His Eminence John (Kratirov), former bishop of Saratov, rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (1895-1899)

The Right Reverend John, the former Bishop of Saratov, who died in Moscow on the evening of February 12, 1909, was a highly sympathetic personality and worthy of truly good memory for his useful educational, church and archpastoral activities. In the world he was called Ivan Aleksandrovich Kratirov 1, was born on July 27, 1839 in the village of Lokhta, Totemsky district, Vologda province, and was the son of the priest of the Lokhotsk Origin Church Alexander Georgiev Kratirov and his wife Daria Arkhipova. O. Alexander, having completed the course of the Vologda Theological Seminary in 1836 in the first category, was ordained on August 12 of this year as a priest to Lokhta, which until now had been a remote place 80 versts from the city of Totma, although in winter this distance is reduced by sleigh ride to 50 versts; the young shepherd, apparently, served successfully and on December 13, 1841 he was transferred to the Totemskaya Nativity Church, and later was appointed archpriest in the city of Kadnikov, where he died. This means that the childhood years of Ivan A. Kratirov passed in a relatively favorable urban environment, and he had the opportunity to receive good educational training at home, and in 1850 he entered the Totemsky Theological School, where in the “annual report” for the 1853–54 academic year he was listed under 2nd No. with the following certification: “very good behavior 2, very good abilities, zealous diligence, commendable successes” 3. Transferred in 1854 to the lower department of the Vologda Theological Seminary, Ivan Kratirov completed a course there in 1860 and, “as especially trustworthy in his abilities, successes and behavior,” was elected by the seminary board to enter the Moscow Theological Academy 4, where he was sent on August 10, and the certificate noted that he “has very good abilities, diligence - very zealous." Academic teaching was no less successful, and Ivan Kratirov graduated in June 1864 as part of the XXIV course (1860 - 1864) ninth in the 1st category, and on April 24, 1867 he was elevated to the degree of Master of Theology 5). On November 9, 1864, he received the position of mentor in the higher and secondary departments of his native Vologda Theological Seminary, and on November 15, 1866, according to the petition, he was transferred to the same subjects at the Yaroslavl Seminary and on March 9 he was appointed here as an assistant inspector, and on July 10 of this year he was determined, by election, to be a member of the seminary board for presence in its pedagogical meetings; from July 4, 1870, he was also a teacher at the same Yaroslavl Seminary on church history, liturgics and practical guidance for pastors in the higher second department. Regarding this period of pedagogical activity of Iv.A. We do not have documentary data about Kratirov, but even we know examples of deep and sincere respect for him on the part of his seminary students, who, long later, retained a grateful memory of their longtime teacher. But on August 31, 1870, Iv.A. Kratirov left direct teaching service and returned to his native Moscow Theological Academy as secretary of its council and board, in which position he remained for almost 13 years. Zealous for the cause, the new academic secretary knew perfectly well the spiritual laws and orders of the highest spiritual authority, which is why he was not only the head of the office and an excellent compiler of business papers, but in many ways directed the entire flow along the normal legal channel and in difficult cases had a decisive vote in his area. However, at that time he was not just a “great lawyer,” but enjoyed the authority of general recognition in the academic administration circle and throughout the entire academic corporation, so that among local professors he was later given the nickname “our spiritual minister.” It is not surprising that under Chief Prosecutor Count D.A. Tolstoy I.A. Kraterov was invited to St. Petersburg as an official on special assignments or generally somewhere in the spiritual department, but he declined this, not feeling an inclination for such service. He was more sympathetic to the offers from the central Seminaries near Moscow (for example, from Tver and Ryazan) to run for the rector’s position, but Iv.A. Kratirov fundamentally did not sympathize with the “ballot system” and stubbornly refused to put forward his candidacy. Things changed with the appointment (September 15, 1882) of Ambrose (Klyucharyov) as Archbishop of Kharkov. The latter, in a new and even alien place, was in great need of new figures in all branches of government, and in particular for the organization of the local Theological Seminary. Ambrose invited 6 Iv.A. to the rector’s post here. Kratirova, knowing him from the best side for a long time. According to the convictions of persons close to the Archbishop of Kharkov, especially Professor V.D. Kudryavtsev-Platonov († December 3, 1891) and Amvrosiev’s successor in the Dmitrov Vicariate Alexy (Lavrov, who died on November 9, 1890 as Archbishop of Lithuania), with whom the academic secretary was very friendly and lived for a long time in Sergiev Posad in the same academic house, Iv. A. Kratirov agreed to move to Kharkov and on April 7 (21), 1883, he was appointed rector there, ordained a deacon on May 7, a priest on May 8, and elevated to the rank of archpriest on June 5. A difficult mission fell to the lot of the new Kharkov rector. Reverend Ambrose, as a true “Muscovite,” was not greeted in a friendly manner by Ukraine at first, and his firm reform initiatives, often in the Great Russian spirit, did not in the least contribute to the establishment of special mutual sympathies. Naturally, Ambrose's chosen assistants could not count on the sympathy of the surrounding local environment. Meanwhile, the Kharkov rector's post was especially difficult, since the Seminary suffered from many shortcomings and required decisive measures, because the educational work was lame, discipline was undermined, and the economy was upset. Calling for the elimination of these shortcomings and for the