the homes of your parents and keep it all your life, like a treasure, where are the beginnings of light and truth that are deposited here in you: a strong, ardent faith, love for the Orthodox Church. You will be apostles of goodness and truth if you convey to your children and students a love for the church, introduce them to the church, and show them the beauty of the church. Truly, you will do a great thing and save many from spiritual death, you will lead them out of darkness into the light. Do not believe the flattering preachers of women’s freedom and freedom: a woman’s place is in the home and family, her virtues are meekness, modesty, restraint, mercy and patience.” When the First of March took place, the dignity of preaching about returning to one’s native church and family from a foreign land of errors already received indisputable authority. The Holy Synod, in deep sorrow over the grave trial sent by God to our fatherland, and in concern to protect the children of the Orthodox Church from temptation, addressed them with a touching message, calling everyone to repentance. “Sins and iniquities grow and multiply, the holy faith is overwhelmed and weakened, the commandments of piety are not fulfilled, fidelity to church statutes and orders is violated, good customs are abandoned, the traditions of the fathers are imputed to nothing. Discord and disorder have entered family and married life, relaxation and indulgence have entered into the upbringing of children, negligence and self-interest have entered into state and public service, unbridled freethinking has entered science, and various vices have entered the soul of everyone. People were sleeping, and the enemy came and sowed tares. The message was addressed separately to shepherds and teachers of the faith, to fathers, to wives and mothers, to teachers and educators, to rulers and judges, and to all the people. It was read during the liturgy in every church, published in all newspapers and magazines, and displayed in a prominent place in every church for constant reading, and undoubtedly made a religious impression. Two years passed and the chroniclers of church life noticed in its sphere “an obvious awakening of the spirit of true Christian life and activity,” although they had not yet left the battlefield of sorrow and trial. The hostile attitude of some strata towards the clergy and towards church institutions and orders still continued. But now the spiritual environment itself was more invulnerable. Energy rose in it, living church and extra-church preaching intensified, nationwide church singing was introduced, missionary interviews were started, religious and educational brotherhoods and societies were opened, rural and urban decisions appeared on the celebration of Sundays and holidays, on the closure of drinking establishments, previously closed parishes and monasteries were restored, new ones were established, women's communities were established in abundance, very often soon turned to communal nunneries. At the same time, the parochial school was gradually paving its way, but with indestructible consistency, and the charter of religious educational institutions was being revised in order to strengthen the educational element in them. Churchliness was protected in every possible way from insults and mockery: it was forbidden for non-Christians to trade in icons and other sacred objects, a law was petitioned to stop the falsification of church candles, the import of objects from abroad that bore signs of disrespect for the sacred was prohibited, the placement of church objects consecrated at the exhibition of the Moscow Archaeological Society was not allowed for liturgical use, measures were taken to supply churches with pure olive oil; by imperial order in 1889, an addition was made to the law to exclude non-Orthodox persons from participating in cases of crimes against the Orthodox faith and church institutions. In mutual, mutual dependence, both church and national self-awareness rose. When the Baltic German-Lutheran nobility began to show hostility towards the desire of the Estonian-Latvian population to convert to Orthodoxy in the Baltic region, the sovereign wrote on the governor’s report: “the government needs to support those who have converted and not give them offense.” And when cases were discovered that landowners, out of German patriotism and Lutheran fanaticism, refused to enter into any negotiations on the temporary cession or sale of land for the construction of houses for Orthodox schools, churches and parish premises and for cemeteries, then a law would be issued establishing in such cases the forced alienation of land with compensation to the owner on a legal basis. K.P. Pobedonostsev, Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod Soon everyone noticed the calm that had come. Then church celebrations began to follow one after another, as if in a continuous happy thread: a brilliant coronation, the consecration of the Cathedral of Christ the Savior in Moscow, the thousandth anniversary of the birth of the holy Grand Duchess Olga, the five hundredth anniversary of the appearance of the Tikhvin icon of the Mother of God, the three hundredth anniversary of the memory of St. Tryphon of Pechenga, enlightener of the Lapps, the centenary of the repose of St. Tikhon of Zadonsk, then the majestic anniversary of the nine hundredth anniversary of the baptism of Rus', which brought together representatives of the entire Orthodox Slavic community to Kyiv. What was said by Chief Prosecutor K.P., who was present at this celebration, rang out prophetically throughout all of Russia. Pobedonostsev speech in praise and exaltation of the church. By this time, the universally recognized church and statesman said: “We celebrate in grateful awe of God the 900th anniversary of the greatest event in our history. In these 900 years, a miracle of God's destinies happened over us: a great state arose from the coarse scattered Slavic language, the people's consciousness grew, the Russian land gathered through Kyiv to Moscow. The kingdoms of the Slavic tribes were destroyed around them under the yoke of non-believers. God allowed the Russian people to hold on, to grow, to endure the heavy yoke of the steppe barbarians, to throw it off, to survive and overcome the disastrous anarchy, to repel the Roman-Polish attack, to return their outskirts seized by enemies, to reach the sea, to strengthen themselves in the power and glory of Russian weapons, to establish themselves unshakably in the faith commanded by their ancestors. It was not by our power that all this was accomplished, but by the power of God in the destinies of our people. And the power of God appeared in the Orthodox Church, into which our language entered 900 years ago through the leadership of the holy and blessed Grand Duke Vladimir. Blessed and blessed is this day, which laid a solid foundation for our destinies! What would happen to us without this Church is scary to even think about. She alone helped us remain Russian people, gather our scattered forces, inspired both the leaders and the people, gave them the patience to endure terrible adversities, from hunger and pestilence, both from their own dashing people and from strangers, and to overcome their enemies; sent the sons of our land to die for their land, taught the scattered flock to gather around the shepherd. From the East, from where the light of Christ shone to the whole world, we accepted our faith, accepted the church rules, accepted the indescribable, incomparable beauty of worship and put our Russian soul into it - with the deep and powerful words of our language and the wonderful sound of our native song. And one more thing: is it not the Russian soul - alone - that has embellished and loved that wonderful sound of the Russian bell, which so mysteriously wakes it up and calls it to church and - from earth - home, to heaven. From the ancient tree, planted in the East by the apostles and saints of the universal Church, we received a mighty grain, and from it a single hay-leaved tree grew on our land and covered the whole earth under its canopy and attracted into its canopy the languages ​​of our own tribe, and our own foreigners, to whom we joyfully give both the gospel and church services in their native dialect. Fathers and brothers! what is sweeter and more amiable, what is dearer to the Church - to all of us, both great and small, what beauty is sweeter and more sympathetic than church beauty for the Russian heart! The Church is a dear and dear mother to the Russian people - we are all her children, and if anyone wanders far from her, then, God willing, they will return to their parental home, to their mother. Our church is the home of the Russian people, the closest home, where everyone is equal, from young to old, everyone has and finds their place, everyone draws the same joy and consolation. Here is our strength, here is the secret treasury of our destinies, here is the repository of our most precious traditions and the spring of our strength, which are destined to appear in the future, if in the future we justify the whole truth of our faith with deeds of truth and love. May God help us! That is why we have gathered here, to remember His great mercy to the Russian people, and from the fullness of our hearts, burning with love for our homeland, to thank Him and pray that our faith may be justified in our deeds and in our destinies, that our great Church may grow and prosper - the Church united with the people and the people united with the Church!” 373 Finally, the miracle of God's mercy that took place over the Royal Family on October 17, 1888, swept across all of Russia with an explosion of religious and patriotic enthusiasm. The then rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, His Eminence Anthony Vadkovsky, in his poetic speech about this event, said: “God is with us! In vain do the peoples rebel and utter blasphemous words against God’s holy property, against holy Rus' and against our holy Orthodox Church. It is in vain that they want to assure themselves and the whole world that the Russian land is a stronghold of barbarity, ignorance and destruction, that it is a constant threat to universal peace; in vain they blaspheme our holy faith, calling it unchristian, semi-pagan, the culprit of all darkness, stagnation, and decay. No! The whole world should now know that God is with us! And where God is, there is truth, there is light, life, joy, beauty, there is peace and God’s favor, there is love and freedom. Everyone who has been given clear historical vision undoubtedly sees that Holy Rus', the bearer of Orthodoxy, and the entire Orthodox Greek-Slavic world, by the will of Divine Providence and the course of historical events, are called to the world stage of life and activity, and are not called to be silent spectators of all the untruths, lies, self-interest, deceit and barbaric predation for which the self-styled Christian Western civilization, but in order to proclaim to the whole world and bring to it the saving principles of Orthodoxy, the beginnings of pure Christian truth, faith, love and freedom. Hasn’t the Lord clearly revealed this calling of ours to everyone now, having saved from death our Tsar, the faithful and true bearer of our Orthodox Russian ideals, our aspirations, our hopes and aspirations?.. Let the pagans understand that God is with us!” 374 And this animated speech, which so exalted Orthodox Russia, was the real voice of all of Russia. The time for workers in God's field was extremely favorable. Everyone was interested in church affairs, along with acquaintance with the church, religiosity increased, newspapers, as an echo of the public mood, began to treat the clergy better, some of the enemies turned into its defenders, the clergy itself somehow perked up and its activities were so revived that it became possible to assert that this “is not just a temporary impulse and passion on its part, but has a deeper root and foundation.” It was a happy time for church leaders! Then, the historian should note, the circumstances changed: there seemed to be some disappointment and fatigue. The same spiritual speaker who characterized the sixties in his speech wrote the following about the eighties and nineties: “after the seventies came the eighties and nineties, when it became customary to talk about the great state significance of the Church and religious education, about the destruction of unbelief and free-thinking, but, alas! Those who say this for the most part suffer the same thing as their fathers: they embody the praised principles in external institutions, but their hearts are far from Me, but they honor Me in vain, as your Lord would say about them. The heart of modern man has become so weakened that he neither sincerely wants to feel what he recognizes with his mind, nor to live as his heart feels. And so, everything remains the same: the former coldness towards the needy and suffering, the former insatiable thirst for pleasure and the captivating struggle of indomitable ambitions, the former corruption of morals, the calm, self-satisfied laziness of the rich with the bitterness and envy of the poor - this is the content of our social mores. It’s hard not to know the truth, but isn’t it harder, knowing it, not to find the strength to follow it? And it is you, you, holy Rus', the heritage of the princes who ended their days in the monastic schema or in the host of martyrs at the hands of the pagan Tatars! You, sanctified by the exploits of the saints - the spiritual leaders of your people, are the object of surprise to foreigners, about whom it is said that Christ was born in Bethlehem and lives in Russia? As before, the air above you is resounding with church bells and filled with prayer hymns; as before, your paths are trampled upon by thousands of thousands of pilgrims, as before, the simpletons of your sons, ending the days of their earthly wanderings, calmly and solemnly pass into the afterlife, like worthy of reverent admiration, great-spirited philosophers. Why is it that the best of the sons of your people, taught the wisdom of all countries and enriched by education and luxury, are filled with a different spirit, and either disdainfully turn away from your covenants, from your shrines, or from afar stretch out uncertain, powerless hands to them? They do not have the same impudent self-confidence as before. The father's wealth has already been completely spent by the prodigal son; he realized the perniciousness of his removal; He now sees that knowledge itself is powerless to bring him back to life. He is captivated by passions and laziness, sees impending destruction and sits in thought, powerless for now. What will be the outcome of his thoughts? Is it the last impulse of despair, or crushed repentance and the subsequent slow and long feat of moral sobriety? Will Russian society, having realized the moral impotence of the natural person, understand that purity of conscience, the perfection of virtue is achieved not by an impulse, not by a single feat, but by the humble creation of one’s inner man, that life is a feat of the cross not in the sense of individual heroic deeds, but in the sense of constantly creating, invisible to human praise, in the secret place of one’s heart the perfection of virtue, unthinkable without constant communication with Christ and teaching His word? Or, on the contrary, insight, not accompanied by good spirits, will plunge him into despair, extreme depravity and suicide, like the ancient Romans: this is what the coming new century asks us about. The answer to these questions lies in the conscience of each of us. And if our society, taught by the obvious works of Divine Providence, finally turns to its inner man and through this returns to the life of its people and to serving them, in accordance not only with the public calling of each, but also in voluntary deeds of charity: then times of refreshment will come from the face of the Lord. Only then will the great transformations of the reign of Alexander II shine in all their glory, for a brotherly loving spirit will be added to the brotherly institution, and no one will dare, as now, to belittle them in the name of protective principles. And if somewhere, even in one corner of our land, a sincere moral revival would come, then by its example, like a cleansing fire, it would sweep across the entire country and then the second part of the likening of our domestic writer would come true, i.e. all of Rus', like a healed demoniac, would have sat down at the feet of the Savior, dressed in the clothes of the humane institutions of the remembered reign that corresponded to its spirit, and the great culprit of these latter would have blessed us from that better world and, with the self-sacrifice and forgiveness characteristic of his royal heart, would have blessed both his sorrowful life and his martyrdom, which served the spiritual enlightenment of the fatherland, in fulfillment of the words Gospel: even if a grain of wheat falls to the ground and does not die, then one remains: even if it dies, it produces much fruit” 375. Chapter III. Church, folk and spiritual education Church and public education. – Development of rules for church schools. – Parish schools and their organization, management and activities. – The fourth spiritual and educational reform. - Educational matter. – Theological academies, seminaries, colleges and women’s religious schools by the end of the century. The most important task of the last era of the 19th century was the widespread development of church and popular education. This matter diverted the main attention of the ruling spiritual spheres of that time, so that complaints were even heard that the spiritual