From the memoirs of the late Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow

Contents Teaching at Trinity Seminary Life of Philaret in St. Petersburg. Theophylact. Leonid Fessler. Metropolitan Ambrose. Prince A.N. Golitsyn. Labzin. Stanevich. Innokenty Speransky On the translation of the Holy Scriptures into Russian Regarding the publication of the so-called patriarchal charters of Appendix No. 1. Excerpts from Ancillon with the addition of notes showing the spirit of this author No. 2. Commission of theological schools No. 3. The highest decree given to the Minister of Public Education, His Excellency A.S. Shishkova Teaching at Trinity Seminary At the Kolomna Seminary I studied up to the philosophy class: the mentor for this class was a person whom even a gifted student could comprehend poverty. I had a desire to enter the academy from there (that is, the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin), but my father gave a hint that the education at the Lavra seminary was more solid. My fears about the bad content in this seminary and the work that is assigned to seminarians, my father eliminated with a promise to support me out of his own pocket. The matter was decided. In March 1800 I arrived at the Lavra. At first they didn’t want to admit me directly into the philosophy class, because the Lavra Seminary did not want to equate itself with others. They gave me an exam: they asked me about the logic of definition. I gave the answers. In the evening I came with my father to rector Augustine, who immediately in his chambers forced me to write a dissertation on the question: an dantur ideae innatae? I couldn’t answer this based on the lessons of my former mentor, but while rummaging through my father’s books when I was studying in Kolomna, I read a textbook on Winkler’s philosophy. There I received some understanding about this issue. And they were pleased with my answer. I was accepted into a philosophy class. I rented an apartment in Pereslavka for three rubles with table. But soon the prefect Melchizedek 1 issued an order - the students should not lodge on this street, due to the large number of people passing by who were preventing them from studying. I was put in a quandary. They recommended me another apartment, a better one, in Ilyinskaya Sloboda, but having learned that great seminarians go there to meet the owners, and that this acquaintance is doubtful, I did not agree to move there. Then they showed me the apartment of the priest Rozhdestvensky 2, whose family, as I learned later, was upset, and he and his wife led an intemperate life. Students who were expelled from the bursa for pranks lodged with him and, due to poverty, lived on bread, stealing it from the treasury. They had such an order that each week fed the entire society, which consisted of five people. Not knowing their method of subsistence, I went to their apartment. But a month later, when everything was explained, I did not want to stay with them, I came to the prefect, explained to him my situation and asked to accept me into government support with a contribution of money. But I was accepted without this condition. At the Lavra Seminary, philosophy was taught by the young hieromonk Evgraf, who was taken a year after completing the course from the prefects of the Perervinsky seminary to the prefect of the Lavra; in philosophy he did not show the merits of a good teacher. Augustine read theology to us from vacation to Christmastide (1801). From him we received a notebook or two, which talked about the books of Holy Scripture, almost the Old Testament, in Latin. Augustine, coming to class, ordered the students to read part of these notes, translate them into Russian, and added a few of his own comments to this. When Augustine was governor, he usually came to class for half an hour. Augustine's successor Evgraf asked them to copy the marked articles from Gollazius, and then read, translated and explained in the same way in class. The treatises we have in common with Protestants, such as: on the Holy Trinity, on redemption, etc., were covered fairly; and others, for example about the church, were not read at all. Evgraf did not have a solid education, although he saw the need to study his fathers and studied them 3. The Lavra Seminary was famous for its knowledge of the Latin language. I found other good Latinists there, and among them Zaretsky. Once, in one of the so-called extraordinary classes on the languages ​​of Greek, Hebrew, German and French, sitting at a white pine table, he wrote 11 verses about the students of Piitika, with whom he was angry. But the separation of the Kaluga seminary from the Lavra, with the formation of the Kaluga diocese, and the influence of the rector Evgraf, who was more inclined to take care of improving the knowledge of the Russian language, were the reason that Latin began to decline among us. Some of the best experts in the Latin language went to the Kaluga seminary, among others Zaretsky, Leonid in monasticism, later a bachelor of the St. Petersburg Academy 4. Life of Filaret in St. Petersburg. Theophylact. Leonid Fessler. Metropolitan Ambrose. Prince A.N. Golitsyn. Labzin. Stanevich. Innokenty Speransky I went to St. Petersburg at the beginning of January 1809. At this time there were severe frosts, reaching 30 degrees. On the way, I caught a cold in my legs, so that even in later years I felt pain in my legs, and on the doctor’s advice I often had to keep them in a horizontal position when sitting. Soon after I arrived in St. Petersburg, rector Evgraf took me to Theophylacta 5. He asked what I studied. I answered: philosophy 6. He decided to give me an exam and asked me what truth is. I, familiar only with the old Wolffian and Leibnizian philosophical concepts, answered: logical truth is this, metaphysical truth is this. Theophylact was not satisfied and asked: what is truth in general? I found it difficult, I didn’t know what to answer. Thanks to the rector: he brought me out of my confusion with a joke. This question, he told Theophylact, was not answered by Christ the Savior. Theophylact's questions turned to languages. Having learned about my acquaintance with the ancient languages ​​- Hebrew, Greek and Latin, he recommended that I definitely study one of the new ones, and especially French, assuring that everything remarkable in science is written in it or translated into it. This made me turn to learning French. Perhaps, however, it would be better if I knew German. For initial reading, after familiarizing myself with self-taught French grammar, I came across the works of Schwedenborg, which, despite complete disagreement with his direction, Theophylact forced everyone to read. Before that, I knew about Schwedenborg only from Kant’s works translated into Latin, the translation of which, however, was extremely unsatisfactory. Read a few pages and your head will hurt. There is an article there: somnia pneumatoptae, and famous cases are told here in which Swedenborg showed his knowledge of the hidden, discovered where to find the debtor's payment note, told something to a Swedish princess, and announced a fire that was happening at that time somewhere in a distant city 7 . After Feofilaktova’s recommendation, I also read Swedenborg’s miracles in heaven, hell and on earth. However, I had little patience to get to know them. At the academy, Theophylact plotted to dominate through the project. The first part of it on internal government has already been written; in the second, compiled under the influence of Theophylact, it was said that the external academic board consists of members of the internal and members of the conference. The Metropolitan was not given any influence on the external academic board, while the seminary boards were subordinated to him, which had to submit representations to their bishops, including the St. Petersburg one - to the Metropolitan, and these representations with the metropolitan’s resolutions were revised and could be rejected in the academic board. To Leonid, my friend, who studied aesthetics, was under the leadership of Theophylact and was close to him, I spoke about this incongruity, and tried to show the absurdity of such an order. But he assured that this was done only for a while: “When Theophylact becomes Metropolitan, everything will change.” However, I insisted that the external academic board be placed in proper relationship with the diocesan bishop. Theophylact, supported by Speransky, was a secular man and a selfish man. What damage it would be for the entire church if such a person were the first metropolitan! My comrade Leonid, who was a bachelor at the academy in literature, belonged to Feofilaktova’s party. This is the same Leonid whom Fessler calls his enemy. The reason for the displeasure between them was this: Leonid was in a literature class; He read Butervek, whose translation, it seems, he got from the university. But the concepts found there from Kant’s philosophy turned out to be incomprehensible to him. Students were unhappy when unclear expressions were not explained to them. He tried to explain, but unsatisfactorily; went to see his patron Theophylact. He asked: how did he explain? and having received an answer, he said: and it seems so to me. But the students were still not satisfied with this. When Fessler