establishment of normal order, Archbishop. Ambrose completely entrusted this matter to the new rector, which opened up full scope for him, but also placed full responsibility on him. O. Iv.A. Kratirov turned out to be a perfect master, who, for his own personal fear, had to reckon with both the authorities and his subordinates. However, Fr. Willow. Kratirov successfully overcame all these obstacles, managing to inextricably combine negative actions with positive measures. At first, he was forced to act very harshly, like an operator on a sick organism, and this caused strong opposition among the students, which found echoes among the teaching staff. But the rector was not embarrassed by any antics and, bypassing them, firmly walked towards his goal. So gradually everyone became convinced that Fr. Willow. Kratirov is alien to personal interests and everywhere pursues and puts above all else the only benefit of the cause. The students became more trusting and obedient, and their colleagues - for the most part - hastened to the aid of their rector with active participation and sympathy, who always defended and supported them before Ambrose and, in general, readily tried to provide all possible kindness to everyone on all occasions and needs. Little by little, a friendly family was formed from the corporation, united in the rector, and the latter, relying on this foundation, acquired from everyone and retained such an indisputable authority that all the onslaughts of the pretentious St. Petersburg bureaucracy, to whom Fr. Willow. Kratirov did not hesitate to indicate his place and even the way back... This prepared favorable soil for creative work. Strict discipline was introduced into the seminary regime, academic work was improved, and the educational part was raised systematically. The students pulled themselves up and steadily learned to have decent self-control and complete decency, for which Fr. Willow. Kratirov was almost the first in all of Russia to create a special, beautiful uniform for them. Along with the enrichment of compulsory educational information, the pupils were imbued with a sense of duty in accordance with the service offered to them, which in advance was a regulator of their internal mood and therefore was subsequently accepted with ingrained readiness. Of course, all this excellently ensured the success of pastoral and all other life activities, and facts of this kind established the good reputation of Kharkov seminarians not only in the clergy, but also in secular society. There have often been examples of things going wrong. They turned to Ambrose with a request to give the “Cratyroan disciples” as priests. Taking care of the immediate tasks of seminary education, Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov did not forget about aesthetic entertainment and significantly improved the content of seminarians, whom he generally treated with paternal condescension. The economic side was the subject of special care of Fr. Iv. A. Kratirova; here he spent a lot of trouble and labor and for this he traveled at his own expense to St. Petersburg with the most difficult and unpleasant mission - to get money... But the results were fruitful. O. Iv. A. Kratirov built a new beautiful and spacious building for the seminary dormitory, as well as another one specifically for the apartments of teachers and inspectors, while the old building for this second purpose was expanded and thoroughly renovated. Previously, the Kharkov Seminary sometimes (especially in the summer heat) suffered a lot from lack of water, using the city water supply. In view of this, Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov secured funds (up to 8 thousand rubles) and built an artesian well on the seminary estate itself with its own water supply facilities, fully equipped with machines and special buildings. The seminary became one of the best buildings in the city. It should also be mentioned that with her Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov built a good parish school building. The boss gradually strengthened the closest connection with his colleagues and students, which was especially clearly expressed when leaving the seminary rector, when, out of a feeling of sincere love and gratitude, the students presented a valuable icon, warm speeches were spoken, and from the corporation, by the way, a good album with family cards was presented. Good and friendly relations of respect, reverence and sympathy between the Seminary and the Reverend. John continued throughout his stay in Kharkov. Along with the rectorship of Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov, from August 4, 1884, was the chairman of the Kharkov diocesan school council, but he worked especially hard for the famous theological and philosophical magazine “Faith and Reason,” of which he was editor from the very foundation - according to the definition of St. Synod - from January 1, 1884 to April 1, 1893, receiving only 300 rubles annually. The business was new and required a lot of effort in organizing, attracting employees, etc. Taking advantage of close connections with the Moscow Academy corporation, Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov attracted the largest scientific forces for it and immediately created such a high reputation for the fledgling journal that gradually very abundant material began to flow in. But the latter needed revision and adaptation, and this rough work fell entirely on the editor, who, however, could not act completely independently, because everything was again reviewed by the archbishop. Ambrose and was published only with his special permission. This sometimes gave rise to the most painful collisions, and in general gave rise to special difficulties beyond those associated with any editorship, especially in a new spiritual publication, where comprehensive responsibility was not associated with absolute power. Nevertheless, the Kratirovo era was almost the best in the entire history of the journal “Faith and Reason,” although the main merit for this important matter belongs, of course, to the initiative, energy, inspiration and every possible participation of the archbishop. Ambrose. It must be said that