educational work - academies, seminaries and religious schools - remained in the shadows and oblivion because of parochial schools. But in this case, the historical sequence of all our transformations coming from above was reflected, and it had its own historical meaning: after preparing teachers for pastors with the educational reform of 1808 and the shepherds of the people themselves with the reforms of Protasov and Tolstoy, the Pobedonostsev parish schools set to work for the flock. In one of his first reports, the new chief prosecutor stated that “with their commitment to the church, the people want the school for children to have a close connection with the church, so that knowledge of literacy will give them access to book treasures of religious edification and consolation, so that children participate in worship by reading and singing and can read soul-saving books to illiterate parents at home.” It was recognized that the previous public school did not provide any of this. For although there were schools, and probably a considerable number, which were essentially no different from the later parochial ones, where the teacher lived in peace with the parish priest, the children sang in the choir, there were also schools where disdain and, perhaps, even hostility towards one or another aspect of religion was openly expressed. It was recognized that the mere possibility of the existence of such schools proves the abnormality of the organization of school and public affairs. It was decided, if possible, to place public schools under the direct supervision and direct management of the clergy, to strengthen the church element in them and to pay attention, in addition to education, to the upbringing of children in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. Back in 1879, the Committee of Ministers unanimously expressed the conviction that the spiritual and moral development of the people, which constitutes the cornerstone of the entire political system, cannot be achieved without giving the clergy a predominant participation in the management of primary schools. The issue was considered both in the Committee of Ministers and in the Synod. In 1882, the Committee of Ministers decided to allow the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod to present his immediate thoughts on expanding the range of activities of the clergy in the field of public education with the aim of better organizing the supervision of primary schools of various departments, and also, indirectly, in the form of improving the extremely poor financial situation of the clergy, especially rural ones. Immediately, in 1882, a special commission was established to consider the issue, chaired by a member of the synod, Archbishop Leonty of Kholm-Warsaw, who was later Metropolitan of Moscow. K.P. Pobedonostsev requested for this commission certificates from the diocesan bishops about the transfer of parochial schools to zemstvo and ministerial schools. The commission, after lengthy reference work, developed rules on parochial schools and literacy schools. These rules were approved by the highest in 1884 on June 13th. The Emperor wrote at the same time: “I hope that the parish clergy will prove worthy of their high calling in this important matter.” The revived church schools, now called parish schools, began their creative work, with an allowance from the treasury of only 55,500 rubles. Organization began immediately. In 1885, a school council was established under the synod for the supreme management of church public schools. In 1886, programs for parochial schools were developed. The difference between the new programs and the previous public school programs was to strengthen the teaching of the law of God, which received a double number of lessons, and to give a prominent place to church singing and the Church Slavonic language. The difference in the tone of school life was the proximity to the church and the priest: schoolchildren were brought up in the spirit of churchliness. In 1885, the schools counted up to half a million in local funds. In 1886, the treasury added 120,000, the following year zemstvo taxes were added to 122,000, in 1894 zemstvo taxes were already 440,000 and local taxes were 2¼ million. In 1894, 850,000 were allocated from the treasury for church schools at a time and 700,000 the following year. The Office of Parochial Schools notes that the schools largely owed this leave to the Minister of Finance Sergei Yulievich Witte, not only to his skill in organizing the state of public finances, but also to the sympathy of his parochial school. The entire budget of parish schools in 1893 was three and a half million rubles. In the tenth year of its existence, the parochial school felt solid ground under itself, calculated its strength and resources and declared its rights. Over the course of 10 years, 9,200 houses were built for church schools at a cost of 7 million rubles; of all schools there were up to 30,000 different names with 917,000 students. Compared to the 4,404 schools and 30,000 students remaining in the ecclesiastical department by 1881, this was a very impressive figure. About 18,000 were literacy schools, about 12,000 were one-class parochial and 200 were two-class, for the preparation of “inexpensive teachers” for literacy schools. The school council began publishing and distributed cheaper textbooks and reading books in millions of copies. Summer pedagogical courses were organized for teachers in diocesan centers. Firstly, the work was in full swing and noise, secondly, the system was quite well developed, thirdly, everything was very cheap compared to the costs of the Ministry of Public Education, and finally, the tasks of the church school were extremely high: to be a moral bulwark against anti-religious and anti-state teachings that lead humanity to moral savagery. The struggle between the two departments for supremacy over public schools, which was quite lively at first, leaned in favor of the ecclesiastical department. By the highest order on May 4, 1891, all literacy schools were placed under the exclusive jurisdiction of the clergy. In 1896, the parish school found it possible to appear in a brilliant outfit at the All-Russian exhibition in Nizhny Novgorod and attracted universal sympathy 376. Since 1896 K.P. Pobedonostsev requested a release from the treasury for church schools in the amount of 3,279,000 rubles, according to the calculation that the state would assume half of the maintenance of each parochial school and literacy school in the zemstvo provinces, the first in the amount of 125 rubles and the second in the amount of 50 rubles (about 1,200,000 rubles), and the full maintenance of second-class parochial schools, for training teachers to literacy schools, with teaching and agricultural courses (1,600,000 rubles). The Holy Synod, consoled by such a success of the church school, through a special deputation from the school council, blessed the Minister of Finance Witte with the icon, who agreed to release this unheard-of amount for church schools, as well as the then state controller Tertiy Ivanovich Filippov, who came to the synod in person for the blessing. Only a year passed and church schools received another 1,500,000 rubles annual increase, in 1900 another 1,859,605 rubles, on May 24, 1899 another increase of 3½ million was allowed, and only on the occasion of the Chinese events this leave was delayed along with all new loans in all departments except the military. At the same time, various measures were sought to increase local funds. Here all sorts of methods were put into circulation; members of the clergy were forced to contribute free personal labor to the school business. And those who could not, or did not know how, paid a fine. Thus, a special deduction was established for poor deacons who did not have the opportunity to study in parochial schools. A circle was established in the churches to collect donations for the benefit of parochial schools and the deduction of a certain percentage of church income was established in their favor. All local funds for the maintenance of church schools are collected in excess of 5,000,000 rubles. By the end of the century, the department of the educational council under the synod consisted of about 22,000 literacy schools with a number of students up to 600,000, and about 19,000 parochial schools with a number of students up to 900,000. Of the parochial schools, up to 300 were teachers' and up to 300 were two-grade, a little more than 100 were exemplary at theological seminaries, the rest were one-grade. Girls' enrollment accounts for about a quarter of all children enrolled. The management of parochial schools is organized as follows. At the head is the school council at the synod, chaired by the bishop present in the synod, followed by diocesan school councils chaired by vicars, rectors of seminaries or honored diocesan archpriests, then district school councils. For observation, observers were established: district, diocesan and imperial with two assistants. Literacy schools provide only literacy, parochial schools - the so-called elementary education, two-grade schools - primary education, second-grade schools prepare teachers for literacy schools, teachers' schools - teachers for parochial schools. To improve the education of teachers and female teachers, in recent years pedagogical courses have begun to be organized for them in the summer, free from classes, in diocesan cities and other more prominent locations. Courses last up to six weeks. Special, invited from outstanding, teachers at these courses provide information on didactics and methods of parish school course subjects, and give exemplary lessons; and the male and female male students themselves give trial lessons, and their lessons are immediately subject to a comprehensive discussion under the guidance of a specialist teacher. In addition to diocesan courses, courses are also organized, so to speak, central, in major cities: St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kyiv, Kharkov, Kazan. These courses are intended for students in second-grade schools. At these courses, students become acquainted with “programs, textbooks and teaching aids, as well as teaching methods in parochial schools,” listen to a number of lectures on subjects intended for teaching exclusively in second-grade schools, and practice church singing, geometric drawing, and various branches of agriculture 377 . Among church schools, over a thousand schools have dormitories. Residence halls are compulsory for all second-grade schools. Apartment and furnishings are free for students, and provisions are supplied by their parents, mostly in kind. Along with education, church schools also spread rural culture. Many church schools provide practical training in agriculture. Some schools have plots of land and set up gardens, vegetable gardens, apiaries, etc. In recent years there have been up to a thousand gardens, up to one and a half thousand vegetable gardens, up to one hundred apiaries, up to thirty worm farms, twenty vineyards; Field farming was carried out on one and a half hundred plots. Handicrafts are practiced in more than three hundred schools. The most preferred crafts by the population are blacksmithing and metalworking and carpentry and turning. There is a tendency to introduce handicraft instruction in all second-class schools. Girls are taught handicrafts, i.e., sewing, cutting, knitting, embroidery, weaving, etc., in almost all girls' schools and some mixed ones, up to 3,500. In those schools where handicrafts are taught in the evenings, both adult girls and married young women come to study. There is a desire to introduce handicrafts in all girls' schools as a compulsory subject. Some schools teach iconography and painting. Without limiting its mission to the education of children themselves, the parish school brings education to the rural population in general. Most schools, up to 21,000, have libraries for extracurricular reading, not only for students, but for everyone in general. In some places there are mobile libraries. There are up to two hundred public libraries and reading rooms. Some schools, over 7,000, organize religious and moral readings for adults on Sundays and holidays. In addition to teachers, school trustees, landowners, doctors, justices of the peace, and zemstvo leaders read. They read the day's gospel, the history of the holiday, an explanation of prayers, commandments, worship, biblical history, the lives of saints, from Russian history, on agriculture, and hygiene. Sometimes there is a magic lantern. In some schools, up to 500, Sunday schools are organized, in some, over 100, evening classes - both for those who for some reason cannot regularly attend school lessons. Both Sunday schools and evening classes are filled primarily with a female element. Some schools, up to 700, organize “Sunday revision classes” for those who are unsuccessful or sloppy. As if according to an established tradition, in the last quarter of a century an amendment was made to the system of spiritual education adopted in the previous quarter. The new statutes for religious educational institutions, approved by the highest in 1884, everywhere strengthened the power of diocesan bishops and the importance of the administration; In seminaries, the elective principle was abolished, the rights and composition of the seminary board were limited, and a special position of confessor was established to promote religious and moral education. In academic terms, in the academies, instead of the previous three departments of each course, two were left - verbal and historical, theological and philosophical departments were made compulsory; in seminaries, biblical history, comparative theology, history and denunciation of schism were added, church singing, previously completely neglected and existing only for those with a good voice, was made compulsory, the teaching of theological subjects was generally strengthened and the teaching of non-theological subjects was weakened, such as classical and modern languages, mathematics, philosophy, pedagogy, the previous division of the seminary course into general education and theology was destroyed, now theological subjects were introduced from the lower grades; In schools, the teaching of the Russian and Church Slavonic languages ​​and church singing was strengthened, and the teaching of classical languages ​​was weakened. In general, the desire was to strengthen churchliness and patriotism. New statutes and programs were introduced in academies from the 1884–1885 academic year, and in seminaries and schools from 1885–1886. By the end of the century, voices began to be heard again about the need for a new reform of religious educational institutions. There is no perfection under the sun, and then one should not miss that essential aspect in the nature of the educational work, that it is eternally mobile, does not have a complete development, like life itself, and therefore does not lend itself to strict regulation and requires unremitting, sensitive and enlightened attention to all its changes and newly emerging issues. Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, said, as a member of the commission of theological schools: “buildings constructed from elemental matter are created once and then give peace to the workers; but that which is built from living stones, after the completion of the initial creation, requires constant re-creation, affirmation, elevation, expansion, decoration, according to the dimensions of increasing internal perfection.” Among the partial changes that followed at different times in the life of theological educational institutions, noteworthy was the increase in 1894 of pensions for professors of academies to the amount of the salary received and the increase in salaries and pensions for teachers of seminaries and theological schools. The St. Petersburg Academy acquired uniforms for students in 1895. In 1885, Orenburg and Yakut seminaries were opened, in 1894 - Kutaisi, in 1895 Ardon missionary, transformed from a school. By the end of the century, there were 4 theological academies with 700 students. At the St. Petersburg Academy there was an ecclesiastical archaeological collection, established by Professor Nikolai Vasilyevich Pokrovsky, and at the Kyiv and Moscow Academy there were ecclesiastical archaeological museums. The richest is the Kyiv Museum. There were 58 seminaries with 18,000 students; There are 185 religious schools with 80,000 students. A feature of the seminar course in recent years is the development of missionary subjects, and mainly the history and exposure of the Russian schism and sects; Departments for this subject have been open since 1886. The teaching of these subjects is increasingly being put on a practical basis. In some seminaries, interviews are held with schismatics, with students from the two senior classes actively participating in these interviews. Up to 3,000,000 rubles are spent on maintaining seminaries, up to 4,500,000 on maintaining religious schools, including up to 3,000,000 from local clergy funds. Academies absorb over 600,000 rubles. There were 56 diocesan women's schools and 13 schools of the ecclesiastical department, which were under the highest patronage of the Empress. There are up to 6,000 girls studying in all these schools. Exemplary parochial schools have been established at 35 schools. Chapter IV. Religious and educational societies and brotherhoods Favorable conditions for the emergence of religious and educational societies and brotherhoods. – Society for the dissemination of religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church. – Baltic Orthodox Brotherhood. – Imperial Orthodox Palestinian Society. – St. Petersburg Diocesan Brotherhood in the name of the Blessed Virgin Mary. – Religious and moral readings and distribution of religious and moral books. – Student Preachers. – Former societies and brotherhoods. The time for the emergence of religious and educational societies and brotherhoods was very favorable. In the first 12 years since 1881, 76,378 new fraternities were created. Brotherhoods arose in the same number in the last years of the century, as well as religious and educational societies. Brotherhoods and societies found a living cause in educating the people, and many of them took the church schools of the dioceses under their wing, thanks to which, while contributing to the success of the church and school business, they themselves became revived. In addition, brotherhoods and societies revived the work of church and especially extra-liturgical preaching, as well as missionary activity, and very significantly advanced the work of educating the people through the distribution of books and brochures with religious and moral content. The first to emerge in the last twenty years of the 19th century was the “society for the dissemination of religious and moral education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church” in St. Petersburg, which received the highest approval of its charter on April 4, 1881. At first, the society had as its task almost exclusively extra-liturgical and church preaching, but subsequently significantly expanded the methods of its activities. The society considers its ancestor to be the archpriest of the military artillery of the Sergius cathedral, Dimitri Yakovlevich Nikitin, who in the spring of 1880, with general incredulous curiosity, opened in his cathedral during non-liturgical hours simple interviews with the common people against pashkovism, which appeared in the Sergius parish. His example was soon followed by other St. Petersburg priests, who formed the core of the society that soon emerged 379. The builder of the society was the archpriest of the Kazan Cathedral, Mikhail Ilyich Sokolov, who, using the donations collected, built the first church of the society in the name of the Most Holy Trinity, at the corner of Nikolaevskaya and Stirupennaya streets, with a special hall for outside liturgical readings and interviews 380. In 1900, on behalf of the society, church and extra-liturgical conversations were introduced in 84 points in St. Petersburg and its environs, including 20 churches, one house of worship, one church-school, two schools, 12 public halls, one private hall, two canteens, two night houses, two houses of industriousness, one premises of the police reserve, one premises of the committee for the analysis and charity of the poor, one arrest home, one shelter for cripples, one women's private courses and in 15 factories and factories. For meetings on outstanding issues and needs of pastoral activity, the society convened 2 pastoral meetings of the capital's clergy, and to improve preaching it organized practical preaching meetings of preachers. The society had three free reading rooms, its own book warehouse, since 1895 it published the magazine “St. Petersburg Spiritual Messenger”, which, however, did not correspond much to the direct goals of the society and degenerated into ordinary diocesan bulletins, published collections for religious and moral reading, had three amateur church choirs, in addition to the main one, created two more churches, set up an extensive parochial school in its own house for boys and girls and Sunday for adults, a sanatorium-dacha for children in Gatchina. To monitor conversations, the society has observers, to monitor and manage schools - a school committee, for publishing activities - a publishing circle, for housekeeping - an economic committee and a construction commission, since the society is constantly being built, expanding in its activities. In recent years, the chairman of the society has been Archpriest Philosopher Nikolaevich Ornatsky. Under the society, under his wing, the following arose and under his supervision exist: a “religious and educational union” for religious and moral reading in print in hospitals, prisons, almshouses, shelters, houses of industriousness, rooming houses, which conducted readings in 1900 at 12 points; “Forerunner Temperance Society”, at the Forerunner Church “society” on the Vyborg side, with a Sunday school, outpatient clinic and library; “Alexander Nevsky Society of Temperance”, at the Resurrection Church near the Warsaw station, which has up to 20,000 members and, thanks to the energy of its organizer, priest Alexander Vasilyevich Rozhdestvensky, has developed a wide publishing activity regarding collections for general edification reading 381. On April 30, 1882, the synod approved the charter of the “Baltic Orthodox brotherhood of Christ the Savior and the Protection of the Mother of God.” This brotherhood was formed from the merger of two brotherhoods: the Goldingen Pokrovsky brotherhood, established in 1869, and the Baltic Spassky brotherhood, established in 1871, and has the goal of serving the needs and benefits of the Orthodox Church, and the successes of popular, in the spirit of Orthodoxy, education in the Baltic provinces, and also, to the best of its means, to contribute to the improvement of the situation of the Orthodox population in these provinces. To achieve its goal, the brotherhood takes care of the construction of new churches and clergy buildings, the maintenance of existing ones in splendor, the organization and maintenance of public schools and the establishment of shelters for poor children and orphans at these schools, the preparation of good Russian teachers from among Estonians and Latvians for the local region and the provision of the most capable of them with the opportunity to receive higher education in Russia, the establishment of Russian libraries at schools and the distribution of religious, moral and other useful books among the local population in Russian and translated into local languages. The brotherhood was immediately accepted under the patronage of the Empress Maria Feodorovna and issues to its honorary members and benefactor members who have contributed at least a thousand rubles, diplomas for the title with the highest signature of Her Majesty 382. Actually, all the tasks set for themselves by the Baltic brotherhood were gradually taken over by the government, and in recent years the activities of the brotherhood, in general, focused only on providing financial assistance for the maintenance of churches and schools and for the publication of books, in an amount of over 10,000 rubles. The brotherhood in recent years was chaired by a member of the State Council, Mikhail Nikolaevich Galkin-Vrasky, had 10 provincial branches in the Baltic region and had a capital of up to 250,000 rubles, with a normal annual income of up to 15,000 383 . On May 8, 1882, the charter of the “Orthodox Palestinian society” was approved by the highest order. The goal of the Palestinian society was to collect, develop and disseminate information in Russia about the holy places of the East, to provide assistance to Orthodox pilgrims of these places and to establish schools, hospitals and hospice houses, as well as to provide material assistance to local residents, churches, monasteries and clergy 384. Concerns about maintaining Orthodoxy in the Holy Land and about the life of Russian pilgrims began on a serious scale even in the previous reign, when Russia acquired a plot of land near the walls of Jerusalem for the construction of a hospice house. Over time, Palestinian society was accepted under the august patronage of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich and adopted the addition to its title: “imperial.” The Society is distinguished by its impeccable care for Orthodox Russian pilgrims in the Holy Land, where it has several beautifully furnished shelter-hotels. Among the diocesan brotherhoods, the “St. Petersburg Diocesan Brotherhood in the Name of the Most Holy Theotokos” stood out for its energetic and multifaceted activities. The brotherhood was established on April 11, 1884 and has as its task to promote the emergence and prosperity of parochial schools, extra-liturgical interviews, church and public libraries and, in general, the religious and moral education of the people. Depending on the needs of the time and under favorable conditions, many public unions appeared to spread education among the people: by organizing religious and moral readings for the people, distributing religious and moral books and brochures. For this purpose, many diocesan committees and book warehouses appeared. Particularly attractive is the emergence of, albeit unofficial, circles of student preachers. The first student preachers appeared at the St. Petersburg Academy under the rectorship and under the patronage of His Grace Anthony Vadkovsky, according to the thoughts and concerns of the then associate professor of the academy, Hieromonk Anthony Khrapovitsky 385. Previously founded societies and brotherhoods now, under favorable conditions, quickly and widely developed their activities. The Moscow “society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment” grew into as many as five departments: the historical and archaeological department, which dealt with the description of the churches of the Moscow diocese; Department of Iconology; department for organizing public theological readings; law department; Department for distribution of spiritual and moral books. In addition, the society conducted extra-liturgical conversations in 27 churches in Moscow, maintained the diocesan library and published “Moscow Church Gazette”, the best diocesan organ in Russia, with a deficit of up to two hundred rubles, and “Sunday Conversations”, a religious and moral weekly illustrated magazine for the common people, with a profit of up to a thousand rubles. However, the society suffered great damage in these same years, ceasing the publication of its scientific monthly “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” due to a lack of subscribers. The company has an untouchable capital of 7,000 rubles, the annual income extends to 11,000. In the last year, the chairman of the society was Archpriest Mikhail Simonovich Bogolyubsky 386. From the departments of the society, the “department for the distribution of spiritual and moral books,” which at one time was accepted under the patronage of the late Empress Maria Alexandrovna, and now under the patronage of the Empress Maria Feodorovna, has degenerated into an independent society. In 1900, the department printed 88 new brochures and books and republished 14 previous ones, in total 405,000 copies, worth 12,900 rubles. The department has its own book warehouse and its own booksellers. In 1900, the department sold up to 550,000 copies of its books and brochures for 17,000 rubles and gave away up to 20,000 for free for 400 rubles. The department concluded the year 1900 with a residual capital of 26,000 rubles and a stock of publications of 5,000. In 1900, the department was chaired by Archpriest Ioann Nikolaevich Bukharev 387. The Brotherhood of St. Gury in Kazan continued its educational activities among foreigners of the Volga-Kama region through schools, religious conversations and books of religious and moral content in foreign languages. In 1900, the brotherhood had 154 schools, including 64 Baptized Tatar schools with 1,795 students, 51 Chuvash schools with 1,478 students, 17 Cheremis schools with 289 students, 16 Votyak schools with 365 students, 1 Mordovian school with 41 students, 5 Russian schools with 517 students. There were 4,485 students in total, including 948 girls. In addition to the Orthodox, 10 children of the Mohammedan faith and 273 of pagans studied in the schools. 60 schools were located in their own houses, 82 in rented houses, 9 in church houses. At the head of the baptized Tatar schools was the Kazan central baptized Tatar school, for training teachers, with a male and female department and with a dormitory and with 165 students, at the head of the Chuvash schools was the missionary school of the brotherhood in the village of Ishaki, with a pedagogical class, the same for training teachers; There were 103 people studying at the school in 1900. The brotherhood trains teachers for the Cheremis in the ministerial school in the village of Unzhe, and to train teachers for the Votyaks, it sends candidates to the village of Karlygan, Vyatka province, where there is a teacher’s school for the Votyaks. In 1900, the brotherhood's translation commission published 35 books and brochures in different languages. 44 souls were added to Orthodoxy by the brotherhood this year. 26,000 rubles were spent, leaving 19,000 388 for the new century. By the end of the century, the Orthodox Missionary Society had 44 branches or diocesan committees, collected capital up to 1,200,000 rubles, with an annual expenditure of up to half a million. With an energetic hand, the society for the restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus was saved from death and called to revival. This society, completely independent of the synod, under the command of the commander-in-chief, formerly the governor of the region, drowned all its rich funds in the irrigation canal to irrigate the Karayaz steppe granted to the society by the highest order, and entered into unpayable debts. Churches were not built, there were few priests with theological education, publishing and translation activities ceased completely - in a word, the implementation of the tasks of the society actually ceased. Having learned about all this, Chief Prosecutor K.P. At the beginning of 1882, Pobedonostsev energetically set about transforming society; at the coronation in 1883 in Moscow there were meetings of interested clergy and secular persons regarding the transformation of society, and the whole matter was resolved by the highest approval in 1885 of a new charter, according to which the society was placed under the mandatory chairmanship of the Exarch of Georgia and came under the jurisdiction of the synod. The Karayaz steppe, up to 25,000 dessiatines, was accepted into the treasury, into the Ministry of State Property, and in return the society was assigned an annual distribution of 35,000 rubles from the treasury to the previously assigned and received 23,000 rubles from the treasury and 30,000 from the capital of the imperial and royal orders. At the same time, the treasury assumed 150,000 rubles of debts owed by the company 389. Immediately, the renewed society began to repair churches, schools and clergy premises, resumed publishing activities, began to supply poor churches with sacred vessels, liturgical books, sacristies, utensils, set up libraries at schools, took on the education of the children of the poor clergy at its own expense, began to appoint new missionaries, open new parishes, and in 1886 issued missionary instructions - “instructions pastors-preachers of the word of God,” in 1887 opened in the village of Ardone, Terek region, the Aleksandrovsk Ossetian theological school for the training of priests and teachers from Ossetians, which was later transformed into a missionary seminary. People's schools were energetically established, which with the new charter were turned into parish schools 390. Chapter V. Spiritual magazines and folk publications Favorable conditions. - “Sunday Day”. - “Helmsman.” – “Pastoral Interlocutor.” - “Russian Pilgrim”. - “Trinity Leaves” and their imitators. - “Peace and Reason.” - "Church Gazette". - “Bulletin of the Military Clergy.” - “Orthodox Blagovestnik”. – “Public Education”. - Former magazines. - “Friend of Sobriety.” From the very first steps, the time turned out to be especially favorable for the development of so-called edifying spiritual magazines, that is, collections of publicly accessible articles of religious and moral content to satisfy the need of the people for spiritual reading that arose as a result of the development of church literacy. On this basis, illustrated weekly magazines appeared in Moscow: “Sunday Day”, a publication by priest Simeon Uvarov “for reading in an Orthodox family”, “The Helmsman”, and many others, as well as, since 1884, “Pastoral Interlocutor”, without illustrations, a weekly publication by V.A. Mavritsky. In St. Petersburg, the editor of the journal “Church and Public Bulletin”, sensitive to the trends of the times, Popovitsky turned his perky “Bulletin”, full of accusatory direction, into an edifying weekly “illustration” called “Russian Pilgrim”. The publication of 391 cheap “Trinity Leaves”, started at the end of the previous reign, at six hryvnia per hundred, by Hieromonk Nikon of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra, who was soon elevated to the rank of archimandrite, became extremely widespread, and they collected half a half a decent capital for their publisher, which gave him the opportunity to set up his own printing house and develop the business: in addition to the “Leaflets”, Father Nikon began to publish also “Trinity Books” priced at one kopeck, and “Trinity Icons”, but the latter enterprise failed due to strong competition mainly from the factory of elegant and cheap icons on tin, and was discontinued. “Trinity Listki” provoked imitation: from 1884 “Kievskie Listki” appeared, from 1886 “Pochaevskie Listki” appeared under the “Volyn Diocesan Gazette”, etc. Ambrose, Archbishop of Kharkov Since 1884, Kharkov Archbishop Ambrose Klyucharyov transformed the local diocesan bulletins into a respectable theological and philosophical magazine, Faith and Reason. The magazine consisted of two sections - theological and philosophical, in addition, with each book there is a “Leaflet