arrived, the students through him became acquainted with new philosophical terminology; Butterwek’s lectures also became clear to them, and they began to go to Fessler more often. This is the reason for Leonid’s envy. He envied me too, and called my first sermon on Easter an ode. But Metropolitan Ambrose liked it, and he, remembering that I often gave sermons in the Lavra, advised me to do more of it here. For this purpose, he himself assigned me both a day (Trinity) and a topic (about the actions of the Holy Spirit). I refused due to the difficulty of the subject, but the Metropolitan said: write as best you can. I prepared it and presented it to rector Sergius 8; he read it, sent me with it to the Metropolitan, who listened and ordered it to be pronounced in the church. When I appeared at the Lavra Cathedral and entered the altar, Theophylact called me to him and asked if I was the preacher today, asked me to read a sermon and immediately read it. In due course the sermon was preached. After mass, those who lived in the Lavra and the employees and some of the secular came to the Metropolitan. A.F. Labzin 9, between the conversation, for some reason cited words from a sermon he heard that day as confirmation. At the same time, Theophylact objected: what do you think? the current sermon echoes the spirit of pantheism. How about pantheism? asked the Metropolitan. Theophylact did not back down from his review, and only due to the strong conviction of the Metropolitan he fell silent. After dinner, however, when the guests went into the garden, and Rector Sergius called me a pantheist, I approached him and explained that it was easy for him to put a cross on a young man, without support, without connections. But please note, I added, that if I am a pantheist, I am not alone. The Metropolitan read this sermon, and you read it too. So all three of us will be pantheists. Rector Sergius reported this conversation to the Metropolitan. He demanded a sermon and sent it with me to Methodius of Tver, who was then famous for his learning and firmness in church dogmas 10. He responded to the Metropolitan in writing that the sermon “is worthy of a high-ranking mentor and does not contain anything contrary to Orthodoxy.” After that they began to interpret in the Synod in order to publish the sermon; Both Golitsyn and Speransky took it for consideration. And when it was approved by everyone, it was published. After this story, the Metropolitan suggested that I prepare a sermon for some day that both Golitsyn and Speransky could listen to. I wrote: this was a sermon, I remember, on the 4th Sunday after Pentecost from the text: patterns of sin death. And soon after that I was most highly awarded a cross with precious stones 11. Even before I became the rector of the academy, Theophylact began preparing for publication in the world and was already publishing Ancillon’s aesthetic arguments, which were translated by students of the academy. I didn't want the students' name on them. This would be the first book, the first fruit of the transformed academy, and would contain so much disagreement with the direction befitting of the theological academy. For example, there is a discussion about how Christianity elevated the dignity of women 12. There are other hints of a political nature. Many even secular people pointed out these shortcomings to me. I explained this to the Metropolitan: he spoke to Theophylact. Theophylact did not agree to leave the matter, nor did he agree to publish the book without the names of the academy students. Then I took out sheets of paper and had to write my comments on the book. At this time my situation was bad. Only the metropolitan was on my side, but there was no one with him on the commission (theological school). Prince Golitsyn adhered to Theophylact. Speransky, appointed to the commission of theological schools for the organization of educational institutions, seeing that the prince enjoyed the special power of attorney of the Sovereign, tried in every possible way to be in agreement with him. Chief priest also. Realizing this position of mine, I say to Innocent 13: “This is my position! After all, it may very well happen that I will be kicked out of here.” So what? Innokenty answered, if only for the truth. My comments on Ancillon led to their refutation from the opposite side, and simply to curses at me 14. Theophylact maintained his influence on the academy because he took upon himself to lead the literature class at the new academy, so he revised the students' essays after the mentor. When rector Sergius wanted to demand that the students write a sermon on this class, Leonid, at the suggestion of Theophylact, announced to the rector: let him, the rector, read them in advance, then Leonid will read them, and finally Theophylact. The rector announced that he would not allow this; first of all, their mentor should read them for censorship from the literary side, then the rector - from the theological side, and then, if he wants, Theophylact. But they did not agree to this: and that is why the students did not write sermons for two whole years 15. Theophylact tried to attract the public in St. Petersburg with his sermons, which were distinguished by strange features; for example, in his sermon he spoke about paintings that depicted the Mother of God, he liked to make allusions to modernity. In a sermon to the world, I remember, with Sweden, citing words from Jeremiah: let a wise man not boast in his wisdom (Jer. 9:23), and so on, made hints about our failures. He discussed politics in his sermons. Once he introduced into his sermon the image of an elderly man, burdened with service, because of whom a young man manages affairs: he was hinting at Metropolitan Ambrose and me. Rumors about this were circulating everywhere, so I decided to inform the Metropolitan about this and showed him a way to stop such sermons in the future, namely, I reminded him of the 29th rule of the VI Ecumenical Council, which prohibits preaching in another diocese. He proposed this instruction to Theophylact himself in St. Synod and Theophylact actually stopped preaching. Rector Sergius is an honest man; although he was sincere with the metropolitan, he did not want and could not quarrel with Theophylact: however, he was burdened by his attitude towards him, and called him by the name of Brien, a French bishop, then famous. When vacancies opened up in Tambov and Kostroma, Sergiy began asking for his condition to be changed. The Metropolitan proposed at the Synod to appoint a rector of the academy in Kostroma. Golitsyn did not want this, in order to allow the academy to mature more under the supervision of one boss, and so that another would have more time to prepare. However, he gave in to the metropolitan’s insistence. The Metropolitan appointed me as rector of the academy, Theophylact proposed his own, Leonid. It is true that both of us were unworthy and unprepared for such a position. However, they made me. Sergius, after his ordination, consoled me and said: I assure you, you will bring this Brien to fruition. “Where should I sell it? at least they didn’t send him anywhere.” No! You will certainly fulfill it: I saw it in a dream; he will leave on Wednesday. The fall of Theophylact began with the fact that after the 12th year he was sent to survey the dioceses that had been devastated by the enemy. And he definitely left on Wednesday. After that, although he returned to St. Petersburg, he no longer lived in the Lavra, but in the courtyard, and had less influence on affairs. His Grace Theophylact was already in the diocese. My book on church and biblical history has been published. I decided to send him a copy along with the letter, in which I explained that this work began when he was still extending his attention to the academy. He answered favorably and added: there may be disagreements and disputes between learned people, but there should be no quarrels. Fessler's influence on his students was extensive. I remember one student left the academy without faith in the Redeemer as in God. At the end of the course, I did not advise him to go to the clergy, and he actually went to the secular; has now died. He was not a crazy man, but a proud one. Fessler was expelled after he submitted a note on the antiquities of the Eastern Church, where, among other things, he included the expression that our worship is composed of two elements: lyrical and dramatic. This summary, written in Latin, was entrusted to the rector Sergius (I lived under his chambers, and he, by his grace, fed me) to translate it to me, then an inspector. Subsequently, when misfortune befell Speransky (which was the reason for calling Fessler), they found a notebook in his hand by Fessler: de transit orientalismi in occidentalismum, where he argued that Jesus Christ is nothing more than the greatest philosopher. Even in the preface to the sermon he preached when he was already a superintendent, he revealed the idea that he never changed his way of thinking about Jesus Christ. This is the kind of person they hired for the academy! 