it was precisely the last Fr. Willow. Kratirov owes a lot for the good success of his Kharkov ministry. Although there were major temporary differences between them, why once Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov even wanted to ask again (supposedly to Kursk), but - in general - the relationship was friendly and benevolent. Having assigned great responsible responsibilities to his rector, Archbishop. Ambrose gave him full confidence and contributed in every possible way to all his endeavors, respecting all opinions and ideas and highly appreciating his actual merits. Therefore, when Fr. Iv. A. Kratirov was widowed 7, archbishop. Ambrose, at the first opportunity, hastened to make him his vicar in place of the Reverend. Vladimir (Shimkovich), transferred on December 5, 1892 to Yekaterinoslav, and continued to show signs of the most favorable disposition 8. On March 6, 1893, he was tonsured a monk with the name John and on the 7th he was elevated to the rank of archimandrite, and the Highest, approved by the report of the Holy Synod on March 26, was appointed Bishop of Sumy and consecrated in St. Petersburg in the Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra on April 25, 1893. With the care of the bishopric, the external position of the former Kharkov rector increased, but the scope of his activity decreased and narrowed. His Grace Sumsky was the vicar of the Archbishop of Kharkov and could dispose only to the extent of the latter’s permission, and even then with mandatory approval in each case. He independently decided some cases by appointing psalm-readers, but, it seems, exclusively in villages - with the exception of urban places. The magazines of theological schools were sent to him for final approval, but only those for men, while those for women remained under the sole jurisdiction of the archbishop. The Bishop of Sumy also considered divorce and court cases, which were transferred to the episcopal sanction, and Ambrose often gave preference to the conclusions of the Consistory over the opinion of the vicar, here the work sometimes turned into great grief... The Reverend had more initiative. John, who also retained the title of chairman of the diocesan school council as vicar, but it was difficult to do anything significant, because the church-school business at that time did not enjoy either trust or success in the Kharkov diocese. The Bishop of Sumy could only ensure its peaceful approval and spread, establishing and strengthening with his personal good influence the best friendly relations with the directorate of public schools of the Ministry of Public Education. Thus, from the king-boss, which was in his person the rector of the Kharkov Seminary, the Reverend. John now turned into a responsible subordinate, who had more to perform divine services and perform consecrations than to do and manage. Given the presence of two strong characters, the compatibility of the subjugation of one to the other turned out to be difficult to achieve, and this was accompanied by minor life complications that made the fundamental dissimilarity a completely real practical inconvenience. The fault was not in private conflicts, where, as usual, everything escalated due to the intervention of third parties, who were drawn in here either voluntarily or involuntarily and did not always justify the favor of their clients, but this was simply a reason for discovering and resolving an independently created situation. Therefore, the archbishop. Ambrose, when petitioning for a new vicar for himself, did not at all seek to put an obstacle to the further hierarchical movement of the Reverend. John. The latter was transferred by the Highest synodal report approved on January 17, 1895 to the place of Bishop of Elisavetgrad, second vicar of the Kherson diocese. In fact, there was an undoubted decline here, but - admonished with sincere touching by the Kharkov people, among whom he enjoyed enormous popularity and great love - the Reverend. John set out for a new ministry, with authoritative assurances that the highest post was soon being prepared for him. The new Bishop of Elisavetograd did not live long in Odessa, but here he immediately “attracted” and acquired “universal sympathy, sincere love and deep respect of the people who knew him,” 9 as evidenced by the very warm and animated farewell. During the 7 months of his stay in Odessa, Rev. John, of course, did not even have the opportunity to do anything significant, but his personal archpastoral influence in the multi-tribal city was peaceful and beneficial. On August 23, 1895, he was moved to St. Petersburg to Metropolitan Palladius (Raev) by the Bishop of Narva, the first vicar of the St. Petersburg diocese, and by decree of the Holy Synod of August 31, 1895 No. 4072, he was also appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy (after Bishop Nikander, appointed August 23 to the bishop's see in Simbirsk) - with a salary for the rector's position of 4,200 rubles (with a ready-made apartment) and for a vicariate of 1,711 rubles. 15 k. This extremely flattering promotion was fraught with great difficulties for the Reverend. John. He has moved away from direct contact with academic affairs too long ago, and seminary pedagogy is of a very special nature and cannot directly turn into normal academic education even in the best seminary administrator. If in the Seminary it is enough for the rector to be a good teacher for a few hours a week, then the academic rector requires that its holder, by his very knowledge, undertakes to be a learned theologian, scientifically knowledgeable in all academic specialties, and an authoritative professor, capable of enlightening and guiding students in scientific life. Only under such an indispensable condition will the academic rector not be a despotic appendage, shy for everyone, and will receive support for consistent influence in the universal recognition of the head in which all members of the academic body unite in solidarity and agreement in joint work. Reverend John did not have all these amenities, and the St. Petersburg academic environment was quite unique compared to what was preserved in his habits and memories of Alma