for the Kharkov diocese”, the same diocesan statements, very informative, but typed economically and very intelligently, so that the “Leaflet” on its two pages gives more than other diocesan statements in the whole issue. “Faith and Reason” is published twice a month, in books of 8 or 10 printed pages, costs 10 rubles with postage and, although subscription is required, in its vast diocese does not complain of scarcity. Since 1887, in Kyiv, Pavel Akimych Ignatovich began publishing the “Church and Parish School”. Since 1888, “Church Gazette” began to be published, a weekly magazine published under the Holy Synod, with a mandatory extract for all clergy of Orthodox churches. The need for a synodal official body with the development of postal messages and newspapers was recognized for a long time, because the previous method of communicating synodal generally binding orders at a snail's pace through consistories did not at all correspond to the goal, and placing them in the official part of the “Church Bulletin” also did not achieve the goal, since the “Bulletin” sold only seven thousand copies, and it was difficult to make it mandatory for all clergy to issue due to the rather high price of the magazine - 5 rubles. The need for such a publication so that the synodal decrees and orders would be made known, if possible, to all persons and institutions subordinate to the synod and would be available for guidance in every church and in every institution subordinate to the synod, was revealed by itself. Tserkovnye Vedomosti cost 3 rubles including postage. “Vedomosti” consists of two sections - official and unofficial, the latter is called “Additions to the Church Gazette”. The “Church Bulletin”, not without regret, parted with its official status and greeted the “Church Gazette” with hostility, but, not having anything substantive to say, burst out in sadness about the obligatory subscription to the “Gazette” for all clergy, on the assumption that now the diocesan Gazette would turn out to be unnecessary and would freeze: the assumption was not justified. In 1899, an alphabetical subject index was published to the official part of the Vedomosti for the first ten years of its publication, to facilitate the search for references required for management 392. Since 1890, the central administration of the military clergy started its own official journal, “Bulletin of the Military Clergy,” replacing diocesan bulletins for the military clergy. Since 1893, the missionary society also acquired its own organ, the Orthodox Blagovestnik. In general, the Blagovestnik differs little from the diocesan bulletins. Since 1896, the monthly “Public Education” has been published, the official organ of the school council at the Holy Synod, most recently edited by Porfiry Petrovich Mironositsky. With the loss of officiality, the “Church Herald” (and with it “Christ. Reading”) immediately lost two-thirds of its subscribers, then gradually began to wither and, in order to maintain its existence, was forced to turn to reserve capital collected in the golden days. The Orthodox Review did not generate any profit for a number of years and in 1891 it ceased altogether due to lack of subscribers. In 1894, the publication of “Readings in the Society of Lovers of Spiritual Enlightenment” ceased. Although the “Wanderer” held out, it worked sluggishly, almost at a loss. “Orthodox Interlocutor” and “Transactions of the Kyiv Theological Academy” were barely able to give their employees even such a paltry fee as 8 rubles per sheet for original articles. The Moscow academic organ “Creations of the Holy Fathers” was threatened with complete bankruptcy. Complaints were heard that the public had ceased to be interested in theology. science, and blamed the new direction, which patronized simple edification to the detriment of religious thought and theological science. However, the complaints and accusations were unfounded. The only reason was that the old editors did not know how to adapt to the new conditions of the magazine business. The Orthodox Review ceased, but it received a deputy in the person of Faith and Reason with a program that was completely identical in essence. The “Theological Messenger”, based on the place of “The Works of the Holy Fathers” by a living young spiritual writer, now Reverend. Anthony Khrapovitsky, then rector of the Moscow Academy, immediately received quite decent success and the opportunity to exist. When the editors of the Church Messenger passed into the hands of Prof. A.P. Lopukhin (since 1893), the magazine returned, if not its golden, then at least its silver days, attracting the public with the free supplement of “The Complete Works of St. John Chrysostom,” as well as the revitalization of the tone and content of the magazine in general. The same thing happened with “The Wanderer”: when it passed into the hands of Prof. Lopukhin, the magazine, which had completely decayed, was revived and updated, attracted new readers, and the publisher, instead of the previous chronic shortage, found it possible to issue very valuable supplements to subscribers for free, costing him up to 12,000 rubles annually. In 1899, even a new private theological and apologetic magazine appeared, published in Moscow by priest I. I. Solovyov, “Faith and Church.” “Soulful Reading”, handed over by the former editor, Archpriest Vasily Nechaev, after his consecration as bishop, to his son-in-law, Professor-Archpriest Dimitry Kasitsyn, never complained, it seems, about dark days, thanks to the accessibility and entertaining nature of its program, which was also very consistent with the spirit of the new time, and in recent years it even had outstanding material success. In the last year of the century, the magazine of priest Grigory Spiridonovich Petrov, “Friend of Sobriety,” appeared, published by priest Belogostitsky. The magazine set itself the task of awakening Christian feelings in people and calling its readers to Christ in their own ordinary worldly voice. There are almost no texts or theological quotes in the articles, and the very expressions and concepts are used in relation to a world alien to churchliness. This method of preaching was successfully used by the holy fathers, who turned to the forms and thoughts of the pagan writers they respected to convince the pagans. The magazine is published in small brochures twice a month and costs 2 rubles. Missionary society and missions among foreigners. - Schism. – Measures to bring dissenters and sectarians to their senses. - "Missionary Review". - Missionary conventions. - Unity of faith. - Japanese mission. - Baltic region. – Annexation of the Volyn Czechs. – Aisor accession. – The desire among the Western Churches for reunification with the Eastern. – Opening of St. relics. – New holidays and services. – Kiev-Vladimir Cathedral. Of the measures to spread Christianity taken in the last twenty years of the century, the general permission given by the synod in 1883 to perform divine services for foreigners in their native language is especially important. All missionary activity among pagan foreigners and Mohammedans was concentrated under the authority of the Orthodox missionary society, which, with the Moscow Metropolitan as its constant chairman, became the official institution for managing one of the branches of the highest church government. There are missions in Siberia: Altai, Kyrgyz, Yenisei, Obdorsk, Kamchatka, Irkutsk. The Altai mission has 15 missionary camps, converts up to 500 people to Christianity annually, has up to 23,000 baptized foreigners in its area, and up to 20,000 unbaptized ones. Within the mission there are 55 churches and houses of worship and 50 schools with 900 students. The mission supplies the poorest foreigners with bread for sowing, money for maintaining the household, clothing, etc. Two shelters have been set up for homeless children. To educate the Ostyaks, who were baptized but remained not instructed in the truths of the Christian faith, a mobile school was established in the Tomsk diocese in 1896. The Kyrgyz mission, opened in 1882 within the Tomsk diocese for the Semipalatinsk region with the goal of converting the Kyrgyz-Mohammedans, first with the subordination of the Altai mission, and since 1895 it became independent, consists of 9 camps and 22 people, has 12 churches and prayer houses, 6 schools with 800 students and in 1898 converted 59 people to Christianity. In the Yenisei diocese there are 12 special missionary parishes and 9 schools with 200 students. The work of the mission here is very difficult; missionary parishes cover sometimes a thousand, and others even five thousand square miles. It is not surprising, therefore, that here and among baptized foreigners there is dual faith, and missionaries testify that although shamanism has lost its former power among foreigners as a religious cult, nevertheless, foreigners often even now turn to shamanism: they call upon a shaman during illness to ward off the devil - the evil spirit, and participate in sacrifices to mountain and water spirits. In 1898, 33 souls were baptized in the Yenisei diocese in the Turukhansk region. The Obdorsk mission in the Tobolsk diocese consisted of 7 persons and baptized 28 Samoyeds and Ostyaks in 1898. And here the missionaries complain that the baptized Samoyeds and Ostyaks remain essentially pagans and out of 4,000 baptized foreigners, only 400 people received communion. For foreigners of the Tobolsk diocese there are two boarding schools, in Obdorsk and at the Kondino women's community, with 23 students, and another boarding school at the Tobolsk seminary with 16 students. The Kamchatka mission has 17 missionary camps, each with a priest and a psalm-reader, and 28 schools with 500 students. In 1898, the mission baptized 178 people. The missionaries especially praised the Koreans and complained about the Russians in this region, who for the most part belonged to the scum of society. The Irkutsk mission has 20 camps and 16 schools with 300 students. The mission counts 1,050 souls under its jurisdiction as baptized foreigners. In the Vyatka diocese, the missionary society runs 60 schools with 2,500 students. Of other dioceses, the society's support is enjoyed by its diocesan committees of dioceses: Arkhangelsk, Simbirsk, Samara, Saratov, Ufa, Perm, Yekaterinburg, Astrakhan, Stavropol, Orenburg. Other committees, on the contrary, themselves provide benefits to the society by collecting donations and membership fees. Working together with the missionary, also missionary in their task, but limited to the area of ​​​​activity, are the Society for the Restoration of Orthodoxy in the Caucasus and the Brotherhood of St. Gurias. The latter, although in its direct activities is limited by the boundaries of the Kazan diocese, indirectly extends its beneficial influence “to the entire foreign east, both through the persons it prepares for school and priestly work, and with the help of church books published by the commission attached to the brotherhood in all almost foreign dialects of eastern Russia and Siberia.” The brotherhood runs up to 150 schools with 3,000 foreign students: Tatars, Chuvash, Cheremis, Mordovians. The government's attitude towards sectarianism and schism became firmly stable. While granting everyone freedom of religion in its present form, so to speak, “Russia cannot allow propaganda for the rejection of its sons of the same faith into religious camps, and declares this openly in its laws.” In 1884, Pashkov’s society for the encouragement of spiritual and moral reading was closed, Pashkov’s magazine “Russian Worker” was discontinued and Pashkov himself “retired abroad”; the government’s attitude towards the schism had previously been characterized by some severity. There is no more hated and dangerous enemy than the enemy at home, and it is not surprising if the church administration and the state government treated schismatics, as precisely enemies who appeared in their own family, more harshly than the enemies of someone else’s camp, so that Tatar mullahs and Jewish rabbis received government salaries, and schismatics were completely forbidden to worship. The government's intolerance towards schismatics, inherited for a long time, was somewhat weakened during the reign of Emperor Alexander II, when, by the highest approval of the special committee on schismatic affairs on August 16, 1864, all sectarians were divided into two categories: more harmful and less harmful, and when the less harmful category received, with some exceptions, general civil rights, and on April 19, 1874 were the highest the committee's proposals regarding the civil metric registration of marriages, births and deaths of schismatics, discussed in the State Council, were approved. Then, in 1875, a commission was formed under the Ministry of Internal Affairs to develop detailed legislation on schismatics. The basis for the relief in relation to schismatics was the idea that “the government’s measures in relation to the schism, although they should not have the character of persecution, but at the same time cannot be aimed at relaxing, much less patronizing, the schism.” The State Council, through which changes in legislation in relation to schismatics passed, reasoned that “no matter how desirable it would be for the government, which has always been distinguished by religious tolerance, even towards people of other faiths, to give even greater civil relief to schismatics, however, this seems impossible, since the followers of the schism strive to propagate their teachings. The supreme power, which is the defender of the dogmas of the ruling faith, cannot, without generating obvious temptation, place both the Orthodox Church and teachings directly hostile to it on equal terms of freedom.” Measures in relation to the schism, in any case, should not “give into the hands of the followers of the rumors a new weapon for the fight against the ruling Church.” The provisions of the special committee of 1864 developed by the commission, or rather, adopted by it, were, after consideration in the State Council, highly approved on May 8, 1883. The essence of the new law on schismatics was that schismatics were allowed to perform public prayer, perform spiritual duties and perform divine services according to their rituals in private homes, as well as in cemeteries during burial, with singing, but without the use of church vestments. It was decided not to prosecute the charterers, mentors and other persons who fulfill the spiritual requirements of schismatics, except in cases where they are guilty of spreading their errors among the Orthodox or other criminal acts. But it is confirmed that such persons are not recognized as having a spiritual title and they are considered to belong to the classes in which they belong. It is also confirmed that followers of the schism are prohibited from publicly expressing it, i.e. religious processions, public processions in vestments, public wearing of icons, except for presenting them to the deceased accompanied to the cemetery, the use of church vestments or monastic and priestly vestments outside houses or chapels and prayer buildings, and schismatic singing in the streets and squares. It is allowed to repair and restore the chapels and chapels of less harmful sects that are falling into disrepair, so that the external appearance of the buildings is not changed, and each time with the permission of the civil authorities, and in some cases it is allowed to open those that were closed, in consultation with the chief prosecutor of the synod, and, if absolutely necessary, to open new ones - with the permission of the Minister of the Interior. All such buildings should not only have the appearance of an Orthodox church, not have external bells, but could have crosses and icons above the entrance. In these decrees, the State Council was guided by the consideration that “prayer is one of the first spiritual needs of every believer, even if he is mistaken in his religious beliefs,” and that “therefore, no matter how strict the prohibition of gathering for public worship in private houses may be, the latter will always exist, with the only difference that in case of persecution it will be carried out secretly, without the supervision of government authorities.” In addition to the above, the same law on May 3, 1883 abolished restrictive regulations regarding the excommunication of schismatics from their places of permanent residence, registration with city societies, the exercise of trade and craft, as well as the holding of elected positions in city public administrations. In addition to this law, the law of January 10, 1889 established criminal liability for schismatic false priests for fulfilling spiritual requirements for persons of the Orthodox confession 393. Measures towards the erring were encouraged mainly based on conviction. First, as an experiment, and then finally, a special department on the history and denunciation of the Russian schism was introduced in theological seminaries. The magazine “Brotherly Word”, which began publication in 1875 and soon ceased, was published by the professor of the Moscow Academy Nikolai Ivanovich Subbotin and was specially dedicated to the study and exposure of the schism, received a subsidy from the synod and was revived in 1883, until, however, it ceased again in 1899, forever, complaining about the small number of subscribers, of which there were always only no more than a thousand, or rather, having disagreed in their views on measures in relation to the schism with the ruling spiritual spheres, which stood for a more lenient attitude towards schismatics than the publisher-professor. With a subsidy from the synod, the anti-sectarian magazine “Missionary Review” arose in 