16 Metropolitan Ambrose said that, having entered the Novgorod metropolitanate after Gabriel, he found a lot of unbelievers in the academy (before its transformation in 1808). I thought at first that this was said out of some irritation that existed between them, but later I was convinced of that myself. The Reverend Ambrose felt the gravity of his position; he was not to the liking of the non-ecclesiastical party, headed by Theophylact, and which tried in every possible way to irritate him and bring him to the point where he would say at least a word about his desire to retire. But he stood adamant, and rendered a service to the church by not moving from his place, because the church was threatened in a very harmful direction if Theophylact were installed in the metropolis. “I did not appoint myself,” said Ambrose, “and I cannot remove myself from my post.” He thought deeply with himself. It happened to me, when I came weekly with reports on the welfare of the seminary as an inspector, to find him immersed in such thoughts. He will ask two or three questions, and then fall silent: he just sits and sighs. My situation was such that I was ready to fall through the ground. In 1814, when the Emperor, upon returning from abroad, intended to send vessels to Metropolitan Ambrose, I was forced to write a rescript. And Metropolitan Ambrose, without knowing it, later asked me to write a speech of gratitude to the emperor on this occasion. After completing the second course, I come with my mentors to Ambrose after a thanksgiving prayer to receive a blessing for rest. He tells me: look what I write. He wrote a proposal to make me a bishop. I answered: “If you want to have me as an instrument of your actions, if I please you, let your will be done. If you want to reward me with a bishopric, then this is not a reward, but a feat. I am honored with awards beyond my merits.” Well, it’s none of your business, said the Metropolitan. Metropolitan Ambrose began to ask for retirement due to the displeasure of Emperor Alexander that he had built himself a sacristy lined with ermine from the cover that was on the coffin of the Tsar’s daughter. The Emperor, having learned that the Metropolitan in such vestments went to the water on January 6 (1818), ordered that it be said that the ermine was assigned only to persons of the royal family, and that he forgives the Metropolitan for this only because of his old age. This incident upset Ambrose, and he resigned. During his departure, he suffered in the Nevsky Lavra the same displeasures that Gabriel suffered from him, as can be seen from Gabriel’s letters, which Ambrose himself handed over to me, and which are kept in the Trinity Lavra. Retiring to Novgorod, Ambrose wanted to take with him several portraits from his cells, among other things a portrait of Prince Golitsyn. But the housekeeper told him: “The portraits are yours, holy lord, but the frames are government-issued.” Prince Alexander Nikolaevich was my benefactor, but I did not allow myself to agree with him on everything. When I was Yaroslavl (archbishop), one of the members of the Tatar society published a book about eunuchs. Here they spoke about the inner living word, which was to be sought only in their society. The book was published for the benefit of the poor. The prince sent me 10 copies of it for distribution. I paid 10 rubles, but refused to distribute it and wrote to the prince with my own hand that I could not do this in such and such places in the book. The prince was dissatisfied and was cold at the meeting. I explained that, as a church person, I could not do otherwise. The prince objected: “one part is good, the other is not good - you should correct it.” I decided to do this without communicating with Metropolitan Michael 17, because I had little confidence in my relationship with him. Upon his accession to the metropolitanate, he wanted to send me to Kamenets-Podolsk. I said that I am not yet at all burdened by my position (vicar), I am ready to serve in this rank again, but if your Eminence has someone else in mind and wants to let me go, it is too much for me that you are appointing me to a second-class diocese. I'll be happy with third grade too. So he left the matter. But I still wasn't sure about him. Afterwards, however, I told Mikhail that I wrote about that book on the case. Vladyka Mikhail replied that he gave the same feedback. A strong party (Arakcheev, Metropolitan) decided to overthrow Golitsyn. Magnitsky 18 was an important figure in it. When Metropolitan Seraphim went to the palace to ask the Emperor to remove Golitsyn from the ministers of spiritual affairs, Magnitsky did not leave the square to see how long Seraphim would be in the palace, and therefore to conclude about the success or failure of the plan, and to notify his own. And when the Metropolitan succeeded, Magnitsky sang a prayer service in the church next to the prince. I wanted to go later, as before, to the prince’s house church, but was not allowed there. However, the prince did not remember the evil: subsequently this same Magnitsky took advantage of his benefits. And the prince did not lose anything in the power of attorney of the Sovereign, and did not harbor enmity against the church. For a long time he did not get together with the Metropolitan, but once, when Prince Sergei Mikhailovich Golitsyn arrived in St. Petersburg, and all three were in the palace, Alexander Nikolaevich asked Sergei Mikhailovich to reconcile him with the Metropolitan. He, for his part, replied that he had no enmity against the prince. Then Prince Alexander Nikolaevich approached the Metropolitan, and from then on they began to meet freely again. And the prince later helped the church in some important matters, for example, in the matter of monasticism. Without him we would hardly have survived. Merits of A.N. Golitsyn's relationship to the church was very significant. He turned away from the church such government orders that could be very harmful for both him and her. In 1810 or 1811, he rebelled against the legalization that gave the secular authorities the right to dissolve marriages; legalization was included in the legislation then compiled by Speransky. And this was his first experience of debate in the Committee of Ministers. Under Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich, after relinquishing the ranks of chief prosecutor and minister of public education, Golitsyn skillfully prevented the publication of a law on the prohibition of entering monasticism before the age of 40. The journal containing the Emperor's resolution was handed over to the Chief Prosecutor for instructions on how to carry it out. And things are arranged in such a way that a law has been passed that makes it easier than before for males to enter monasticism 19 . During the first period of Prince Golitsyn’s reign and subsequently, Alexander Fedorovich Labzin worked a lot in the spiritual and literary field: he was a kind man, only with some peculiarities in his religious opinions. By publishing the Zion Messenger behind secular censorship (all books that were subsequently banned and selected were omitted by Timkovsky), he paid attention to the good, but the bad was not always understood. We told him: how many wonderful things that could be printed for the benefit of others, without touching on these features! But he answered: every bird praises God with its voice. Prince Golitsyn banned the Zion Herald. Labzin accepted this with Christian humility. But after that Golitsyn, having become more attentive to religion, procured for him an order and the resumption of the magazine, only so that it would be published with the approval of spiritual censorship. Labzin said: I was given to my enemies. Innocent was jealous of this magazine and wrote a letter to the prince in which he said: you have inflicted a wound on the church, you will heal it. I was in St. Petersburg at that time; I was on a tour to see the seminaries. Prince Golitsyn came to Metropolitan Mikhail with a letter from Innocent: “this is what your archimandrite writes.” The Metropolitan summoned Innocent to himself. He replied that he was acting out of a sense of justice. The Metropolitan, however, managed to assure him that a special calling was needed for such decisive action, and forced him to go to the prince with an apology. However, the publication of the Zion Herald did not go well 20. Alexander Fedorovich was in relations with Tatarinova. She had a husband in the army, and to be closer to him, she lived in the western provinces. There she met the scope society. Crowds seemed disgusting to her, but she adhered to other rituals, such as whirling. She belonged to the Protestant denomination. Returning to St. Petersburg, she joined the Orthodox Church. Prince Alexander Nikolaevich went to see her. Afterwards, some prophet appeared among them, one of the poor officials, to whom the prince gave a ribbon. 