Mater; meanwhile, according to the magazine “Faith and Reason”, he had no connection with the St. Petersburg Academic Corporation, whose members did not collaborate there at all during his editorship. This means that for the new rector in the new Academy everything was new. It was easy to get confused here, but the excellent personal qualities of character and soul of the Reverend. John helped him overcome all obstacles with honor and maintain his position with dignity. He entered the St. Petersburg Academy with simplicity and sincerity, which he intimately took possession of everyone, which is why good mutual trust was immediately established. Using it, Rev. John drew indisputable weight for everyone from his organic connection with the teaching staff and could confidently react in all directions with the help of power, as ensured by the complicity and consent of the general academic mind. In this way he successfully filled in what was missing and subsequently acquired support for independent action. Already after the first year of the rectorship, the Academy openly and solemnly testified to its love, and this everywhere and always serves as the best guarantee of the fruitfulness of any joint work. Reverend John avoided innovation and did not strive for it on his own initiative. All his efforts were aimed at maintaining the established academic order and protecting the normal course of academic life in all respects. If the ever-memorable Metropolitan Palladius jealously called the St. Petersburg Academy “his own,” then the rector-vicar was its faithful guardian in protecting honor and dignity, although at that time there were influential and annoying attempts on them. Reverend John, not out of fear, but out of conscience, was always a mourner, intercessor and apologist for the St. Petersburg Academy. And the latter felt this and lived with him in close spiritual ties. Naturally, when the Reverend. John had to leave her, both sides were depressed by the sadness of separation - and the parting resulted in especially touching forms, with students offering a precious panagia to their former rector, and the Academy on December 29, 1899 elected him as an honorary member. An independent hierarchical field was prepared for the Reverend. John for his indisputable merits. In addition to the duties of rector and vicariate, he was also chairman of the Council of the St. Petersburg Diocesan Committee of the Orthodox Missionary Society and observer of the teaching of the Law of God in St. Petersburg in educational institutions of the Ministry of Public Education, in the military department, in the Humane Society and in city schools; in May 1896 - after the departure of St. Synod for the coronation of Sovereign Emperor Nicholas II, - was the chairman of the St. Petersburg Synodal Office; from October 5, 1898 - following the illness and subsequent death of Metropolitan Palladius on December 5 of this year - he was temporarily ruling the St. Petersburg diocese, and always maintained this delicate and difficult position with dignity and energetically protected the canonical rights of the church and the prerogatives of church authority against any claims that sometimes threatened him with grave consequences, as we personally know during his replacement one deacon's place, where he was presented with an authoritative secular ultimatum in favor of a pre-appointed candidate... January 16, 1899, Rev. John was appointed Bishop of Saratov and Tsaritsyn (in place of Nikolai Nalimov, who was transferred by Archbishop of Finland) and then ascended to his new see with charming simplicity, with which he immediately tied the diocese to himself. Here his administrative talent began to be more widely discovered and applied, but at the same time all the difficulties of hierarchical management, which is all the more responsible because it is often categorical, began to be outlined more clearly. An assistant was needed (Hermogen Dolganov), but not in kind the Reverend. John had to rely on others, even if he completely trusted them, and therefore the addition of an accomplice only created unnecessary complications, which intensified rapidly, although against the will of the ruling bishop. At that time, the latter did not spare his aging strength and - in the interests of the perfect foundation and canonical legitimacy of his church-administrative activities - diligently tried to fill the gaps of knowledge, especially in the field of canons, for which he sat up whole nights. The president's health began to change. John, and in the fall of 1902, as if on purpose, he was summoned as a member of the Holy Synod to St. Petersburg, where it was least convenient for his recovery... Here, on March 12, 1903, a decree was issued on the dismissal of the Reverend. John from the Saratov See and his appointment as a full-time member of the Moscow Synodal Office and manager of the stauropegial Simonov Monastery. If some had prepared it in advance and therefore knew it, others had a presentiment with anxiety, then for the Reverend himself. John there was a big and bitter surprise that had a crushing effect on him... He was deprived of even the opportunity to say goodbye to his Saratov diocese, but - according to one obituary (in the Bell No. 886 for February 15, 1909) - “the clergy of the latter still remembers with a sense of gratitude the Right Reverend John as one of the best archpastors, who was part of all needs and situations, especially of the rural clergy.” With submission to divine providence, Reverend. John hurried straight from St. Petersburg to a new place of ministry in Moscow, where he continued to work for the cause of the Church in the designated area, as far as his strength, which was rapidly declining, allowed him. The time of the Moscow stay of the Reverend. John's life was difficult. Physically broken by labors and troubles, he was, as it were, abandoned in some neglect... But the archpastor did not become hardened by insults and grief, but went deeper into himself, became a great silent person and, completely concentrating in his inner world, strengthened himself in spiritual humility and undivided devotion to the will of the Almighty. It was difficult to involve him in