1898, published by the official of special assignments under the chief prosecutor of the synod, Vasily Mikhailovich Skvortsov, first in Kyiv, and then, when the publisher moved to live in St. Petersburg, in St. Petersburg. Judging by the gradual increase in volume without additional subscription fees, the magazine is a material success. The missionary congresses that took place in Moscow in 1887 and 1891, in Kazan in 1897, and in Odessa in 1898 brought significant revival to the missionary work. Of particular importance was the first congress, which developed rules on the organization of missions and on the method of action of missionaries and pastors of the Church in relation to schismatics and sectarians, which were then approved by the synod. According to these rules, by the way, missionary libraries are established in dioceses: the main one is the general diocesan one and the deanery or district libraries. It is recommended that books for these libraries be ordered from the catalog compiled by the Brotherhood of St. Peter the Metropolitan in Moscow. Somewhat later, it was decided to supply the libraries of parochial schools with anti-schism books in areas affected by schism. For the maintenance and travel of missionaries in the southwestern dioceses infected with sectarianism, leave of up to 25,000 rubles was requested. The explanation given by the synod in 1888 that Edinoverie does not represent any confession different from Orthodoxy, but Orthodoxy and Edinoverie constitute one Church, did not go without influence on the conversion of schismatics to Edinoverie. By imperial command, in 1896, an addition was made to the law on the responsibility of non-Christians for preventing Christians from observing holidays and their religious duties. Outside Russia, under the wise leadership of the Right Reverend Nikolai Kasatkin, who had been head of the mission since 1870 and a bishop since 1880, our Japanese mission flourished. Its peculiarity, and at the same time its strength, is its application to the conditions of activity, which depend mainly on the fact that the mission has to operate among a people that already has a thousand-year-old culture of its own. Church life here is not like Russian. All Orthodox Christians in Japan are distributed among 226 communities, with 28 priests and 149 catechists, with a bishop at their head and a dean over the communities. There is a seminary in Tokyo with 70 students, a catechist school, a priest school, a women's school, several ordinary ones, and three spiritual magazines are published. All Orthodox Christians under the mission number up to 25,000, 970 were baptized in 1898. The custom has been established to annually convene a council of all Orthodox Christians to discuss the needs of the mission, that is, the Japanese Orthodox Church. The communities themselves support catechists and sometimes priests; They often build churches for themselves. Depending on the predilection of the Japanese for various kinds of societies, in almost every parish there are women's friendly societies to promote religious and moral education. These societies have monthly meetings at which they read the lives of saints, interpret prayers or Holy Scripture, tell the history of the nearest holiday and choose the most capable from among them to denounce the infidels, help the poor, take care of raising children, and awaken faith in those who are growing cold. In 1889, along with the constitution, complete freedom of religion was declared in Japan. In 1890, new staff of the Jerusalem spiritual mission were approved and then supplemented in 1896. Along with the revival of Russian elements in the Baltic region that began in 1883, Estonians and Latvians also resumed joining Orthodoxy from Protestantism. Up to 3,000 souls usually joined here per year. The government decided to give due actual rights to Russian elements in this Germanized region, introduced the Russian language into public places and schools, subordinated Lutheran church schools to the Ministry of Public Education, and opened Russian public schools. In 1888 and 1889, there was a massive joining of the Orthodox Church by Czech Catholics living in Volhynia, up to 7,000 souls. In 1898, the Isor-Nestorians living in Persia joined the Russian Orthodox Church. The Aisor's desire for reunification has been long-standing. As early as 1859, the Aisors of Persia and Turkey sought reunification. But since they pinned hopes on improving their political position with reunification, the matter was slowed down by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Gorchakov and Chief Prosecutor Akhmatov, who spoke out not in favor of the immediate reunification of the entire Isor people, although the synod gladly greeted the expression of such intention by the Aisors and sent Archimandrite Zephaniah from themselves to the Aisors to familiarize themselves with their religious life. Since the eighties, the question has been raised again. In 1883, the Nestorian Bishop Gabriel came to Russia to work on this matter, but his mission has not yet had the desired success. It was found that he did not have properly certified credentials. In addition, it was difficult to communicate with him, since he did not know Russian. The main obstacle was that, for political reasons, they were afraid to allow the simultaneous reunification of the entire Aisor people, leaving everyone to join individually. However, despite all their failures, the Aysor people continued to knock on the doors of the Russian Church. And in 1895, after long delays, when a commissioner from the bishop of the Aisor-Nestorians living in Persia appeared in St. Petersburg, the synod for the first time called upon the all-successful blessing of God on those seeking to enter the bosom of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, according to the word of our Savior and Lord: that they all may be one (John 17:21), instructed the Aisor-Nestorians who wished to to reunite, the archpastoral care of the Exarch of Georgia, Archbishop Vladimir, who soon became the Metropolitan of Moscow, instructed the Eminence to find, based on local circumstances, measures to implement the reunification, to appoint an Orthodox priest to Urmia to familiarize both the Orthodox with Aisor Nestorianism, and Aisor with Orthodoxy. Priest Victor Sinadsky was elected. When he entered Urmia on May 13, 1897, up to 10,000 foot and horsemen, representatives of all religions, had gathered for his arrival in this city from surrounding villages located 50 miles in a circle. The meeting was full of indescribable delight and enthusiasm, and the Nestorian and Armenian clergy came out to meet them with a cross and bread and served prayer services. There was a feeling of boundless devotion and hope in relation to the Orthodox Russian Tsar. No matter how hard diplomats fought for a quarter of a century, they were unable to exterminate the hope of political patronage from the primitive people. The feeling is natural! But again it aroused fears, and the matter was resolved in such a way that only Bishop Jonah of Supurgan, who soon arrived in Russia, with the clergy accompanying him, was accepted into the fold of the Orthodox Russian Church, and he himself was entrusted with joining those who wished to Orthodoxy at their place of residence. To help Jonah, an Orthodox Russian mission was established in Urmia. Vasily Vasilievich Bolotov, a professor of rare erudition at the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, took an active part in developing the conditions and forms of reunification. The reunion took place on March 24 and 25, 1898. On Tuesday, March 24, at a meeting of the synod, Secretary Guryev reported: “since in one of the previous meetings the Holy Synod, following the council’s decisions, decided to accept Bishop Jonah of Supurgan, who was converting from the Nestorian heresy, into communion, he stands at the door and asks permission to enter.” The Synod agreed to Jonah's request, the doors of the meeting room opened, and Bishop Isor entered with two translators. Having taken precedence as a member, Metropolitan Pallady Raev of St. Petersburg exclaimed: “Let Bishop Jonah of Supurgan convey his confession of faith through this manuscript.” This confession, in relation to Nestorian errors, was developed by the synod with the participation of Professor Bolotov. Bishop Jonah read his confession of faith in the Syro-Chaldean language and then signed it with his own hand, and the Russian translator-hieromonk who was with him read the same confession in the Slavic language. For this, Metropolitan Palladius asked the members of the Holy Synod: “Is he worthy of acceptance who seeks fellowship,” and when Metropolitan Ioannikis of Kiev answered that “according to the sacred canons, he is worthy of acceptance in his existing rank,” and the other members of the Holy Synod agreed with him, then the first member said: “Glory to God, who united the distance,” and then, overshadowing Bishop Jonah cross, announced to him that the next day in the Holy Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra the accession to the Orthodox Church of both himself and the other Nestorians who arrived with him would take place. About the above-described presentation to the Holy Synod of Bishop Jonah, a special act of the Holy Synod was compiled, placed in the official part No. 13 of the Church Gazette for 1898. The next day, on the feast of the Annunciation of the Most Holy Theotokos, the very celebration of the annexation took place. By 9 o'clock in the morning the Lavra Cathedral was full of worshipers. Bishop Jonah and Archimandrite Elijah, Presbyters Sergius and George, and Deacon Jacob, who were with him, also arrived at the indicated hour at the cathedral and stood at its western doors along with their translators. By 9½ o'clock in the morning, the archpastors gathered in the altar to celebrate the Divine Liturgy: metropolitans Palladius of St. Petersburg and Vladimir of Moscow, Anthony, Archbishop of Finland, and Dimitri, Bishop of Tver. By the same time, many high-ranking officials had arrived at the cathedral. At the end of the reading of the hours, Metropolitan Palladius, dressed in a mantle and omophorion, left the altar along with his two suffragan bishops and headed to the western doors of the cathedral, where those being joined were located. Upon the usual question of those who joined about their desire to renounce the sins and wrongs of the Nestorian religion and come into the union of the Orthodox-Catholic faith, and upon receiving an affirmative answer from them, the Most Reverend Palladius blessed them and then read a prayer over their bowed heads, beginning with the words: “Lord God of truth.” This was followed by a series of questions addressed to those joining. Questions and answers, according to order, were translated in advance by Professor Bolotov into the Syro-Chaldean language and learned by those joining. Presbyter Sergius, being familiar with the Church Slavonic language, pronounced answers on behalf of all those joining. It was touching to hear when the Metropolitan uttered the first question: “Do you deny the teachings of Nestorius and Theodore and all those who are like-minded,” and when this was followed by the answer loudly pronounced by the joining Presbyter Sergius: “We deny”! The thought was involuntarily transported to those times when the names of these false teachers deeply worried the Orthodox Church. After all the questions and answers, the Metropolitan, uttering the words: “enter into the Orthodox Church and, completely rejecting the errors in which you were naturally, honor the Almighty Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, the Trinity, consubstantial and indivisible,” led those who were joining to the pulpit, where the cross and the gospel were placed on a special lectern. At this time, the choir of metropolitan singers sang Psalm 66 in the Syro-Chaldean language: “God, show mercy to us and bless us”... At the end of the singing of the psalm, those who joined fell on their knees, and the Metropolitan read the verses prescribed in other rites of joining: “Send Thy spirit” and others and the prayer “Lord God Almighty”... Then those who joined stood up and confirmed the promise they had made to confess the Orthodox-Catholic faith by kissing the Gospel and the Holy Cross. The rite of joining ended with Metropolitan Palladius reading a prayer over those being joined, beginning with the words: “Our Lord Jesus Christ...”. After this, the Metropolitan, having expressed his greetings to the newly joined, placed a precious cross on Bishop Jonah, a panagia and the bishop's mantle on Archimandrite Elijah - the archimandrite cross, and on the other presbyters - priestly crosses. All of them were then led into the altar and, dressed in the sacred vestments characteristic of their degrees of priesthood, took part in the celebration of the divine liturgy. During the small entrance, Bishop Jonah placed the miter on Archimandrite Elijah, who had joined the Orthodox Church. After the great entrance, the newly added Bishop Jonah blessed the people, holding the dikiri and trikiri in his hands. At the end of the liturgy, a prayer service was served, and then Bishop Jonah and others who joined proceeded to the Metropolitan’s chambers and were greeted by him here, and then, together with Metropolitan Palladius, they went to the Lavra meal. Here, after reading the prayer, the comrade chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, Senator Vladimir Karlovich Sabler, read the gracious congratulations of the Sovereign Emperor on those newly accepted into the fold of our Orthodox Church 395. In the last decade of the 19th century, the persistent desire in the Western Churches for reunification with the Eastern Orthodox Church became especially noticeable. Manifestations of this desire are not new in Russian church life. In the forties and sixties they came from the Anglican Church, in the seventies from the so-called Old Catholic Church, which separated from the Roman Church after the Vatican Council. In the nineties, the Old Catholics seemed to be just on the eve of unification. But the Lord, apparently, does not bless the implementation of this work yet. In 1896, the relics of St. Theodosius of Uglich were solemnly opened in Chernigov and a church celebration of his memory was established on the day of his death. In 1882, the celebration was established on February 19th. In 1884 and 1885, the celebration was established on April 6 and February 14, the days of the death of the holy first teachers of the Slavic Cyril and Methodius. In 1888, on the occasion of the nine-hundredth anniversary of the baptism of Rus', the celebration of the memory of the Holy Grand Duke Vladimir was established on July 15, and in memory of the rescue of the royal family during a railway train crash on the Kursk-Kharkov-Azov road at the Borkakh station on October 17, 1888, a celebration was established on October 17. In 1895, the Emperor ordered that August 30 be considered a service day. In 1881, at the liturgy, two petitions and a special prayer were added to the liturgy for the establishment of peace in our land and the destruction of the advice of the wicked to trample upon power; by the end of the century, subsequently changed, as a result of the pacification of sedition, into a prayer for the establishment of peace and piety; during cholera in 1892, the synod granted the diocesan bishops, regardless of the performance of prayer singing during the destructive epidemic, to allow the offering of a special petition at a special litany: also during the famine in 1891. In 1885, a service and akathist to Saints Cyril and Methodius were published, in 1888 - to the Holy Grand Duke Vladimir, and the synod authorized the printing of many akathists to local saints and miraculous icons. At the request of pious Christians, many religious processions were established. The communication of the Russian Church with other Orthodox Churches was expressed in the constant provision of material assistance to distressed foreign Churches. The consecration of the Vladimir Cathedral in Kyiv in 1896 was of national significance. The idea of ​​building a cathedral in honor of the Holy Grand Duke Vladimir appeared back in 1852, during the construction of a civil monument to St. Vladimir, and belonged to the then Metropolitan of Kyiv Philaret. The initial plan was drawn up by academician N.V. Strom. The first laying of the cathedral took place in 1862. It was planned to build the cathedral using donations. The first estimate was calculated at 500,000 rubles. For economic reasons, work began according to a plan modified by the architect Sparro and academician Bereggi. In 1866, due to cracks appearing in the walls of the cathedral, work was suspended, but ten years later it was resumed again - at the expense of the treasury. Construction was roughly completed in 1881 and then began under the leadership of Professor A.V. Prahov, the famous painting of the walls of the cathedral, thanks to the original works of the artist Viktor Mikhailovich Vasnetsov, brought the glory of the cathedral beyond Russia - to Western Europe. The construction and decoration of the cathedral cost almost a million rubles 396. Chapter VII. Clergy and church administration Strengthening diocesan power. – Improving the life of the clergy. - Order badges. – Cross for clergy. - Black skufia. - Military clergy. - Church sums. - Councils of Archpastors. – New edition of the statutes of spiritual consistories. – New instructions for church elders. – New staff of the synodal archive and library, control and printing houses. - Spiritual censorship. – New dioceses. - Vicars. The prestige of the clergy was elevated in two ways: by strengthening the power of those in power and by improving the position of the lower clergy. The new charter of theological educational institutions made the diocesan bishop the head of the administrative part in educational institutions and excluded any possibility of the previously often annoying and persistent bickering of seminary boards with their eminences, which arose with the permission of the synod, as happened more than once even in the St. Petersburg seminary under Metropolitan Isidore 397 . The synodal decree of April 5, 1881 abolished the election of dean, the appointment of dean was left to the authority and discretion of the bishop. In the life of the clergy, the reign of Alexander III was marked by significant favors. The establishment of a special zemstvo tax in the western provinces from January 1, 1889 ensured the establishment of clergy premises at Orthodox churches. In 1887, it was necessary to attribute pensions to clergy to the account of the general pension credit of the state treasury department, with the termination of the account to the pension credit of the ecclesiastical department. This had the consequences that all persons of the clergy began to receive, albeit tiny, pensions, and before, when there was a special account for the pension credit of the ecclesiastical department, there were not enough amounts to issue pensions to everyone, and by the last year there were up to a thousand people who had the right to receive, but did not receive pensions, waiting to receive them in turn. The most important thing is the restoration in 1893 of the order established by Emperor Nicholas I and in force until 1860, according to which a certain amount was added annually to the allocation for the spiritual department - for the salary of the clergy, until all clergy were designated as a salary. On December 28, 1892, the highest order was issued to allocate 250,000 rubles for the first time in 1893 for the salary of the parish clergy, in 1893 another 250,000 were allocated for the next year. Then, from 1895, this loan increased progressively annually by 500,000 rubles. The clergy owes all these legal provisions, as evidenced by the timely press, to the initiative and insistence of K.P. Pobedonostseva. In 1884 and 1885, the synod developed new regulations on parishes. It was allowed to restore all parishes that had been closed since 1869, and the churches that had been assigned were converted into independent parishes. The composition of the clergy has been increased and it is not only permitted, but also recommended to restore the abolished diaconal vacancies. Among the deacons they hoped to find the most suitable contingent of teachers for parochial schools. The results of the new orders began to be revealed immediately: in the same year, 1885, 126 parishes were immediately restored in the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, and 638 deacons were restored in the Voronezh diocese. At the same time, in 1885, the long-faded presence for the affairs of the Orthodox clergy was closed. Very noticeable in the life of the clergy was the order of the synod to prohibit clergy from wearing insignia of the order during worship, which was previously practiced. As if in exchange, in 1896, on the occasion of the coronation, all persons of the priestly rank were given the right to place on themselves a silver pectoral cross of a specially established pattern. Since 1883, all priests have been allowed to wear black skufia when worshiping outdoors or in a cold church. In 1890, the administration of the military clergy was transformed. According to the new position, one protopresbyter of the military and naval clergy became at the head of the administration, with a spiritual board structured on the model of consistories. The new provision has achieved centralization of the management of the military clergy and destroyed the previous isolation and, as it were, complete independence of military priests from diocesan bishops within their dioceses. The first protopresbyter under the new position was the chief priest of the guard, grenadier, army and navy, former rector of the St. Petersburg Cathedral of St. Sergius of All Artillery, Alexander Alekseevich Zhelobovsky. Somewhat earlier than the highest approval of the new regulations on the management of the military clergy, the service rights of this clergy were elevated and their content was increased. Various measures sharply limited the right of bishops to dispose of monastic and church funds under their control. An order of 1888 ordered that all church funds be kept in state banking institutions. In church administration and in the field of church life in general, attempts were made to widely apply the principle of conciliarity. In 1884, a council of southwestern bishops was held in Kyiv, chaired by the Kyiv Metropolitan Platon Gorodetsky, to discuss measures to raise the importance of the clergy and strengthen their religious and moral influence on the mass of the people, especially measures against the development of sectarianism in the southwest of Russia. Eleven archpastors gathered. The council issued a “pastoral letter from the hierarchs of the southwestern dioceses to their flocks” with a call to beware of all false teachings and in particular the shtunda. In the same year, a council of hierarchs convened in St. Petersburg for the anniversary of Metropolitan Isidore discussed church and parish affairs: schools and clergy, and also issued an appeal. In 1885, a council of Siberian bishops was convened in Irkutsk and Volga bishops in Kazan to discuss measures against the schism and, in general, for better organization of missionary work. Both councils issued pastoral letters. In 1888 there was a great council in Kyiv on the occasion of the nine-hundredth anniversary of the baptism of Rus'. Finally, most recently, many hierarchs gathered in Kyiv for the fiftieth anniversary of Metropolitan Ioannikis of Kyiv. At first, great hopes were placed on these cathedrals. They were seen as “the long-desired application in practice of the ancient canonical custom and the right of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church to conciliarly discuss the most important issues of faith and church life and resolve misunderstandings that have arisen regarding matters of church government.” Of great importance in church life is the new edition in 1883 of the statute of spiritual consistories, revised and applied to state laws of modern times. In 1890, the instructions drawn up by the synod for church elders, regulating the relations of elders with the clergy and with church management, were approved by the highest order. In 1895, a new regulation on the synodal archive and new archive staff were approved, developed at the initiative of the head of the archive, Apollinary Nikolaevich Lvov, by the highest commission established to streamline the synodal archive. In addition to the elevation in financial and official status of persons serving in the archive, the new position destroyed the previously existing inaccessibility of the archive, widely opening the doors of the archive for scientific studies, and by strengthening the staff it was intended to speed up the development of the reference section in the archive. In the same manner, since 1897, for five years, an annual leave of 3,000 rubles from the treasury was requested for the publication of the works of the commission itself for publishing a description of the archive, which significantly revived this stalled business. The management of the Moscow Synodal Library has been improved. In 1895, a new position and new control staff were approved at the synod, and in 1896, the St. Petersburg and Moscow synodal printing houses were approved. When the censorship regulations were revised in 1885, the censorship committees that had existed at provincial theological academies were finally abolished. In 1885, an independent Yekaterinburg diocese was opened from the Perm vicariate, established back in 1883. In 1886, the Caucasian was renamed the Stavropol. The church administration of Georgia was once again transformed: instead of four, five dioceses were formed here, and the Gurian and Abkhaz dioceses were abolished, and Sukhumi, in place of the Abkhaz, Gurian-Mingrelian, in place of the Gurian diocese and the Mingrelian vicariate of the Imeretian diocese, and Vladikavkaz, formed from the Georgian a vicariate that existed since 1875; Vladikavkaz became independent in 1894; in 1887, the Alaverdi vicariate was formed, replacing the former diocese. With the death of Metropolitan Isidore of St. Petersburg, Novgorod and Finland in 1892, his former diocese separated into the old Novgorod and new Finnish diocese. In 1894, the Transbaikal diocese was opened from Irkutsk, in 1895 - Omsk. In 1898, the Vladivostok diocese was established. During the reign of Alexander III, many new vicars appeared. Even in the previous reign, in 1865, it was recognized that it was possible to open vicariates wherever local funds were found to support them. By the beginning of the century there were only 3 of them. Vicars are in full obedience to their diocesan eminences, only a few have relative independence, where, due to the vastness of the diocese, it is not possible for the vicar to constantly communicate with the diocesan bishop. These are the vicars: Lublin in the Kholm-Warsaw diocese, Velikiy Ustyug in the Vologda diocese, Sarapul in the Vyatka diocese. Under these vicars there are spiritual boards, structured on the model of consistories, but with the right to decide only less important matters. Chapter VIII. End of the century Statistical information about the Russian Church by the end of the 19th century. – First member of the synod, Metropolitan Anthony Vadkovsky. – December 31, 1900. – The unchangeable in church life amidst its constant changes. By the end of the century, the Russian Church consisted of more than 80,000,000 souls of Orthodox Christians of both sexes. Every year, up to 5,000,000 Orthodox Russians are born, up to 3,000,000 die, up to 800,000 marriages occur, up to 1,300 divorces, up to 15,000 accessions. This vast flock of God was governed by about 45,000 shepherd-priests, including over 2,000 archpriests. Serves up to 15,000 deacons and up to 44,000 psalm-readers. Over 23,000 clergy are provided with salaries with an expenditure of up to 8,000,000 rubles. There were up to 48,000 churches and up to 19,000 chapels and houses of worship. This number includes up to 37,000 parish churches, over 4,000 ascribed churches, over 2,000 cemetery churches, up to 2,000 house churches, up to 2,000 monastic churches, over 700 cathedral churches and up to 300 Edinoverie. About 53,000 people sought salvation outside the world in 800 monasteries. There are up to 500 monasteries, including 68 bishops' houses, which are also monastic monasteries; there were up to 300 women’s monasteries. There were over 8,000 monastics in men’s monasteries, over 9,000 in women’s monasteries; novices up to 7,000, novices up to 29,000. To prepare for pastoral and church service, up to 1,000 people were trained in 4 academies, up to 20,000 in 58 seminaries, and up to 32,000 in 185 theological schools. Theological educational institutions had up to 3,000 mentors and leaders. The number of church schools and students in them was indicated earlier. There were over 26,000 libraries at churches and in deanery districts. The monasteries had up to 200 hospitals for 2,000 people, and up to 150 almshouses for 4,000 people. Churches had up to 100 hospitals for 1,000 people, and up to 1,000 almshouses for 10,000 people. Diocesan guardianship for the poor clergy has a capital of up to 10,000,000 rubles, spending up to 2,000,000 per year. Church and parish trustees, the number of which goes back to 18,000, made donations in the amount of up to 4,000,000 rubles in 1897, including up to 3,000,000 for the maintenance and decoration of churches, the rest for church schools, charitable institutions and the maintenance of parishes. The entire flock of the Russian Orthodox Church was distributed among 65 dioceses, of which one is in America. It was headed by 65 diocesan bishops and with them 40 vicars. In addition, 14 bishops did not have dioceses, of which 2 were present in the synod, and the rest were retired. Of all the eminences, 14 had the rank of archbishop by the end of the century: Yaroslavl Jonathan Rudnev, Kharkov Ambrose Klyucharyov, Irkutsk Tikhon Troitsky-Donebin, Volyn Modest Strelbitsky, Vladimir Sergius Spassky, Kazan Arseniy Bryantsev, Kherson Justin Okhotin, Don Afanasy Parkhomovich, Kholmsky and Warsaw Jerome Ekzemplyarsky, Lithuanian Juvenaly Polovtsev, Tver Dimitry Sambikin, Finnish Nikolai Nalimov, Novgorod Guriy Okhotin and Exarch of Georgia Flavian Gorodetsky. The Kyiv, Moscow and St. Petersburg sees were occupied by metropolitans: the Kyiv – the Eminence Theognost Lebedev, the Moscow – the Eminence Vladimir Bogoyavlensky and the St. Petersburg – the Eminence Anthony Vadkovsky. The leading member of the synod after the death of Metropolitan Isidore was Metropolitan Palladius Raev of St. Petersburg for about six years, and after the death of the Eminence Palladius - for about a year and a half - Metropolitan Ioannikiy Rudnev of Kiev. In June 1900, the first place among Russian hierarchs was taken by His Eminence Anthony. Metropolitan Anthony Vadkovsky, the son of a priest of the Tambov diocese, received his higher theological education at the Kazan Theological Academy, where, after completing the course, he remained an assistant professor in the department of pastoral theology and homiletics. Having soon married, the young associate professor lived a happy life as a professor, in a happy, dearly loved and loving family. But the happy life did not last long. In 1879, his wife died, and three years later both children, who died of diphtheria, had to be buried. A year after this, on March 4, 1883, monasticism was accepted. The Academy greeted the tonsure of its comrade with especially sincere feeling and high hopes. The academic journal “Orthodox Interlocutor” wrote: “we believe that the ideal of monasticism will find artistic embodiment in the newly tonsured person with its best and brightest sides.” In these words one could feel the attitude towards the tonsure that had taken place, as to a phenomenon emerging from a series of others. And, indeed, barely fifteen years passed, and the highest rescript on December 25, 1898 called His Grace Anthony to the St. Petersburg metropolis, and a year and a half later, on June 9, 1900, the bishop was appointed the first member of the synod. Previous service - as a professor, inspector and rector of the academy, then from 1892 as archbishop of a small Finnish diocese: with his presence in the synod, which gave the bishop a solid scientific and administrative basis and saved him from being absorbed in the mire of bureaucracy in the vast sea of tens of thousands of consistory papers, and finally, the main thing was the direction of the bishop, his respect for science, broad Christian tolerance, discovered in his speeches, which received wide circulation and fame - all this placed the appointment of the Most Reverend Anthony to the post of First Hierarch of the Russian Church in completely exceptional conditions. His appointment aroused, not entirely certain, but universal expectations and hopes. But the activity of the ruler belongs to the new century. In recent years, in cities, a custom has begun to be established among believers to celebrate the New Year in church, and the usual New Year's prayer service is performed at midnight. In St. Petersburg, newspapers have more than once expressed the desire of society that all churches, at least parish ones, be open to celebrate the New Year, but the late Metropolitan Palladius left this issue to the discretion of the rectors of the churches. “December 31, 1900,” writes one St. Petersburg man in the street, “at the beginning of twelve o’clock in the morning, living near St. Isaac’s Cathedral, I looked out the window, in the firm confidence that I would see the torches of the cathedral lit and the church illuminated. But everything around was immersed in deep sleep. Then I headed to the Kazan Cathedral, which always cordially meets the religious needs of society, but when I arrived, I saw everything here immersed in sleep. Pedestrians, however, approached the cathedral from all sides, knocked on the doors and walked away sadly. Others stopped and waited, not believing that the cathedral would not open its doors. They also drove up in cabs and, calling out to the group standing on the porch of the cathedral, quickly continued their journey. My companion had tears in her eyes. I felt kind of creepy myself. The doors of the house of God at this significant hour of midnight were closed and as if they were saying: “Go away, you outcasts.” The streets were ceremoniously illuminated, restaurants, according to accepted custom, invited people to welcome the new century with champagne, amidst fun, to the sounds of music and song. But I wanted to cry more, I passionately wanted to be closer to Christ, and it was so difficult to find Christ in this lawless Babylon. I still knew that some churches would probably be open. The cab driver, inspired by the extra tip, raced at full speed along Nevsky Prospekt, flooded with ceremonial light. At the corner of Vladimirsky Prospekt, the sweet gospel of the Trinity Church of the Society for the Propagation of Religious and Moral Education in the spirit of the Orthodox Church was heard. A little more - and its brightly lit windows appeared. God bless! Here, with lamps in their hands, they waited for the Bridegroom coming at midnight” 398. “Times and summers” pass, years quickly