21 In 1818, Stanevich’s book: Conversation on the Baby’s Coffin was submitted to the censorship. Here Fenelon was called a serpent, and there were attacks against Dutoit’s divine philosophy: meanwhile, this book (i.e., divine philosophy) was translated and published at the expense of the Sovereign, or at the expense of Golitsyn, I don’t remember. I saw this Stanevich once at Innokenty’s. They talked about pure love; Stanevich rejected her and said: I am ready to go to Siberia, if only this teaching would be prohibited. I told him: here you are, sacrificing yourself to the teaching, acting precisely out of pure love, which you reject. The book was printed and a copy was delivered to me before Christmas. Only on a holiday suddenly a courier from Golitsyn appears. He asks about the book. I answered that it seemed unimportant, empty. No, he says, this is not enough; there is this and that in it. I don't know who read the book; it has many corners bent. I ask permission: give, I say, time; We'll see if things can be improved. I announce the alarm to Innocent. He doesn’t worry about anything: as long as, he says, it’s for the truth. I explain to Metropolitan Michael and present him with a copy of the book, asking him to read it and say what he finds necessary to note. The Metropolitan agreed. But a day passes, then another, and I haven’t read anything. Finally I asked permission to read to him myself. He began to constantly object: this is not suitable, the other is not suitable. No, I say, you can’t do that. If so, then it will be necessary to reprint half of the book. But while we were conferring on how to improve the matter, the book was banned. We learned about this on Epiphany, in the palace (in 1819) 22. Then they began to look for a place for Innocent. He was assigned to Orenburg. But even before he left St. Petersburg, a vacancy opened in Penza. The Metropolitan began to speak to move Innocent here. But Prince Golitsyn, perhaps out of irritation against him, replied that there had never been an example of a bishop who had not yet arrived in a diocese being transferred to another. But the Metropolitan himself begged the Emperor to give Innocent another appointment. The Metropolitan acted through Sophia Meshcherskaya, a pious woman who was close to the Emperor. A few words about Speransky. In Longinov's article, I noticed that true feature that Speransky loved too much symmetry. When creating some kind of law or project, he immediately divided the subject, put points, and thought that everything had already been done when he noted the main points. I cared little about the content. When he compiled the Code of Laws, he sent it to all departments for review, but he did not send the relevant parts to the Synod, but deliberately hid them from him. That is why it turned out that from the statute on the guardianship of the clergy, written by me, not only the rules established there were taken, but special points were also drawn up from the preliminary historical part of the statute, which spoke about previous measures for the maintenance of the poor clergy. And this is done even without agreeing to contradict the charter's own rules. Speransky himself read the latest proofreading of the Code of Laws with a magnifying glass, but did not notice this. On the translation of Holy Scripture into Russian The first translation of the New Testament was carried out as follows: I translated the Gospel of John, the other evangelists were translated by Moses, Gregory, Cyril 23, but I don’t remember which evangelist; and the committee considered: Mikhail, Seraphim, me, Popov, Alexander Fedorovich Labzin... Afterwards, I received from the Sovereign Emperor Nikolai Pavlovich a statement of my opinion on the translation of the Holy Scriptures. When was St. The Synod was in Moscow on the occasion of the coronation of the Sovereign Emperor, I had some displeasures with the Reverend. Seraphim and with the Reverend. Eugene (Metropolitan of Kyiv). Reverend Seraphim was previously disposed towards me, but now the displeasure came out because of the catechism. Perhaps my somewhat heated explanations strengthened it. Reverend Eugene noticed to me that in the catechism hell is called a dark place. I answered that the church songs say: he descended into hell and destroyed the darkness there. They discussed whether it would be necessary to write the catechism again, but they decided only to correct what had been written and entrust it to me. When I arrived in St. Petersburg after that, Rev. Seraphim greeted me with these words: if you insist on continuing the translation of the Holy Scriptures, I will resign. I replied that the translation would be useful for the church, because our clergy are not yet educated so much that they can, in necessary cases, turn to the originals themselves, but must turn to either Latin or Protestant translations, compiled under the influence of their dogmatic opinions, that this matter could be done not so hastily as has been done hitherto, but with more caution, that the translation made was signed by such and such our pastors, who cannot be suspected of wrongheadedness. However, I added, I have not reached such madness as to consider the service of your Eminence unnecessary for the church. At this time he was received from the Emperor in St. The Synod presented to him a project on improving spiritual governance. A lot of unfavorable things were said here about the then state of affairs of the Russian Church, for example, that the Synod itself does not know the position of the church, that no audits are carried out in the dioceses, and the Synod only considers the cases received by it. And much was said about omissions in various parts of church administration, among other things, in schools. I don't know who wrote this project. But when reporting about him, the Reverend. Seraphim said: I know who wrote it. I, having displeasure in mind, believed that they would not be sincere with me, and therefore did not ask who exactly wrote. Just before this, Pavlov left the Synod, so the first paper was reported to me by Khanykov about Pavlov’s dismissal 24 . The speaker suggested that since the draft is very extensive and requires consideration of many subjects, would the members please read it first in order to offer their comments during the general hearing. Everyone agreed to this, and then they gave it to me to read. I saw that they wanted to establish some kind of Protestant consistory of clergy and secular persons over the church, under the pretext that the real members of the Synod were burdened with the affairs of diocesan administration, and they were proposing to recruit new, free ones. I knew that the Sovereign had a strong character and had a desire to stop various abuses that had crept in during the last years of Alexander’s reign, when he was managing the affairs of the Arakcheevs, and therefore I feared that if the Synod did not make a thorough response to the project and did not choose its own measures to improve the state of the church, then those proposed would be accepted: the project might be liked. So I decided to write my note about the project to offer to other members. In it I proved that indeed the Synod did not fully know the internal state of the dioceses, that it appointed audits only regarding abuses; but this can be eliminated in the future by assigning time-based revisions, not in turn, but at the discretion of the saint. Synod. Members asked during the reading: who will audit your diocese? I answered: but for example, the Right Reverend Eugene will go to his diocese - let St. entrust him with. The Synod is a matter, and if His Eminence finds any shortcoming in me, I will be very grateful to him; and if he finds order in everything and presents it to his superiors, I will be pleased. From the comments about the shortcomings of one or another diocese, it will be possible to extract instructions for other dioceses. I noticed that if the author of the project finds it inconvenient to entrust the review of synodal affairs to the current members of the Synod, then the new ones, due to inexperience and ignorance of the affairs of internal administration, will also not be able to do so. So I examined all the points of the project and tried to prove that there is no need to resort to special measures to correct the affairs of the synod. Here, by the way, it was necessary to touch upon the translation of Holy Scripture. I stated the same thing that I told Eminence Seraphim. The note was read. The Reverend again expressed disagreement about the transfer. Seraphim. Despite the fact that it was supposed to be presented to the Sovereign, as the opinion of one of the members of the Synod. Even if the Sovereign had not approved, the Synod would not have suffered defeat, representing only private opinion. The Emperor read and wrote “fairly.” Afterwards A.N. Golitsyn told me: why didn’t you insist on your opinion about the translation of Holy Scripture? I replied that I did not want to cause a schism in the church. Regarding the publication of the so-called patriarchal charters It is noteworthy that Neil gives justice to the Russian church before the Greek 25. For example, he points out that St. The Synod made a correction when translating the patriarchal letters, specifically in the section on the Eucharist, where it was written “that by partaking of a part of the body of Christ, I receive the All,” but instead the Russian translation says: “I receive the One, fragmented and indivisible.” Count Protasov found these letters in the Synod, along with the letter of approval of St. Synod. I didn't know they were there. It seemed good to me to publish the latter, as it gives legitimacy to our church government and shows that Peter, who was distinguished by his love for transformations, found it necessary to turn to the church authorities for approval of this transformation. In the first ones I found the influence of Latin