everyday conversation, and even more difficult to obtain information about him personally. To all requests, the deceased had one decisive answer: that all good things happened through him by the grace of God, but he himself did nothing useful and does not deserve even simple biographical descriptions... The last year was especially cruel for the sick elder bishop. It was as if they were sending him to visit him “for the sake of humanity,” although in fact they were trying to find out the extent of his helplessness in order to finally put him in the archives. December 5, 1908 The report of the Holy Synod on the dismissal of Rev. John from the post of full-time member of the Moscow Synodal Office, but in addition to this, printed in the Church Gazette (1908 No. 51–52, p. 365), another decree was delivered - dated December 4th - about his release from abbotship in the Simonov Monastery. He accepted the first without complaint, and the second also did not exhaust his patience, but there was not enough physical strength to overcome all the hardships that had befallen him, which immediately plunged him into some kind of paralysis... The archpastor, who usually distributed all the surplus, did not have any personal funds - and now all sources of support for the helpless old man had dried up, for they had only yet promised to petition for a pension of 100 rubles annually for his 44-year service... It was not for nothing that he refused the episcopacy for a long time and then did not want to become a diocesan bishop, and after leaving the post of rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, he preferred to receive a pension for his worthy teaching activity... Moreover. From now on it was necessary to change the premises, and from the abbot’s chambers the sick archpastor, weighed down by years, ended up in an apartment that is directly called a “dungeon”. There are only four small, low and cramped vaulted cells, with windows 1 arshin high; of them, one is cold, like a pantry, and the other is so dark that it was impossible to read even during the day due to the lack of natural light... In all truth, it was only a spacious grave, and its effect immediately affected the elderly man in a fatal way. He didn’t complain about anything, but those close to him soon noticed that something inside him immediately snapped... Reverend. John now lived only in memories, remaining outside the world and everyday worries, for he took almost no food or medicine. A gradual, quiet decline began, which on the evening of February 12, 1909 (i.e., on Thursday in the first week of Lent) ended with an apparently painless fall asleep. The Lord sent a Christian and peaceful death for the repose of his emaciated, withered body, which hardly changed after death and even on the day of burial did not have a corpse smell. The funeral service was performed on Saturday, February 14th: the successor of the deceased in managing the Simonov Monastery, Bishop (formerly Olonetsky) Misail, who said a warm and sincere word, Bishops Ioaniky (formerly Arkhangelsk) and Gregory (formerly Omsk), with the participation of four archimandrites and the monastery brethren, protopresbyter of the Great Assumption Cathedral V.S. Markov, several Moscow priests and the deliberately visiting rector of the Vologda Theological Seminary, Archpriest I. N. Malinovsky, who has long been a close acquaintance and is closely associated with the deceased union with the most sincere respect. Professor of the Moscow Academy (retired) N.I. Kazansky was present. The late archpastor was buried in the crypt of one of the churches of the Simonov Monastery. As rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, Rev. John (according to official academic reports for 1896, 1897 and 1898) “lectured on the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament, and specifically gave a review of the pastoral letters of St. Apostle Paul to Timothy and Titus, and opinions about the writer, time, place of writing the epistles, etc. were considered.” He considered himself the most competent in this subject, for he had once specially studied it, in connection with his candidate’s work, where the author had to focus with particular care on the pastoral epistles, and then this issue invariably occupied the attention of the Reverend. John and was covered from different sides according to the interests of the administrative and pedagogical service at the Kharkov Seminary and according to the needs of his own pastorate; in St. Petersburg, the latest specialized Russian literature was also attracted. At his lectures at the Academy, Rev. John conducted actual live conversations with the listeners, walking around the audience; the main principle of his argument was the firmness of church tradition in comparison with any negative opinions, both later and self-invented, so that in his fundamental views the lecturer here coincided with the apologetic principles of Tertullian’s credo, at least without intention and without knowledge of it. Reverend John rendered an enormous service to theological literature with his zealous and fruitful work in organizing and editing the journal “Faith and Reason,” which I can personally testify with gratitude from the experience of my collaboration in this theological and philosophical body; I got here - during the most difficult time for me during the forced break of my student life at the Moscow Theological Academy - thanks to the kind and enlightened participation of the then editor, who carefully studied each article in order to bring it into the best form from all sides, without being burdened by lengthy written communications with a young author unknown to him. However, absorbed in continuous official affairs, which left no time for independent and concentrated office and book work, Rev. John did not have the opportunity to engage in literary works and published only four of his preaching works: two “words” for the birthday of the Sovereign Emperor Alexander Alexandrovich (in the magazine “Faith and Reason” 1885, I, No. 6, pp. 331–339; 1892, II, No. 5, pp. 265–274) and two “speeches” - at the naming of Bishop of Sumy (ibid. 1893, No. 9, pp. 201–203 in the “Leaflet”, and in the “Additions