change, taking with them a motley mixture of lives, worries, joys and sorrows, generations float in a continuous succession, centuries move with their age-old demands and tasks, and the Holy Church alone invariably stands, like an unshakable rock, against which all the waves of the sea of ​​life break and in which all those floating on this sea find salvation from the fury of the waves. “I have created My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” 399. “All flesh is like grass, and all the glory of men is like the flower of the grass: the grass withered, and its flower fell away; but the word of the Lord endures forever” 400. “God and His will, His statutes and commands, the foundations of the church system and life established by Him remain unchanged. In this unchanging beginning of God’s verbs and commands lies the highest reason of life, without which it would be both meaningless and insignificant” 401. And throughout the 19th century, church life in Russia experienced more than one significant change of direction. But all these changes were external, the Church remained unshaken and the essence of church life unchanged. Both at the beginning of the century and at its end, the same Bloodless Sacrifice was offered up for human sins according to the commandment of the Savior; the same ones born in sins were washed with the holy water of Baptism and, removed from heavenly bliss by the sin of their ancestors, still with burning hearts asked for the cleansing blessing of God on the tainted union of love that supports the life of humanity; the same sinful people prayed with different names, of a different appearance and in new clothes, and prayed for the same things: for consolation, joy, happiness, for loved ones, for loved ones. Thoughts washed with tears soared just as high in God’s abodes, and the Comforter Spirit, just as before, poured the healing oil of consolation on the suffering heart. Living examples of the immutability of church life were those ascetics of Christ, seemingly not subject to the flow of time, of whom, by the grace of God, the Russian land did not become scarce even in the 19th century. Everyone knows the names of Elder Seraphim of Sarov, Elder Ambrose of Optina, Bishop Theophan the recluse, Father John of Kronstadt and many, many others. Some of them were glorified by the will of God’s destinies for the whole world, others worked out their salvation and others in human obscurity, known only to those for whom they were dear, and to God the Knower of the Heart. Both the king and his heir; both a warrior and a tiller; both learned and illiterate; merchant and artist: everyone goes to them and equally bears tribute and a request for prayer. And they - in self-denial and love for humanity - always invariably send up the same holy prayer for everyone and for everything. Archpriest John Ilyich Sergiev (Kronstadt), great prayer book of the Russian Land Symbol of the Resurrection of Christ (from a Christian sarcophagus of the 4th century) P. Znamensky, “Training guide to the history of the Russian Church”, St. Petersburg. 1896. A. Dobroklonsky, “Guide to the history of the Russian Church”, vol. IV (synodal period), Moscow, 1893. Bishop Arseny (Ivashchenko), “Chronicle of church events and civil events, explaining church events, from the Nativity of Christ to 1898,” ed. 3, St. Petersburg. 1900. I.V. Znamensky, “Readings on the history of the Russian Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I,” in “Orthodox Interlocutor” 1855 and Separate edition, Kazan. I.A. Chistovich, “Leading figures of spiritual education in Russia in the first half of the current century. Commission of Theological Schools", St. Petersburg. 1894. N.K. Schilder, “Emperor Alexander I, his life and reign,” vol. I–IV, St. Petersburg. 1897–1898. These three works were the main aids for the entire first part and are not cited in the further presentation. Archbishop Filaret Gumilevsky, “History of the Russian Church (988–1826)”, ed. 6, St. Petersburg. 1895. “Full. Collection Laws”, Nos. 1735 and 1736. Prot. V. Zhmakin, “Celebration of new centuries in 1700 and 1800”, in “Church. Led." 1899, No. 46, - S.G.R., “When the end of the century comes, since when did New Year’s visits begin and where did the custom of celebrating the New Year in church begin?” - “New Time”, 1894 No. 6409. A.N. Pypin, “Historical Sketches. Social movement in Russia under Alexander I,” ed. 2, St. Petersburg. 1885. Pp. 51 and 64. F.A. Ternovsky, “Characteristics of Emperor Alexander I”, Kiev 1878. Priest V.I. Zhmakin, “Letters of Archpriest A.A. Samborsky to Emperor Alexander I and Prince A.N. Golitsyn (1806–1810)", St. Petersburg. 1894. For example, Y.K. Nadler, "Emperor Alexander I and the Idea of ​​the Holy Alliance", ed. 2, Kharkov, vol. I, 1886, pp. 9, 12. N.K. Schilder, “Fifty Years of Russian History,” in the appendix to the Neva, 1901, 19th century. “Report of the committee on the improvement of theological schools and the outline of the rules, on the formation of these schools and the content of the clergy serving in churches, with the attachment of the highest decrees that followed on this subject,” St. Petersburg. 1809. E.M. Prilezhaev, “The reign of Alexander I in the history of the Russian theological school”, “Christ. Reading", 1878, No. 1–2, pp. 253–275. P.V. Znamensky, “The main principles of the ecclesiastical school reform during the reign of Emperor Alexander 1”, Kazan 1878. I.A. Chistovich, “History of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy”, St. Petersburg. 1857, pp. 163 et seq. V. Askochensky, “History of the Kyiv Theological Academy after its transformation in 1819”, St. Petersburg. 1868. E. Shmurlo, “Metropolitan Eugene as a scientist. Early years of life" 1767–1804, St. Petersburg. 1868. “A collection of instructive words preached at different times by the Holy Governing Synod by the leading member Ambrose, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, Holy Trinity Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Holy Archimandrite and Knight of various orders,” Moscow 1825. Part IV, pp. 101–110. “Homily XI, funeral sermon, at the burial of the Right Reverend Ambrose, Archbishop of Moscow and Kaluga, who was killed by the Moscow mob who were indignant during a pestilence.” N.I. Poletaev, “On the history of the spiritual and educational reform of 1808–1814. The project of Metropolitan Evgeny Bolkhovitinov, his notes on theological schools and the significance of his project in relation to the charter of theological academies, seminaries and schools of 1814,” “The Wanderer” 1889 VIII and IX. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1808, No. 23.122. I'M IN. Pokrovsky, "Exarch of Georgia Theophylact Rusanov and his sermons", in "The Wanderer" 1877, 1 and 3. “Essay on the biography of His Eminence Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna,” ed. 2, M. 1869. “From the memoirs of the late Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow,” M. 1868 (from the “Orthodox Review” 1868). I.A. Chistovich, "Leading Figures". A.F. Dubrovin, “Russian life at the beginning of the 19th century,” in “Russian Antiquity” 1898, IV, 500; 1899, II, 482, 483. V.K. Nadler, “Emperor Alexander I and the idea of ​​the sacred alliance” Kharkov, vol. III, 1887, p. 131; т. V, 1892, стр. 129. I.A. Chistovich, "The History of Translation of the Bible into Russian", in "Christ. Чтении» 1872 г. и отд. edition. N. Astafiev. “The experience of the history of the Bible in Russia in connection with education and morals,” St. Petersburg. 1892. "Complete Collection of Laws", 1814, Nos. 25.673, 25.674, 25.675 and 25.676. also No. 25.658a. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1817, No. 27.106. T.V. Barsov, “The Holy Synod in its past”, St. Petersburg. 1896, стр. 326 и след. N.F. Dubrovin, “Our sectarian mystics,” in “Russian Antiquity” 1895, I. 56 “Complete Collection of Laws” 1808, No. 20.629. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1807, No. 22.571. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1815, No. 26.032. – Priest M. Moroshkin, “Jesuits in Russia from the reign of Catherine II to our time,” part 2, St. Petersburg. 1870, pp. 517–528. N.F. Dubrovin, “Our sectarian mystics,” in “Russian Antiquity” 1895, I, 85. “Historical and statistical information about the St. Petersburg diocese” vol. VIII, St. Petersburg. 1884, p. 25. “Conversations in different places and at different times, spoken by a member of the Holy Synod and the commission of theological schools, Michael, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg, Estonia and Finland and the Holy Trinity Alexander Nevsky Lavra, Archimandrite and Knight,” vol. I–XVI, Moscow, 1845–1857. Some volumes have the following dedication: “They are reverently dedicated to the glorification of the sweet name of the God-man Jesus Christ and to the inner edification of those who believe in Him with priestly zeal,” and the following heading: “Conversations: work, food and peace of the human spirit.” The autobiography of Photius was published in “Russian Antiquity” 1894–1896, under the title: “The narrative of the Holy Archimandrite Father Photius about his family, his home and school upbringing, his condition and life as a teacher in St. Petersburg and other relevant circumstances and persons.” “Historical and statistical information about the St. Petersburg diocese,” vol. VIII, St. Petersburg. 1884, pp. 33–34. A.N. Lvov, “Letters from clergy and secular persons to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow (from 1812 to 1867)”, St. Petersburg. 1900, p. 76. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular faces to Filaret", 664. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons", 38–39. N.I. Barsov, “On the history of mysticism in Russia,” in “Christ. Readings" 1878, I–II, pp. 128–142. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons" 134. Archbishop Filaret Gumilyovsky, “Review of Russian Spiritual Literature,” ed. 3, St. Petersburg. 1884, book. II, 396, 398. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1804, No. 21.567. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1816, No. 26.143. N.I. Ilminsky, “Experiences in translating Christian doctrinal books into foreign languages. Material for the history of Orthodox Russian missionary work,” in “Orthodox Interlocutor,” 1884 and 1885. A. Dobroklonsky, “Manual”, 17–43. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1814, No. 25.709. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1811, No. 24.599; 1820, No. 28.377; 1822, No. 29.228. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1817, No. 26.752. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1810, No. 24.159 “Complete Collection of Laws” 1805, No. 21.610 N. Poletaev, “Participation of Metropolitan Evgeny Bolkhovitinov in the compilation of the “History of the Russian Hierarchy” by Ambrose of Ornatsky,” in “Prav. Interlocutor" 1889, IX and X. Priest P.F. Nikolaevsky, “Scientific works of the Right Reverend Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov, Metropolitan of Kyiv, on the subject of Russian church history,” in “Christ. Readings", 1872, VII. S. Ponomarev, “Materials for the biography of Metropolitan Eugene,” in “Proceedings of the Kyiv Spirit. Academy" 1867, VIII. YES. Speransky, “Metropolitan Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov’s experiments in compiling a complete history of the Russian Church,” in “The Wanderer” 1887, vol. II. N. Poletaev, “Works of Metropolitan of Kiev Evgeniy Bolkhovitinov on the history of the Russian Church”, Kazan, 1889. P.I. Savvaitov, “Reverend Ambrose of Ornatsky, Bishop of Penza and Saratov,” in “The Wanderer” 1869, XI, 29–43. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1763, No. 11.942. T.V. Barsov, “The Holy Synod in its past”, 340–349, - “Complete Collection of Laws”, 1819, 27.872. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1811, No. 24.696. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1811, No. 27.605. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1807, No. 22.681; 1808 No. 22.894; 1821 No. 28.611 and others. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1805 No. 21.785; 1810 No. 24.246; 1819 No. 27.622, etc. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1801, No. 19.885. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1808, No. 23.027. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1821, No. 28.782. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1803, No. 28.122. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1814, No. 25.658 a. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1823, No. 29.583 and 29.613. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1816, No. 26.347. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1801, No. 19.835; 1804, No. 21.242. N. Nevzorov. “Historical sketch of the management of the clergy of the military department in Russia”, St. Petersburg. 1885. "Complete Collection of Laws" 1804, No. 21.544 and 1816 No. 26.122 A.A. Zavyalov, “Construction of the Kazan Cathedral in St. Petersburg” in “St. Petersburg Spiritual Bulletin” 1895, 80. “The best architectural decoration of the Kazan Cathedral” - in the Revel magazine “Rainbow” for 1832, ed. (A.I. Burger). P.V. Znamensky, “Readings on history. Russian Ts.”, in “Right. Interlocutor" 1885, I, 5, etc. V.K. Nadder, "Imp. Alexander I", vol. I, 34. Behind them - M. Grigorevsky, “The religious character of Emperor Alexander I in its gradual development,” in “Arhang. Eparch. Led." 1899, nos. 7–9, pp. 171, 176; etc. The title “Blessed” was awarded to Alexander I by resolution of the synod, senate and state council in 1814. “Works of Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna. Words and Speeches,” vol. III, 1826–1836. Moscow, 1877. Pp. 1–8. E.P. Kovalevsky, “Works. Count Bludov and his time (the reign of Alexander I)", St. Petersburg. 1871, pp. 168–174. P. Popov, “Emperor Nicholas I”. M. 1899. N.K. Schilder, "Emperor Alexander I", vol. IV, p. 70. “Materials and features in the biography of Emperor Nicholas I and the history of his reign,” edited by N.F. Dubrovin, in the “Collection of the Imperial Russian Historical Society”, XCVIII, St. Petersburg. 1896. N.K. Schilder, “Fifty years of Russian history - in the appendix to the Neva” 1901 - “Emperor Nicholas I and a brief overview of the events of his reign.” St. Petersburg 1899. N.D. “A few words in memory of Emperor Nicholas I,” in “Russian Antiquity” 1896, I, 449–470. A. Shidlovsky, “The illness and death of Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich,” in “Russian Antiquity” 1896, II, 615–631. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1830, No. 3653. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1833, No. 6272. “On the conversion of the Mezen Samoyeds to Christianity in 1828–1830,” in “Christ. Readings" 1851, I, 64–83. “Information about the missionary Archimandrite Benjamin,” in “Christ. Readings" 1851, I, 84 et seq. “Diary of Archbishop of Yaroslavl Evgeny Kazantsev”, in “Soulful Reading” 1868, book. X. Archpriest I. Blagoveshchensky, “Especially remarkable features of life in the character of His Eminence Eugene, Archbishop of Yaroslavl,” in “Shower. Thu." 1869, I. Archpriest A. Sulotsky, “Archbishop Evgeny Kazantsev as Archpastor of Tobolsk,” in “The Wanderer” 1872, II. P.V. Ptokhov, “Archimandrite Makariy Glukharev, founder of the Altai mission,” M. 1899. D.D. F. (Filimonov), “Materials for the biography of the founder of the Altai mission, Archimandrite Macarius,” ed. 2, M. 1892. “Letters of the late missionary, Archimandrite Macarius, who was the head of the Altai mission,” parts I and II, M. 1860. B. AND . Karpov, “Memories of the Bolkhov Archimandrite Macarius, founder of the Altai mission,” in “The Wanderer,” 1876. Priest A. Lavrov, “Archimandrite Macarius, head of the Altai church mission,” in “The Wanderer” 1860, book. VIII. Count M. Tolstoy, “The Repository of My Memory” - “Nile, Archbishop of Yaroslavl”, in “Shower. Thu." 1891, I, 613–618. I. Barsukov, “Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna, according to his writings, letters and stories of his contemporaries,” M. 1883. E.A. Sysoeva, “The Life and Deeds of Innocent, Preacher of the Gospel on the Aleutian Islands”, St. Petersburg. 1892. “Letters of Innocent, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna,” collected by I. Barsukov, book. I–III, St. Petersburg. 1897–1901. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1842, No. 15.198. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1847, No. 21.297. “Historical sketch of Christian preaching in China,” in “Proceedings of the Kiev Theological Academy,” 1860, 311. “Words, speeches and archpastoral messages to the clergy of the Polotsk diocese of His Grace Vasily, Archbishop of Polotsk and Vitebsk. With a brief outline of the life and work of the Right Reverend,” St. Petersburg. 1866. “Notes of Vasily Luzhinsky, Archbishop of Polotsk,” in “Orthodox Interlocutor,” 1834 and 1835. M.O. Koyapovich, “About the late Archbishop Vasily Luzhinsky,” in “Church. Bulletin" 1879, No. 5. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1839, No. 12.133. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1843, No. 17.111. I.A. Chistovich, “Fiftieth anniversary (1839–1889) of the reunification with the Orthodox Church of the Western Russian Uniates. Review of the events of reunification during the reign of Emperor Nicholas I", St. Petersburg, 1889. G.Ya. Kiprianovich, “The Life of Joseph Semashka, Metropolitan of Lithuania and Vilna, and the reunification of Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church in 1839. With three portraits of the Most Reverend Joseph,” ed. 2, Vilna, 1897. “Notes of Joseph, Metropolitan of Lithuania,” vol. I–III, St. Petersburg. 