teaching. Strange thing. Even the sacrament of confirmation is named there from Latin: β ε β α ι ω σ ι ς. I was tasked with translating and correcting it. I read the correction to the members of St. Synod. Everyone agreed to this: I just don’t know why, His Eminence Jonah said that it would be better not to print 26. At the same time, I have omitted one of the answers to questions about St. Scriptures placed at the end after the letter. When I was in St. Petersburg, I witnessed many events that were not accessible to everyone. And I began to write notes about what I knew, and wrote a decent notebook. But then I saw that I didn’t know everything, and I burned it. No. 1. Excerpts from Ancillon with the addition of notes showing the spirit of this author 27 Page 3. The totality of ideas, or better, all beings and beings that are outside of me and do not depend on me, in a word, the universe, which contains everything, is the infinite. Note: In this position, the author apparently wanted to give the first concept, or some kind of definition of the infinite; and therefore, if I wanted to lead my reader to pure and true concepts, I had to express myself here in an intelligible and definite way, as in a place that serves as the key to further discussion about its subject. But his words represent such a confusion of concepts in which different concepts are accepted as identical and true ones are combined with false ones. The author thinks or says that the totality of ideas means the same thing as all beings and beings that are outside of me and do not depend on me, and that all this can be called otherwise the universe. But there is no need to prove that these expressions are by no means identical. If we separate this position from his words - the totality of ideas is the infinite - then one can think that the infinite is here taken in the ideal sense. But when you take his next position: all beings and beings that are outside of me and do not depend on me are infinite: then you will think that the infinite essential is described here; because the ideal infinite cannot be called being and being - and thus this whole position turns out to be false; because of all the beings and beings that are outside of me, the infinite in the essential sense is one God, and other beings, both individually and collectively, belong to the concept of the finite. Finally, the proposition: the universe, which contains everything, is infinite, if the author thought to pronounce it in an ideal and aesthetic sense, then he was obliged to limit his explanation: and without limitation, it can most easily be accepted in the ordinary essential sense, and in this case it responds to pantheism or even naturalism. This suspicion turns into a sad certainty when, turning to the beginning of this work, we read the following words: among the philosophers who attempted to solve the great problem of the properties of beings and the origin of things, many began their speculations from the infinite, in order to thereby reach the finite. Here it is clearly seen that the author takes the infinite as the beginning of all things; therefore the position - the universe, which contains everything, is infinite, means that the universe is the beginning of things that exist in it: consequently, the author does not want to know any being independent of the universe, the highest of the universe, who created the universe. Page 4. The Universe and God constitute a whole to which nothing can be added, which connects everything, contains everything; outside of this whole there is no being, no substance; outside of it nothing is possible. Note: If the universe and God were a whole, then God would be a part of some whole, God without the universe would be something incomplete and insufficient; and it is impossible to count the absurdities that will follow. But it should also be noted that the translation in this place does not correspond to the original, from which it should be read word by word like this: the universe and God, God without the universe, the universe without God, are always the essence of the whole, to which nothing can be added, and so on. What a wealth of contradictions and absurdities there are in these words, even if it’s not enough to parse them out! “God without the universe is a whole to which nothing can be added”; How does the author immediately add the universe to this whole: “the universe and God are the whole?” “The Universe without God is a whole to which nothing can be added, which connects everything, contains everything”; If so, then what does the concept of God serve? And if the author here is not mistaken, then aren’t those also mistaken who find the concept of a world without God insufficient, and from this make an argument about the existence of God? You can also refer to the translator's judgment here. For why did he release the words important in the union of the author’s thoughts, God without the universe, the universe without God, if the last of these words are not godless? If they are such, then how can one trust the entire unintelligible and confused system of such an author, in whom a godless thought was found? And is it possible to calmly see such a book in the hands of students of piety? Page 8. Representing ourselves as thinking beings that are part of an infinite whole, we cannot help but be subject to its hidden and secret action on us. Note: More precisely, this passage should be read from the original as follows: being rational parts of an infinite whole, we can never snatch ourselves from under its secret and hidden action. What is this infinite whole of which we are rational parts? Is it not that which in Greek is called παν pan, and from which the pantheists took their name? The author said above that the universe together with God, and God without the universe, and the universe without God, always constitute a whole to which nothing can be added: which of these three types of wholes are we parts of? Are we part of the universe together with God? or parts of God without the universe? or parts of the universe without God? Whatever you choose, you choose absurdity. Here again one can ask why the translator weakened the expression of the original? Without a doubt, he felt these absurdities of the original, and wanted to get rid of them at the expense of the accuracy of the translation. Page 25. This agreement (the agreement of the arts, and especially music and poetry with religion) is as useful for the sciences as for religion, contributed to the successes of the former and established the kingdom of the latter. Note: So the kingdom of religion is established by music, poetry and other arts? Let the worshipers of religion feel how offensive this thought is to religion. Page 28. Religion in its purest and highest meaning is nothing other than the relation of the finite to the infinite. Note: The author on page 3 said that the finite is..., and the universe is the infinite. Therefore, the present position, which contains the definition of religion, can be pronounced like this: religion is the relationship of man to the universe. Where is God? May God save us from Ansilion's religion! Page 38. It (true mystery) neither affirms nor denies that which transcends the sphere of our reason. Note: If this is the truly true mystery, then it would be desirable to hear from the author what he thinks about that mystery that decisively accepts and affirms the mysteries of the one God in the Trinity, redemption, etc., transcending the sphere of our reason? Right there. She (true mystery) loves to contemplate the finite beings around her, but when the infinite appears, she reveres him and remains silent. Note: More fully from the original: She remains silent about the invisible world, although she allows its existence; she loves the finite beings surrounding her and serves them; but when it comes to the infinite, she is reverent and silent. If true mystery, as the author pleases, remains silent about the invisible world, then of course it remains silent about the soul, and about angels, and about the future life in the invisible world, and about God, according to the Creed, the Creator of the invisible. If she loves only finite beings and serves only them, and only reveres and remains silent before the infinite, then Mr. Ancillon will hardly allow her to love God and serve Him. This is truly the true mystery. And another good Christian will think that this is the secret of wickedness! Page 47. Their (most people's) freedom is only a means that brings useful and pleasant objects closer to them: thus, the spiritual and sublime in a person is subordinated to the rude and base. Note: The last half of this speech against the original is weakened and shortened. The true translation should be this: what is divine in human nature is subordinated to what is earthly and gross in it: God is used by animal man for the lowest deeds. From the mutual consideration of the three sentences it is clear that the same thing in the first of them is called freedom in the first of them, divine in the second, and God in the third. Didn’t the author himself use the name and concept of God here for a base matter? That this is so, we can again refer to the translator, who did not dare to pronounce the author’s blasphemous speech in the translation as it is in