to the Church Gazette” 1893, No. 18, pp. 710–712) and upon joining the Saratov diocese (in the “Saratov Diocesan Gazette” 1899, No. 5, pp. 199–204) 10 . The Most Reverend John left the best memory in almost everyone as an honest, good, kind, direct and open person, as an energetic and devoted figure in the field of spiritual Christian enlightenment in the Russian Church. May this handsome academic pet, like a faithful and humble Christian, have eternal memory and rest with the saints! St. Petersburg 1909, II, 25 – Wednesday. V.P. Sheremetevsky says that this surname “Kratirov” and the other “Kaliksov” do not at all indicate a person who, being students of “bacchanalia sacpe exercent”, and they both are of topographic origin and simply convey in Greek and Latin the names of places, for, for example, in the Vologda province there are two villages with the name Chashkovo. See the article “Family nicknames of the Great Russian clergy in the 18th and 19th centuries” in the “Russian Archive” 1908, Vol. 6, p. 217. Judging by the data from the school “reports”, this was the highest mark in behavior. In the “reports” there is another note regarding “successes” and specifically “commendable” The second to be elected and sent to the Moscow Academy was Nikolai Zavarin, who graduated there in 1864, also only at number below Iv. Kratirov as the tenth master. The course essay was written on the topic given by the professor of moral and pastoral theology, Archpriest Philaret Aleksandrovich Sergievsky, “On the types of so-called private care of pastors for the souls of their flock, and on the importance of it in the circle of pastoral activities.” Review about. F.A. Sergievsky is as follows: “As a set of instructions related to the subject under consideration, which could be found by the author in our domestic literature, translated and original (and a very small part foreign) and rightfully applied to the position of an Orthodox pastor, α, is quite complete. β, compiled in a good direction, with a correct understanding of the meaning of the Orthodox pastor in contrast to the Roman Catholic and Protestant pastor, and γ, presented quite consistently and clearly, the work could deserve full approval. But drawing up a completely approving judgment about this work is hampered by its following shortcomings: the author collects the instructions he sets out for the most part from the most available sources [the following words are crossed out: “(in places, for example, from the pastoral theology of Arch. Cyril), and even from these sources sometimes he makes extracts in their entirety], not always [this word is written after - by omitting the crossed out insert] making it difficult for himself to verify from all sides the merits of the extracts places 2. Some incompleteness of the work: the work α, seems not entirely finished: it lacks a conclusion: β, narrows its horizons under the influence of the not entirely correct limitation of private pastoral care for souls to almost edifying activities, and γ, and in this limited, more appropriate circle, it leaves other things unseen: for example, it says nothing about the pastoral instruction of the sons of the Church newly joined to Orthodoxy and etc. under 3. A common lack of harmony and correctness in the arrangement of small parts of the essay, as well as a lack of certifying correctness in the construction of the overall plan of the essay. 4. The tone of the essay, although not often, is sometimes not quite modest, namely, resounding with a teaching quality that is inappropriate in the mouth of a young writer, especially when he speaks on his own behalf about such a subject as constitutes the task of the work under consideration. However, even with the noted shortcomings in the essay, there is a lot of very good stuff [initially it was like this: “the essay can be called good”]. We do not turn the lack of practicality of instructions that is noticeable in places as a reproach to the author, as it is a natural thing for a complete writer, and given the small development of the pastoral branch of theological literature that existed in our country, it is very excusable.” – Prof. prot. Filaret Sergievsky [† January 7, 1884 archpriest-rector of the Archangel Cathedral in Moscow]. “I agree with the above opinion about this essay.” Prof. Peter [Simonovich] Kazansky [† February 14, 1878]. "Agreeing with the above opinions and recognizing the work as good, I find it necessary to add that in the writings of the Holy Fathers and experienced shepherds of the Church the writer could find much that would be very useful for his work. The testimonies of the Fathers of the Church and the opinions of experienced shepherds would give much more convincing and power to the general thoughts expressed by the author." – E. o. prof. And Alexander Lavrov [Archbishop. Lithuanian Alexy, † November 9, 1890]. This place was vacated after Archpriest Mikhail Ivanovich Raznogorsky, who, of course, at the insistence of His Grace Ambrose, was transferred as rector of the Theological Academy to Yekaterinoslav and died here on January 27, 1892; see about him in † A.S. Rodsky. Biographical dictionary of students of the first XXVIII years of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: 1814–1869. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 394–395. Wife Iv.A. Kratirova - Elizaveta Ivanovna was the daughter of Ivan Ananich Granditsky, sexton of Pogost Vasilievsky, in the Murom district of the Vladimir province. The father died of typhus, leaving seven children, and the girl was taken into care and adopted by a relative, I. T. Ostroumov, who came from the same churchyard, and after the death of the latter, his wife Marya Dmitrievna was transported from Tula to the village of Khrebtovo, Pereyaslavsky district, to her brother Deacon Peter Gradnitsky and stayed with him for four years. Then the fate of this two-time orphan changed for the better. In Tula, the nephew of a wealthy landowner, General Marya Pavlovna Polugarskaya, who studied at the local gymnasium, lived under the supervision and care of the Ostroumovs. She, remembering the kindness the Ostroumovs showed to their relative, found their adopted daughter and took her “to