1888, E. Orlovsky, “The fate of Orthodoxy in connection with the history of Latinism and union in the Grodno province in the 19th century,” in “Grodno Diocesan Gazette” 1901 P.O. Bobrovsky, “Russian Greek-Uniate Church during the reign of Emperor Alexander I”, St. Petersburg. 1893. Archpriest I. Naumovich, “Fiftieth anniversary (1839–1889) of the reunification of the Western Russian Uniates with the Orthodox Church,” St. Petersburg. 1889. “Synodal member, His Eminence Joseph, Metropolitan of Lithuania in Vilna words and greetings said on the most important occasions of service,” 3rd edition. Vilna, 1868. P.O. Bobrovsky, “Mikhail Kirillovich Bobrovsky (1785–1848) learned Slavist-Orientalist,” St. Petersburg. 1889. P.O. Bobrovsky, “Antony Yuryevich Sosnovsky, senior cathedral archpriest, rector of St. Nicholas Church in Kleshcheli”, Vilna, 1890. M.O. Konlovich, “Towards the upcoming fiftieth anniversary of the reunification of Western Russian Uniates in 1839,” in “Church. Bulletin" 1889, No. 9–13. Archpriest V.I. Preobrazhensky, “Historical and statistical description of churches and parishes of the Riga diocese,” in “Riga Diocesan Gazette” 1894 Bishop Donat, "Orthodox work in the Baltic region in the forties", in "The Wanderer" 1884, I. M.A. Kupletsky, “Orthodoxy in the Baltic region in the current century,” in “The Wanderer,” 1884, book. VIII–XII. Archimandrite Joachim, “The Eminence Plato, Archbishop of Riga and Mitau,” in “Historical and statistical description of churches and parishes of the Riga diocese” in the “Riga Diocesan Gazette” 1894, “Farewell of the Eminence Plato to the Riga flock,” St. Petersburg. 1867 (from “The Wanderer” of 1867, where see other notes on the activities of the Eminence Plato in the Riga diocese). The word of the Right Reverend Plato at the opening of an independent episcopal see in Riga, July 1, 1850 in “Christ. Readings" 1851, I, 10 et seq. I.V. Preobrazhensky, “The Russian Church according to statistical data from 1849 to 1899,” ed. 2, St. Petersburg. 1901. K.P. Pobedonostsev, “Moscow Collection”, ed. 4, M. 1889, p. 24. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons", 314, 317, 318. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1828, No. 3.323. I.A. Chistovich, “Manager. figures,” 315–316. “Correspondence of Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, with S.D. Nechaev", St. Petersburg. 1895. F.V. Blagovidov, “Chief Prosecutors of the Holy Synod in the 18th and first half of the 19th centuries,” 2nd edition, Kazan, 1900. A.N. Lvov, “Letters from clergy and secular persons”, 24. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1839, No. 12.070. Priest S. Speransky, "Moscow Filaret Diocesan Women's School", Moscow, 1883. “Twenty-five-year anniversary of the Tsarsko-Selo school for maidens of clergy”, St. Petersburg. 1868. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1843, 17.116. Priest F. Pavlovich, “Celebration of the twenty-fifth anniversary at the Tsarsko-Selo school of theological rank,” St. Petersburg. 1868. “To the fiftieth anniversary of the Tsarsko-Selo women’s school of the spiritual department,” St. Petersburg. 1893. P.V. Znamensky, “History of the Kazan Theological Academy for the first, pre-reform period of its existence (1840–1870)”, vols. I–III, Kazan, 1891–1892. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1828, No. 3.323 and 1839, No. 12.458. "Complete Collection of Laws" 1841, No. 15.152 and 1842 No. 15.189. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1852, No. 26.736, etc. "Complete Collection of Laws" 1827, No. 1.081 and 1828 No. 2.034. "Complete Collection of Laws" 1828, No. 1.709 and 1952. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1828 No. 2.445 and 1831, No. 4.563 and 4.599. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1832, No. 5.535; 1840 No. 14.056; 1842 No. 16.376. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1842, Nos. 15.470, 15.872, 15.873, 1843 Nos. 16.678, 16.852. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1841, No. 14.409, T.V. Barsov “On the collection of spiritual laws”, St. Petersburg. 1898. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1840, No. 13.721. "Complete Collection of Laws" 1835, No. 8.001 and 8.007. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1839, No. 12.069. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1886, No. 9.705. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1839, No. 12.071. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1839, No. 12.068. T.V. Barsov “Synodal institutions of former times”, St. Petersburg. 1897, pp. 37–35. P. Sophia, “The building of the Holy Governing Synod”, in “Church. Led." 1901, No. 13–14. F. Smirnov, “Vilna Holy Spirit Monastery”, Vilna 1888. “The Legend of the Discovery of the Relics of St. Mitrofan, According to the Documents of the Holy Synod,” St. Petersburg. 1832. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1841, No. 14.392. Archpriest P. A. Smirnov, “St. Isaac’s Cathedral in St. Petersburg,” in “Church. Ved." 1888, No. 22 and in III issue. "Works", St. Petersburg. 1897. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1846, No. 20.325. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1845, No. 18.590. A significant letter from Archimandrite Macarius to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow about the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian was published in “Additions to the Works of the Holy Fathers” 1861, Vol. 2, pp. 292–326. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1828, No. 1.981. A.P. Lopukhin, “Spiritual luminaries of the 19th century. 1, Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson,” in “The Wanderer,” 1901, I, 1–15; Priest F.I. Titov, “Reverend Innokenty Borisov, rector of the Kyiv Theological Academy (1830–1839)”, in “Proceedings of Kiev. Spirit. Academician." 1900 and a separate print. Priest N. Arkhangelsky, “Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson, as a teacher of Christian morality,” Kazan, 1899. A. Ivanov, “Memories of the Most Reverend Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride.” in "Tavr. Eparch. Led." 1900 and a separate print. Hieromonk George, “The Most Reverend Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride,” in “Tavrich. Ep. Ved." 1900 and a separate print. Y. Kataev, “Essay on the life of the work of the Right Reverend Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson and Tauride,” in “Kherson Eparchs. Led." 1901 in a separate print. Priest M. Kumpan, “The Most Reverend Innocent, Archbishop of Kherson in Tauride,” in “Tavrich. Ep. Led." 1900 and a separate print. Priest T. Butkevich, “Innokenty Borisov, former Archbishop of Kherson,” St. Petersburg. 1887. F. Titov “Makarii (Bulgakov), Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna,” vol. I, years of childhood, education and ecclesiastical school service (1816–1857), Kiev, 1895. V. Kiparisov, “Metropolitan of Moscow Macarius Bulgakov, as a preacher,” Sergiev Posad, 1893, “The Most Reverend Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna,” M. 1882. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1833, No. 5.971. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1842, No. 16.401. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1843, No. 16.770. “On the characteristics of Emperor Nicholas I and the history of his reign,” in “Russian Antiquity,” 1837, II, 42–43. I.A. Chistovich, “Manager. figures", 309, 310, etc. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons", 661, 663. “Historical and statistical information about the St. Petersburg diocese,” vol. VIII, St. Petersburg. 1884. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons", 299. Professor A. A. Tsarevsky, “Emperor Alexander II - Liberator in the memory of his people”, Kazan, 1896. The most extensive biography in the Russian Historical Dictionary was compiled by Tatishchev. “Peasant bondage and the Tsar-Liberator, Emperor Alexander II,” with 15 paintings, ed. 2 bookstore "People's Benefit", St. Petersburg. 1901. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1862, No. 38.414. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1863, No. 39.481. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1869, No. 47.138; 1871 Nos. 49.361 and 49.382. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1867, No. 44.610. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1869, No. 46.974. I.V. Preobrazhensky, “The Russian Church according to statistical data from 1840 to 1891,” ed. 2, St. Petersburg. 1901, pp. 28–31. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1865, No. 42.772. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1872, No. 51.015. G.V. Barsov, “Synodal institutions of former times.” "Complete Collection of Laws" 1867, No. 45.186 and 45.290. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1867, No. 44.570, etc. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1867, No. 45.841. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1869, No. 46.899. T.V. Barsov, "The Holy Synod in its past". For the most detailed overview of the activities of the congresses, see “Astrakhan Eparchs. Vedomosti" 1880 and 1881. See “Arkhangelsk Eparch. Vedomosti" 1899, No. 5, 10–11. N. Runovsky, “Church and civil laws regarding the Orthodox clergy during the reign of Emperor Alexander II,” Kazan, 1898. V.V. Mirotvortsev, “Government measures to transform the life of the Orthodox white clergy during the reign of Emperor Alexander II,” in “Orthodox. Interlocutor" 1880, III. "Complete Collection of Laws" 1867, No. 44.571 and 44.572. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1869, No. 47.154. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1867, No. 44.570. A.N. Nadezhdin, “History of the St. Petersburg Orthodox Theological Seminary with a review of general legislation and events regarding the seminary structure 1809–1884,” St. Petersburg. 1885. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1868, No. 46.271. I.A. Chistovich, "Leading Figures", 361–362. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1862, No. 37.873. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1864, No. 41.068. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1874, No. 63.574. F. Blagovidov, “The activities of the Russian clergy in relation to public education during the reign of Emperor Alexander II.” Kazan 1891. F. Blagovidov, “Acts. Russian spirits.", 331–374. S.G. Runkevich; "Parish charity in St. Petersburg", St. Petersburg. 1900. A.A. Papkov, “Church and society in the era of the Tsar-Liberator,” in “The Wanderer” 1901, VIII, IX, X. N. Zaozersky, “Brotherhood in Orthodox Russia,” in “Theology. Bulletin" 1894, X. A.A. Papkov, “The beginning of the revival of parish life in Russia,” M. 1900. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1864, No. 40.863. “Complete Collection of Laws” 1864, No. 41.144. “Report of the Society for the Restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus” for 1890, Tiflis, 1891. N. Astafiev, “The experience of the history of the Bible in Russia in connection with education and morals,” St. Petersburg. 1892. Pp. 186–227. “Note on the establishment of a society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment,” M. 1872, and reports. Report of the missionary society for 1867, with appendices St. Petersburg. 1869. Page 52 + 113 + 192 + 58 + 47 + 62. M. Mashanov, “Review of the activities of the brotherhood of St. Gury for 25 years of its existence 1867–1892.” Kazan, 1892. P.V. Znamensky, “History of the Kazan Theological Academy for the first (pre-reform) period of its existence (1843–1870).” Issues I and II. Kazan. 1891 to 1892. Priest F.I. Titov, “Makariy Bulgakov, Archbishop of Kharkov and Akhtyrsky (1854–1868)”, Kiev, 1897. Archpriest S. Smirnov, “Death and burial of His Eminence Macarius, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna,” M. 1882. Priest F. Khoroshupov, “Filaret Gumilevsky, Archbishop of Chernigov”, in “Russian Antiquity”, 1881, book. IV and XII. For example, the history of the St. Petersburg Historical and Statistical Committee - in “Historical-statistician. information about St. Petersburg ep.", vol. X, St. Petersburg. 1885. “Works of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and Kolomna on the translation of the New Testament into Russian,” St. Petersburg. 1893. N.I. Korsunsky, “Filaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, in his relations and activities on the issue of translating the Bible into Russian,” in “Orthodox. Review." 1884, II. "Church Bulletin" 1877, No. 13. I.A. Chistovich, “The History of Translating the Bible into Russian,” in Chr. Readings" 1872 N. Astafiev, “The experience of the history of the Bible in Russia in connection with education and morals,” St. Petersburg. 1892. P.V. Znamensky, “Participation of N.I. Ilminsky in the matter of foreign education in the Turkestan region”, Kazan. 1900. A.I. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons" 381. V.N. Samuilov, “The Most Reverend Bishop Markell” in “Church. Vedomosti" 1900, No. 51. N.N., “Reunion of the Uniates of the Kholm diocese in 1875,” in “The Wanderer,” 1882. A. Z., “From the memoirs of a former regimental priest,” in “Soul Floor. Readings" 1876, I. G. Terletsky, “The Pashkov Sect,” in “Orthodox Review” 1890, I and II. A.N. Lvov, “Letters to the spirit. and secular persons", 283. “Impressions of the death and burial of Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow,” M. 1871, - “Memories of the Most Reverend Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow,” in “Orthodox. Review" 1888, XII. Priest S. Speransky, "Moscow Filaret Diocesan Women's School", M. 1883. “Eternal monument to the venerable saint, the Right Reverend Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, in the city of Oranienbaum,” St. Petersburg. 1874. Archpriest P.A. Smirnov, “Works”, vol. II. St. Petersburg 1897. V. Fialkin, “The Moscow period of the missionary activity of the Eminence Innokenty Veniaminov,” in “The Wanderer” 1891, I and II. S.I. Smirnov, “Alexander Vasilyevich Gorsky”, M. 1901. A.N. Lvov, “Letters from clergy and secular persons to Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow,” St. Petersburg. 1900. Page 331, 333, 412, 469. Letters from Metropolitan Isidore, Bishop Anthony, Chief Prosecutor A.P. Tolstoy. M.O. Konlovich, “How does our Russian society rise from its moral decline?”, in “Church. Bulletin" 1831 Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), "Complete Works", vol. I, Kazan, 1900, pp. 82–85. “Church. Led." 1888, no. 31–33. Metropolitan Anthony, “Speeches, words and teachings”, St. Petersburg. 1901, pp. 23–24. Bishop Anthony (Khrapovitsky), “Complete collection of works,” 1, 86–88. M.I. Makarevsky, “Church school at the All-Russian exhibition of 1896 in Nizhny Novgorod”, St. Petersburg. 1897. “The most humble report of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod K. Pobedonostsev on the Department of Orthodox Confession for 1898,” St. Petersburg. 1901. A.A. Papkov, “Church Brotherhoods”, St. Petersburg. 1898. “Church Bulletin”, 1880, Nos. 12 and 43. – Archpriest D.Ya. Nikitin, “On extra-liturgical interviews in the Sergius Artillery Cathedral”, St. Petersburg. 1891. "In memory of Archpriest Mikhail Ilyich Sokolov", St. Petersburg. 1895. “Report on the activities of the society for 1900”, St. Petersburg. 1901. “Charter of the Baltic Orthodox Brotherhood of Christ the Savior in the Intercession of the Mother of God”, St. Petersburg. 1882. “Report on the activities of the Baltic Orthodox Brotherhood of Christ the Savior and the Protection of the Mother of God, under the highest patronage of Her Imperial Majesty Empress Maria Feodorovna, for 1899,” St. Petersburg. 1900. “Report on the state of Orthodox public schools in the Baltic provinces for the 1899–1900 academic year,” Riga, 1901. Pp. 53–54. “Charter of the Orthodox Palestinian Society”, St. Petersburg. 1837. (With a picture of a sign for members of the society). S.G. R., “Student Preachers”, St. Petersburg. 1892. “Report on the state of the society of lovers of spiritual enlightenment in 1899”, Moscow, 1900. “Report of the department of the society of lovers of spiritual education for the distribution of spiritual and moral books, under the august patronage of Her Imperial Majesty Empress Maria Feodorovna, for the year 1900,” Moscow. 1901. "General meeting of the brotherhood of St. Gury on January 21, 1901." Kazan, 1901. Reprint of “News on the Kazan diocese”. “Report of the Society for the Restoration of Orthodox Christianity in the Caucasus for 1886”, Tiflis, 1886. Report for 1890, Tiflis, 1891, with an outline of the emergence and transformation of society. "Church Bulletin" 1880, No. 40. “Alphabetical and subject index to the official part of the Church Gazette for 1888–1897”, St. Petersburg. 1899. “Review of the activities of the State Council during the reign of Emperor Alexander III, 1881–1894. The most humble report of the Chairman of the State Council", St. Petersburg. 1895. “Wreath on the grave of Vasily Vasilyevich Bolotov”, St. Petersburg. 1900. P.G., “Joining the Orthodox Church from the Nestorian faith of Bishop Jonah of Supurgan, Archimandrite Elijah, Presbyters Sergius and George, and Deacon Jacob,” in “Church. Led." 1898, No. 13. N.I. Petrov, “From the history of the Kiev Vladimir Cathedral”, Kiev, 1898. N.I. Petrov, “On painting the walls and in general on the decoration of the Kiev Vladimir Cathedral”, Kiev, 1899. See A.Ya. Nadezhdin, “History of the St. Petersburg Orthodox Theological Seminary”, St. Petersburg. 1885. For several similar letters, see the New Year’s issues of the Church Messenger, the editors of which have set out on a mission to support this good custom, which is so consistent with the spiritual needs of modern society. Note Ed. Metropolitan Antonii, “Speeches” 391.