the original. Page 50. The moral law does not require heroism. – Heroism is complete selflessness. Note: From these two sentences it follows that the moral law does not require selflessness; or what is the same: to fulfill the moral law, it is enough to do good out of self-interest. Here morality is not Christian, lower philosophical, but, if I may say so, merchant, or trade. Right there. He who can despise everything that makes a crowd of people tremble, who, having become cold to everything that concerns him personally, knows how to devote himself entirely to any one great subject: he is a true hero, whatever the subject of his activity. Note: Let’s assume this definition of a hero for a moment, and let’s see what consequences it entails. Herostratus knew how to devote himself entirely to one great subject and immortalize his name in posterity; in order to achieve this goal, he despised everything that made the crowd of people tremble, namely the religion of his people; he became cold towards what essentially concerned him, because he did not value honor and life; and burned the church of Artemis, which was a wonder of the world, deciding to perish, but through death to preserve his memory. According to the teachings of Ancillon, Herostratus was a true hero. N. (i.e. Napoleon) knew how to devote himself to just one great subject - to create a universal monarchy and to achieve this subject, he despises everything that makes crowds of people tremble, such as: law and faith, human justice and the judgment of God, reproaches of conscience and curses of peoples; he is cold to everything that concerns his personal and true benefit and honor, such as: to a calm and serene life, to the love of his subjects, to the good opinion of his contemporaries and posterity; he does not value personal safety and life, but only keeps within himself an idol that he prepares for the worship of the universe. Whatever this subject of his activity may be for suffering humanity: according to the concept of the glorious Berlin esthetician, N. is a true hero. This is enough to feel what an ulcer it would be for society if aesthetic reasoning formed even one hero according to Ancillon’s mind. Page 51. In these ideas (that is, in the following: God or religion, truth or knowledge, beauty or art, nobility or virtue, the public good or humanity, national freedom and fatherland) something venerable, heavenly and spiritual is revealed. Note: Instead of the last word spiritual, from the original it should be read: divine. Of course, the translator found this word inappropriate here: but did changing one word make the author better? Let us decompose its multi-component position into parts. Here is the first sentence: in the idea - God or religion - something venerable, heavenly, divine is hidden. What truth! What a discovery! In the idea: God – something divine is hidden! Is the author joking with this identity, or is he truly revealing his thought that although he does not vouch for the reliability of these concepts: God or religion, it is against his will to find in them something venerable, heavenly and divine? Here is another suggestion: there is something venerable, heavenly and divine in the idea of ​​beauty or art. The one who speaks in this way, of course, does not apply to himself these words of the first commandment of God: let you have no Gods other than Me. A few words after those given here, the author has the following words, omitted by the translator: God is infinite in excellence, of which all these objects participate, and which imparts to them the features of its worshiped essence. If God is infinite only in superiority, then of course there is another infinite of a lower degree, or many more infinites, each more infinite than the other. And if God imparts the features of his worshiped essence to many objects, among which the author proposes beauty, then one can hope that he will approve of the worship of beauty as God. Let people who are not as strong in aesthetics as he are examine and decide whether he preaches all-theism or atheism. Right there. It is not falsely said that there is a religion of truth, beauty, morality and patriotism. Note: Let us again separate one part from the multi-component position: there is a religion of beauty. What an abuse of the sacred name of religion! Is it possible to call the feeling produced by the statue of Apollo Belvedere, or some image of another pagan deity, whose very name offends the humble ear, no matter how refined that feeling is, a religion? Let us agree that there is a religion of beauty only for those who do not have a religion that has the true God as its subject: but wouldn’t it be more fitting to call that the idolatry of beauty? Page 89. The wild ones depict to us that golden age of humanity, from which its existence should have taken its beginning, and to which it should return after long-term eliminations from it. Note: It is not very surprising that the author begins the existence of humanity in his concept with the golden age of savagery: following his religion of beauty, he perhaps preferred the theogonies and cosmogonies invented by poets to the narratives of the sacred books. But it is a pity that the translator, who, of course, read the book of Genesis with attention, left Ancillon in disagreement with Moses, according to whose legend the existence of mankind began in a state of wisdom and perfection; centuries of savagery were already a consequence of the removal from the original law of human existence. It is especially surprising that, according to the author, humanity must return to the golden age of savagery. Are there truly loud discussions about the infinite, the lofty, the beautiful, and then about unpretentiousness, about simplicity, and so on? should lead the students of the German esthetician to the golden age of savagery? Page 145. The infinite of thought does not consist at all in objects that are infinite in their essence; what are the essence: God, the universe, eternity. Note: According to the author, the universe, like God, is infinite in nature and essence. But can the universe and God be equally called infinite in nature and essence? Are God and the universe equal in nature and essence? Is it possible, in any way, to call the universe infinite in nature and essence? Everything that is not original is not infinite in its nature and essence; for the dependence of being is already finitude, or limitation of nature and essence itself: but the universe is not original. Any nature or essence is not infinite when there is a higher and more perfect essence above it; for the lower essence, in comparison with the higher, does not have certain realities (realitates), and consequently has limits, or, which is the same, is finite; but who does not know that the essence of the universe is not the highest, having above it the all-highest and all-perfect essence of the Divine? From this it is clear that the universe is by no means infinite in its nature and essence. To recognize it as such, it is necessary to mix and merge its nature and essence with the essence of the Divine (since, according to the teaching of sound philosophy, two infinite essentials cannot exist), it is necessary to imagine the universe only as a manifestation or modification of the Divine: that is, Ancillon must be a pantheist. Page 163. It (the Christian religion) is based on abstractions. Note: To base the Christian religion on abstractions means to base it on reason alone: ​​since abstractions are the work of reason; to base the Christian religion on reason alone means to subvert it and put in its place a dreamy natural religion. The true Christian religion is based on Revelation, and revelation is certainly not a distraction. It is based, like the cornerstone, on our Lord Jesus Christ, and He is not an abstract idea, but a real being, true God and true man. Right there. In the Middle Ages (Christians) borrowed from the pagan religion some of its rituals and festivals - its own works, and applying them to Christianity, they tried to give it something more sensual. Note: We can agree that the Christians of the Middle Ages gave their religion something more sensual, and this was done by the shepherds out of pious condescension towards the concepts of the common people. But to say that Christians took from the pagan religion some part of its rituals and celebrations, and applied them to Christianity, is to represent Christians as imitators of pagans and to abuse the church: for by the name Christians, of course, what is meant here is not some kind of schism or sect, but the church. If the rituals and celebrations of the Christian Church were borrowed from a pagan religion, then what respect could one have for them? Could they even be tolerated without insulting the faith itself? If the Christian church in establishing rituals and celebrations had a model that it imitated, then it had it in the rituals and celebrations of the Old Testament church, established by God Himself. Why else would an esthetician, who at the wrong time became an archaeologist, come to assert that rituals and festivals are the essence of the own products of pagan religion? Right there. The source from which it flows (the Christian religion), the being that teaches human abilities to worship, the goal to which