Trinity” (in Sergiev Posad, Moscow province), where she then lived, burying her husband here. Elizaveta Gradnitskaya was raised by her instead of her daughter and received part of the inheritance in Polugarskaya’s will. Iv. A. Kratirov was first the teacher of Elizaveta Gradnitskaya and then married her, and prof. V.F. Pavnitsky heard that this matchmaking allegedly took place with the assistance of the Moscow Archpriest A.F. Klyucherev, then the Kharkov Archbishop Ambrose. Sick by nature, Elizaveta Ivanovna Gradnitskaya-Kratirova was constantly ill and died on September 5, 1888, taken to Posad and buried next to the Polugarsky spouses. Thus, according to his wife Iv. A. Kratirov became close to one of the students of the St. Petersburg Academy, I. T. Ostroumov, and his fate is so mysterious that it is unnecessary to say a few words about him. This is Ivan Tikhonovich Ostroumov, a student of the IX academic course (1827–1831). About him † A.S. Rodovsky cites (Biographical Dictionary of Students of the First XXVIII Years of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy: 1814–1869. St. Petersburg, 1907, p. 334) only a remark † by Archbishop of Tver Savva Tikhomirov (Chronicle of my life I, Holy Trinity Lavra of Sergius, 1897, p. 191) “I didn’t read the newspapers, but I was convinced to read them by the district school teacher Ivan Tikhonovich Ostroumov, who was released from the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for some obscene trick with the title of student, although according to his talents he could be among the first masters.” We found in the affairs of the academic conference that, according to the proposal of the inspector Hieromonk Joseph (Pozdnyshev, † archimandrite at the Kiev St. Michael's Monastery on September 3, 1857), on July 30, 1831, she determined that “the student Ivan Ostroumov, who had completed the course, should be deprived of his academic degree for his incorrigible drinking and riotousness.” We report further in the words of the Honored Professor of the Kyiv Theological Academy Vasily Feodrovich Pevnitsky, who sent us in 1908. four detailed letters, making additions from a form (delivered to us in a copy by the teacher of the Tula Theological Seminary, Mikhail Nikolaevich Rudnev) for 1853, which states: “Titular Advisor Ivan Tikhonovich Ostroumov, teacher of the Russian language at the Tula District School, 45 years old, has no insignia, receives a salary of 200 rubles. silver." V. F. Pavlitsky writes: “I. T. Ostroumov is my closest fellow countryman. He is the son of a sexton, born, like me, in the same Vasilievsky Pogost, ten miles away from the city of Murom (Vladimir province), in which formerly there were three priests, two deacons and six clerics. He was sent from the Vladimir Seminary to the St. Petersburg Academy in 1827, together with Mikhail Izmailovich Bogoslavsky (also from Vladimir). According to the testimony of their peers from the Vladimir Seminary, among whom was my dear uncle Pyotr Ivanovich Smirnov (who died as a priest of the village of Verkhozerye, Melenkovsky district, in the early 70s; see about him in N.V. Malitsky, History of the Vladimir Theological Seminary, issue III, Moscow, 1902, p. 254) I. T. Ostroumov was considered more talented than M.I. Bogoslavsky, but at the St. Petersburg Academy what happened to him was not what his comrades and seminary authorities expected: - Mikhail Izmailovich completed the academic course first and was subsequently one of the prominent figures in St. Petersburg († January 15, 1884 in Moscow, protopresbyter of the Archangel Cathedral), and I.T. Ostroumov, who supposedly occupied first place on the list at the beginning and undoubtedly should have finished first or among the first, was released last, with the rank of a simple student and with a certificate for which they did not want to accept him into the service anywhere. The reason for this was the drunken passion to which he was devoted. In Vladimir in the old years there was a rumor that I. T. Ostroumov, while drunk, grossly insulted the inspector of the St. Petersburg Academy (almost the predecessor of Iosifov, who was such from September 1825 to August 1830, Innokenty Borisov, † May 26, 1857, Archbishop of Kherson). Released from the Academy with a wolf (as they say) ticket, I.T. Ostroumov then lived in Vasilyevsky Pogost in the cell of his mother Prokofievna, the widow of the clerk, and paid frequent tribute to Bacchus. He honored and cherished his mother when he was not drunk; and when his period of drinking began, Prokofievna came to our house and poured out her bitter sorrow in front of my parents. I. T. Ostroumov lived by “conditions” or lessons from neighboring landowners, who respected his intelligence and were condescending towards his weaknesses. In a sober state, Ivan Tikhonovich was a very nice person. Of all the residents and members of the three-part parable of Vasilievsky Pogost, he treated my father with special affection, who was not alien to scientific and literary interests. I. T. Ostroumov lived like this for ten years, unable to settle down firmly anywhere. He graduated from the Academy in 1831, and I was born in 1832, meanwhile I was already a conscious boy when Ivan Tikhonovich came to my father, and I vividly imagine how they walked as widows along the outskirts of Vasilyevsky Pogost, having conversations with each other about important matters. After the death of I.T.’s mother Ostroumov was left an orphan, and the trials of loneliness produced such a turning point in him that he cast out the drunken demon from himself. After much effort, he finally managed to get himself a place in Murom, where I. T. Ostroumov (according to the form of 1853) “On February 16, 1840, he was appointed to the number of clerical servants of the Murom district court, with the approval of the Government Senate in the rank of collegiate registrar.” “In Murom, Ivan Tikhonovich (according to V.F. Pevnitsky) got married, and his wife Marya Dmitrievna brought him a small house as a dowry, where he lived peacefully, freed from the passion that was destroying him.” The form notes that I. T. Ostroumov “was dismissed from this service upon request on November 14, 1841.” and “was