it guides, the means that it uses, the enemies with which it fights, the rewards and punishments that accompany its law, everything in it is equally immaterial, invisible. Note: Here, by the way, the author asserts that the means that the Christian religion uses are equally immaterial and invisible, as are its source and goal. Reading this, you will think that he knows the Christian religion only by guesswork, and he himself has never seen or heard of Christian teachers. For do not all Christians, of whatever confession, recognize that the saving means (media salutis) that the Christian religion uses are the Word of God and the sacraments (verbum et sacramenta?) How does the aesthetic student of Christianity say that the Christian religion uses only immaterial and invisible means? Is there nothing tangible about baptism? Is there nothing visible in the Eucharist? Or does he not recognize these sacraments as the saving means of the Christian religion? Page 172. In most modern societies, political freedom has almost completely disappeared. One person appears, wants, acts; others are nothing more than obedient instruments, faithful executors of his commands. Note: Let the guardians of public order and peace hear what instructions the teacher of the beautiful and sublime teaches to the people. In a large part of modern societies, he says, political freedom has almost completely disappeared. But why is that? Because in them one person wants, acts; others are nothing more than obedient instruments, faithful executors of his commands. What is the name of a society in which one person wants, acts, and others are obedient instruments and faithful executors of his commands? This is a monarchy. So, according to Mr. Ancillon, in modern societies political freedom has disappeared because their rule is monarchical? So political freedom is only in republics? Only where there are neither obedient instruments of power nor faithful executors of commands? Only in riots and horrors of revolutions? Page 178. She (the Christian religion) returned to the female sex its natural dignity, and extracted it from the fetters into which social regulations and the general rudeness of morals had plunged it. Chivalry completed the work of religion, clothing the strongest passion in moral beauty. Note: That cold and frantic passion is clothed in our times with the ghost of moral beauty, this, says the author, is the work of chivalry in its accomplishment, and in its beginning the work of the Christian religion. What a slander against the purest religion! The writer of these remarks does not copy out more than this one passage from the discussion about the influence of the female sex on modern poetry, pp. 174–182, fearing not to offend modesty. Whoever has the patience to read these pages will regret that many names of the most seductive writers and many too carnal and impure concepts, in their transformation, desecrated the pen prepared for inscribing spiritual and lofty things. Page 186. It (the age of innocence) no more existed in the ancient world as in ours. Note: The idea that the age or state of innocence did not exist is false and even blasphemous: false, for the Word of God describes man as created in a state of innocence; blasphemous, for is it proper for the holiness of God to bring man into the world except in a state of innocence? Page 254. Rousseau had a pious soul, although he often showed a spirit of unbelief. Note: Is it possible for a person to have a godly soul and often exhibit a spirit of unbelief? Feel like a Christian and think like a pagan or an atheist? Love and honor God, but not believe His works? If this is possible, then the author probably found this possibility in himself, and poured out the spirit of unbelief in his reasoning, without fear of offending a pious soul. Here, only those places from the city of Ancillon are copied out of which disagreement with faith, morality and citizenship is easily discerned: so that everyone can conveniently check the opinion of the person who wrote the note with his own judgment. Whoever wishes to consider aesthetic reasoning with deeper research, there is still a rich harvest of lies and delusion left in this field. No. 2. Commissions of theological schools Having received notification that the book, under the title: A conversation on the tomb of a baby about the immortality of the soul, is being printed in a civilian printing house, after it was passed by the censor of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, and that its contents should attract the attention of the government, I immediately wrote to Father Archimandrite Innocent, the rector of the St. Petersburg seminary, so that he would withhold issuing a ticket for this book for release from the printing house and to me delivered. O. Innokenty answered me that although the ticket had been issued, he would demand it back, and he delivered one copy of this book to me. I admit that I was surprised how a book with such content could be approved by spiritual censorship; The author tied the defense of our Greek-Russian church to the judgment about the immortality of the soul on the baby’s coffin when no one attacks it. The Church has no need for a private person to take it under his protection, especially from the point from which the entire work was written. The defense of the outer church against the inner one fills the entire book: the division is incomprehensible in Christianity! For the outer church without the inner is a body without spirit. In general, the concept of the church is presented in a wrong way. For where is it said about the church that the clergy alone are accepted for it? By the way, mention is made of the well-known quarrel between Bossuet and Fenelon, and the latter is accused of false teaching. In a word, this book is contrary to the principles guiding our Christian government in its civil and spiritual aspects. From this presentation, the commission of theological schools will see that I could not leave this matter unspoken, especially since without the Highest permission I could only temporarily leave the essay already published. For this purpose, I presented this book with the sheets I noticed at the discretion of the Sovereign Emperor. His Majesty is very dissatisfied that the censorship of the Theological Academy, according to its new formation, could approve a book filled with such a spirit. The censor, Archimandrite Innocent, who examined it, should be severely reprimanded for his imprudence, which was less expected of him, given the place he occupied. The Sovereign Emperor hopes that the commission of theological schools will take measures so that such works, seeking to destroy the spirit of the internal teachings of Christianity, cannot be released from the censorship located in its department. No. 3. The highest decree given to the Minister of Public Education, His Excellency A.S. Shishkova In our decree given to the Governing Senate on Feb. on the 9th day of 1802, among other decrees on the examination and printing of books, in the second paragraph it was declared that there should be nothing in them contrary to the laws of God and civil, and of the same decree in the 3rd paragraph it is depicted that it belongs to the books of the church, and generally related to the faith, their publication should be done on the exact basis of the decree of July 27, 1787. Now, on the occasion, forwarded to the Novgorod and to the St. Petersburg Metropolitan for consideration of a book entitled: A Conversation at the Tomb of a Child about the Immortality of the Soul, from his report I saw that, contrary to the mentioned decrees, many books related to the faith, often containing false and seductive interpretations of the Holy Scriptures, were published in private printing houses without any synodal consideration, and that, on the contrary, books in the spirit of our Orthodox faith were subject to strict prohibition. Thus, the aforementioned book entitled: Discourse on the Tomb of a Child was prohibited and taken away. Due to these deviations from the above-mentioned decrees given by Us and the subsequent direction harmful to enlightenment and morality, we command you to enter into strict observation, so that nothing that shakes faith and good morals is hidden in both the published and future published works and translations, especially in the teaching of science schools. The people's well-being may suffer greatly from this, and therefore you are obliged before God and before Us to exercise vigilant supervision over this, destroying and exposing false teachings scattered in books or otherwise instilled and not allowing them to exist in any form or reappear. In the most important cases, you will not fail to bring this to Our attention. The above-mentioned book: A Conversation at the Tomb of a Child on the Immortality of the Soul, prohibited and then examined and approved by the Metropolitan, we command that it be allowed to be printed and sold. On the genuine handwriting of His Imperial Majesty the following is written: From the magazine Orthodox Review of 1868. Printing is allowed. Moscow, September 14, 1868. Censor Doctor of Theology Archpriest P. Ternovsky. Melchizedek Minervin was prefect of the Lavra seminary from February 18 to August 6, 1800. He died as an archimandrite of the Resurrection New Jerusalem Monastery in 1813. Church of the Nativity of Christ, in Sergiev Posad. Evgraf Muzilevsky-Platonov was the prefect of the Trinity Seminary from August 7, 1800 to January 6, 1802, and from that time on - the rector. At the beginning of 1809 he was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Academy and died in November of the same year. Leonid Zaretsky, one of the teachers of philosophy and prefects of the Kaluga seminary, was called at the end of 1808 to the position of bachelor of the St. Petersburg Academy in the class of verbal sciences. He died as an ordinary professor at the academy in 1813. Theophylact Rusanov, Bishop of Kaluga since 1799, was a member of St. Synod and in 1807 he was appointed a member of the committee for the improvement of theological schools and, together with Speransky, drafted a charter for theological academies. In 1809, in the rank of archbishop, he accepted the position of professor of literary sciences at the transformed St. Petersburg Theological Academy. He died in the rank of Exarch of Georgia. Theophylact had great power in St. Petersburg during the first years of the academy. At Trinity Seminary, Filaret was a teacher of rhetoric and poetry. Upon arrival in St. Petersburg, he was first appointed inspector of the St. Petersburg seminary and professor of philosophical sciences with the title of academic bachelor. This is stated in Chapter 1 of the second part of the said article, placed in the fourth volume of Kant’s works, which were translated into Latin by Born. Sergius Krylov-Platonov, student and teacher, then prefect of Trinity Seminary. Filaret, as a student of the same seminary, was under the command of Sergius, then, after completing the course, he was his colleague for six months. Sergius was transferred to the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy and from its rector in November 1809 was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg Academy, after Evgraf. He died in 1824 in the rank of Archbishop of Ryazan. Alexander Fedorovich Labzin, active state councilor, publisher of the Zionsky Messenger, was conference secretary of the Academy of Arts and director of the department of the maritime ministry. He died in 1825. We will talk about him further. Methodius Smirnov, student, then rector of the Trinity Seminary, and then of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. He was the Tver archbishop from 1804. In 1814 he was transferred to Pskov and died here in 1815. All three sermons - on Easter, on Trinity Day, and on the 4th week after Pentecost - were preached in 1811, when Philaret was a bachelor of the academy and a hieromonk. He received the pectoral cross on June 30, 1811. See in the appendix Philaret’s note on page 178 of Ancillon’s book. Innokenty Smirnov is a graduate of Trinity Seminary, where he was later a teacher at the same time as Filaret. In 1811 he was transferred to the St. Petersburg Academy with a bachelor's degree in church history. In 1813 he was appointed rector of the St. Petersburg seminary. He died in 1819 as bishop of Penza. Ancillon's reasonings were published under the title: “Aesthetic Reasonings of Ancillon. Per. from French students of St. Petersburg Theological Academy, under the leadership of Theophylact, Archbishop of Ryazan. St. Petersburg in Ioaneson's printing house in 1813." Filaret's comments on this book are included in the appendices (No. 1). In the response of Metropolitan Philaret to the address of the St. Petersburg Theological Academy, presented to him on the day of his anniversary, it is said, among other things: “the incident of struggle between the departments of theology and literature became the reason that students did too little work on essays.” Doctor of Laws Ignatius Fessler was a professor of oriental languages ​​at Lviv University. In 1810, Speransky was called to occupy the department of Jewish language at the St. Petersburg Academy and was appointed professor of philosophy there. However, he held the chair for only five months from February to July and was dismissed. But Speransky gave him a place on the commission for drafting laws. Fessler died as superintendent of the Saratov Evangelical Consistory. Mikhail Desnitsky, Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg; after Ambrose, he was granted metropolitan status in 1818; died in 1821 Mikhail Leontyevich Magnitsky in 1801 served at the Russian embassy in Vienna, then in Paris; after that he was the head of the expedition department of the Ministry of Internal Affairs; in 1810, through the influence of Speransky, he received the position of Secretary of State in the State Council, and the next year he received the Order of St. Anna 1st degree. In March 1812, on the same day as Speransky, he was expelled from St. Petersburg and settled in Vologda; in 1816, at the same time as Speransky, he was returned to service and appointed vice-governor in Voronezh; a year later he was transferred to Simbirsk to the post of governor; at the beginning of 1819, he was dismissed from his post and appointed a member of the main board of schools; in June of the same year he received a position as a trustee of Kazan University, but lived for 6 years while holding this position in St. Petersburg; in May 1826 he was dismissed from service and sent to live in Revel under the supervision of local authorities; Afterwards he was moved to Odessa, where he died in 1844. (Panaev’s notes about Magnitsky in the Bulletin of Europe 1867, vol. IV.) The famous Yuryev Archimandrite Photius writes in his autobiography that Metropolitan Seraphim, after a preliminary meeting with Emperor Alexander in the palace on Easter Monday 1824, was invited to the palace on April 17 at 7 pm and talked with the Emperor until midnight. During this conversation, the fate of Prince Golitsyn was decided. The fact that Magnitsky guarded the Metropolitan when he was in the palace is also conveyed in Panaev’s notes (p. 84). A man who wishes to enter monasticism must be at least 30 years old, and a woman at least 40 years old. Arch. Law. T. IX Zak. from Art. 240. But those who have completed theological courses and widowed clergy are allowed to take tonsure even at the age of 25. Decree of 1832 May 29. The Zionsky Messenger began publication in January 1806, but the publication ended in September of the same year. It resumed in 1817 from April and ended in June 1818. See “Russian Archive”, year IV, pp. 832–834. Archim. Photius writes in his autobiography: “Mrs. Tatarinova (Ekaterina Filippovna) lived in the Mikhailovsky Palace. Prince A.N. Golitsyn was her assistant in everything. Both spiritual and worldly people gathered to her. In her home, near the palace church, the Holy Spirit was written with her. At night and during the day, girls and others gathered with her, and acted, like some kind of sacred action, the custom of doing whirling, spinning, then falling to the ground from madness; the demon entered into them, made predictions, and therefore this sect of prophets and prophetesses was called. The pets had various songs and poems, composed to no avail, where the spiritual was mixed with the carnal, and had more of a carnal, adulterous concept than any other. This woman was the evil of the false Christian, the Lutheran schism; the priest anointed her with myrrh against all the prohibitions of Metropolitan Michael and joined her to the Orthodox Church, so that it would be more convenient to catch the Orthodox in his net.” Evstafy Stanevich's book has the full title: Conversation at the baby's tomb about the immortality of the soul, then only comforting when the truth of it is affirmed on the exact teaching of faith and the church. St. Petersburg 1818 Innocent, who was then the rector of the St. Petersburg seminary, approved it on September 3, 1818. The book is written against false mystics. Golitsyn presented it with comments to Emperor Alexander, and on January 6, 1819, the book was banned (see appendices No. 2.) But by decree of the Emperor on November 17, 1824, it was again allowed to be printed, and its second edition was published in 1825 with the title page: “Second edition. By the highest command." (Decree see Appendix No. 3). Moses Platonov-Bogdanov from 1814 to 1817 was a bachelor of church literature at the St. Petersburg Academy; died in the rank of Exarch of Georgia in 1834. Grigory Postnikov (later Metropolitan of Novgorod) was a bachelor from 1814, an inspector from 1816, and rector of the St. Petersburg Academy from 1819 to 1825. Kirill Bogoslovsky-Platonov from 1814 to 1817 was a bachelor of church history at the St. Petersburg Academy; died in the rank of Archbishop of Podolsk. The first edition of N. Testament in Russian was published in 1819. Alexey Alex. Pavlov was an official at the chief prosecutor's table in St. Synod. Neil's book: A History of the Holy Eastern Church. By the John Neale. Lond. 1850. Jonah Exarch of Georgia and member of St. Synod. These notes, on behalf of the authorities, were written on the occasion of the publication in Russian of the book: Aesthetic Reasonings of Ancillon. Since the title of this translation contains the name of the theological academy, it was also necessary to show that the academy does not indiscriminately accept the wisdom of this writer. GIFT. (Rector of Theological Academy).