retired without being awarded a rank on September 4, 1843”, on which date - also “at the request of a teacher of the Russian language at the Tula district school, and V.F. Pevnitsky recalls that this matter allegedly reached the Trustee of the Moscow Educational District. The form records vol. I.T. Ostroumov the following: “I taught Russian at the Tula Women’s School from September 16, 1843 to 1848 free of charge. According to the report on the consequences of the audit, the Inspector of State Schools announced to him from the Trustee of the Moscow Educational District gratitude for excellent teaching and good success of students in the subject he taught in 1847 on February 14. - According to the testimony of the Minister of National Education about his zeal for service, the highest gratitude was declared to him by the authorities on January 8, 1848. V. F. Pevnitsky writes: “In 1851, going to the XVII course (1851–1855) of the Kyiv Academy, I, together with two comrades Alexander Speransky and Pavel Pospelov, was with him in Tula, coming to his apartment, which was attached to the school, when the owner himself was in class. They immediately reported to him, and he immediately appeared, took us through all the classes of the school and, pointing to us, told the students that for the sake of dear guests that day he would no longer be engaged in explaining the lessons. The Ostroumovs had no children. They fostered and adopted the daughter of the sexton of Vasilievsky Pogost, Elizaveta Gradnitskaya, who later married Ivan. A. Kraterov, who was then secretary of the Moscow Theological Academy. – About I.T. I mentioned Ostroumov to His Eminence Porfiry (Uspensky), who was a year older than him at the St. Petersburg Academy, and he gave an approving review of him. My elder brother Dimitri and I, now the archpriest of the Grebnitsa Church in Moscow, visited M.P. in St. Petersburg. Bogoslovsky, and - when it came to I.T. Ostroumov - he said that he was an unfortunate but gifted man, “who stood head and shoulders above all of us. Such feedback from a fellow competitor is remarkable and deserves full faith.” – According to the correspondence available with the above-mentioned “form”, – the Staff Supervisor of the Tula district school, Pyotr Velyaminov, dated June 10, 1853, reported to the Director of the schools of the Tula province that I. T. Ostroumov died on June 9, 1853 after a long illness, and at the same time asked for an intercession to the widow of the city. Ostroumov, who was left without any fortune, was given an annual salary for the deceased for almost 10 years of diligent and useful service in the school department; On December 1, 1853, the Director informed the caretaker that the widow Ostroumova (who moved to her homeland in Murom after the death of her husband) was assigned a one-time allowance in the amount of one and a half salaries paid to the teacher Ostroumov, a total of 300 rubles. 7 kopecks – The above corrects and corrects incorrect and insufficient information. N.V. Malitsky (History of the Vladimir Theological Seminary, issue II, Moscow, 1902, p. 168; issue III, ibid., 1902, p. 190), reproduced in its entirety by † A.S. Rhodes (I cit.) with the addition of new, own inaccuracies. So during the production of archimandrite, archbishop. Ambrose gave Fr. John received his good and expensive miter and archimandrite’s cross, and after his consecration as a bishop he presented him with velvet for his cassock, etc. See Fr. S.V. Petrovsky on p.392. Information about the Reverend. John Kratirov are drawn mainly from fragmentary and random printed data, but we also had extracts from the “Annual report on the students of the Totemsky Theological District School for 1853/54” and from the clergy registers of the Totemsky Nativity Church (through the teacher of the Totemsky Spiritual School Nikolai Ivanovich Ozerkov), from the board of directors Vologda Spirit. Seminary No. 58 for 1860 (through the Father Rector Archpriest Nikolai Platonovich Malinovsky), from the file of the Moscow Spiritual Conference. Academy No. 13 for 1867 through the medium of Professor Mikhail Andreevich Ostroumov) and two forms dated 1895 from the archives of the St. Petersburg Spirit. Academy, and also had memories - our own and those brought to us by various persons (Fr. N.P. Malinovsky, Prof. M.A. Ostroumov, member of the State Council Archpriest Timofey Ivanovich Butkevich). The printed materials are as follows. K.Ya. Zdravomyslov, article in the “Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia”, vol. VII, ed. edited by prof. N.N. Glubokovsky, St. Petersburg, 1906, stlyub. 159 – 160. O.T.I. Butkevich: Historical and statistical description of the Kharkov Cathedral of the Assumption Cathedral (Kharkov, 1894), pp. 130 – 131 (with a portrait of Reverend John as Bishop of Sumy); The Most Reverend Ambrose, Archbishop of Kharkov (Kharkov, 1902), pp. 159–160, 199, 249. † Archbishop. Savva. Chronicle of my life, vol. IX (St.-Tr. Sergius Lavra, 1909), p. 665. “Kharkov Diocesan Gazette”, 1883, no. 8. “Faith and Reason”, 1893, no. 9, pp. 199 – 200” 201–203 in “Leaflet”. “Kherson Diocesan Gazette”, 1895, No. 3, p. 51 of the official part No. 4, pp. 77 – 78; No. 18, p. 287 official. parts; No. 19, p. 552. Archpriest S.V. Petrovsky, Odessa Transfiguration Cathedral now (Odessa, 1908), pp. 391 – 391 (with a portrait of Reverend John). "Church Bulletin", 1895, No. 36, column. 1133; No. 40, column. 1264; 1896, No. 23, column. 751 – 752; 1899, No. 5, column. 170 – 171. Reports of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy for 1895 – 1899 (separately and) during the “Christian Reading” 1896, Nos. 3 – 4 (issue II), pp. 391, 401 – 402; 1897, No. 3, p. 452; 1898 No. 3, pp. 376, 387; 1899, No. 3, p. 483; 1900, No. 3, p. 487. No. Saratov Diocesan Gazette”, 1899, No. 4, p. 45 official. parts; No. 5 pp. 199 – 204 (here is the speech upon joining the Saratov department), 204 – 207, 207 – 212. “Church Gazette” with “Additions” 1893, No. 18, pp. 710 – 712; 1895, No. 35, pp. 337 and 344 official. parts; 1899, no. 6, pp. 251–252; 1903, No. 12, p. 77 official. parts; 1908, No. 51–52, p. 365 official. parts. Obituaries (in “Bell”, No. 886 for February 15, 1909, etc.)